Chap. 1. Of the Title of Maister Iacobs Book, which is thus. A DEFENCE of the Churches and Ministerie of ENGLAND.

FRAN. IOHNSON his Aunsvver. THe defence of the Churches and Ministery of England were an en­terprise worth the taking in hand, if Maister Iacob effected in deed what the Title of his Book pretendeth in show. But he that rea­deth his book and mindeth it well, shall find him promise moun­taines and performe molehils. Let the sequell shew it.

Now I would that Maister Iacob should speak himself (without stammering) what Churches and what Ministerie of ENGLAND he defendeth. All, or some only? It is a poynt needfull to be knowen and mentioned. All may see, it would giue great light for deciding the con­trouersy betwen vs. And who would not think, he should readily declaer it? Yet he flies from it every where. Therefore that he may not alway so doe, but may be drawen to answer directly vnto it, (as also for the Readers better help, and more clearing of the truth) I wil particulerly and as plainely as I can describe how the Churches and Ministerie of England are to be considered: And thē expect his aunswer. If I be mis­taken, or if maister Iacob and such as liue in that Church (who therefore haue better occasion to know it) can do it more fully and plainely, I shal willingly heare it. In the meane time, this is my iudgment: First for the Churches, to consider them as followeth.

1 In respect of the Conuocation-house, which consisteth of the Pre­lates, and some other of the Priests, assembled togeather with them. And so they haue but one Church in the Land: And that when there is a Parliament, or like occasion. I take it also that out of this Church the Prince, the Nobles, and people are excluded. Saue that when they haue determined their matters, they haue for some of them the consent of the Parliament.

2 According to the number of their Archbishops: and so they haue two Metropolitan Churches, vnder which all the rest are subiect and cōprised.

3 According to the number of their Arch and Lord Bishops: and so there are about 26. Churches, comprehending all within their seuerall Diocesses. Hither also I referre the Cathedrall Churches.

4 According to the ecclesiastical Courts of the Archbs. Lordbs. Chan­celors, Archdeacons, Commissaries, and Officials (vnder which all the other Ministers and people stand subiect) and so according to the num­ber of those Courts, there may be some 200. Churches, or thereabout.

5 According to the number of the Parish assemblies (of which all stand mēbers:) and so ther are many thousād Churches in the Land. Hitherto of the Churches.

[Page 2]The Ministery may be considered two wayes: Eyther more generally, as they are all Priests or Deacons; or more particularly, as they are superiour or inferiour.

Superiour, as Archbishops, Lordbishops, Suffraganes, Deanes, Archdeacons, and the rest of that sort.

Inferiour, as Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Stipendary Preachers, Houshold Chapleynes, and the like.

Then in al these consider fower things, 1. their office, 2. their entrāce, 3. their Administration, 4. their maintenance. This for the Ministerie.

Now let M. Iacob tell vs in his next, 1. whether he defend all these Churches and Ministerie of England, or but some of them.

2. If not all but some only, which then they are that he defendeth, and which he leaveth as vtterly vnlawfull without all defence.

3. For those he defendeth, let him show in what place and pages of his book we may find the defence of them. For whether it be that I perceyue it not, or that he doth it not, of this I am sure for my self, that I cannot find in al his book so much as any one of them defended. As o­thers find, let thē speak. And to put al out of doubt, let M. Iacob shew it.

Lastly (if he will be intreated) let him tell the cause why his book, being entituled A defence of the Churches & Ministerie of England, came not out Cum priuilegio. Yea why it was printed beyond sea, and not in England. It is a shrewd token (cōsidering the title) that his Defence euen at home amōg his neighbours is accoūted very weak and simple.

For the name Brownists, by which we are reproched in the forefrōt of his book, note these things. 1. That in like manner long since by the Priests and Pharisees were the Apostles and Primitiue Churches ter­medAct. 24.5. a sect of Nazarites: and at this day by the Papists are the Profes­sors of the Gospel called Calvinists, Zuinglians, Huguenotes, and the like. 2. M. Browne (from whose name this byword was first taken vp) is a member and Minister of M. Iacobs Church, not of ours: yet holding (as we heare) in his iudgment the truth we professe, but for his practise stā ­ding in the apostasy and false worship wherein they are. So then not we, but M. Iacob and such like may fitly be called Brownists, inasmuch as in their iudgment they hold the things we stand for to be good, yet in their practise (like Browne) are other men, walking with the Church of England in her euill way. 3. For our selues, we acknowledg (with the disciples in the Primitiue Churches and the faithful in al ages since) that we areAct. 11.26. Christians, striuing now for our time and estate against the remainder of the abominations of Antichrist, to keep the commaunde­ments of God and faith of Iesus. Therefore doth it not trouble vs, that by M. Iacob or any other we are thus reuiled for the name of Christ.

It is inough for vs, that the1 Pet. 4.14. spirit and truth of God, which on their part is euil spoken of, is on our part glorified. But yet let him and all such take heed vnto it in time. Now I proceed to his maine and mai­med Argument. Which is as followeth.

Chap. 2. M. IACOBS ARGVMENT (as it is novv propounded and printed) by vvhich he vvould proue the Churches of England to be the true Churches of God.

Fr. Iohnson. THe aunswer of this Argumēt followeth. But first I wil proposid an­other, prouing (by better reason) that the Church-assemblies of Eng­land are in their constitution so far from being true Churches of God, as they stand in Antichristiā estate, and are therfore subiect to wrath.

The ARGVMENT is this:
Whatsoeuer is sufficient to make a particular man stand in Antichristian estate, and in that respect to be subiect to wrath; That is sufficient to make a companie so gathered togeather likewise to stand: though they professe withall in their constitution many doctrines of truth otherwise profitable to saluation.

But the Hierarchie, Leiturgie, and confusion ecclesiasticall, as they are publiklyTheir Ec­clesiasticall constitutiō, Courts, In­iunctions, practise, ca­non Lavve, Books of ar­ticles, of cō ­mon prayer, of ordering Priestes and consecrating Archbishops &c. professed & practised by law in England, are sufficient to make aAs for exāple, the Pre­lates, the Priessts, &c. particular man stand in Antichristian estate, and in that respect to be subiect to wrath: And the Church-assemblies in England are in ‡ their estate companies so gathered together.

Therefore are these also sufficient to make the Church-assemblies of England likewise to stand: though they professe vvithall in their constitu­tion many doctrines of truth othervvise profitable to saluation.

This Argument I propound, as being more sound then M. Iacobs, both for matter and maner. Let others iudge. Now I come to examine his. Where first it is needfull so to set it downe, as it was heretofore propounded by himself. And that was thus, as followeth.

Chap. 3. M. IACOBS ARGVMENT, as it vvas first propounded and aunswered.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer. TO omit the Proposition, vntill it better appeare by the defence of the Assumption how to take and vnderstand it, we wil for the present only shew the weakenes of the Assumptiō: And this also the rather, be­cause they seeme wholy to depend vpon it.

H. Iacob his Reply. THe Aūsvverer omitteth the Propositiō, for in deed it is most certain: But he denieth the Assumption, (vvhich yet is as certaine also) That the doc­trine in our booke of Articles is sufficient to make a true Christian.

Fr. Iohnson his 2. Aunsvver. IN the former aunswer, I omitted the Propositiō, not because of the certeinty of it (as the Replier dreameth) but till we might see by his de­fence of the Assumption how to take it, as then I noted. Now therefore (hauing seen in his reply theThis I vvrot vvhen I had seen Mr. Ia­cobs first Rep [...]e herafter follovving. vvhich novv he hath se­cōded vvith another of like sort. VVhether it be not so as here I say let the indiffe­rent Reader vpon tryall iudge. vnlearned and vnconscionable pretences, by which he would seem to defend the Assumption, whē in deed he doth nothing else but cast a mist before the eyes of the simple): I giue him to vnderstand, that the whole Argument is lame and faulty in euery part.

The Proposition is not absolutely true, as now (by his defence of the Assumption) it appeareth he vnderstandeth it. The Assumption is not only false, as was proued in theMy first aūsvver vvas the 3. Exceptiōs and 9. Rea­sons, vvhich here do fol­lovv. former aūswer, but also lacketh a foot whereon it should goe, if it were perfect and entire.

For whereas in the Proposition, mention is made not only of the making of a true Christian, but also of a companie so gathered togeather: he should in the Assumptiō (if he would haue had it sound and perfect) not only haue assumed, that the doctrine &c. is sufficient to make a true Chris­tian: but haue added also, that their assemblies be companies so gathered together. Which being not done, both the Assumption wāteth one of the feet, and the Conclusion inferreth more then was in the premisses, and so the whole Syllogisme is faultie and disfigured.

Thus might we, without any further aunswer, returne this Argumēt [Page 5] to the first framers of it, to be better fashioned: Yet in hope to doe them good (by the blessing of God) we will more particularly lay open the weakenes of this Replie.

And first, where he saith the Proposition is most certain, and yet in his defence of the Assumption, declareth that he so taketh it, as whatsoeuer amongst them, be ioyntly togeather held, and ioyned with that which o­therwise might make a true Christian or true Church, yet notwithstan­ding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or commixtures: we aunswer that in this sence, the Proposition neither is nor can be absolutly true. For who knoweth not, thatGal. 5.2.4. such things may be ioined with Christ, as do abolish from him? And again,2 cor. 6.14.15.16.17. that Christ & Antichrist cannot accord together? Either therefore the Proposition is not general, but admitteth limitatiō, and thē is not the Argumēt good: Or if it be generall, without any limitation (so as whatsoeuer be added to or commingled with that which otherwise might make a true Christiā or Church, yet it hindereth nothing at all) then is it not alway true: as may appeare by the former exceptions and many mo that might be alledged.

Next touching the Assumption, besides that it is same, it is also vntrue as hath ben proued. Some balme in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, saue only to manifest so much the more, that the soare of their Assemblies cannot be healed. In our former aunswer we first tooke 3. Exceptions against thē, comparing together their pro­fession and practise, then we alleadged 9. Reasōs directly concluding the falshood of the Assumption.

H. Iacob his 2. Reply. Before I examine this your aunswer, I will desire you and all others, to note that all your Ecceptions and Reasons, with your defence of them, hereaf­ter following, doe consist of these three generall pointes.

1. That euerie person in England, holding our publique faith, is no true 1 Christian.

2. That all the Christians & Churches in King Edwards time, & namely 2 Maister Cranmer, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, &c. were all lims of Antichrist, and no true Chaistians.

3. That euery soule in England, is conuicted in conscience, that the Prae­lācie 3 is vnlawfull and vntolerable.

The First of these, is our maine question, and the ground of all our reaso­ning: which you gainsay. The second, though it be not expresly spoken, yet it is directly, euidently, and vndeniably concluded, by all and euery of your arguments against vs. As in the seueralls hereafter we shal see. The third you are driuē vnto, for defence of your former Assertion, which els falleth to the grounde. And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1. 6. and 7. Reasons.

Now my desire is, that all men would take notice of these your 3. Asserti­ons, and consider indifferently, whether they proceed from an honest, a so­ber, [Page 6] or a Christian minde. And you M. Iohnson, if you list hereafter to say any more, defend these 3. pointes directly and plainly, that your aunswers may be briefer, and more certain, then now they are.

And novv I come to the particular examination of your former aunsvver.
First you say, You omitted the Propositiō before, not for the soundnes of it, but only, because you would see how I meant it. Why? He that hath but half an eie, may see the meaning of those wordes, where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of sence at all. What fault finde you in it now? Forsooth, first a want in Assumption, and then vn­truthes, both in the Proposition, and Assumption of my Sillogisme. There vvanteth (you say) that I should expresse in the Assumptiō. That our Assemblies be companies gatherd togeather in the doctrines & ordinances which we all by lawe publiquely pro­fesse and practise. Who but a wrangler would not vnderstand that I meant so much? Nay doe not my expresse wordes implie asmuch: when I say, We by law publiquelie professe and practise them? Then are not our Assemblies (which are by law) gathered together in this professiō & power? Fy forshame these are sencelesse cauilations. But because what in me lieth, I would not haue you any more to stumble at a strawe,Not that the Argument is vnsound vvithout this addition: But because the Reader may see hovv you vvil play at a small game rather then sit out, [...]a [...]unt. I haue to satisfie you withall, now added those wordes to the Assumption aforesaid in a contrarie letter which you desire, viz. and our publique assemblies are therein gathered together.

Secondly, you say, that my proposition meaneth, that whatsoeuer is held togea­ther with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or true Church: Yet notwithstanding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or commixtures. O strange dealing: in all my writing I haue no such word, no sillable, no letter sounding to that sence. I haue directly contrarie, in my aunswer to your fourth Reasō, as your self noteth there. Yet you M. Iohnson, without all shame, in the view of the world, doe Father on me this foule vntruth, & most sencelesse errour, in your first entrance.

Further, whereas it seemeth you reproue my Proposition, requiring to to haue it set thus: Whatsoeuer is sufficient to make a perticular man a true Christian (and hath nothing added with it destroying the foundation of faith) That is suffici­ent to make a companie so gathered together, a true Church.

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

The Assūp­tion exami­ned by the Exceptions & Reasons follovving.Lastlie you come to deny my Assumption, or rather to maintaine your deniall heretofore giuen. Where first note that by denying my assumption, you affirme the first generall point noted in this beginning:

That euerie particular person in England, holding our publique faith here, is no true Christian. Which (O Lorde) who would not tremble to think on? Euen that which this man aboue two yeates agoe affirmed, and novv againe aduisedly and wilfully defendeth. I take Heauen and Earth to record this day, whether this be not [Page 7] desperate madnes, yea or no. But let vs examine your exceptions, and reasōs against my Assumption more particularly, & wee shall see what stuffe it is. Your first exception against the same is as followeth.

Fr. Iohnson his 3. Aun [...]wer. VVHat M. Iacob? Doth your mouth so runne ouer, as you could not but euē at first speak vntruth and forge deceit? When your beginning is so bad, it is an ill token the end will not be very good. You would here father vpō me three things, which I neuer imagined, as they are by you collected. Therefore to cleare the truth and s [...]op your mouth, I will declare what my mind is and hath ben concerning them.

For the first, your wordes are, That euerie person in England, holding 1 your publique faith, is no true Christian. Touching this point, I mind the estate of your people two waies: The one concerning their severall persons considered a part from the constitution of your Church; the o­ther concerning their estate and standing in that constitution. Concer­ning the former of these, (that is, considering them apart from the con­stitution) I acknowledge that in diuers of them there appeareth such knowledg and faith of the gospel with the frutes thereof, as they may well be thought, in regard of Gods election in Christ, to be heires of sal­uation, and in that respect to be true Christians: God pardoning vnto them their standing vnder Antichrist, which they doe not see or mind. But withall, I feare least many mo heretofore were pertakers of this grace, then be now since your Antichristian estate and the vnlawfulnes to abide therein hath bin discouered. Concerning the latter, (that is, in respect of their estate and standing in that constitution of your Church) I am perswaded whosoeuer so stand holding your publique faith and multitude of Antichristian abhominations withall, they cannot by the word of God be iudged true Christians, as touching their outward e­state in that church of yours: but stand all subiect to wrath, God impu­ting this their sinne vnto them. And that all therefore who will be assu­red of Gods mercie and saluation, ought with speed to goe out of your Church, it still remaining in Antichristian estate.

To make this matter more plaine, take out of Israell an example in Abiiah the sonne of Ieroboam. If you consider him, as standing with the rest in that apostasie and Church-constitution of Israell, he is sub­iect to like condemnation with them in that estate. But if you consider him apart from it, as there is found in him some goodnes towards the Lord God of Israell, he may be counted a true Israelite finding mercy at the Lords hands. 1 King. 14.1.5.13. By this you may see what my mind in this first point is and alway hath ben. And if you doe marke, wheresoeuer I speak of the members of your Church to be vn­der wrath, in Antichristian estate, no true Christians, or iointly toge­ther no true Churches, or the like: I speake it still with this caution, in respect of such estate or constitution as they stand in vnder Antichrist. To [Page 8] which end you may euerie where in my aunswers minde these and the like clauses, In that estate, In that constitution, In respect of the Ministerie and constitution of the Church, Being subiect to Antichrist, Being so con­sidered, Being Antichristian, and other of like sorte.

2 For the second your words are, That all the Christians and Churches in King Edvvards tyme, and namely M. Cranmer. M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, &c. vvere all lims of Antichrist and no true Christians. Now as touching this matter, although you may easily see what my minde is by that I haue said concerning the other going before: yet for this in particular, know also that I am thus minded, viz. That al the christians and chur­ches in King Edwards time, and namely M. Cranmer, M. Ridley, &c. stood as touching the outward constitution of that church in Antichris­tian estate: Yet considering the mercie of God vnto thē, and their faith­fulnes in those things which in that time of ignorance were reuealed, in­asmuch as afterward they loued not their liues vnto death, but in many waightie pointes resisted vnto blood striuing against Antichrist, I hold them in this respect true Christians, and now to be at rest with the Lord.

And tell me your self M. Iacob, whether you iudge not thus of Arnol­dus de villa noua, Iohannes de rupe scissa, Iohn Wicleff, Iohn Hus, Ierome of Prage, Sauanarola, Dominicus, Siluester, Thorpe, Swinderby, Bilney, &c. the faithfull witnesses of Christ in their seuerall ages, and therefore in this respect true Christians: whereas yet notwithstanding as touching their ministerie and Church-constitution wherein they were, they stood in Antichristian estate, some of them being Friers, some popish Priests, some saying Masse, some communicating in it, &c. vntill the day they were martyred and put to death.

3 For the third, your wordes are, That euerie soule in England, is con­uicted in consciēce, that the Prelacie is vnlawfull & vntolerable. Touching this likewise, I neuer did nor can affirme as you haue set downe. Only this I know and affirme, for the generall state of the Land, that a grea­ter light is risen vnto them in these daies, but they loue darknes more then light: Also, that many times and sundry waies hath ben shewed and convinced vnto them, that the Prelacie, Priesthood, Leiturgy &c. are Antichristian, and therefore vnlawful and vntolerable: Finally, that the VVitnesse their Acts in Parlament against vs. Their presēt estate, prac­tise, &c. vniuersal face of the Realme hath refused the truth by vs professed, and retaineth still the Antichristian abhominations aforesaid. For which I feare their iudgment will be the heauier. Ioh. 3.19 and 15.22. Act. 13.45.46.

This is that which I haue bin and am perswaded touching these par­ticulars. The latter branch of the first of these, is our maine question, and the ground of all our reasoning: which I haue proued by many ar­guments both from the word of God and your owne mens writings. Vnto which M. Iacob you haue not giuen one word of sound aunswer in all your booke, but continually fly from the point in question: as know­ing [Page 9] (I feare) in your self, that there can be no iust defence of your Chur­ches estate in this behalf. And touching all three, your self could not but know that my iudgment therein was as I haue declared: you and I haue so oftē had speach together thereabout. Yet behold to make the truth of God and my defence thereof more odious to the world, and so to preiudice your Readers iudgment, you haue here at first vniustly and falsly fathered vpon me these three assertions, being not able to shew them in my words or writings any where. Remember you not, how the enemies of Gods grace delt of old with the Apostles,Rom. 3.8. blaming them (vniustly) as if they had taught, vve should doe euil that good might come thereof. Or mind you, how the Papists, Anabaptists, and the like doe at this day charge vs (though falsly) that vve make God the author of sin, whiles we maintaine against them the truth touching Predestination, Freewill &c. In like manner deale you with me.See Mat. 26 60.61. vvith Ioh. 2 19.21. Act. 6.13.14. And thus at first you become a false witnes, both in peruerting the sence of my words, and in altering, diminishing, and adding vnto them. Euerie of which you know is to beare false testimony, not only against me, but in this case euen against the truth it self.

That all men take notice both of these positions, and of our dealing therein, I also am content and desirous. My aunswers (I confesse) are somewhat long, partly because I would make the truth manifest euen to the most simple, partly for that I would more fully discouer your ma­nifold shifts and leaue you no statting hole any where. In your replies (which may well be pinned vp in a narrow roome, seeing they haue no­thing of waight in them) I desire more sound and vpright dealing, toge­ther with demonstration of your cause from the Scripture. That I haue cause thus to desire, these three points following (which I wish the Reader to obserue in your Replies) will testifie.

First that you being to proue your cause and Argument,Three things to be noted by the Rea­der in Mr Iacobs Re­plyes. neuer pro­ceed (though you be still called vpon) to make due proof thereof, but put ouer all proof vnto me: and busie your selfe in aunswering (after your fashion) the Exceptions and Reasons I brought against your Ar­gument.

Secondly, that in aunswering my Reasons and Exceptions (finding them all to heauy) you neuer directly refute them as they were propoū ­ded: but some times leaue most waightie points in them wholy vnaun­swered; somtimes labour to wash your hāds of the matter, and to turne ouer the plea from your selfe that haue vndertakē it, to the state of your Church on whom you leaue it; somtimes transforme them into other shapes framed by your self, and so aunswer not me, but fight with your owne shadow: and thus euerie foot yeeld the cause by necessary conse­quence.

Thirdly that in steed of Gods word (which is very rare with you in all this dispute) you presse vs with the authoritie of Man: neuer going about to approue your Church-estate by the Scriptures (which onely [Page 10] must end this controuersie) but alway leading vs to the view and er­rors of the Martyrs. For let it be minded, whether euery of your Re­plies haue not this for their foundation and vndersong, M. Cranmer M. Ridley, &c. as if for our faith and worship of God, we should turne from the liuing God to dead men,Esa. 8.20. from the law and testimony of the Lord, to the opinions and aberrations of Man. I might besides wish the Reader to mind the vnsauerie salt of your raising and reprochfull speaches scattered throughout your book: but I omit it.

And now I come to the particular examination of this Replie of yours.

You say, He that hath but half an eye, may see the meaning of the vvordes of your Proposition &c. Well Mr. Iacob: then your self hauing two eyes might easily see, I omitted the Proposition, not for the darknes or doubtfulnes of the words, but because it yet appeared not how your self vnderstood them: whether so, as you make the Proposition general, admitting no exception: or particular and to be restrained. And why do you not yet tel vs how you take it? Are you afraid to say either the one or the other? either that it is general, or that it is particular?

If you make it general admitting no limitation, then is your Propo­sition false,Page. 5. as I showed in my last aunswer, which you cannot gainesay. If it be particular, then is your Syllogisme a meer Sophisme, your Ar­gument of no moment, neither in any Mood or Figure. How think you Mr. Iacob? Is not your reason very sound and Clerklike? But you perhaps with two eyes see not so much as others may with half an eye.

Touching the Assumption (to follow your words in order) I show­ed that wheras in the Proposition you spake of a companie so gathered togeather, you should for your purpose haue assumed that your Assemblies be companies so gathered. And tel me, ought you not so to haue don, see­ing you make but one Syllogisme? If you ought, is it vvrangling to shew what is wanting in your Reason? If you ought not, why haue you now made an addition to your Assumption which was not before? Is it because I should not stumble at a straw? or is it not because the Argument is vnsound without it, though you note the contrarie in the margent? If it be sound without this, why doe you not so proue it? If it be not, why doe you not confesse it? Nay, why are you both so conceited in your self, and so desirous to blind your Reader, as when the fault is shewed you, yet you wil not onely not accknowledg it, but lay the blame vpon him that would draw you to see it? This in deed is not to stumble at a straw, but wilfully to fall downe, when you might be holpen vp. Now although you be vnworthy of any further help: Yet because I I would haue you see it, I wil once againe labour to make it plaine vn­to you, if I can beat it into your head.

You make but one Syllogisme, and in it you conclude your publique Assemblies to be true Churches. Now you know (I suppose) that alwaies in a good Argument, whatsoeuer is in the Conclusion, must needes be in [Page 11] one of the premisses before. But in yours it is not so. Your conclusion is of your publique assemblies, and yet you neuer spake of them before in either of the premisses. Can you by this perceive how extremely faul­ty and vnsound your Argument is.

But you think to help your self by saying, you meant so much. Sure you are neare driuen M. Iacob. For what wrangler could not so help out any matter? Yet here you stay not. Euen your words (you say) imply as much. And do they indeed? Tell me then, whether here you include and defend all the publique Assemblies of the Land as they now stand, or but some of them? whether those, that haue dumbe Ministers, aswell as those that haue Preachers? whether those that haue non residents, as­well as those, that haue their Incumbents? whether the Cathedral Chur­ches aswell as the Parishes? For all these are by Law Churches among you: the Cathedrall, the Parishionall, those that haue non residents, or humbe dogs, with fower Sermons a yeare, Pluralities, &c.

Then tell me, whether all these Assemblies of yours be companies by Lavv gathered together in that profession & practise, wherof you speak? Besides, where the words in your Proposition were of companies so gathered together &c. and you in your addition to the Assumption haue in steed thereof, companies gathered together in the doctrines &c. why are you so vnconstant and fearefull in your words? why do you not keep the same termes? why made you not the addition, as was showed you it ought to haue ben? Did you think, that then I would and might the more call vpon you for proof thereof? That belike was the matter. For in deed I do and must needs so much the more cal for it. And how will you ever prove it, that your Assemblies are companies so gathered to­gether, that is, by a free voluntary profession of the truths among you (Act. 2.41. & 11.24. Psal. 110.3. Esa. 44.5. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. and 9.13. Zach. 8.21 23. 1 Thes. 1.6. such as is in true CHRIstians, and in the manner of gathering euery true Church): when as you are by Lavv compelled so to professe, or rather to submit to that profession? Yea and by compulsion of Lavv are gathered not only in and vnto those truths, but in and to Antichris­tian errors, which cannot stand therewithall? I pray you M. Iacob ius­tifie by the Scriptures such profession to be that which is in true Chris­tians, and such gathering to be that which is in true Churches.

Next, where you charge me with strange dealing for saying, your vvri­ting declared that you so took the Proposition as vvhatsoeuer These vvords (among them) Mr. Iacob lea­ueth out. among you be iointly together held & ioyned vvith that vvhich othervvise might make a true Christian or true Church, yet notvvithstanding you are so to be repu­ted as if there vvere no such additions or commixtures: First, speak plaine­ly whether you doe so take your Proposition, or not. Whatsoeuer you aunswer, it will be against your self and manifest the weaknes of your Argument, as I haue declared a litle before. Secondly, why wrote you not all my words, but left out som of them? was it because you thought that would haue cleared me of strange dealing, and left it vpō your own head? Thirdly, where you say, in all your vvriting you haue no such vvord, [Page 12] no syllable, no letter, sounding to that sence: Lift vp your eares Mr Iacob, and tel me how these wordes of yours do sound in your hearing,M Iacobs 1. Reply to the 1. Rea­son follovv­ing. Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist are joined together among vs, vvhich things yet vve think to be Christs ovvne. Againe, The His 1. Reply to the 4. Reason f [...]llovving. outvvard manner of calling to the Ministery and some outvvard cere­monies vsed by Mahomet and the Pope, doe not destroy faith & true Chri­stianity. And yet more plainely, when you say,His 1. Re­ply to the 7. Reason folloing The Papists forbidding of mariage and meats, if they had done no vvorse, doth not make them depar­ters from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy and ceremonies simply: Neither doe these things make vs the Protestants to be such. These and many mo you haue in your first Reply, besides an hundred the like in the second, not only sounding to that sence, but directly and necessari­ly implying it. And whereas you have sometimes the contrary (as I notedHis 1. Reply to the 4 Reason follovving. els where:) that doth but so much the more shew your inconstan­cy and contradiction of your self. Shall I therefore now turne vpon you your owne words and say, O strange dealing: vvithout all shame, in the vievv of the vvorld, to father on me this foule vntruth &c.

Yet I am glad M. Iacob, the truth prevaileth so much with you, nill ye will ye, as you are driuen to confesse, that this assertion is a foule vn­truth and senceles errour. For herevpon it followeth, first that your Proposition is not generall, and therefore your whole Argument faulty and to no purpose at al for the question in hand: secondly, that of necessity there should be some clause ānexed to your Proposition touching the An­tichristian abhominations among you, if you would haue your Reason good for the estate of your Churches. But you account such addition would be idle and vaine. I easily beleeue, you are so minded. But why (I pray you) thinke you so? Is it because you did not at first mind it, or because now you see it would discouer to euerie man the vanitie of your Reason? Howsoeuer, it must be expressed. And if your self either know not how to doe it, or be vnwilling, I will show it. Mark now therfore.

Hovv Mr Iacobs Argu­ment should be propoun­ded. Whatsoeuer is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian and in state of saluation: that is sufficient to make a company so gathered together to be a true Church of Christ, though they retaine vvithall in their constitu­tion the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confusion of Antichrist.

But the vvhole doctrine, as it is publikly Book of Articles pu­blished An­no 1562 professed and practised by Lavv in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian and in state of saluatiō: And the publik Assemblyes of England are in their estate companyes so gathered together.

Therefore it is also sufficient to make the publik Assemblyes of England true Churches of Christ, though they retaine vvithall in their constitution the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confusion of Antichrist.

Or thus rather:

If the vvhole doctrine, as it is publikly professed and practised by Lavv in England, be sufficient to make a particular man standing member of that [Page 13] Church which retaineth the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confusion of Anti­christ, yet notvvithstanding to be a true Christian and in state of saluation as tovvching his estate and standing in that Church: then is it also sufficient to make a company so gathered together, and consequently the Church of England to be a true Church of Christ as towching the estate and constitu­tion thereof.

• But the former (say you) is true.
• Therefore also the latter

• But the former (say I) is false.
• Therefore also the latter.

Thus M. Iacob, should your Argument be framed in right forme of reasoning, for the estate of your Church, and for the question between vs. Which now being done, who is so simple as cannot plainely see the falshood of both the Propositions in the former, and of the Assumption in the latter, and consequently the vanity of your Reason every way. If you still hold otherwise, then must we still call vpon you for proof. Bare saying will not serue, we looke for due proof. Mind further, that (now as your case standeth) you are to approve the estate of your Church and the members thereof, not only as they retaine the abominatiōs of Anti­christ, but as they withstand also the contrary truth and way of Christ, which hath ben a long time made known and offered vnto them. Other­wise he that hath but half an eye may see you defēd not the present estate of the Churches of England, as the title of your book pretendeth.

In that you say, wheresoeuer there are any things added destroying faith there whatsoeuer els seemeth sufficient, in deed is not sufficient to make a true Christian: you are againe mistaken. There may be in the constitu­tion of a Church, things added destroying faith, and yet so much truth be held and taught as to some particular men (cōsidered apart from the constitution) is sufficient to make them true Christians and in state of saluation, the other being not imputed vnto them by the Lord. Thus I doubt not hathThus haue I spoken to you Mr Iacob many tymes: Yet see hovv you haue novv dealt vvith me contrary to your knovvledg. God saued some in the most popish Churches, and many mo in yours, from time to time. Yet notwithstanding this doth not iustifie the estate either of their or of your Church, neither doth it warrant any to abide therein. But it argueth partly the riches of Gods mercie, partlie the greatnes of his power, who as at first he brought light out of darknes, so in the worst times and euen in the darke king­dome of Antichrist saueth them that are his. But of this, besides that already spoken, there will be occasion to speak moreIn the handling of the second Exception and 7. Rea­son follo­ing. hereafter.

Your bad dealing about the first & rest of the general points aboue named I haue declared before. In deed your self may tremble to think thereon, as on your Antichristian estate also in that Church: You I say, M. Iacob, who cannot be ignorant of both these things: howsoever you haue advi­sedly, if not also vvilfully now written otherwise. Mind therefore if you haue not here took heauen and earth to record against your self: and whe­ther this be not desperate madnes, yea or no. But let vs proceed to your Replies vpon the Exceptions and Reasons heretofore alledged against your Assumption. And let the Reader mind without partialitie (as be­fore [Page 14] God) which of vs haue the truth: and accordingly let him walke in all good conscience before God and men.

Chap. 4. The first Exception against the Assumption aforesaid.

Fr. Iohnson. FIrst consider the 19. Article of that doctrine and Book, which by your self is alleadged for your defence, and see by it if your profession and practize be not contrary one to an other: Yea see if it be not manifest e­uen by it, that you haue not a true visible Church of Christ.

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

These are your owne words and doctrine: Now if you cannot prooue your Assemblies to be such, you may see your own witnesses (euen your owne doctrine and book) giue verdict against you. If you can prooue them to be such: where and what are your proofes, touching the parti­culars, mentioned in this your owne description of a visible Church?

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Excep. THis your first Exception, is the 19. Article of this very book vvhich vvee alleadge, vvherein a visible Church is described to be a Congregation, where the pure word is preached, and Sacraments ministred, according to all those things, that of necessitie are requisite. Novv this description, you reiect not, but our practise (say you) is contrary: and therefore vve haue no true visible Churches, nor Christians.

I ansvver: vvherein is it contrarie? in vvhat things that of necessitie are re­quisite? doth not all this Christian vvorld see and confesse, that our publique practise, is agreeable to our profession in that book? Nay (say you) but proue you your assemblies to be such, and if you can proue them, where and what are your proofs? if you doe not, you are confuted. A vvorthy confutation sure, and very Clerklike: As if my Tenaunt should denie me rent for my house and land, yea and goe to Lavv vvith me for the fee simple, vvhich he hath holden in ferme of me these 40. yeares: and I haue hetherto, quietly enioyed from my Auncestors, time out of minde. Novv he suing me at lavv, for that vvhich I thus possesse, saith, proue your right to this land, vvhich you haue; if you can, vvhat, and vvhere be your proofes? let me see them: Or els I your Tenaunt vvill haue it: This vvere goodly dealing, vvere it not, and very lavvfull. Euē so doe you, asking proofes of vs for that vvhich vve possesse, & haue possessed before you made any question about it, nay you your selues, held part of this possession of vs and vvith vs, till yesterday, vvhen you began first to lay claime in this sorte to the vvhole. Novv your reason is, let vs prooue it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or [Page 15] els you will not accknowledg 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, and Sacraments ministred according to all things that of necessitie are requisite. Where vve [...] plainly insinuate, that many errours may be added, and truthes wanting in a visible Church: but nothing which is absolutely necessarie: 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, shevv it vs because vve see it not our selues I assure you: vntil then, your first reason hath no reason in it.

Fr. Io. his Aunsvver to M. Iacobs 1. Reply vpon the 1. Excep. HOw fit or vnfit the description is, I neither did, nor doe examine. Onely because it is your owne profession, and your practise is cōtra­ry vnto it, I did from hence take the first Exception, requiring of you to proue your Assemblies to be such, or els to know that your owne doc­trine, is a witnes against your selues. Now in your Reply, haue you according to the particulers of that description, iustified your Church as­semblies? Nothing lesse. Let this therefore be first obserued. But what then haue you done?

First pretending as if you repeated our exception, and your owne de­scription, you leaue out diuers particulers, of speciall moment, there expressed. As first, where the visible Church is described to be a congrega­tion of faithfull men, you leaue out these wordes (of faithfull men) belike knowing that your Congregations, which are holds of all foule spirits, and cages of euery vncleane and hatefull bird,Reuel. 18.2 cannot therefore iustly be accounted congregations of faithfull men. Secondly, where the de­scription speaketh of the Sacraments to be duely ministred, you / leaue out this word (duely): because it crosseth your womens Baptisme, priuate Communion, receiuing of the most prophane and their seed among you, &c. Lastly, where in the description it is required, both for preaching the pure word and due administration of the Sacraments, that they be don according to Christes ordinance: you leaue out these words (according to Christes ordinance): belike because this clause quite overthroweth both your Antichristian Prelacy, from whih al the inferior Ministers among you receiue power and authority to preach and minister the Sacramēts; and your Preisthood and Deaconry, wherein you all administer; and your stinted imposed prayers, exhortations, crosses in the forehead, ques­tions to Infantes, vse of the same wordes in English in ministring the Lords Supper, which the Papists vsed and still vse in Latine, not retai­ning the words of Christes institution: and such like.

Thus hauing left out such particulers as were of speciall moment against you, yet you demaund vvherein your paactize is contrary to your profession, and description of a visible Church, in vvhat things that of necessitie are requisite? We aunswer, in all the particulers of that de­scription [Page 16] aforesayd. For first, your Church-assemblies, are not congre­gations of faithfull men, but a confusion of all manner of people though neuer so wicked and prophane. TheD. VV [...]i [...]g booke pag, 176. and 178 Prelates and Formalists affirm, that your Church is full of Atheistes, Papistes, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whore­mongers, and such like. TheSermon on Rom. 12 pag. 65. and 66. Demonstra­tion: in the preface. forward Preachers likewise, that in your Church are svvarmes of Atheists, Idolaters, Papists, erronious and heretical Sectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murtherers, Theeues, Adulterers, Lyars, &c. Finally, that a man may be any thing among you sauing a sound Christian. These things being so, as both your estate and writings beare witnes: iudge your selues, whether your Assemblies can be accounted Congregations of faithfull men, or no: which is the first point of the de­scription aforesaid.

Secondly, in the same description is required, That the pure vvord of God be preached, according to Christes ordinance. But with you are al­lowed besides the word of God, the Apocrypha books: and in steed of pre­ching the word, the reading of Homilies: as may appeare in thatBook of Articles published Anno 1502. book of Articles alledged by your self. Yet who knoweth not, that in those bookes are diuers vntruths, 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 word is preached among you, it is done by vertue of a false office and calling, never appointed by Christ. And the Ministers that preach it, do in your constitution alway stand subiect to be silenced, suspended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when you are made Priests, you promise, and (when you enter vpon a benefice) you sweare, Canoni­call obedience. Neither are you suffered any further to preach the word, and truth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Iniūetiōs, Aduertice­ments and Caueates, in that behalf prouided. If any preach the word of God any further, they are subiect to be silēced, banished and put to death. That these things accord with the ordināce of Christ, or with your owne description of a visible Church, I suppose your self will not for shame af­firme it.

Lastly in your description it is required, That the Sacramentes be due­ly ministred, according to the ordinance of Christ, in all things that of neces­sity are requisite to the same. Now by the ordinance of Christ, in the ad­ministration of the Sacraments, there are necessarily required, 1. A law­full Minister; 2. A lawfull people; 3. A lawfull administratiō, according to the Testament of Christ: In al which your practise is contrary to the ordinance of Christ, and your owne description aforesayd. Your Minist­ers all of them are either Prelates, Priestes, or Deacons (which among you is a step to the Priesthood): none of which Christ hath ordeyned in his Testament for the work of his Ministerie. Your people are not sepa­rated from the world,See Iohn 15.19. & 17.14 1 [...]. but stand in confusion with it, and in subiection to the Antichristian Prelates and Prelacie: and therefore cannot be deemed a true Church of God and the people of Christ, vnto whome in such e­state [Page 17] the Sacramēts (which are seales of the couenant of grace) doe ap­perteine, and may be administred.1 Iob. 4 [...].5 Act 2 40. and 19 9. Rev. 18.4. and 14.9. Finally your administration is ac­cording to the inventions and precepts of men, with s [...]inted prayers, ex­hortations, Epistles and Gospels: and besides these, in Baptisme, cros­sing on the forehead, and questions to the infant: in the Lords supper, translating and vsing out of the Masse book, other words thē the words of Christes institution: and such like, as may be seen at large in your book of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the Masse book, full of abominations, asAdmoni­tion to the Parlament. your selues haue confessed heretofore.

These things we haue ben forced thus to mention at large, both be­cause you twise demaund (as if you knew not your selves) wherein your practise is contrarie to that description aforesaid: and because you blush not to affirme, that all the Christiā world seeth and confesseth your prac­tise to be agreable to your profession in that book. Whereas the contra­rie is most true. Touching which, what your selues haue heretofore written to the contrarie, See in the Admonitions to the Parliament, Replies of T. C. against D. Whitgist, Demonstration of Discipline, &c. And what the reformed Churches professe to the contrarie, see in the French, Belgicke, and Heluetian Churches, in the Harmonie of con­fessions, Sēct. 10.11.

Thus also appeareth what iust cause we had, to put you to proue your assemblies, to be such, as your selues describe visible Churches to bee. Which seeing you haue not yet done, and seeing your practise is contra­ry to your profession, as now (at your request) we haue shewed in the par­ticulars aforesayd: If you still be minded as before, we do also still aske, where and what are your proofes, touching the particulars mentioned in your owne description of a visible Church?

Your similitude of a Landlord and Tenaunt, is against your selues: so worthy and Clerklike is your Reply. If any haue vsurped, or otherwise made a false claime never so long, to a peece of land or other possession: may they not iustly be called vpō to shew their title and bring forth their euidence? Let the Iudges giue sentence.

If you deny your claime to be such, shew your euidence from the Apos­tles writings: Let vs frō thence see your evidence for the offices of Arch­bs, Lord bs, Archdeacons, Priests, Parsōs, Vicars, &c. For your en­trance into these offices; according to your Canons, and book of ordering Priests, &c. For your administration by your scinted imposed Leiturgy, and by your Popish Canons, Officers, proceedings, &c. For your maintenance by Tythes, Chrisomes, Offerings, &c. For your confu­sed communion of all sortes of people, though never so wicked, in the bo­dy of your Church, &c. Let vs (I say) see evidence for these, from the Apostles writings, if you denie your claime to be such, as we haue no­ted. Otherwise if you speake not according to this word,Esay. 8. [...]. it is because there is no light in you, neither any right to that you challendge.

Where you say, vve held part of your possessiō vvith you hertofore: If you [Page 18] meane, that we with you receiued the beastes mark and drunke of the cup of Babels abominations, we deny it not: but acknowledg Gods mercy, that passing ouer our sinnes, hath giuen vs grace and strengthRev 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Act. 2.40. at his cō ­maundement to forsake that way of Antichrist, and to come out of that spirituall Babylon, to the saluation of our soules. Which mercy we wish also to you, that being saued from that froward generation, you may be­come the sonnes and daughters of the Lord almighty.

Touching your Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Ministratiō, &c: Ynough is said before. Onely where you say, you see not your selues vvherein you faile, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things necessary, It is too im­pudent vntruth, as yourAdmonitiō to the Parla­ment. T. C. his replies in defēce thereof. Demō ­stration of discipline. Defence of Ecclesiasti­call disci­pline, &c. former writings doe and will alwaies testifie to your face, which we will not stand here to relate. That shall suffice which we haue touched before: which till it be aunswered, the Exception hath both reason and weight in it, whatsoever you doe or can pretend to the contrary.

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 me, wherein our practise is contrarie to our profession. First, 1 our Article requireth a visible Church to be an assemblie of faithfull men: But our ossemblies (say you) are not so. This is false, they are so: you shall neuer proue in vs the con­trary, more then appeareth was in the Church of the Iewes, both Auncient and in the time of Christ, and yet they than were the true Church: As I haue elswhere in this book sufficiently proued and shewed against you. That which you bring of D. VVhitgift and other writers amongst vs of the prophanesse of many in our assemblies, you depraue their meaninges vtterly: for though they graunt very 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 contrary do they: euen that onely they ought to be reformed. Therefore you too grosly abuse them.

Secondly, The Article requireth the pure word of God to be preached. But (say you) the 2 Apocrypha books, and reading of Homilies, and other errors are allowed in our practise: Yea surely and in our profession too: as your self obserueth in the book of Artic. yet then our profession & practise differ not, as you charg our Churches. But these pointes are not the pure word of God: Neither doth the Article meane, that in a visible Church, euery iot and title, both of our pro­fession and practise, must needs be out of the pure word. They knew that eue­ry visible Church might and did erre in somewhat: Onely it meaneth, that a visible Church might not erre in any poinct, that of necessity is requisite, as their words expresse. It resteth then that you shew, that the pure word is not preached in our assemblies by law, sufficiently to salvation: which yet you do not, nor can doe. Therefore you say nothing. For, I for my part knovv wel, that our Churches faile from the pure word in sundry lesser points, which [Page 19] though they be errors, yet are they not Fundamentall, neither doe they in their owne nature abolish from Christ.

Thirdly, the Article hath, according to Christes ordinance: But you say, that we preach in strange and false functions, such as are not Christes ordinances. This is false too, Our 3 ordinary 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 vvriting long since deliuered to you, touching theIn my avn­svver to the 1. reason of that treatise follovving in the e [...]de of this book. comparing of the condition of a Ministerie vvith Mariadge. Novv 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. Contrary to the vvhich, you haue nothing but vvords.

Lastly, the Article requireth (due administration of Sacraments:) But our practize (say you) herein is not due or in [...]ier, because there concurre diuers corruptions withall: as 4 [...]inted prayers, exhortations, Epistles, Gospels, & crossing in Baptisme, &c. I aunsvver: all these simply of them selues do not abolish our Sacraments. If you think they do, say so, and you shall be refuted. If nay, then this verie Article sig­nifieth so much, That corruptions and faults might be in the Sacraments, but nothing amisse that of necessitie is requisite.

Novv, all these 4. poinctes I haue omitted (say you.) True: in vvords I haue, but in sence I expresse them all and euerie one, vvhen for breuities sake, I compre­hended all in this generall clause of this Article, according to all that is of necessitie re­quisite. Hovv say you, haue I not herein contained and signified all these your exceptions, and that according to the meaning of the Article? If I haue (as it is most true) then doe you vnconscionably abuse me, in saying, I pretended to repeate our description in the Article, and yet leaue out diuers particulars 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 most fondly abused yout penne and tounge.

Yet vyill you still demaund how our practise agreeth with our profession in that 19. Ar­ticle? Still I annsvver you vvith that similitude of a foolish and importunate Tenaunt against his Landlord. If I haue held possession, and my auncestors before me time out of minde, indeed rhe King laying claime to it, he may call for my euidence, becauseTime pre­scribeth not against the Prince. nullum tempus occurrit Regi, But against my fellovv subiects, possession & inheritance (so long vvithout interruption) is of it self euidence in lavv good inough, except the plaintif can bring better to the cō ­trary. Therefore it vvere absurd and sencelesse before any Iudge in Eng­land, for a Tenaunt to put such a Landlord to shevv his euidence in such a case. Euen so as absurd it is for you, seeing at first you vvere of vs and novv 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.

VVhere you put me to proue all our offices of the Hyerarchie, their ceremonies &c. What nee­deth it? I neuer tooke it vpon me: Except you doe shew, that these corrupti­ons all or any of them absolutely in their owne nature do abolish vs al cleane [Page 20] from Christ, & make vs vnpossible to be saued, which vntill you doe, still I say, I see not any peece of reason in all your words.

And Lastly where you say, it is an impudent vntruth, that I say we see not, that anything 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 vntruth, & a wilfull peruerting of all your allegations. None of all these do gtaunt any thing to be wanting with vs that is necessarie to the being of a Church simply, nor to the being of a true Ministery or Sacraments: But onely to their vvell and conuenient be­ing. Hovv honest then are you to falsifie your ovvne vvitnesses so openly?

Fr. Io. his Aunsvver to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply vpon the 1. Excep. I Haue often heard such things, M. Iacob. Yet they are but words of wynd. And now belike you tell vs here aforehand, what we are to look for in this and the rest of your Replies following, even much adoe to no 1 purpose. First where your Article describeth a visible Church to be a Cō ­gregation of faithfull men: you say, yours are so. I did and do denie it. Now therefore must you proue it, who made the first Argument, and still continew to reply. If you know not this, you know little or nothing either of the rules or of the vse of sound reasoning. Let any that haue knowledg, judge. Secondly, whereas you would I should proue the contrary (although in putting this over to me you manifest your owne ignorance and weaknes, yet) know that bothMr. Bar­rovves Re­futation of M. Giff [...]rd. The Disco­uery. The Conferences published &c. others of vs andIn the aun­svvers to M. A. H. to M. T. C. to M. VV. Smith, and to your self. my self haue done it sundrie times; and taken away the obiections drawen from the corruptions in the Ievvish or any other Churches. Vnto which who is there of you that ever gave vs sound aunswer? Thirdly, I take the whole Land to witnes against you, that it is most false which here you are not ashamed with such boldnes to affirme, viz. that your Church-as­semblies are Congregations of faithfull men. But by this may all men see you make no conscience what you affirme or denie, so you may seeme to say somewhat. Fourthly, your owne men of all sorts confesse it to be as I have said and shewed in my former aunswer. Vnto which I might adde an hundred mo testimonies of theirs, if the case were not as cleare as the Sunne at noone day.

But you say, I depraue their meanings vtterly. Why so, I pray you? Because they say not, that all your Assemblies are such, nor your vvhole As­semblies, though they graunt very many such to be among you: that is, ma­nie of your Church to be Atheists, Papists, Drunkards, Whoremongers, Thieves, Murtherers, Witches, &c. Alas M. Iacob, it pittieth me to see your extreame follie and evill conscience. Your follie, that see not how both they and you giue the cause in this graunt: and therby also testifie that I do not at all deprave their meanings. Is it possible, that your Church-assemblies should be full of such knowen vngodly persons, and yet be Congregations of faithful men? It never entred into my thought, much [Page 21] lesse did I ever say it, that your whole Assemblies are such. I know and willingly accknowledg many of your Church not to be so: for which I praise God. (Alwaies I except your publike worship and Idolatrie, wherein all, even the best among you, are inwrapped.) This I said, that your Assemblies are not congregations of faithful men, but a confusion of all manner of people, though never so vvicked. And this you see do your owne men testifie.

Adde herevnto, that both they and your self graunt your Assemblies herein ought to be reformed. If they be already Congregations of faith­full men, what reformation would you haue in this behalf? But if their 1 estate herein be such, as they ought to be reformed: why are you so sham­les and foolish, thus to speake as you do in all this matter? Besides your folly, you bewray an evill conscience, in asmuch as you denie that thing, the light whereof doth so shine in your conscience, as even whiles you would shift it of, you are constrained to acknowledg it whether you will or not.

Where you speak of your owne men, that they deny not your Assem­blies to be companies of faithfull men, or vtterly to be seperated from: it is to no purpose at all saue against your selfe. For first, though they speak it not in these very syllables, yet the thing it self necessarily followeth vpon their words. It is without question that the heathen Poets did themselues worship Idols: yet notwithstanding sometimes they so spake in their writings, as Paull dothAct. 17.28.29. from thence conclude that not Idols but the true God onely is to be worshipped. Had it now ben of waight, for any of them to have alleadged against the Apostle, that theit Poets did not deny Idols to be worshipped? Yet you think it sufficient, to withstand the truth with any such pretence. Let this once spoken, serve for aunswer to all your reproches wherewith you burden me ma­ny times for the collections which I deduce necessarily from your owne and other mens writings. Secondly, you are to know that it is not materiall against me, whatsoever your men doe graunt or denie. But against you it is, who abide in the same Ministerie and of the same Church with them. For that which you speak of the Church of the Iewes both auncient and in the time of Christ, referring vs to another place hereafter in this book for proof of your comparison, look you there also for aunswer therevnto. And hitherto of the first point of your Article and profession differing from your practise and constitu­tion.

For the second, if you professe to preach the pure vvord of God (as this Article requireth) and yet againe both in profession and practise (as here 2 you acknowledg) preach the impure and lying writings of Men, such as be the Apocrypha books and your Homilies: what is or can be more contrarie? If your Article meane othervvise (as you pretend) it is full of deceit. Neither shall any ever know what your profession is, if your Articles doe thus crosse one another, and your practise also agree with [Page 22] the worst.

But to cleare this point, I aunswer furthermore: 1. that it is a point of necessitie requisite, that Gods vvord onely be taught. For which see these Scriptures, Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Psal. 119.113. Prov. 30.5.6. Esa. 8.20. and 59.21. Ier. 23: 16.28. Ioh. 5.39. Col. 3.16. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. and 2 Tim. 3.16.17. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 22.18.19. Thus by your owne expositi­on of this Article, the Assumption of your maine Argument falleth, and your Churches remaine in false constitution: which is the question be­tweene vs.See the third Exception follovving, In the aun­svver to Mr, Iacobs 2. Reply. 2. The Apocrypha books maintained in the Church (which you say is both your profession and practise) overthroweth the truth of Christian religion, and bringeth in Iudaisme, Popery, Atheisme, and what not? 3. Even in the Church of Rome where these books also are received, yet withal the pure word is so preached among them by Law, as no doubt to some is sufficient co salvation. For proof whereof see the Rhemes Testament, in their note vpon 1 Tim. 2.5. Yet this hin­dreth not but that their Church maintaineth false doctrine (as in that place also may be seen) and standeth in false constitution. Neither there­fore can this help you. It resteth then that you show, the pure worde only to be preached among you by Lavv, and that also according to Chris­tes ordinance. which yet you doe not, neither can doe. And therefore it is your self that say nothing: but that you both professe & practise errors.

Now it is well, the truth so shineth in your heart, as you confesse your Churches faile from the pure vvord in sundry lesser points. Yet I pray you reckon vp these points in particular, that by the worde of God it may be seen whether they be lesser or greater then you would beare vs in hand. Then tell vs, in whose power it is in your Church, to redresse them. Also, why they are not redressed, seeing you know them, and haueRev. 2.16.17. & 3.3. Mat. 18.15.16.17.20. 1 Cor. 5.4.5 Lev. 4.13. 2 Cor. 10.4.5.6. rules given by Christ for such cases, if your Churches be his? Lastly, why you for (your part) abide in knowen errors, and keepe not the truth and commaundements of Christ?

As touching that you say, though they be errors, yet they are not fun­damentall, neither doe in their owne nature abolish from Christ: the fit place of handling this point followeth in the second Exception and se­venth Reason, to which places I referre it. Yet in the meane time, be­cause here we are treating of the Apocrypha books, tell me whether in retaining them, you retaine not such errors as your self account funda­mentall &c. For example, the book of Tobit teacheth thatTob. 12.12.15. Angels doe present and bring to memory our prayers before the Lord. Now this ho­nour (you know) is peculiar to Christ, who1 Tim. 2.5. onely is the Mediator of Intercession. That Apocrypha doctrine therefore is blasphemous, and an error (in your sence as I take it) fundamentall. Adde herevnto that2 Mach. 12.43.44.45. offring vp of a sinne offring to God for the dead, to make reconciliati­on for them thereby, spoken of in the book of Machabees: And according to your second sence of fundamentall, that2 Machab. 14.41.42. commending of vvilfull mur­ther, taught in the same book of Machabees. Not to speak of the Ma­gick [Page 23] in theIob. 6.6. book of To bit, for healing any that is troubled with a Di­vell or evill spirit, by a perfume made of a fishes heart and liuer. These sweet doctrines with other the like do those books affoord. But it skils not, so long as with a bold face notwithstanding you can beare it out and say still, your errors are not fundamentall, &c. Is this your consci­ence, Mr. Iacob? Will you thus still plead for Baall?

But to proceed, in the third place you speak of those words, (accor­ding to Christs ordinance. Where first marke, that these words in your Article are to be referred to all the particulars going before. So as to 3 maintaine your Argument, you must proue your Assemblies to be so ga­thered, the pure vvord so preached, anh the Sacraments so administred a­mong you, as Christ hath ordeined. Thus might you more perswade vs, and defend your selues better, in one half sheet of paper, then in a thousand such frivolous pamphlets as you sparse abroad, to no purpose at all, except it be to lay open your owne nakednes so much the more.

Whereas I alledged, that vvhen and vvhere the vvorde is preached a­mong you, it is done by vertue of a false office and calling, never appointed by Christ: this you say is false too. Often have I heard you say so, but never could I heare you proue it. To help you therefore, I will show you the way how to doe it, if any such thing could be. And that is thus: first, syncerely (as before God) to reckon vp all the offices of Ministery which your Church by Law enjoyeth; and then to note the Scriptures which teach that Christ ordained those offices in his Church: secondly, to show the manner of entrance into your severall offices prescribed by Law; and then, to name the places of Scripture where such calling is appointed by Christ. This you see is a plaine and ready way (touching these two points) to stablish the conscience and to confound your adver­saries, not with show of words, but with substance of matter. I hope it will do you some pleasure Mr. Iacob, that I haue showed you so good a way. All the thanks I aske for it is, that you would walk vpright­ly in it.

Now if you list not take the paines, or find the way all to hard, for your Archbs, Lordbs, Archdeacons, Parsons, Vicars, Stipendaries, and the rest of your Priests and Deacons: yet at least for your self show it in defence of your owne office and calling, first when you were made Priest and Deacō by the Prelates; and thē when you became an House-Priest in the countrey, and since a Mercenary-Priest in the citty. Now (I heare) your Lords the Prelates haue commaunded you silence, and you as an obedient childe of such reverend Fathers do readily submit to their Antichristian authority. Yet let this be no excuse to put of the clearing of the former matter: but seeing you haue so much the more lea­sure, do it the more soundly and speedily. Doubtles it would give great light in this case.

Next you say, your ordinarie Preachers are true Pastors, as touching the substance of Pastorall calling: but whom meane you by ordinary Preachers [Page 24] &c. Your Prelates (I remember) are by Law your Ordinaries. Doe you meane it of them? your treatise shewes it not. Tell vs then who they be of whom you speak: 1. whether all or some onely of your Prea­chers: 2. whether you have any extraordinarie Preachers that have some other office: 3. what you judge, of those that are not in the number of the ordinary Preachers you speak of, whether they also be true Pas­tors: 4. what you account (according to the Scripture) the substance of the Pastorall calling, whereof you speak. All these points you see must be cleared, afore we can vnderstand what you speak, or whereof you affirme. So mysticall, or rather in deed so fearefull and deceitfull is your manner of speach.

Touching the question, what is substantiall in the Ministery (if you put it over to me to declare, as your manner is) I have already showed my judgment and reasons inA treatise of the Mi­nist. of the Churches of Engl. p. 83. 84. 85. another treatise. Which you may either refute, or approue your Ministery according to those particulars, or (if you can do neither of these) yeeld to the truth against which you have so long strugled in vaine. In vaine, I say: for proof whereof marke what followeth next in your Reply.

Your self confesse that even the Preachers for whome you plead, have a wrong ordination from the Prelacy. Thus your owne mouth (M. Iacob) is witnes against your self, that al your labour is in vaine. Shall I yet make it more plaine vnto you? Marke then. Your maine defence is fromSee before, pag 3. and 6. the doctrine of your Church, as it is publiquely profes­sed and practised by Lavv. Now your Law admitteth no other ordina­tion, but that of the Prelacy. And this your self here confesse is vvrong. In what case now your Ministery standeth, let others judge. And take you heed, you please not your self any longer in such vnrighteous­nes. The2 The. 2.12 end thereof is fearefull. But besides this estate of your Ministery, you confesse here also for the body of your Church, that you have a confusion of people: that is (in deed, though you speak it not in word) a spirituall Babylon. For Babel, is in English, confusion. Thus both for Ministery and people, you give the cause, having wearied your self in the defence of Babylon all in vaine. Which is and will be the fruit of your and all other mens labours in this case. So theIer. 51.58.64. Scrip­ture hath foretold.

Your other writing,See the next treatise follovving at the end of this. touching the comparing of the condition of a Ministery vvith Mariage, long since deliuered, was also long since aunswe­red. Vnto which I have not yet received any Reply: not so much as words, which is the most I look for from you at any time.

Where next you graunt, it is Christs ordinance, to haue a true Pastor, to a faithfull people: hold you there, M. Iacob, and you overthrow at once all your Churches and Ministery. For you neither have proued, neither ever will, that so you have. Begging of the question (though you vse it never so often) is nothing but words, not any proof at all.

4 After this you come to that clause of your Article, which requireth [Page 25] due administration of the Sacraments according to Christs ordinance. First mynd, that divers other particulars were related (wherein you faile) be­sides those you have here mentioned. See them in myBefore. Pag 15. 16. 17. former aunswer. Now if the corruptions of the IewesMal. 1.6.7.8.12.13. Amos. 4.4.5. Esa. 1.12.13. polluted the table of the Lord and made their oblations to be in vaine; yea, if the abuses in Corinth about the Sacrament made that1 Cor. 11.20. it was not the eating of the Lords supper: what then shal be thought of the heynous abominations of An­tichrist retained among you in the Sacraments? Your distinction of simply abolishing is but leaven of your owne, borrowed from your Pre­lates, and by them from the Papists. We plainely affirme that your abuses and corruptions are such, as the Sacraments among you are not duely administred according to Christs ordinance; and that it cannot be showed by the word of God that they seale vp Gods covenant of grace to your Church and the members thereof in that estate. Now see that (according to your promise) you refute this. And prove that not­withstanding all your corruptions mentioned, yet Christ acknowled­geth your Sacramēts for his: also, that the good things and ordinances of Christ wanting among you, are not of necessitie requisite. In the meane time know, that none can partake in the administration of your Sacraments, but they must needs withall partake in your sinnes before rehearsed. Which the Lord hath most straitly forbidden: Rev. 18.4. and 14.9.10.11. Exod. 20.4.5. Psal. 119.21. Mal. 1.7.8.13.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. Amos. 4.4.5. and 5.5. Ephes. 5.11.

The particulars of your Article, you say, you omitted for breuities sake. Let others beleev you that will: for mine owne part, I neither do nor can beleev it. You have here taken paines to write an whole book, and in it a multitude of words to no purpose. Is it likely then, that for bre­vity sake you would omit the most speciall points of the Article, which may be written in a line or two at the most? Nay M. Iacob, these clauses (of faithfull men; duely; according to Christs ordinance) are so ful and preg­nant against you, as you thouht it no wisdome to mention them at all: but rather in silence to bury them vnder some generall terme, or (as your self speak) to comprehend them in a generall clause. This in deed was the best way to darken the truth and help your self, if any way you could. But any that mind your manner of dealing may easily see, that if these clauses had made but a tenth part so much for you, as they are fully against you: then you would have ben so far from omitting thē, as we should have had them noted downe in greater letters then the rest.

For your Article it self, if the meaning of it were to comprehend those points in your generall clause: why then did it so particularly mention them besides? Were the framers of your Article so ignorant or carelesse (think you) as in a brief descriptiō of such a waighty matter, they would commit so many vaine and needles tantologies? Nay rather they jud­ged all these particulars absolutely needfull: specially, that Christs ordi­nance [Page 26] be had and observed, and that also in all things of necessitie requi­site. How say you, is not this the meaning of the Article? How fondly then and how vnconscionably have you abused not onely your pen and tounge, but even your Church and book of Articles, whereon you seeme for to rely? How just cause also have I then still to demaund, where and what your proofes be, touching the particulars of your owne description of a visible Church?

Your parable of a Landlord and a Tenaunt, besides that it is popish and against your selues (as hath ben shewed) it is also false. You have not had possession time out of minde, as you pretend. It is but yester­day since this your Samaritane and misceline religion began, viz; since King Henry the eight. Now also Christ the King and Lord of his Church doth by his servants lay claime to his owne right, and disclaimeth your false worship and Ministerie. So your owne saying is against your self, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, No time doth preiudice the King. If you plead your right by any more auncient date, as from Christ and his A­postles, the evidence may soone be shewed from their writings. If you doe it not, all men of wisdome will not onely condemne your folly, who take vpon you the defence of so bad a cause, but will also perceive the im­pietie of your Churches estate, for which no warrant can be shewed frō Apostolik writ.

For our going out from among you, when before we had held part of possession with you, I brought warrant from the worde of God: which you touch not at all.

That it lieth vpon you, yea and that your self have taken it vpon you, to approve your Hierarchy, Leiturgy, confusion of people &c. appeareth not onely by the title of your book, which is called A defence of the Chur­ches and Ministery of England: but by reason also that you began the first Argument and continew to replie. Wherevpon you are bound to proue what is denied or in this case put vnto you to be proved. We then in aunswer to your Argument noting the falshood of your Hierarchy, wor­ship, &c. it is your part now to approve them by the word of God, or to convince that they abolish not your constitution from being Christs. If you cannot doe this, confesse it, and give glory to God. That your case is thus, hath ben often shewed by vs, both in other writings and in these aunswers to your self. And of this point there will be occasion after­ward to speak againe.

Touching the impudent vntruth wherewith you were charged, first you sayd, your selves see not wherein you faile, touching Preaching or Sa­craments, in things necessary. I alledged your owne men, as witnesses to convince you therein, The Admonition, T. C. his replies, the Demon­stration, &c. Now you aunswer that none of all these do graunt any thing to be wanting vvith you that is necessary to the being of a Church simply, nor to the being of a true Ministery or Sacraments: but onely to their vvell and convenient being. By which bold assertion of yours, you both prove [Page 27] and persist in the impudent vntruth laid to your charge. For hearken now, and you shall heare themselves testifie thus much.

The first Admonition in the Preface sayeth thus, In a fevv vvordes to speake vvhat vve meane, Either must vve have a right Ministery of God,Admonitiō to the Parli­am. first and second.and a right government of his Church according to the Scriptures set vp (both vvhich vve lack) or els there can be no right Religion, nor yet for contempt thereof can Gods plagues be from vs any vvhile differred. And againe in the treatise it self are these words, We in England are not yet come to the outvvard face of a Church agreable to Gods vvord. Or as it is written in the margent of divers of those books, we are scarce come to the outvvard face of a Church &c. Take which of these you please: the best is bad ynough.

Touching the Ministerie in particular, the same book and men say thus, We have an Antichristian Hierarchy and a popish ordering of Minis­ters strange from the vvord of God and the vse of all vvel reformed Chur­ches in the vvorld. And further, Although some truth be taught by some Preachers, yet no Preacher may vvithout daunger of the Lavves, vtter all the truth comprised in the booke of God.

Then touching the Sacraments, thus they write, The Sacraments are vvickedly mangled and prophaned. Also, In the primitive Churches they administred the Sacrament simply as they received it from the Lord, vve sin­fully mixed vvith mans inventions and devises. Yea they charge the Pre­lates, that they doe superstitiously and vvickedly institute a nevv Sacrament (vvhich is proper to Christ onely) marking the child in the forehead vvith a Crosse, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ.

And of your book of cōmon prayer, according to which your Sacra­ments and other divine service is administred, thus also they write, we must needes say that this book is an vnperfit book, culled and picked out of the Popish dunghill the Masse book, full of all abominations.

To conclude withall, thus they testifie concerning these things con­troverted betweene them and the Prelates, Neyther is the controversy betvvixt them and vs as they vvould beare the vvorld in hand, for a cap a tippet or a surplus, but for greater matters concerning a true Ministery and Regiment of the Church according to the vvord. Which things once esta­blished, the other melt away of thēselues. Being (once established) say they. Therefore yet they did not account they had them. And whereof speak they? All may see, of a true Ministery and Regiment of the Church.

Now speak your self, Mr. Iacob. Do not these men testifie to your face, that you have avouched a bold and impudent vntruth, wilfully striving against the cleare light? Yet I have cited but a few, and those onely out of the Admonitions to the Parliament. Out of which and the rest of their writings I might alledge a thousand mo, to convince you herein. But that would be too tedious. And these (I doubt not) will cleare the point, and suffice any that are indifferent and godly minded. For your [Page 28] self, I say no more but wish you had not verified the Orators saying, He that once passeth the bounds of modestie, becomes impudent out of mea­sure. Hitherto of the first Exception.

Chap. 5. The second Exception against Mr. Iacobs Assumption aforesayd.

Fran. Iohnson. SEcondly, tell vs whether you hold and professe Iesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his owne ordi­nance only, and in no other. And if you do, then shew vs how your prac­tise agreeth with this profession.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. TO this second Exception That Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King, I aunswere: The Booke of Articles, our Ministers now, and Congrega­tions generally, do hold and professe the same (our practise being answerable likewise therevnto) 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 owne ordinances onely & in no o­ther. This I say we generally professe and practise.

Hovvbeit this note vvith all, vve hold Christs ordinance to be of tvvo sorts, writtē or vnwrittē, the first necessary, the secōd arbitrary. The first touching doc­trine, that is, touching faith and the invvard 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 Resurrectiō &c. Where­in standeth the1 Cor. 3.12.13. foundation of saving faith. All these must be in the vvritten vvord or els to be none of Christes. The second touching outvvard orders in the Church, vvhich are truely called and counted Christes ovvne also, al­though particularly deuised and appointed by the Church, vvhom Christ hath authorised therevnto, euen as it shall be thought most fit and profitable for the presēt times, places and persons: such vve hold all outvvard gouerne­ment and ceremonies to be, because they be not simply of the foundation, neither written, nor certen, nor perpetuall, but at the arbitrarie appointment of the Church and Magistrate, and yet to be Christes ovvne neuerthelesse, vvho hath left this libertie for the Church to vse. Thus vve hold and thus vve practise, and vve are persvvaded no Scripture to be against all this, but rather for it. I speak novv concerning our Ministers and Congregations generally; that is our pu­blique Church state. If you say, but there are divers amongst vs that thinke othervvise, I aunsvver, But this is the generall estate both of our Ministers and Churches, hovvsoever one or tvvo amongst hūdreths or thousands may thinke othervvise, shevv the contrary if you can. And our Churches, they certenly must be deemed after their generall estate and constitution, not as one or tvvo men thinke. If you say, this generall opinion and practise is [Page 29] an error. Therfore they obey not Christs ordinances in truth herein, though they thinke they do. I aunsvver, let it be so, it is novvAn error, though not fundamen­tall. the error of their iudg­ment, as it vvas in Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Not pregnaunt rebellion and disobedience to Christ, not a convicted or seared conscience, so that their o­ther1 Cor. 3.1 [...].15. truthes of the foundation are not frustrat, nor Christ made to none ef­fect in them. And this is all our question, whether they remaine Christians still for all these faultes, yea or no.

F. Io. his Aunsvver to M. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. IN this Exception we demaunded first, if you held Iesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his owne ordi­nance only and in no other; then, how your practise agreeth with this pro­fession. One would have thought it had ben needfull (if you could) to have cleared this poinct by the Scriptures, and from thence to have proved your Ministery, worship, Church gouernement, &c. (which are cal­led jn question) to be no other then the Lord Iesus Christ, that Prophet, Priest and King of his Church hath in his Testament given and appoin­ted therevnto. But this you have not done. And let the Reader note it. But what then do you say?

First you tell vs, That touching this poinct, your profession and practise now is so as before time it vvas vvith M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and their Cōgregations. But what of this? Can the persons or age of these whom you name, nay can any person or ages preiudice the truth? Were not they subiect to error at all? Or must their errors bind vs? Did not Iohn Hus (that champion of Christ) and others also of the Martyrs in for­mer times, say and heare Masse, even to their dying day,See their historyes in the Acts and Monuments not seeing the abominations thereof? And did not divers of them acknowledge, some the Popes calling and Supremacy, some 7 Sacraments, some Purgatory, some Auricular confession, & such like greeuous errors? And yet notwithstāding dyed constantly for the truthes they saw, some for one, and some for ano­ther, as God made manifest vnto them. But may we now therefore so professe, and practise in these things as they did? Or if we should, were their ignorance and errors a sufficient defence for vs? Yet thus would you beare vs in hand.

Furthermore tell vs, if M. Latimer and others did not forsake the Pre­lacy and functions they had before time received? And Maister Ridley at his death repent that he had ben so earnest for the remnants of Pope­ry in his time retained? Besides, who knoweth not that when M. Cran­mer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. died Martyrs for the truth of Christ, they nei­ther had them selves, nor ioyned in spirituall communion with such as had the Prelacy and Ministery now pleaded for? And not that onely, but were members of that persecuted Church in Queene Maries dayes, which was seperated from the rest of the Land as from the world, and ioyned in covenaunt by voluntary profession, to obey the truth of Christ, and to witnes against the abominations of Antichrist. As they also did vnto [Page 30] death in the truth they saw, though otherwise (being but as it were in the twylight of the Gospell) they had their wants and errors.

Yet who is so blind or besotted, as not to see that their errors may not be our rules, neither can be our warrant: but rather that we ought af­ter their example, faithfully to stand in and for whatsoever trueth God revealeth vnto vs by his word? And that otherwise those holy Martyrs shall rise in iudgment against all such, as either withhould the trueth in vnrighteousnesse, or in any respect refuse to walke therein.

Finally, seeing GOD hath given vsPsal. 119.105.128. Gal. 1.8.9. & 6.16. Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18.19.20. his vvord to be the light of our feete, and rule of our liues and religion: What meane you to lead vs from it, to the aberrations of any men whatsoever? Should notEsa. 8.19. all people en­quier at God, or would you have vs go from the liuing to the dead? From God and his word, to men and their errors? This doubtlesse is that wherevnto you would bring vs, and whereby you mislead your favo­rites: as will yet further appeare by that which followeth. For what say you next?

Secondly, you tell vs, and wish it to be noted (as we also do) 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 you) are writtten; The second touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward go­vernement and ceremonies: These (you say) are not written, but arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Thus (you say) you hold and practise, and thinke no Scripture is a­gainst it.

1 For aunswer hereof, First we aske what Scripture you have for it?

Secōdly, we alledg against it, these Scriptures, and the like. 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5. &c. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. &c. & 6. chap. & 14.23. & 15. chap. & 19.9. & 20.7.17.28. Rom. 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. 5.1.2.3.4. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. & [...]. & 11. & 12. & 14. Chap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6.1.6. 2 Thes. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18.15.16.17. & 28.18.19.20.

3 Thirdly let it be observed, that your self here graunt and cannot deny, but all the outvvard gouernement and ceremonies of your Church, are in­vented and arbitrary at the pleasure of man, and not vvritten in the vvord of God. Wherevpon it followeth, that they are none of Christes, and there­fore not to be ioyned to at all.

4 Fourthly, see how neare you are driven that are glad to run back into the Papists tentes, where yet you know there is no succour. Before you pleaded possession time out of mind: now you tell vs of ordināces vnwritten &c. Are not these meere popish shiftes, even the old worne arguments of Antiquity and Vnvvritten verities, so often and so much stood vpon by the Papists? Alas that you should plead to be true Christians, and yet thus openly take part with Antichrist? What shall we say to these things? Surely God is iust and wil verifie his word, That they which receiue not the loue of the trueth, 2 Thes. 2.10.11.12. that they may be saued, he vvill send them strong de­lusion, to beleeue lyes, that they may be damned.

[Page 31]Fifthly, you make the ordinances touching outward gouernement and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither vvritten at all. This is very 5 strange divinity: And thus I shew it. It is an ordinance not only concer­ning the inward, but also the outward governemēt of the Church, that Christ is Lord and King thereof: Is it therefore no matter of faith? It concerneth the outward governemēt, vvhether the Pope be (vnder Christ) head of the Church or no: Doth it not therefore concerne faith? Publique prayer, preaching of the vvord, and hearing of it preached, administration and receiuing of the Sacraments, are matters cōcerning the outward gouerne­ment and orders of the Church: Doe they not therefore touch fayth? Admonition and excommunication concerne also the outward governe­ment of the Church: Do they not therefore concerne faith? Finally, by this Divinitie, the Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Lords supper, being Ceremonies, shall with you be no matters of faith at all.

Yet here you stay not, but adde moreover, That the outward orders, go­uernement, and ceremonies of the Church, be arbitrarie at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate, not vvritten nor certaine &c. Wherevpon it followeth, that it is not certen nor taught in the Scriptures, but arbi­trarie at the Churches and Magistrates pleasure: Whether Christ, or the Pope of Rome, or Canterbury, be head and Archbishop of the Church of God? 2. Whether Iewes onely of the Tribe of Leui, may now minister the holy things of God in his Church? 3. Whether Christ hath given any giftes, and set any Offices in his Church for the Ministery and guidance thereof: 4. Whether prayer must be in a knowen or vnknowen toung: 5. Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and ho­nored: 6. Whether the Church may excomunitate: 7. Whether the Popes or any other Prelates excommunicatiō be to be regarded: 8. Whether there be two, or three, or seauen Sacraments: 9. Whether the Passeouer, Circum­cision and other Ceremonies and Sacrifices of the Lavv, be now to be vsed: 10. Whether the Heathenish sacrifices and vvorship be to be ioyned withall: 11. Whether creame, oyle, salt, spittle, crossing and coniuring, may be vsed in Baptisme: 12. Whether the bread onely and not the cup, is to be given to the lay people (as you cal them) 13. Whether holy water, holy ashes, holy palmes and such like, be of the holy things of the Church: 14. Whether the Iewish and the Popish Vestments, Fasts, and holy dayes are to be observed. And a thousand such like, which are all of them, concer­ning the outward orders, gouernement and ceremonies of the Church. By your Diuinitie, these and infinite such like, are vnvvritten and vncerten, but left onely to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrate.

Yea if it please you, the Princes and ciuill Magistrates may them selues be the publique Ministers of the vvord, Sacraments, and Censures of the Church: 2. Any that will may without a calling take vpon him to be a publque Officer in the Church: 3. Women may baptise, or administer the Lords supper: 4. The Iewish, Romish, or Heathenish Priesthood may be retained: 5. Auricular confessiō may be vsed: 6. The Keyes of the king­dome [Page 32] of heauen may be appropriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Pre­late of Canterbury, or any other whōsoever: 7. The Prelates and their Officials excōmunications do bind in heaven: 8. The Apocryphall books and Decretall epistles are Canonicall scriptures: 9. The Popes Portuis and the English book of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawfull worship of God: 10. The Prelates and Priestes are the true and lawfull Ministers of God: 11. Orders, Penaunce, Extreame vnction, Matrimony, &c. are the Sacramentes of the Church: 12. Surplus, Cope, Cap, Tippet, Rotchet, &c. are ornaments of the Ministery. 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 (you say) Christ hath left no ordinances written, certen, not perpetuall, but left them at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Is not this strange Diuinity?

Yet you stay not here neither, but as men that have bent their tongues like bowes for lyes, you feare not to adde further, that when the Church and Magistrate appointeth any ordinances (whether these or any other) touching the outward gouernement and ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them Christes owne, who hath left this liberty 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 you and your Assemblies thus holding, professing and practising (as here your self affirme) cannot in this estate by the word of God, be deemed true Christians and Churches?

6 Sixtly, you do yet further seek shifts and would colour the matter, by pretending That the things which concerne outward gouernement and ce­remonies, are not of the foundation simply. But this will help you no more then the other. For first we aske, are they of the foundation at all, though not simply? If they be, then seing they are not written, nor cer­ten, nor perpetuall (as here by you is affirmed) it will follow that neither the whole foundation is written, certen, or perpetuall, neither the Apo­stles were faithfull and skilfull maister builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this word (simply) added, as if you granted they were of the foundation, though not simply.

Secondly we aske, whether the outward gouernement and ceremo­nies ordained by Christ for his Church vnder the Gospell, be not of the foundation, asmuch as the outward gouernemēt and ceremonies ap­pointed by Moses for the Church vnder the Law? Or if they be, whether they are not as faithfully set downe by Christ, as the other were by Mo­ses, and as carefully to be observed by vs, as the other were by the Iewes: or rather more, inasmuch asHeb. 3.2.3. Christ the Sonne is worthy of more glory and honour then Moses the seruant.

Thirdly we aske, what fundamentall poinctes Moses and Aaron with the rest of the Iewes ioyning with them held, thatNum. 16. chap. Corach, Dathan, A­biram, [Page 33] and their cōpanions held not: differing frō them and erring onely touching the Priesthood and Ministery, which concerned the outvvard or­ders and gouernemēt of the Church. Was therefore Corah, Dathan, A­biram, and their companie in that estate the true Israell of God? Or were not the other truthes they held, by this meanes frustrate and of none ef­fect vnto thē? Nay, were they not therefore vvholy to be separated from, and left to the iudgment of God, which overtook them and all that ioy­ned vnto them? Yet was their error onely in matters of order and out­vvard gouernement of the Church. This may serve to convince your vn­true assertions in this place. To that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c is aunswered before.

For conclusion I adde concerning this poinct, That all such assem­blies and people, as hold professe and practise (as doth the Church of Eng­land) these abominations following: can not by the word of God, be e­steemed in such estate truely to holde Christ, their Prophet, Priest & King: viz. 1. The confusion of all sortes of people (though never so wicked) and their seed in the body of the Church: 2. The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then Iesus Christ: also of Archdeacons, Priestes, halfe Priestes, Parsons, Vicars, &c. 3. The entrance into the Ministe­ry by another way, and other Lords, then Iesus Christ: 4. The ex­ecuting of it vnder these strange Lords, and leaving it at their pleasure: 5. The preaching of the word, administration of the Sacraments, and governing of the Church, by vertue of the offices and callings aforesayd, and according to the Popish Canons and constitutions: 6. The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their Officialls: 7. The confounding of Civill and Ecclesiasticall offices and authority in the Ministers of the Church: 8. The forbidding of Mariage at certen sea­sons: 9. The imposing and vsing of stinted deuised Leiturgies: The English Portuis, taken out of the Popes Latine one, word for word, (saue that a few of the grosest things are left out) yet keeping the same frame and order of Collects, Psalmes, Lessons, Pater nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Persicles, Respondes, &c. 10. Appointing holy daies to all Sainctes and Angels, to the Virgin Mary, Iohn Baptist, Mark, Luke, and twelue Apostles severally: 11. togeather with Fastes on the Evens and on Ember dayes, Fridayes, Saturdayes, and Lent: 12. Prescri­bing the Ministers to pray over the dead, over the Corne and Grasse at some season of the yeare, and over Women at their Churching or puri­fication: 13. Enioyning them to marry with the King, which they make a sacramentall signe: 14. And to Baptise with the signe of the Crosse; with Godfathers and Godmothers; with questions demaunded of the infant that cannot speake nor vnderstand: 15. Giving power to Womē to baptise: 16. And ordaining that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they received their maker; and with change of the words of Christes institution, taking in steed of them the wordes of the Popes Masse book, translated into English, &c. [Page 34] Finally, the vpholding of these and all such amongst them onely by car­nall weapons, of imprisonment, death, confiscation of goods, bānish­men, and such like. The Assemblies and people (I say) which hold pro­fesse and practise (as doeth this Church of England) the abominations aforesayd (concerning the outward order and gouernment of the Church) whatsoever trueths they hold besides, yet can they not by the word of God be deemed truely to hold the Lord Iesus, their Prophet, Priest & King, in such constitution of a Church. Neither therefore can they in this estate by the vvord of God be accounted true Christians, nor the true constituted Churches of Christ. And this is all the question between vs.

7. Lastly, let the godly and indifferent Reader iudge, whether it will 7 not follow vpon your aunswer in this place: First, that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the building vp and guidance of the Church here on earth. Which is contary to 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1 Cor, 4.6. Rev. 22.18.19.

Secondly, that the man of God can not by the Scriptures be made absolute and fully furnished to euery good worke. Which is contrary to 2 Tim. 3.17. 1 Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Psal. 119.105.113.

Thirdly, that Christ himselfe (in vvhome the treasures of vvisdome and knovvledge are hid, yet) was so foolish carelesse and vnfaithfull, as having an house and kingdome (which is his Church) he hath not in his word appointed vnto it any Offices, Lawes, and Orders, for the due governing and ordering thereof. Which is contrary to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1.2.3. Esay. 33.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. Rom. 12.3.4.5.6.7.8. Mat. 28.20. 1 Tim. 6.13.14.15.

Finally, that the Hierachy, Worship, Sacramēts, Traditions, Canons, and vvhatsoeuer constitutions of Antichrist (concerning the outvvard or­ders and gouernement of the Church) being appointed by the Church and Magistrate, are to be accounted Christes ovvne. (Which is contrary to 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. Psa. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Rev. 9.1.2.3. & 14.9: 11.)

O shameles impietie. This doubtles is that strange passion and meere desperatenes, wherewith you do hereafter vniustly charge vs: which we will not here prosecute as it deserveth: but exhort you onely to take heed least that vvo come vpon you which is written: VVoe vnto them that speake good of euill, and euill of good: which put darkenes for light, and light for darknes: that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. VVo vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes, and prudent in their owne sight. Esay. 5.20.21.

H. Iacob his 2 Reply to the 2. Excep. IN this your defence of your second Exception, it pittieth 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 out Prophet, Priest and King, & if we professe to obey him in his ordinances & in no other. I ansvvered [Page 35] vve do cōstantly professe so, & as vve professe so vve practise. But to make our profession and practise in this poinct more manifest, I noted hovv our state meaneth Christ to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, and hovv he is to be o­beyed: viz. That the vvritten vvord ought of necessity to shevv vs our in­vvard and meer spirituall beleif and obedience. As for the outvvard Church order, our state holdeth that it is arbitrary to be appoincted and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magistrate, And that the worde no vvhere forbiddeth this libertie: Where note in this explication tvvo thinges.

First, it is foule vvrong to our Churches and to my vvordes, to say as you do, That they meane, no outward orders at all, be matters of faith, or constant in the Scriptures. Nay it vvas neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray, to administer Sacraments &c. though external, yet are perpetuall things and necessarie and vnchangea­ble by the Scriptures. My expresse vvords, 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 onely, and absolute King and Prophet neuerthelesse. Whosoeuer doth vrge vpon our Churches further, or on my wordes; doth slaunder and cauill, and malitiously depraue them and nothing else.

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

You adde a clause, They that professe and practise 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 now, Yea betwene your owne lately, and ours novv, speake out vvhat is it? You can imagine none but this. Those good men Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. and your selfe of late, held these very same errors of the outvvard Church order vvhich vve do: But they and you, did (it seemeth) of simplicity, vve malitiously, they of ignorance, vve of plaine obstinacy, and hauing a convicted and seared conscience: vvhereby, they and you might be true Christians for all these errors, but vve novv can­not be so. If this be your meaning, then you graunt vs our Assumption, a­gainst vvhich all your dispute here is bent. You graunt it I say, That the [Page 36] whole doctrine, as it is by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian. Secondly we now erre not in these poincts of simplicity, 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 know euery mans hart and conscience so well? If you do, 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, whome you dare say are convicted in conscience. That is much also to affirme. But if you do, 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 cheifest in authority, that were conuicted in conscience, that he was the Christ, who blasphemed in denying him, and yet the Assēblies then were 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 Replie: That euery soule in England is conuicted in conscience.

But here I maruaile that you say, Maister Hus and other of the holy Martirs did heare and say Masse till their dying day, Also that others did acknowledg the Popes supremacie. I aske you, do 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 therein are found errors plain­ly fundamentall, which of themselues abolish from Christ; They are not to be compared to our publique errors 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 thereof, as the Popish Doctors do set it downe; Then verily neither were they any Martirs. The book of Acts and Monu­ments whither you send vs, affirmeth not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort. It may be therefore they held many and greeuous errors of ignorance, both in the Popish Masse & in the supremacy, which might neuerthelesse stand with Christ crucified, And so they might be and 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 sayd before in the beginning of your defence of this Excep­tion,pag. 29. That Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and the rest of the Martirs then, neither had them­selues, 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 knowne falshoods. Did not Maister Cranmer hold him selfe for Archbishop still, and that he vvas by the Pope vniustly and vnsuffi­ciently deposed, and by Queene Mary forcibly restreined from it? Did he euer repent of holding that Office till his death? Also did not Ridley stand vpon his right to the Bishopricke of London though ready to dye? Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Ministery, and neuer repented him of it. Philpot neuer misliked his Archdeaconry: Yea vvhen he [Page 37] refused bloudy Bonner, yet he appealed to his ordinary the Bishop of Win­chester. The like minde is to be seene in Bishop Farrar. And generally vvhosoeuer vvere Ministers then of the Prelates ordination, they neuer re­nounced it, though they dyed Martirs. Thus appeareth your bold vntruth in this behalfe.

Further in your Sixt ansvver Pag 32. First you vvill not see vvhat I meane in saying, That these outvvard orders be not of the foundation simply: I meant, not at all of the very1 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 aunsvver, neither vvere the Ievves outvvard orders of the very foundation, vvithout vvhich they could not be saued. Thirdly you aske how Corah &c. differing from Moses and Aaron only about the Priesthood and Ministery, were separated from, and damned. I annsvver, not that the matter vvas fundamentall, but the manner vvas rebel­lious, vvith consciences a thousand times conuicted, and so donne vvith a high hand against God himselfe.

But novv this considered, Hovv vainely doe you charge me in your en­trance into this Exception pa. 29. That I and others of my mind, goe about to iustifie these matters of order in controuersie, by Cranmer, Ridleys and Latimers example, and their congre­gations then. For shame do you not see the contrary, that I call them errors. I onely iustifie by their example 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 vvhich I vvrot inIn the next treati [...]e fol­lovving, of the compa­rison of the Ministery vvith Mari­age. Auns. to your first Reason. another place.

Then in your first aunsvver, Pag 30. Hovv vainely do you aske vs for Scri­ptures to proue these orders, seeing I expreslie called them errors. 1

The like in your Second, vvhere you load vp Scriptures to disproue them.2

Also thirdly, you charge an vnconscionable vntruth on me (if you meane this aunsvver vnto me) that I should graunt and cannot deny, that all outward ceremonies & 3 gouernement, are arbitrary at mans pleasure. I only said that our state holdeth that ge­nerall opinion, Not that I my selfe held it. If you meane them, vvrite to thē, and speake to them: if you meane me, you do me foule iniury.4

Fourthly, whether they are Popish shiftes or no, let our state, vvhich maintaineth these things, aunsvver you.

Your Fift is aunsvvered in the first poinct of my explication noted before 5 pag 35. To your Sixt in pag 32. vve aunsvvered before in the Second poinct 6 of my explication pag 35.

Your seuenth in pag 34. is also against the state of our Church, and not a­gainst 7 me.

Fr: Io. his Aunswer to M. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 2. Excep. PItie not me, but pitie your self (Mr. Iacob) and your Churches e­state. Your self, who are miserably weak, and yet foolishly wilfull: as all may see by this Reply. Your Churches estate, which is such, as by the word of God cannot be approved to have Christ your Prophet, Priest, and King

Therefore still you tell vs, your Church holdeth Christ to haue left writ­ten [Page 38] what is needfull for your inward and meer spirituall belief and obediē ­ce: but that for the outward Church-order, he hath not so done, but left it arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated agayne at the liking of the Chur­che and Magistrate. As if Christ had abolished theExod. 20.4.5.6. second cōmādement, which directly concerneth the outward worship and order of the Church, as theExod. 20.3. first doth our inward and spiritual belief. Or as if the Scripture did not every where teach thatCol. 2.3.5.8.19-23. Esa. 33.22. Heb. 3.1.2.3. 2 Ioh ver. 9. Epist. to Timoth. Tit. Cor. &c. he hath fully furnished the Church, not onely for inward faith; but also for outward order and obediēce. Eyther therefore you must approve the outward order and worship of your Church to be ordeined by Christ in his word: or els you have not him for your Prophet, Priest, and King, in that estate. Chuse which you will.

The liberty you speak of, is nothing els but a cloke of licenciousnes, or in deed meer Antichristian slavery, howsoeuer you account it liberty. That the word of God forbiddeth it, I have showed both here and in myPag. 30 former answer, against which you can say nothing. Now there­fore when this will not serue the turne, you begin to cōment and make notes vpon your owne explication, that is, to seek new shifts and eua­sions. Which yet are to no purpose at all, except against your self and your Church.

For the first, you say it is foule wrong to your Churches and to your words, to say, That they meane no outward orders at all be mat­ters of faith or constant in the Scriptures. If it be any wrong, it is done by your self. Are not these your owne words, towching your Churches opinion in yourPag. 28. former Reply, We hold Christs ordinance to be of two sorts, written or vnwritten: the first necessary, the second arbitrary, the first touching doctrine, that is, towching faith and the inward opinion onely &c. the second towching outvvard orders in the Church, vvhich are truly accounted Christs ovvne, though particularly deuised by the Chur­che: such vve hold all outvvard gouernement and ceremonies, because they be not simply of the foundation, neyther vvritten, nor certaine, nor perpetuall &c. How say you to these words, All outvvard gouernement and ceremonies? Are they not your owne? And is it not your Churches opinion, by your owne saying? Have I then gathered or written o­therwise, then your self affirme your Church holdeth? If I haue, then lay your words and myne together, and let them speak for both. If not, let the Reader iudge whether you haue not done me foule vvrong, and (if there be any to your CHVR [...]ch) whether your self have not committed it. Quitte your self of it, as well as you can.

Besides, you forget your self wondrously, and speak things contradi­ctory. For now speaking of your Churches opinion and your owne words, you say, it vvas neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray, to admi­nister Sacraments &c. though externall, yet are perpetuall things and ne­cessary and vnchangeable by the Scriptures. Yet before you told vs your Church holdeth all outvvard gouernement, ceremonies, orders to be [Page 39] vnvvritten, vncertaine, not perpetuall, but arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magistrate. Eyther there fore to preach, to pray, to administer Sacraments &c. are not out­ward, neyther concerning the governement, ceremonies, nor orders of the Church: or els without question youMendatem oportet esse memo [...]em. forget your self straungely, and speak daggers, which runne into your owne bowels.

But to take that which now the euidence of the truth hath wrung frō you: seing to preach, to pray, to administer Sacraments, though externall, yet are perpetuall necessary and vnchangeable by the Scriptures, you must eyther from the Scriptures show that you haue these according to Christs ordinance, or els yeeld that your practise is contrary to the professing of Christ for your Prophet Priest and King, to be obeyed in his ovvne ordinance onely and no other: And consequently that the Assū ­ption of your mayne Reason is false. Which is to yeeld the cause.

And mynd withall, thatEph. 4.11. and 6.18. Rom. 12.7.8. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. c. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5.17.8.6.13.14. Mat. 2 [...].19.20. 1 Pet. 5.1-4. Heb. 3.1.2.3 Christs ordinance is not onely for these things to be done, but for the offices wherein, and the manner whereby they are to be performed. If you wil not beleev me nor the Scriptures alled­ged, yet heare your owne men what they teach in this poynt. Mr. Cartvvright saith,T. C. first, Rep. pag. 83 God hath not onely ordeyned that the vvord should be preached, but hath ordeined also in vvhat order and by vvhom it should be preached. And againe speaking of the Iewes Church he saith, as it vvas not lavvfull to bring in any strange doctrine: so vvas it not lavvfull to teach the true doctrine vnder the name of any other function then vvas instituted by God.

The Admonitions, Counterpoyson, Demonstration, and many other your writings affirme the same both for preaching and Sacraments and other points of the outward order and governemēt of the Church. And now I remember my self, your self have confessed itPag. 19 before in playne termes, when you graunt it is Christs ordinance to have a true Pastor to a faithfull people: and would have vs beleev that it is false to say, you preach in straunge functions, or have not the Sacraments duly ministred, etc. I hope therefore in your next we shal have proof, not that you have Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments (which we know the Papists also and Anabaptists haue) but that you have them in those offices, and after that maner, which Christ hath ordeined.

Now where you say, your expresse vvords and Churches meaning is that Any reasonable kind of Church gouernement, rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor vvritten in the Scriptures: And yet still Christ to be your onely and absolute King & Prophet neuertheles. For answer hereof, besides that already brought, I will say no more to this Popish assertion but onely inferre herevpon as followeth:

But the Church-governement, rites, and orders which Christ in his Ttestament hath ordeyned vnchangeably, are a reasonable kinde of Church-gouernement, rites, and orders:

[Page 40]Therefore these so vnchangeably ordeined by Christ, yet (by your owne expresse words and your Churches meaning) are arbitrary and chā geable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures. And yet (for­sooth) Christ is still your onely and absolute King and Prophet neuerthe­les. Let vs now see Mr. Iacob, what aunswer you will make herevnto, without sclandering, cavilling, and malitious depraving.

The second note in your explication is, that you say, you justifie not the aforesayd opinion of your State. But how then do your book and the title of it agree? Nay how do your selfe and that title agree, when you wil not defend that which is the very point of the cōtrouersie between your Churches and vs? Was there euer a more absurd defence heard of? But now leaving your Church in the briers, yet speak for your self. How do you Mr. Iacob hold Christ your Prophet Priest and King, when seeing your Church to erre in so many and so waightie pointes, and that so as you can not iustifie: yet you haue not all this time admonished them, and by due order either brought them to repen­tance, or left them as obstinate in sinne and wilfully disobeying the voice of Christ?

Where you say, that thus to beleev and practise (as your Church doth) simply, destroyeth no mans saluatiō in Christ: you take that for graunted, which you should proue. Besides that the Papists, Anabaptists, and others may say as much for other outward things among them. Yea no doubt but Ieroboam him self and his Priests and people said like­wise, that for Ierusalē to be the place, and the sonnes of Aaron the Priestes and such like, these were outward things, and not to obserue them or to beleev otherwise then Iudah did concerning them, simply, destroied no mans saluation in Christ. Was this therefore a sound defence of their apostasie? Or might any vnder such pretence have continued and joined with them therein?

Of your second generall point, and so of Mr. Cranmer Ridley, &c. I haue spoken before. But now because you bid me speak out what difference I put between your Churches and the Martyrs, as also be­tween you and my self holding these things of late with you: hearken, and I will tell you againe. First for the Martyrs in former times, mark these differences.

Differences betvveene the Martirs and Church of Engl.1. Greater light of the truth is now come into the world, then was in those daies: but you loue darkenes rather then light. For still you walk in darknes. Ioh. 3.19. Ephes. 5.11.

2. They witnessed against the abominations of Antichrist (then cal­led in question) to the losse of their libertie and lives: Your Church doth not so against the remnants of Poperie (now cōtroverted) but do either openly defend them, or fearefully submit vnto them.

3. They consisted not of swarmes of Atheists, adulterers, drunkards and all sorts of people good and bad, even knowen wicked ones, mixed together in one body: as your Church doth.

[Page 41]4. Such of them as were Ministers were degraded from their Anti­christian functions: so are not yours.

5. They died not members of Antichrists Church, nor for any error they held, but for the truth: You stil remaine members of Antichistian Churches, both withstanding the truth and maintaining errors.

6. They were and died members of a true visible Church (viz: that persecuted Church in Queen Maries daies) which was separated from the rest of the Land as from the world, and ioyned together in fel­lowship of the Gospell by voluntary submission therevnto: though in that time of ignorance they had their wants and errors. You continew members of a false constituted Church, vnseparated from the world, yeelding subiection to Antichristian enormityes, against the ordinances of Iesus Christ.

7. They refused not the truth offred, neyther resisted those that did iustly reprove theyr errors: but your Church doth both, as appeareth by your continuall practise, and by the books and Acts of Parliament made openly and with authority against vs for witnessing the truth.

8. Your Prelats, Priests, and people (that is, your Churches) in your estate, are no Martyrs, but children of them which killed the Martyrs, and do at this day fill vp the measure of your forefathers, persecuting to death such as haue the testimony of Iesus. This did not the Martyrs.

Are not you then the men that white the toombes of the Martyrs which were in former tymes: and yet your selves imprison, banish, and kill the witnesses of Iesus that are among you at this day? Take heed you hearden not your hearts, but tremble at your fearefull estate, and please not your selues in vnrighteousnes (by the error of any) neither blesse your selves still in iniquitie. Hitherto of the difference between the Martyrs and your Churches.

Now for my self, I confesse (as I didPag. 8. before of the Martyrs) that whiles I was Minister and member of your Church in that constitu­tion, I stood in Antichristian estate. Yet doubt I not, but euen then, being of the elect of God, I was partaker through faith of the mercy of God in Christ to saluation. And this I hope is the case of divers a­mong you. But for my self, I haue now the more assurance, in that God hath both drawen me out of that Antichristian estate, giuing me to see and to forsake it, and hath planted me in his true Church and household giuing me to receiue his truth in much affliction with ioy of the holy Ghost. 1 Thes. 1.6.

But as for you in your estate, besides that yet you are not members of any true visible Church, you do moreover abide in grosse confusion, false Ministery, Antichristian worship, and other abominations, by the word of God already discovered. Now whiles you thus remaine, you cannot in that estate approve your selves to have the promise of salua­tion, whereof by the word of God you can be assured, vntill you depart [Page 42] outRev. 18.4.5 Act. 2.40.47. Micah. 2.10. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Ephe. 2.12.19. of that Babylō, and save your selues from that froward generatiō: being also by the Lord added to his true Church. Which mercy I hope God daily doth and will vouchsafe many among you, belonging to his election.

Thus you see, how notwithstanding any thing we eyther do or can acknowledge touching the Martyrs or ourselves heretofore, yet still we affirme and prove your estate to be Antichristiā. So far are we frō graunting your Assumption, as here you fancy with your self.

Your vaine questions, Whether your whole assemblyes; all and eve­ry of your assemblyes? erre of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conscience? whether we know the heart and conscience of men, &c. How fond and fri­uolous are they? All of you erre by your owne graunt. Whether any of you do it with a convicted conscience, let God iudge who knoweth the heart. Your self it seemeth deny not this to be the case of some among you. Howsoever, seeing you confesse that you erre, why do you and the rest being so perswaded stil abide in error? Is it because youIoh. 3.19. love dark­nes more then light? Or becauseAct. 28.26 27. when you see, yet you wink with your eyes, least you should convert to the Lord, and be healed? If you would not leaue such as you imagine see it not: how wil you ever know whether they that refuse, do see it, or not? And why have you not al this time made it knowen to them, and donne what lyeth in you to draw them from er­ror? Or having done it, and finding them obstinate in evill, yea persecu­ters of the truth revealed: why have you not (after theAct. 2.40.41. & 13.45.46.51. & 18.6. and 19.9. & 28.24. &c. example of the Apostles) separated from such and taught others to do the like? Above all, why plead you for their estate to be good, warrantable, in the way of salvation, notwithstanding their errors and abominations? Is not this to dawbe with vntempered morter? Is it not to prophesie peace to the wicked, and to promise them life? to sow pillowes vnder their el­bowes, and to strengthen their hands in evill, that they should not re­turne from their wicked way? Ier. 23.16.17. Ezech. 13. Chap. Mal. 2.17.

Where you say, if we knew some convicted in conscience, yet it serueth not our turne, vnles all be so conuicted: sure you mind not what you speak. Did Christ ever give such a rule to his Church? Or should there ever be Church separated from the world, if this course were kept? Besides, what meane you by all being convicted? Whether all in a house, or all in a towne, or all in a kingdome, or all in the world? Whether all of echser, men and women; of all ages, yong and old; of all estates, hy and low, rich and poore, bond and free, &c. What also by being convicted? Whe­ther when sufficient is showed to convince men, though they see it not? or when they see it, yet acknowledg it not? or when they see and acknow­ledg it, yet notwithstanding persist in their former estate? or if vnto all these they adde the persecuting also of such as do convince them?

Now when you have showed, how your self vnderstand, and how we are to walke in these, according to the Scriptures, from point to point: [Page 43] then applie herevnto your example of Christ here alledged, and see if you do not abuse it. Mind withall, that if you say, Christ knew this as he was God, you speak nothing to the question, which is how men must walk toward men. If you say, he knew it as he vvas man, then must you prove, 1. that these Iewes were convicted in conscience that he was the Christ, and yet denied and blasphemed him: 2. that Christ knew this as he was man: 3. that still he joyned in spirituall communion with them thus convicted: 4. that the estate of your Ministers and people is such as theirs was then, as touching a true Ministerie and constitution of the Church: 5. that the same rules and proceeding is to be vsed to­ward your Church and members thereof (afore they can be separated from) that was to be vsed toward that Church and People at that time.

Mind also, that the Apostles preaching to the Iewes, though they knew not who were convicted in conscience, who not: yetAct. 2. et 13. et 17. et 18. et 19. chap vpon their re­fusall of the truth offred, did separate from all where they were. And so Christ before had required them to do. Mat. 10.14.

Finally mind, that mens consciences are blind, ignorant, corrupt, and the heart of man deceitful and wicked above all things. Who can know it, but the Lord only which searcheth the heart and trieth the reines, to give every man according to his waies, according to the fruit of his works? Ier. 17.9.10.

It is erroneous therefore (to hold as you do) that we may not sepa­rate, till we know all to be convicted in their conscience. If this were to be done, then neither separation from any people, neither any true Churches should ever be vpon the earth: because such conviction can never be either knowen of men, or had in the world. It doth and must suffice vs, that the truth on the one hand, and the errors on the other be made knowen and convicted, that is, be layd open and proved from the word of God, by the testimonie of his servants: and that we see men by words or workes refuse the truth and imbrace error, and so judg them­selves vnworthy of euerlasting life.

Thus for your Churches (M. Iacob) it sufficeth vs, that in your Hie­rarchy, Leiturgy, and confusion of people, they be proved the daughters of Babylon that mother of whoredomes. Out of which God hathRev. 18.4. & 17.5. vve Ezec. 16.44. char­ged all his people (without exception or delay) presently for to depart. If you or any other will not obey this commaundement of God, but will still partake in the sinnes of your worship and Ministery: what is it to vs? We must follow Christ,Heb. 5.9. who is made author of saluation to such onely as obey him. Neither may weIer. 15.19. returne vnto you, but we must waite till God bring you to vs, and make you partakers of the same grace in Christ.

Of your third generall point (here idly mentioned and absurdly ga­thered) I have spoken before. Pag. 8.

Next instead of aunswering, you fall a marveling: because I say, Mr. [Page 44] Hus and other of the holy Martyrs did heare and say Masse to their dying day, and some of them also acknowledg the Popes supremacy. But why do you not also marvell, that I sayd divers of them acknowledged, some the Popes calling, some 7 Sacraments, some Purgatory, some Auricu­lar confession, and such like grieuous errors? For these I ioyned with the other, and of them you speak not a word. Belike you thinke they may stand with the Gospell wel inough: and if your Church had retained or now should resume them againe, you would judg of them as of the other corruptions remaining among you.

Yet mind withall, 1. that thus you make a way for mo popish enor­mities to be mainteined and to prevaile apace in your Church, asHovv say you to those Popish doc­trines novv spreading a­mong you, of Christes soule descē ­ding into Hel. of free­vvill &c. begin­neth alredy very fast. 2. And that you can no better nor otherwise defend your present Church-estate, then you could, if it also retayned seven Sa­craments, Purgatory, Auricular confession, &c. Let the Reader observe this. And beware you in time, least a wo come vpon you for such hal­ting and pleading for Baall.

Now for your marvelling at me for saying thus of Mr. Hus and other the Martyrs: I aske you, Saith not the book of Acts and Monuments the same? yea, say not the Martyrs thus much of themselves? Why do you not then marvell also at them? For these particulars it were needles to go through all the historie of the Martyrs: specially seeing they are so plainly noted in their stories, and every where among you the books are in your hands. Yet because Mr. Hus is here spoken of by name, and you are not far frō rasing him out of the nūber of the Mar­tyrs: I will first note some particulars concerning him, and then cleare him and the rest from your rash condemnation.

In the historie of the Martyrs before mentioned, we find that Iohn Hus vnto his death held, 1.Act. and Monu. edit. 5. pag. 561. seven Sacramēts; 2.Ibid. pag. 581. a. 584. b the Popes office, and the authority of the Church of Rome; 3.Ibid. p. 566 b. et 574. Auricular cōfession to Priests, and was himself (a little before his death) confessed and absolved by a Monke; 4.Ibid. p. 577 a. et 581. a. said Masse himself; 5.Ibid. p. 546 held that the substance of the bread was altered into the body of Christ, and that Christs body which was borne of the virgin Mary, is really and totally in the Sacrament of the Altar; with other the like popish opinions. Now you (Mr. Iacob) sticke not vpon some of these to inferre, that then surely neither Hus nor any of the rest that so held and did, vvere holy Martyrs. Your reason is, because therein are found errors plainely fundamētall vvhich of them selues abolish from Christ. Among which no doubt but you reckon the Masse and transubstantiation specially.

Thus haue you cleane put out Maister Hus and other the servants of Christ (faithfull in that which they saw) from being any longer in the Catalogue of the Martyrs, or accounted true Christians. May I not then iustly returne vpon your self your owne saying, Is this you that vvhite the toombes of the Martyrs, and yet in fine condemne them for no true Christians, for no holy Martyrs?

[Page 45]But you say, the book of Acts and Monuments vvhither I send you, affir­meth, not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort. Let the book it self speak for vs both. In the end of Iohn Hus his storie, thus it saith,Act and Mon. edi [...]. 5. p. 581. [...] He neither denied their popish transubstantion; neither spake a­gainst the authority of the Church of Rome, if it vvere vvell governed; nor yet the 7. Sacraments; and also sayd Masse himself; and almost in all their po­pish opinions vvas a Papist vvith them. Thus hath that book, word for word. What say you now vnto it? What think you of these parti­culars? and of that conclusion, that not onely in these but almost in all their opinions He vvas a Papist vvith them?

Againe in the same book, Hierom of Prage (another Martyr) speaking of Iohn Hus saith,Ibid. pag. 584. b. he never maintained any doctrine against the Church of Rome, but onely spake against their naughty life. To which purpose may be minded also, that the Hussites in Bohemia (so called to this day for fol­lowing Iohn Hus) are for trausubstantiation and most of the popish errors and worship, as grosse as the Papists themselves.

And (to give an instance of our owne countreymen) the same history speaking of Thomas Bilney who was burnt at Norwich, hath thus, Ibid. pa. 921. b. As touching the Masse and Sacrament of the Altar, as he never varyed frō himself, so he never differed therein frō the most grossest Catholicks. Mark these words, he differed not therein from the most grossest. How now will this and your speach agree, who blush not to say, that the book of Acts and Monuments affirmeth not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort?

Besides this bold vntruth of yours, let the Reader mind, how plaine­ly you insinuate, that if your Church had the Masse and the Popes supre­macy, so it were not in the largest and grossest sort, you could defend their case aswell then as you do now, by bearing the world in hand, that these things might stand vvith Christ crucified, &c. Let the Reader mind and remember it. I say no more.

It remaineth that now I cleare M. Hus and the rest of the Martyrs from your rash censure. You judge, if any of them held any errors that be fundamentall, they are no holy Martyrs, but abolished from Christ. This I denie. And you to proue it, should from the Scriptures have show­ed first, what it is to be fundamētall or of the foundation: then, that who­soever holdeth such error is abolished from Christ. But you have done neither. I know that here and everie where you give vs your bare word, and obtrude vnto vs your owne fancies. But your words are no Oracles, nor your fācies rules for any to follow. Handle these things therefore more soundly in your next. And what you speak, speak it frō the word of God. In the meane time for better clearing of the truth and Martyrs, I will show you my mind: being ready notwithstanding to heare any that can show better from the word of God. And so I pray you take this and all my writings.

First, the word foundation is vsed in the scripture, and therefore is of [Page 46] vs to be considered divers waies. One is, in respect of God and his e­lection;Of the foun­dation, and fundamental points. or of his Church and people called and sanctified in Christ. 2. Tim. 2.19. Psal. 87. Pro. 10.25. Another is, in respect of the onely ground of all true faith and Churches, which is Iesus Christ; or of the first principles and speciall heads of Christian religion. Mat. 16.15.16.17.18. 1 Cor. 3.11. Esa. 26.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. with Heb. 6.1.2. A third is, in respect of the Apostles and Prophets doctrine concerning Christ; or of our receiving it and building therevpon. Ephes. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. 1 Cor. 3.10-15. 1 Pet. 2.7.8. Luk. 6.48.49.

Now which way soever you take it, there is no question but the Mar­tyrs, although they erred (through ignorance of that time) in some waightie points of Christs Religion (which you call fundamentall) yet were notwithstanding holy Martyrs. For touching the first of the exceptions aforesaid, Gods foundation remained sure and sealed vnto them; so as the Lord knew them to be his, and they also were sanctified both to witnes vnto death the truth then called in question, and to de­part from the contrarie iniquitie. Touching the second and third, they both beleeved in Iesus Christ, as it pleased God to reveale him in their age by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles; and they built firmely there­vpon (not stumbling at the word and disobeying it, as is the manner of most now a daies, but) obeying and holding it forth vnto death. So as when the stormes and floods of persecution beat vpon them, they were not shaken from the truth they testified, but remained constant to the end: even when the politick Statutes of Princes; the subtill argu­ments of the learned; the earnest perswasion of their friends; the great losse of their goods, liberty, estimation in the world; finally the most cruell vsage and tirannie of the Adversaries; as it were so many waves and tempests, stronglie assailed to drive them a contrarie course. Thus were they faithfull to God, and loved not their lives vnto death as their Martyrdome proclaimeth to all the world: howsoever you could be con­tent it seemeth (for any the more advantage to your selves) to lay their honour in the dust.

Secondly in this question we are to discerne, betweeen the errors them selves, and between the persons that hold them. The errours may in their nature be fundamentall (as you speak:) and yet the persons erring therein (of ignorance, not striving against the light revealed, but inde­voring to walk faithfully in the truth they see) may through Gods mer­cie in Christ be saved. For example, some of the Corinthians that de­nied1 Cor. 15.12 the resurrection of the body, and some of the Galatians that erred aboutGal. 4.9.10.21. & 5.2.3.10. and 6.12.13.15. Circumcision & the Law, although the errors were in their owne nature fundamentall (as you will not deme,) yet might they that dyed in them, before Paules epistles came to those Churches thereabout, be saved of God: As we1 Cor. 11.30.31.32. read that some were dead and chastised of God a­about their abuse of the Sacrament, yet not condemned with the world.

Likewise of Abijah the sonne of Ieroboam that made Israell to sinne, [Page 47] the1 King. 14.1.13. Scripture recordeth that God shewed him mercie, because in him was found some goodnes toward the Lord God of Israell. Where marke those words, some goodnes. By which appeareth, that although he were as the rest in that generall apostasie of Israell (which your self ac­count fundamētal) yet having some goodnes in him towards the Lord, he found mercie at his hands.

Furthermore at this day, concerning the errors of the Lutherans a­bout cōsubstantiation and the person of Christ; of the Anabaptists about Christs humanitie, and denying Baptisme to the seed of the faithfull; of the Papistes about trāsubstantiation, the Popes supremacie, &c. I sup­pose that you will graunt both that these errors be fundamentall (as touching the nature of the errors thēselves) and that yet notwithstāding God saveth some Lutherās, Anabaptists, Papists, erring in the points aforesaid.

If you denie it, let vs have a sound aunswer to that profession of the Papists touching Christs Mediation, which by themselves is mentio­ned in their Annotations vpon the new Testament: where they pro­fesse that they holdRhem [...] Annot. vp­on 1 Tim. 2.5. Christ by nature to be truely both God and man, to be that one eternall Priest and Redeemer, which by his sacrifice and death vp­on the crosse hath reconciled vs to God and payed his bloud as a ful and suf­ficient raunsome for all our sinnes, himself without need of any redempti­on, never subiect to possibility of sinning: againe, to be the singular Advo­cate and Patrone of mankind, that by himself alone and by his owne merites procureth all grace and mercy to mankind in the sight of his Father, none making any intercession for him, nor giuing any grace of force to his prayers but he to all: none asking or obteyning eyther grace in this life, or glory in the next, but by him. This doe even the Papists professe: which you are well to mind. Now though with it they hold divers fundamentall er­rors (as in that and other their writings may be seen) by which the multitude of them is turned out of the way of truth and salvation: yet doubt I not but by this faith God hath saved some of them (and mo at the first creping in of that Churches apostasie, then since) who in simpli­city so beleev as is here set downe, never hearing of the other opinions to be errors, nor withstanding any truth revealed vnto them. Now of the Lutherās and Anabaptists I hope so much the better, as they hold mo truths and fewer errors then the Papists.

But to let those alone, what say you to such of the Fathers of the Greek Church, as held Freewill, an errour whichD. VVhi [...]. book pa. 83. your selves teach and have published to be fundamentall and of it self damnable? Or rather what say you to the Israelites in Egypt, who though they wereExod. 4.22.23. Gods church, yet sinned in points (by your owne account) fundamentall, even with Ezech. 20.6.7.9. the Idols of Egypt? Will you say, they were all condemned?

Either therefore we must discerne between the errors themselves, what they are in their owne nature, being so considered; and between the per­sons holding them of ignorance and weaknes, what mercy God may [Page 48] shew them in Christ: or els you will cōdemne all of every Church where­soever any fundamentall errors have crept in, being through ignorance generallie received: and so inwrap the Martyrs in like condemnation with their persecutors. To give instance but of Iohn Hus, it cannot be denied but he and they who martyred him, agreed both in one touching the Masse, transubstantiation &c. Yet was Hus a faithfull witnes of Christ in the truth he saw, and his adversaries vassals of Antichrist that sonne of perdition.

This (I trust) will suffice for the present to cleare the Martyrs of that vniust condemnation which you insinuate against them. Now v­pon this occasion note also, that not onely some who erre in fundamē ­tall points, may be saved, as is proved alreadie: but1 Cor. 6.9.10. some who erre not in any fundamentall point (as you take it) yet shall perish notwith­standing. But of this see more hereafter in the handling of the 7. Rea­son following.

Further where I said, that when Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. dyed Martyrs for the truth of Christ, they neither had themselves nor joyned in communion with such as had the Prelacy and Ministerie now plea­ded for: You insult greatly, as if I spake knowen falshoods. But stay a while Maister Iacob: and see if it be not your self that make no consci­ence of vntruths. First, whyPag. 36. left you out those wordes of mine, when they dyed? Did you perceive that these words make the case plaine, and witnes the truth with me against your assertion? Or know you not that all the Martyrs then, were first excōmunicate out of that Church, and (if they were Ministers) degraded also from their Ministerie, afore they were put to death? Must it not needs then be true which I sayd, that when they dyed, they neither had nor ioyned in communion with such as had the Prelacy and Ministery now pleaded for? Yea, say not the Mar­tyrs themselves and the book of Acts and Monumēts as much? To name but one, Laurence Saunders, when the Bishop of London had dis­graded him, said vnto him,Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1301. [...]. I thank God, I am none of your Church. And this was the case of them al, being likewise dealt with, as that book wit­nesseth.

Your Exception, that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley stood vpon their right to their Bishopricks, is of no waight against that I sayd. It is not vnknowen, that men do often stand against the vniust dealing of their adversaries, in such things as notwithstanding they are willing inough to leave. Whether it were so or not with them, God knoweth. Of this I am sure, that where I spake of their not hauing, you do in your Reply in steed thereof speak of renouncing. And so you change my speach: Which is not good (though it be your vsuall) dealing. But yet by this appeareth that you can prove no vntruth in my speach, howsoever you pretend and would gladly do it. For if you could, what needed you so alter and pervert the sence of my wordes? And for my self, if I had meant that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley had renounced (as you pre­tend) [Page 49] I could have joyned them with others in the sentence going before where I spake of Mr. Latimers forsaking his Prelacy: which your self do here confesse to be true. Besides, I spake of the time when they dyed Martyrs, you of the time before that.

But now what will you say to Mr. Ridley, who (as theAct. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1604. a. storie witnes­seth) at his degradation being bid to put on the surplus, refused to do it: and when they did put it vpon him withThis vvas, because he had ben a popish priest al the trinckets appertaining to the Masse, did vehemently inv [...]y against the Romish Bishop and all that foolish apparell, calling him Antichrist, and the apparell foolish and abo­minable, yea to fond for a vice in a play? This giveth more evidence of renouncing, then of approving those things which before time he had liked to much. Yet I denie not, but even then he might be ignorant of the vnlawfulnes of the Prelacy, as since that time God hath revealed it by his word: and by that meanes (it may be) did like and stand for it more, then otherwise he either ought or would have done.

But you say, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelates ordination, they never renounced it, though they dyed Maryrs. If this were true and of waight, you might by the same reason as well plead for the Ro­mish Priests at this day as for your owne. You know that very many of the Martyrs were popish Priests. And if there were no other proof, even their degradation from that Priesthood doth testifie it. You might also thus plead for retaining and allowing of Monks and Fryars, because some of them have died Martyrs, and yet not renounced their callings and functions. This I alledgedIn the aun­svver to your 1. Replie to the 1 Reasō follovving. heretofore: but you cannot yet finde any leasure to aunswer it.

Yet now for that you speak here, what will you say toAct. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 934. a. such as being degraded of their Ministerie received from the Prelates, thanked God that they were delivered from the malignāt Church of Antichrist. Did they not by this and such like speach and cariage, noted in their stories, declare how willingly they left both that Church, Ministery, worship, and whatsoever belonged thereto? Although through ignorance of the time they saw not some things, wherein since their daies God hath gi­ven a greater light.

To end this point then, howsoever it be for their renouncing, certaine it is (as their stories show) that such of them as had receved Ministerie from the Prelates, were before their death not only excommunicate (as were the rest of the Martyrs) but degraded also from the functions and Ministerie they had received. So as it cannot but be, as I said, that when they dyed Martyrs they neither had nor ioyned with the Prelacy and Ministery now pleaded for. See theAct. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 895. b. 934. a. 1361. b. 1385. a. 1604. a. storie in the degrading of Richard Bayfield, Henry Forest, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Tailor, Mr. Ridley, &c. Thus the bold vntruth wherewith you charge me falsly, is returned iustly vp­on your owne head.

Next after this which was in the beginning of my defence (as your self have noted) you come to the sixt point of my aunsvver, passing by the [Page 50] other things which come between. Is this to reply soundly? Is this your worthy Confutation which your followers judge vnaunswera­ble? What (I pray) may be the cause why you snatch thus here a peece and there a peece, and prosecute not my aunswer in order from point to point, as I gave it? Is it because I handle things disorderly, or passe by any thing in your Reply vnaunswered? If I do, show it. But in deed, is it not because you are not able to reply against my aunswer, as it is given: and therefore are glad to lay hold, sometimes of one thing, sometimes of another, as you think you can best deale with; that so you may trouble the Reader, and seeme to say some thing, when in deed you say nothing at all? Let the Reader but well mind this Reply of yours, and then judge if ever he saw anie thing more raw, frivolous, cō ­fused, absurd. Yet such as it is, let vs see now what you say to that point of my aunswer whereof you speake next.

First you tell vs, that where you said before, the outward orders of the Church be not of the foundation simply, you meant, not at all of the verie foundation. I see your meaning now Mr. Iacob, which before I nei­ther did nor could. Sure you had need make a Commentarie vpon your Replie, if you expound your words euerie where, as you do here. But now that you have told vs your meaning, will you stand vnto it? Do you indeed by not simply meane not at all? Then marke what straūg assertions lurke in your writing, which before we could not perceiue. In one place you sayMr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 7. Reasō following., The Papists forbidding of marriage and meates, if they had done no worse, doth not make them departers from the faith: that is, not totally or (as you have it in the Margent) not fundamentally, not simply: And then you adde, No more could their Hierarchy and ceremo­nies simply. Now by your owne exposition, your meaning is, that none of these make them departers from the faith at all. For by not simply, you say you meane not at all. Thus you teach most shamefull false doc­trine, and make the holy Ghost a liar, who even1 Tim. 4.1.3. for these things saith, they do depart from the faith. Againe you say,Your 1. Reply to the 1. Reason following. The doctrine, Canons, Articles, Iniunctions, and practise of your Church do not ioyne togeather Christ and Antichrist simply: that is, not at all, by this your new coined meaning. And yet in the same place you confesse, they ioyne togeather Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. It is false then, that they ioyne not Christ and Antichrist at all, as by this inter­pretation must be your meaning. And even here a little before, you said Pag. 35. to beleeue & practise as your Church doth, for your Church-gouernemēt rites and orders, simply destroyeth no mans saluation in Christ: that is, by this exposition, not at all. But your Church so beleeveth and practiseth these things, as is derogatorie both to the office of Christ, the faithful­nes of the Apostles, and the perfection of the Scriptures; and such as do not so beleeve and practise, but witnes the truth against them, they im­prison, banish, kill, and thus become guiltie of innocent bloud. Yet you are bold to blesse your self, your whole Church, and greatest persecuters, [Page 51] in all these mischiefs: affirming that thus to beleev and practise, destroi­eth not at all any mans salvation in Christ. For when you say, not sim­ply, you will have vs vnderstand your meaning to be not at all. Yea you take it ill, because I will not see this to be your meaning. But now I doubt you will be more grieved, because I see it so well. Yet it were better Mr. Iacob, if in time you were grieved at your self, for vsing such vn­godly elusions to turne away the truth. See you not what pesriferous doctrine your Reply by this meanes yeelds euery where? Marvell not at it. It is just with God to make your owne pen the publisher of your owne follie and impietie, seeing you will needs plead for Antichrist a­gainst the cleare light.

But let vs come to examine the point it self. You say, the outward or­ders of the Church are not at all of the verie foundation. What say you then to that which is written Heb. 6.1.2. Doth not the Apostle, speaking thereHeb. 6.1.2 of his laying the foundation, mention in particular, the doctrine of Baptismes; and laying on of hands; besides repentance from dead vvorks, and consequently from mens traditions in Gods worship? How say you? Do not these concerne the outward orders of the Church? And doth not the Apostle reckon them with the rest there named in his laying of the foundation? I could also put you in mind, how it concerneth the Churches outward governemēt, vvhether the Pope be head of the church or Christ only: whether Circumcision be now to be observed, or not, &c. But these and the like I have mentioned before, and you I suppose will aunswer them at leasure.

Now where you quote some Scriptures in the margent, See also for this, in the Preface: Section, 3. it is to generall for your purpose. You must prove your assertion by them. Which yet you do not. When you goe about it, say if there be not of the foundati­on, not only the particulars in1 Cor. 15 2.3.4. Rom. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14. these Scriptures expressed, but many o­ther also here comprised, though not named in particular. As for exā ­ple, 1. that there is a God, and but one; 2. that there are three persons, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost; 3. that the Sonne, not the Father or holy Ghost, tooke vnto him our flesh; 4. that the true God alone must be worshipped, and that onely according to his word, and no otherwise; 5. that Christ as head and King of his Church hath given offices and ordinances for the work of the Ministerie, which are to con­tinew to the end of the world; 6. that he is to be obeyed therein vpon paine of damnation, and no other to be received; 7. that we must not only professe in word but practise indeed the commaūdements of Christ, whatsoever persecution follow thereon, &c. Tell vs (I say) whether these and the like, which other places of the word lead vs vnto, be not both of the foundation, and comprised in the Scriptures quoted by your self? How idly then and absurdly do you cite them here?

To give an instance, doth not the Apostle from the death of Christ (mentioned in these Scriptures) deduce in other places the necessity of our dying from the ordinances of the world, from the traditions of [Page 52] men, from voluntarie religion, finally from all dead works whatsoever, which he reckneth vp as a fundamentall point in that place to the He­brewes before alledged? Yea dothCol. 2.8.18.19.20. &c. he not from hence prove, that we cannot hold Christ the head, and increase with the increasing of God, if we will togeather with him retaine the traditions and precepts of men for the seruice of God? And are then no outward Church-orders of the foundation at all? We will look for your proof and aunswer hereof in your next.

In the second place I propounded two questions, vpon comparing togeather Moses and Christ. You aunswer not one worde to the latter. And in the former, you kepe not my words (which is a thing to commō with you) knowing belike that the weaknes of your aunswer would then the more readily have ben seen. My question was, vvhether the outvvard gouernement and ceremonies ordeined by Christ for his Church vnder the Gospell, be not of the foundation, as much as the outvvard go­vernement and ceremonies appointed by Moses for the Church vnder the Lavv? Your aunswer is, Neither vvere the Ievves outvvard orders of the very foundation, vvithout vvhich they could not be saved. But speak out man, were they of the foundation at all, or not? And when you have told vs this, then know for your learning (besides that alreadie spoken touching the foundation) that the outvvard orders, that is, the outward ordinances, ceremonies, and gouernement, which God prescribed to the Iewes, were vnto them so of the foundation and necessarie to be obser­ved, asDeut. 27.26. curse and death was threatned to all that brake them. Yea, severe punishment even vnto death was executed vpon the transgressors of such things as seemed but small: Levit. 10.1.2. 1 Sam. 6.19. and 2 Sam. 6.6.7. 2 Chron. 26.16.19. Now these things are written for our instruction, to admonish vs vpon whome the ends of the world are come. If yet notwithstanding you and your Church will presume o­therwise, be it at your perill. Our soules shall not enter into your se­cret.

The third question here was about Corah and his complices. Where­in in you deale as with the former, not keping mine owne words. It may be you thought by this meanes to hide the vanity of your aūswer. How­soever, al the aunswer you give to the severall branches of it, is only this, that they were separated from and damned, not that the matter vvas fun­damental, but that the manner vvas rebellious, vvith consciences a thousād times convicted, and so done vvith an high hand against God himself. But how prove you this which you say? And why aunswer you not to the severall points of the question, in order as they were propounded? It may be you will do this in your next. Then in the meane time know that even the matter wherein they sinned was fundamentall, if we consi­der it thus: Their sinne was, that not being Priests they would offer in­cense to God. Now the Priehstood and offering vp of incense led them as it were by the hand to the Priesthood and Intercession of Christ. Ei­ther [Page 53] therefore, you must denie Christs Priesthood and Intercession to be of the foundation, or els you must graunt they sinned in a matter in this respect fundamentall, that is, being thus considered. Yet it was (you see) touching the Priesthood and Minjsterie, which concerne the outward orders and governement of the Church. Thus al your defence falleth to the ground.

Touching the manner also, Corah and his complices had pretence for them selves aswell as your Prelates and Priests now have. Read and mind well what great reasons they pretend, Numb. 16.Num. 16.2.3 And see if you can shew any greater, yea or any the like for your selves. Then speak, whether that considered, it be not as hard for you to affirme them so convicted in conscience, as for vs to affirme it of you in England. And now that I mind it, let me aske of you (Mr. Iacob) in this case, as youPag. 36. erewhile did of me in your owne. Did their whole assemblies sinne thus? all and every of their assemblies? of wilfulnes and of a convicted consciēce? Are you sure of this? Do you know every mans hart and conscience so vvel? If you do, then you say somevvhat indeed. But you are then neere as vvise as God himselfe, to knovv mens hearts so perfectly, vvhose faces you never savv. &c. How like you now your owne manner of reasoning? Is it not verie proper think you, and to great purpose?

But perhaps you will say, the Scripture speakes asmuch as you do concerning them. If it do, why shew you not the places? Why prove you it not from thence? Nay then, what say you Mr. Iacob, to the litle children which perished in that cōdemnation, as theNum. 16.27.32. Scripture there witnesseth? Will you say that they in that action were so rebellious (as you speake of) with consciences a thousand times convicted? Or will you now confesse your Reply to be of no waight at all, save against your self?

To which end I wish both your self and the Reader to note (for a con­clusion) that here you graunt, even for outvvard orders of the Church, when men see the truth in their consciences and yet stand against it, the estate of such to be damnable. It is high time then for you M. Iacob and for D. B. who made the preface to your book, and for all such whose consciences are convicted of the Antichristianitie of your Prelates and the rest of your abominations (as divers times in this book your self accknowledge:) it is high time, I say, for you and all such to be war­ned by Corahs destruction. And we now have as good warrant (by your owne graunt) to separate from you and all such, as the Israelites had from Corah and his companie. Except peradventure you thinke the Ministerie and ordinances of Christ to be of lesse moment then those of Moses, or Christ the Sonne to be worthy lesse honour then Moses the servant. But see more yet hereof in the 6. Reason following.

After this you turne back to somewhat handled in the entrance of this Exception. Thus you runne in and out, a man cannot tell where to have you. For the point you speak of I leave it to the Reader to [Page 54] iudge, comparing your writing and mine togeather, whether I have not iustly charged you, for going about to iustifie your estate by the example of Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Now I am glad to see you acknowledge the matters controverted betweene vs to be your errours. For by this it followeth, that you see the contrarie truth, which discovereth these to be errours. And then your self (I trust) will not denie but that you are bound vtterlie to forsake these, and to walke in the truth revealed vnto you: vnles you had rather erre with Antichrist to destruction, then fol­low Christ to salvation.

But you trust it is sound, to iustifie by the example of the Martyrs, that these corruptions abolish not you from Christ, as theirs did not them. Nay Mr. Iacob, it is very vnsound for you or any the like to reason thus. For besides the many differences betwene you and the Martyrs alreadie declared: tell me your self, if the Hussites (so called) should at this day reason after this manner, viz. Although we retaine the Masse, transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, Auricular confession, and such like, yet these corruptions abolish vs not from Christ, any more then they did Iohn Hus and the other Martyrs that held and vsed them: If (I say) they should now reason thus for themselves, would not your self say, their reason were vnsound?

But further, if the Martyrs you speak of had seen these things to be errors, and continewed in them, pursued those that reproved them, and against the knowen truth sought to have dawbed vp their erroneous building, as you Mr. Iacob and the like among you do at this day: we could not then have so esteemed them as now we do. This therefore will help you nothing at all. We have better hope in this respect of such in England, as to this day have not discerned the Antichristian a­bominations among you, then of you and the like strugling Pharisees: for whome we feare it will be harder in the day of iudgment, then for them.

1 At length you come to look at my severall aūswers. To look at them, I say. For finding them all to heavie to lift, you leave them as you found them, that is, firme and strong against your Churches estate. For the first, you would in it deceaue the Reader, thus. In your former Re­plie to this Exception, you said,Pag. 28. you held Christs ordinances to be of two sorts, written or vnvvritten, the first necessary, the second arbitrary, &c. and that you thought no Scripture vvas against this, but rather for it. In my aunswer herevnto, first I asked,Pag. 30. vvhat Scripture you had for this: that is, for this opinion of yours touching Christs ordinances. Now so, besides that you bring no Scripture for it, you would make the Reader beleev, that I asked for Scriptures, to approve those orders vvhich you ex­presly called errors. But who seeth not that I demaunded Scripture, for that opinion of your Church, against which you were perswaded there was not any? And how then will those two stand together, vnles you would have vs thinke you are so sottish, as to beleeve there is no [Page 55] Scriptures against errors?

The like follie and evill dealing you shew againe in your Reply to the second. When you said, you thought no Scripture vvas against your 2 foresayd opinion of Christs ordinances, but rather for it: was it not meet, that of so many as are against it, I should at least mention some? Now it had ben your part either to have renoūced that false opinion, with ac­knowledgment that the Scripture is against it, or els to have aunswe­red the Scriptures by me alleadged. But I easily beleev they load you, and are to heavie for you to beare or withstand.

I [...] your Reply to the third, let all men iudge if you deale not exceeding 3 vnconscionably. Are not these your owne words which you vse in your first Reply to this Exceptio [...],Before, in pag. 28. This we generally professe and prac­tise; We hold Christs ordināces to be of two sorts; Such we hold all outward governement and ceremonies to be; Thus we hold, and thus we practise, &c. When you do so often say, We professe, We hold, We practise, Will not the Reader vnderstand your self to be one with the rest that do so hold, pro­fesse, and practise? Againe when you say (Thus we practise) is it your meaning that the State doth practise thus, but not your self? How is it then, that you preach by vertue of your Priesthood receyued from the Prelates? that you are silent at their pleasure? that you appeare before them at their Courts and appoyntment? that you administer and recei­ve the Sacraments with them according to their book, &c.

Or if your meaning be in these words (thus we practise) to include your self with the rest, why should we not also take you to be included in the other when you say, thus we hold, thus we professe, &c. Would you have vs think, that in these things your iudgement is one, and your practtse another? Fy of such halting. Howsoeuer you blind the eyes of men, be sure God is not mocked. He seeth and will bring vpon you that wretched hypocrisy, if you still persist.

Further it is to be mynded, that now you disclayme your Churches opinion towching Christs ordinances, and consequently towching his Prophecy, Priesthood, Kingdome, as he is there receyved. Why can you not then endure, that we should do likewise? Or how is it that you have pleaded for it all this tyme, and now leave it without help when it nee­deth most? But by this is evident that your Churches estate is aMat. 12.25 King­dome divided against it self, and therefore ruinous, not like long to en­dure. The state holdeth one thing, you another, a third sort agrees with neither. BabylonRev. 16.19. the great city, when it is readie to fall, shall be devided in three parts. To conclude, by this opinion and practise you make your state to stand in such case as Ieroboams was, who altered but the outward ordinances of the Church, as taking them to be things arbitrary at the pleasure of man. Some of them (I doubt not) wil think you do them foule iniurie. And if anie be done vnto you, it is done by your self. I say no more.

[Page 56]In the fourth likewise, who is it of your owne Church that will not 4 think you offer yet more iniurie both to the State and your self? To the State, in that you make them maintainers of Popish shifts. To your self, in that thus you bewray you are at a Non plus, and yet yeeld not to the truth. Did not your self in your first Replie vse these as good and soūd reasons? And now they are convinced to be Popish, have not a word to speak in defence of them, but put vs over to the State for an aūswer? Babell is sore wounded, when all her best Physitians do thus give her over.

5 For the fift, you referre vs to the first point of your explication before. Which is aunswered.

6 For the sixt, you referre vs to the second. Which also is aunswered. Neither is there any thing of waight in either of the places whither you send vs, for aunswer of the particulars here conteined. Let others mind (if you will not) what I said in the fifth and sixth aunswer be­fore, and see if your explications have any thing against them to any pur­pose.

7 The seventh you confesse to be against the state of your Church. This I wish the Reader to marke. And then having minded what I aun­swered in thepag. 34 seaventh place, let him consider how wofull the estate of your Church is. But now M. Iacob, why defēd you not your Church, seeing this is against the verie state of it, by your owne confessiō? Is not your book called, A defence of the Churches and Ministery of England? Why do you not then performe what the title of your book doth pro­mise? A worthie Champion sure you are to defend a Church, that leave it thus in extream miserie without anie succour at all. At first you seemed as if you would strike all downe afore you, in defence of your Churches and Ministerie. Now lo, you can be content to leave them on the plaine field to shift for themselves, so your self may have hope to scape by running away. Before you told vs of the defence of your Churches, Now you think it inough to say, It is against the state of our Church, and not against me.

Yet tell vs Mr. Iacob, are you not a member of that Church? And is not that then which is against the state of your Church, also against you? Otherwise it must needs be, that your Church hath a strange e­state, or that you are a straunge member thereof. Can the hand or eye say, I am not of the bodie? Or, that which is against the state of the bodie, yet is not against me? Yet such is your aunswer, as sencelesse, as absurd. Besides that thus whiles you think to pull your owne neck out of the collar, you plunge both your self and your Church deeper in.

And note withall: Howsoever you and such like disagree from the state of your Church in anie thing, yet in this you can all agree well y­nough, to conspire against Christ and against his Church. But so it hath ben of old. ManassehEsa. 9.20 21. and Ephraim (though they were each a­gainst other) were both against Iudah. The Pharises and Saddu­cees [Page 57] (though adversaries one to another, yet)Mat. 2 [...].15.23. Act. 5.17 handed togeather both of them against the Lord Iesus.

Hitherto of the seaven particulars I obiected. Which all of them remaine vntaken away. And thus far of the second exception and your Replies against it. In which I have staied the longer, because the dis­cussing hereof will more plainelie and without all question end the con­troversie between vs.

Chap. 6. The third Exception against Mr. Iacobs Assumption aforseid.

Fr. Iohnson. Thirdly, shew by Scripture, how the 36. Article of your doctrine and book alledged, agreeth with the Gospell of Christ and true Christi­anitie. The wordes of the Article are these as followeth:

The Book of consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, doth conteine all things necessary to such consecrati­on and ordering, neither hath it any thing that of it self is superstitious or vngodly And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that book: we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and law­fully consecrated and ordered.

Also how it agreeth with the Gospell and true Christianitie, That the Apocrypha books and Homilies are enioined to be read in the Church by the Ministers diligently and distinctly. As may be seen in Art. 6 and 35. of that doctrine and book aforesaid.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 3. Excep. YOur third Exception is this. That the 36. Article of ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons: Also the reading of Apocrypha bookes and Homilies in the Church, agree not with true Christianitie: Ergo, the Assumption aboue is false, that is the vvhole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not sufficient, to make vs true Christians.

I aunsvver, you should have said, those poincts destroy vtterly true Chri­stianity Ergo, &c. Els the Argument follovveth not: But then vve denie flatly the Antecedent or first part of the Reason. But your Reason you vvill say shall goe as you have put it. Then marke these reasons even as good as yours and all one. An Ethiopian is vvhite of his teeth, therefore he is a vvhite man. A Svvanne is black of his bill,Fr. Io. therefore a Svvann is black.Note, that Mr. Iacob hath added this, since he received aunswer to the former. It was not in the copy before. Such also are almost all his notes in the Margent, and some alteration in his Replies, specially in his first Reply to the Seaventh Reason following, Let the Reader observe this dealing. My Brother hath an eye of glasse, or he hath a vvodden legge, there­fore my brother is no true man.

[Page 58] Fr. Ioh. his Aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 3. Excep. VVHat the third Exception is, you see. Have you now (as was be­fore required of you) shewed these things by the Scriptures? Not at all. First then marke, that although wee call neuer so much for proof and evidence from the Scripture, yet you neuer bring it, but la­bour to put it off with other shifts and deuices: As if our consciences were to be built vpō your fancies, and not vpō the written word of God.

But what do you say to our demaund? First you tell vs, these thinges do not vtterly destroy true Christianitie. Next, you graunt notwithstan­ding, that they agree with it as black doeth with white, that is, they are cleane contrarie vnto it: For this your similitudes doe import.

Where you alledge, That these things destroy not true Christianity, we answer, that euen that Hierarchy, worship, cōstitution, and gouerne­ment, which you professe and practise (as appeareth by those and other your Articles and Iniunctions in our former answer alleadged, to which yet we haue receyued no aunswer) being directly Antichristian, doe vtterlie destroy true Christianitie, so as the people and Churches so professing and practising, can notNota. in that estate by the word of God be iudged true Christians, or the true constituted Churches of Christ.

Your similitudes, are not against vs but against your selues, in as­much as cōparing the doctrines of the Gospel which you professe, with the whitenes of an Aethiopians teeth; and your Antichristian Ministerie, worship, Courtes, and cōfusion of people, with the blacknes of an Aethi­opians body: this and such like similitudes doe fitly declare your estate. And the approving of your Churches black constitution by some white doctrines of the Gospel professed among you, is as if you should reason thus, An Aethiopian is white of his teeth, there fore he is a white man: A blacke Rauen is white of her bill: therefore a blacke Rauen is a white bi [...]d.

Now when you had received this aunswer, and saw these comparisōs turned vpon your self, then you devised another, being not able to main­taine the former. And this last you have published in your printed book as if it had ben in your written coppie which I aunswered: where it was not at all. The abuse is great not to me only, but to the Reader: in­asmuch as these things were by you so published, as if your last compa­rison neither were nor could be aunswered. Let the Reader note this maner of dealing for such as it is.

The similitude now added to the rest, is this: My brother hath an eye of glasse, or he hath a woodden legge, therefore my brother is no true man. I aunswer, that after your woonted maner you take for graunted that which you should prove: viz, that your Church in that constitution is as a man with an eye of glasse or woodden legge. This I denie to be your case. Prove it so to be, if you can. The Scripture describeth the [Page 59] false Church in their constitution (specially touching the Ministerie) not vnder the similitude of men vvith woodden legges, or the like: but vn­der the similitude ofRev. 9.7.8.9.10. & 13.11. & 19.20 Locusts, whose forme is like vnto horses prepared to battell, with crovvnes on their head like gold, vvith faces of men, heare of vvomen, teeth of Lyons, habergions of yron, vvings like charets, tayles of scorpions, and stings in them to hurt vvithall.

Now I would know of you Mr. Iacob, whether these be men with woodden legges, or monsters with mens faces. In like manner, whe­ther the Churches which in their constitution (chiefly of Ministerie) do resemble these, be like to men with some defects, or to beasts with some resemblance of men. Either therefore must you p [...]ove the constitution of your Church to be a true one, as the man you speake on is (which all may see you cannot do) or this comparison fitteth not your turne. We must mind and beleev what the Scripture teacheth, not what you would beare vs in hand without any proof.

But it may be you would be vnderstood of the man of sinne, spoken of 2 Thes. 2. or of the whorish woman, mentioned in the Revelation.2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 17.1. If that be your meaning, it is against your self, and so applie it. If you meane otherwise, it fitteth not your case, as I shewed before. And thus the comparison applied to your estate, is woodden, that is, absurd; and glassie, that is, brittle, such as will not bide a blow.

H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 3. Excep. YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of consecrating Bishops and Priestes, and the 6. and 35. Article of Apocripha and Homilies, doe not agree with the Gospell.

What then? Ergo, our Churches profession and practise differ. Most false: For our Churches doe professe, that these things doe agree vvith the Gospell vvell enough: Also their practise is thereafter. Or doe you conclude, Ergo our Churches holde not Christ to saluation. In deede so I tooke your purpose at the first: but novve in plaine categoricall termes you auouch it; That these things being directly Antichristian, doe vtterly destroy true Chri­stianity. So then Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. were verie Antichrists, and no true Christians. As before also, I trowe, you affirmed.

Surely, this grosse and wicked absurditie, I could not open better then by this similitude: This man hath a wodden legge, an eye of glasse, his nose de­formed, adde also if you will, both his armes not naturall, but framed to him of wood or what you will: Ergo this is no true man. Yes Sir, for all this he is a true man. For as much as all this concernes not the very life and being of a man, though these be most vnnaturall additions, and verie many. The like doe I affirme of these externall corruptions in the Church: Which my sen­tences you goe not about to refute, but onely with words, with bare yea, and nay, and no more.

[Page 60] Fr. Iohnson his aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 3. Exception. YEt suffer me, that I may speak, and when I have spoken, mocke on. You say, your Churches professe that the consecrating of Bishops and Priests, & the 6. & 35. Articles of Apocrypha books and Homilies, do agree with the Gospel well ynough: and that your practise is thereafter. Marke now what followeth herevpon. The Apocrypha books (to speak first of them) haveIudith 9.2.3.4. compared with Gen. 49.5.6.7. Ester Apocrypha 12.5. with Ester Canonicall 6.3. & Est. Apocr. 15.9.10. with Ester Ca­non. 5.2. Ecclesiasticus 46.20. with Esa. 57.2. Eccles. 12.7. contradiction to the Scrip­tures, Tob. 6.6.7.8. & 8.2.3. with 3.7.8. magik, 1 Tob. 12.12.15. compared with 1 Tim. 2.5. blasphemy, Esdras. 14.21.22.23. &c. 2 Mach. 2.4-8. Tobit. 5.11.12.13. with 12.15. 1 Machab. 6.4.8.9.16. with 2 Machab. 1.13-16. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29. fables, 2 Machab. 12.44.45. & 14.41.42. Ecclesiastic. 46.20. & 48.10. errors, &c. Ther­fore your Church (by your owne confession) professeth all these to agree with the Gospell well ynough, & practiseth thereafter. A verie Christian professiō and practise in deed, well beseeming the daughters of Babylon that mother of all abomination.

The like may be said of your blasphemies in the book according to which you consecrate Prelates and ordeine Priests: receiving other Lordbishops & Priests (in office of Ministery) besides Iesus Christ, to whō this1 Cor. 12.5. Eph. 4.5.11.12. Heb. 7.23.24. 1 Pet. 5.4. honour doth onely belōg. And not that only, but ordeining your Priests with further blas­phemy, when the Prelats say to every of you knee­ling at their feet to be ordained, Receive the holy ghosts whose sinnes thou doest forgive, they are forgi­ven: & whose sins thou dost retaine, they are retained.

These things being so (to omit manie other that might be alleadged out of those and the rest of your books) how can we but think, as we do, of the estate of your Church? Would you have vs beleev, that Magik, lyes, blasphemy, contradiction to the Scriptures agree with the Gospell well ynough? or that they destroy not true Christianitie? I meane, so as I expressed in my former aunswer: that is, so as the peo­ple and Churches thus professing and practising, cannot by the word of God be iudged in that estate true Christians or true constituted Chur­ches of Christ. And more yet, when withall there be found manie abominations directly Antichristian, yea and blasphemous as I have noted of your Hierarchy, worship, &c. Will you make Christ and Antichrist accord togeather? It2 Cor. 6.14. cannot be. If you will not receive it, then prove by Gods word either that these things are not directly Antichristian, nor blasphemous; or that being so, yet they do not vtterly destroy true Chri­stianitie, so as before is declared. For Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. is aunswered alreadie. Pag. 8. & 40.

The grosse absurdity of your comparison of a man with a woodden leg & the like, referred to your estate, I have showed in the end of my for­mer aunswer. Against which if you can say any thing, let vs have it in your next Reply. And remember withall, that the body of your Church [Page 61] besides the shamefull confusion it standeth in, hath a number of mōstrous and deformed heads, on whose foreheads are writtenRev. 17.8. with 14.11 names of blasphe­my (viz: your Archbishops, Lordbishops, Priests &c.) Which by the confession of the best among you were never borne in Sion, but in Babylon, by descent the sonnes of Anak and Nimrod, mightie hunters [...]f Gods people, as their estate and practise in all ages even vnto this day doth te­stifie.

These and other abominations heretofore mentioned, you would still conceale, and in steed thereof take for graunted, that your Church in her constitution is as a body which hath the life & being of a man, not of a beast. Now this you know we deny, and you should prove. But that you let alone as being all to hard. And I perceive alreadie that rather then you will do it, you will leave your woodden legg to shift for it self, as you have left your Aethiopians teeth and Swannes bill.

Let the Reader judge, whether of vs it is, that goeth about to refute onely with words, with bare Yea & Nay, and no more. And hitherto of the three Excepttons gathered out of your owne doctrine, against the A [...]sumption of your maine Argument. Now follow some other Reasons brought against the same, with your Replies and my Aunswers therevn­to.

Chap. 7. The first Reason against Mr. Iacobs former Assumption.

Fr. Iohnson. THat which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, can not make a true Christian. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. with Ezech. 43.8. and 2 Kings 17.33.34.40.41.

But that doth the whole doctrine as it is publikly professed and pra­ctised by law in Englād. As may be seen, 1. By the Book alledged cōparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest. 2. By your profession, to be seen like­wise in your other books of Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Advertise­ments: &c. 3. By your practise, as witnesseth your Ministery, Leitourgy, and Church-gouernement, even to this day.

Therefore, &c.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the first Reason. THis your first Reason is thus: That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist to­geather, cannot make a true Christian: But that doth our Booke, &c. Ergo.

I say you must mende your vnproper speach, that Christ and Antichrist is there ioyned togeather: you meane Christ and some outvvard ceremo­nies and orders of Antichrist: then so speake, and say not Christ and Antichrist simply. Which things yet we thinke to be Christs owne, as weePag. 28.35 shewed in the Second Exception before. Therefore, this reason is [Page 62] aunsvvered as the last Exception before. The Svvanne is blacke of his bill, Ergo, the Svvan is blacke, and my brother hath a vvodden legge: Therefore my brother is a vvodden man. So here this booke ioyneth Christ and some orders of Antichrist: Therefore it ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, vvhich are most fonde conclusions.

Furthermore, the Scriptures alleadged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek. 43. 2 Kings 17. are vvholy mismatched: the ioyning there forbidden, is vnto such idolatrie, as can not stande by any meanes vvith Christian faith, and breaketh most di­rectly the First commaundement: Our transgression your selves doe iudge to be but against the Second, and such as hath stood and may stand togeather vvith true faith, as in M. Cranmer &c.Namely, the Idolaters in these places spoken of. They did not so much as professe the vvritten Lavv to be their rule, neither for outvvard orders, nor their invvard doctrines of faith. But your selves knovv, vve professe and practise that, namely, so as is shevved before in thePag. 28.35. Seconde Exception. Therefore to apply those Scriptures in this vnto vs, is your great sinne euen against the third Commaundement, vwhich is your common custome, as all doe see and pittie, viz. To take the name of God in vaine, by mifusing his worde.

Fr. Iohson his aunsvver to Mr. Iacobs 1. Replie to the 1. Reason. YOur answer is first concerning the Proposition, then concerning the Assumption. For the Propositiō you say, the speach is vnproper that Christ & Antichrist is among you ioyned togeather. Then you take vpon you to expound our meaning to be thus, Christ and some outvvard ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. To this we answer, First, that the speach is fit and proper: Secondly, that it is meete that we (not you) expound our owne meaning: Which togeather with the proprie­tie of the speach, will now appear in that which followeth.

Concerning the Assumptiō, first you say, the things amōg you which we charge to be of Antichrist, you think to be Christs ovvne: for proof whereof, you refer vs to your Reply to the Second exception before, whi­ther also we refer your self and the Reader for answer againe. Then forgetting your self you graūt that in deed they be orders of Anticrist: yet that they are but as the blacknes of the Swannes bill to the rest of the body. So by you owne confession they are of Antichrist, and therefore not Christes owne, asPag. 28. before you said and laboured to prooue. Thus at once you both contradict your self, and ouerthrow that which you an­swered before to the Second exception.

This were sufficient to manifest your deceitfull and euill dealing. But that it may more fullie appeare, specially seing you would dazell the peoples eyes with these mincing wordes [of some outvvard ceremo­nies & orders of Antichrist] comparing them with the blacknes of the Swans bill, as if they were but a few, and of small moment: therefore will wee reckon vp some of them (for it were infinite to nūber them all). By which the Reader may better see and iudge both of the sleightnes of [Page 63] your aunswer, and of the black constitution of your Church.

Sory we are that we should thus trouble the Reader, or our selues: specially considering that alreadie we haue mentioned diuers of them. But seeing we are here constreyned vnto it by your slie and colourable answer, therefore can we not but doe it, for the clearer manifestation of the trueth, and better discouering of your deceipt. In which respects we entreat the Reader to take in good part, and duely to weigh the rehear­sall following.

• 1. The cōfusion of all sorts of peo­ple in the body of the Church, even the most profane and their seed, being members thereof.
• 2. The retaining and vsing in their publique worship the Apocry­pha books, which have in thē much error, vntruth, blasphemie, Magick, & contradiction to the Canonicall Scriptures.
• 3. Their stinted prayers and Lei­turgie, taken out of the Masse Book: with the same order of Psalmes, Lessons, Collects, Pa­ter nosters, Epistles, Gospels, Versicles, Respondes &c.
• 4. The forbidding of Marriage, in Lent, Advent, Ember daies, Rogation week &c. Which the Apostle calleth a Doctrine of di­vels. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.
• 5. Forbidding of meats, as of flesh to be eatē in Lent, Ember daies, Saints Evens, Frydayes and Saturdayes throughout the yeare. Another doctrine of di­vels noted in the scripture afore­said. 1 Tim. 4.1.3.
• 6. The oath ex officio in the Eccle­siasticall courts, making men sweare to accuse themselves.
• 7. Their Pontificall, or booke of consecrating Bishops and of or­deining Priests and Deacons, taken out of the Popes Pontifical.
  Antichrist corruptions yet had in the Church of England.
• 8. Their intolerable abuse of the word of God therein.
• 9. Their making and being made Priests, with blasphemie, the Prelates saying to everie one of them, whom they make Priests, Receiue the holy Ghost, vvhose sinnes thou doest forgive, they are forgiven &c. And they that are made Priests, then humbly kneeling vpon their knees at the Prelates feet.
• 10. Their confounding of civil and Ecclesiastical offices and autho­ritie in Ecclesiasticall persons.
• 11. The offices & callings of Arch­bishops.
• 12. Lord-Bishops.
• 13. Suffraganes.
• 14. Priests.
• 15. Half Priestes, or Deacons, as they call them.
• 16. Subdeacons.
• 17. Archdeacons.
• 18. Parsons.
• 19. Vicars.
• 20. Curates.
• 21. Vagrant and Mercenary Prea­chers.
• 22. Church-wardens.
• 23. Chauncellors to the Prelates.
• 24. Deanes.
• 25. Subdeanes.
• [Page 64]26. Prebendaries.
• 27. Canons and Peticanons.
• 28. Chaunters and Virgerers.
• 29. Epistlers and Gosplers.
• 30. Queristers, men and boyes.
• 31. Organ-players and blowers.
• 32. Clerks and Sertous.
• 33. Chapleines and House-priests
• 34. Doctors of Divinitie.
• 35. Bachelours of Diuinitie.
• 36. Doctors of the Arches.
• 37. Proctours in the Prelates courtes.
• 38. Commissaries.
• 39. Officials.
• 40. Registers.
• 41. Summoners, with the rest of that Antichristian and viperous generation.
• 42. Their Ministration of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-governement, by vertue of the officer aforesaid.
• 43. The titles of Primate, Metro­politane, Lords grace, Lordship &c. ascribed to the Prelates.
• 44. The inferior Prelates swea­ring obedience to the Metropoli­tā Seas of Canterbury and York.
• 45. The inferiour Ministers, whē they enter into the Ministe­rie, promising obedience to the Prelates their Ordinaries: and whē they are inducted to Benefi­ces, confirming it with their oath of Canonicall obedience.
• 46. The presētatiō of the Priests and Deacons to the Prelate by the Archdeacon, when they are made Ministers.
• 47. Their receiving of Orders at the hands of the Prelates or their Suffraganes.
• 48. The Prelates Confirmation or Bishoping of childrē, to assure them of Gods favour, by a signe of mans devising. Which is to malte a new Sacrament.
• 49. The Crosse in Baptisme: of like nature.
• 50. The hallowed Font.
• 51. Questions at Baptisme to the infants, that can neyther speak nor vnderstand.
• 52. Godfathers & Godmothers. Their promising that the child doth beleev, forsake the Divell and all his workes, &c.
• 53. Womens baptising of childrē. Which mainteyneth that heresy That the Children are damned, which dy vnbaptised.
• 54. Their houssing of the sicke, & ministring the Communion to one alone.
• 55. Their giuing it for two pence, to all commers.
• 56. Their ministering of it, not with the words of Christs insti­tution, but with other taken out of the Popes Portuis.
• 57. The receiving of it kneeling: Which teacheth still to make it an Idoll, and nourisheth that popish heresy of worshipping it, receiving their maker &c.
• 58. The King in mariage, making it a Sacramētall signe, & mari­age an Ecclesiasticall action: thereby nourishing the Popish heresy, that Matrimony is a Sa­crament.
• 59. Their Churching or purify­ing of women. Which sauoreth of Iudaisme.
• 60. The standing at the Gospell reading. The putting of the cap, and making a legge when the word (Iesus) is read.
• 61. Their Saints, Angels, and [Page 65] Apostles dayes. With their fasts and prescript service.
• 62. The Gang-week, praying then over the corne and grasse, &c.
• 63. Their praying over the dead, at buriall. So nourishing the Po­pish error of prayer for the dead.
• 64. Buriall, and the solemnizatiō of mariage, &c. made part of the Ministers duty.
• 65. Their absolving the dead, dy­ing excommunicate, before they can have (as they call it) Chris­tian-buriall.
• 66. The ring of peales at bu­rials.
• 67. Beadmen at burials, and hy­red Mourners in mourning ap­parell.
• 68. The hanging of Churches and heerses with black (to help for­ward theyr popish show off mourning) at burials.
• 69. The Idol Temples, retayned & vsed for the worship of God.
• 70. The popish vestments: as Rotchet, Square-cappe, Tip­pet, S [...]rplus in Parish-Chur­ches, and Coap in Cathedrall.
• 71. The visitations of theyr Lord-Bishops and Archdeacons.
• 72. The Court of Facultyes. From w [...]eace are had dispensa­tions, Licences, Tolerations, &c.
• 73 Dispensations to eat flesh at theyr tymes forbidden. Which dispēsatiōs also haue this clause [sana conscientia, that is, with a safe conscience]: plainely she­wing, that they make it a mat­ter of conscience.
• 74. Dispēsatiōs likewise to mar­ty in theyr tymes forbidden.
• 75. Licences from the Prelates to marry in places exempt. By meanes of which dispensations ād Licences is mainteyned that wicked practise, that many are maryed without their Parents knowledge or consent. Yea ma­ny oftē stollen frō theyr frends, and so marryed.
• 76. Dispensations for boyes and ignorant fooles to haue Benefi­ces, and charge of soules.
• 77. Dispensations for Non-resi­dents.
• 78. And plurality of benefices: As the having of two, three, fower, or mo: even tot quot, as many as a man will haue and can get.
• 79. Patronages of, and presenta­tions to Benefices, with buying and selling of advowsons.
• 80. Theyr Iustitutions, Induc­tions, Prories, &c.
• 81. The Prelates, Chauncelours, Cōmissaryes, Officials courts, &c.
• 82. Their power to excommuni­cate alone, and likewise to ab­solve.
• 83. Theyr Penance in a white sheet.
• 84. Theyr commutation of Pe­nance, and absolving one man for another.
• 85. Theyr Suspensions, Depri­vations, Degradations. &c.
• 86. The Prelates Lordly domi­nion, revenewes, and retinew.
• 87. The Priests maintenance by Tithes, Chrismes, Offerings. &c.
• 88. The Popes accursed Canon Law.
• 89. And the Prelates like Articles, Canons, Injunctions, &c. from tyme to tyme newly devised and [Page 66] published for the Lawes & ru­ling of theyr Church, according vnto them.
• 90. The Church-wardens oath, to present to the Prelates and theyr Courts, all the offences faults and defaults committed in their Parishes against the fo­resayd Articles, &c.
• 91. Finally, the imprisoning, ba­nishing, and killing of such as renounce or witnes against these abominations aforesayd, and the rest yet retayned among them.

Thus being constreyned, we haue reckoned vp divers Antichristian enormityes, still remayning in your Church. Now let the Reader iudge of your aunswer, how fond it is: and of your estate, whether it be not more like the blacke Raven with a white bill, then the white Swan vvith a black; and likerRev. 9.7. & 13. [...]. a beast with a mans face, then a man with a woodden legge. By this also appeareth, that the speach is not vnproper (as you except) but pertinent and proper, fitly declaring your estate, when I said you ioyne Christ and Antichrist together. And therefore your aunswer here is frivolous and of no weight.

Next, you come to the proof of the Proposition, which was confirmed by these scriptures. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. with Ezek. 43.8. & 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. The Proposition which I proued by these Scriptures, was this: That vvhich ioyneth Christ and Antichrist together, can not make a true Christian. Nowe let all men iudge, Whether these Scriptures doe not so evidentlie proue this Proposition, as none can denie it, but such as are wilfully blinded, and striue against the light of theyr owne con­sciences.

But what say you to them? Forsooth that they are wholy mismatched. And why so? Because the ioyning there forbidden, is vnto such Idolatrie, as can nor stand by any meanes with Christian faith and breaketh most direct­lie the First cōmandement: whereas your transgression is but against the Se­cond, and may stand with true faith, as was in Cranmer, &c. First, this an­swer of yours concerneth the Assumptiō, whereas those scriptures were the proof of the Proposition. But to let this passe, let vs consider the an­swer it self: These Scriptures (say you) forbid ioyning to such Idolatrie, as cannot stand with Christian faith, and breaketh most directlie the First com­maundement. 1. If this were so, what then, Doe they not therfore for­bid ioyning to Antichristian idolatrie, and that false worship which breaketh the second commandement?

2. Secondly, you cannot deny, but as we iudge of your way and estate, so it is a transgression against the Second commaundement. Now Sa­muell saith, [...] Sam. 15.23. Rebellion is as the sinne of vvitchcraft, and transgression is vvickednes & Idolatry. See then what aduantage you get by your owne answer.

3. Thirdly, as the Pagans Idolatrie breaking the First commaun­dement, cannot stand with true christian faith, so neither can the idola­trie and false worship of Antichrist breaking the Second. To that of [Page 67] Maister Cranmer, &c. is alreadie answered. Wherevnto also may be added, that your case now, is nothing so as theirs was then: both for that they suffered to death for the trueth they sawe; and because the things now controverted, were not then so called in question and convin­ced by the scriptures, as now they haue ben: neither were then by them so resisted and persecuted as they are by you now adayes, even to hands, bannishment, and death it self. Otherwise we might iustifie the cal­lings and estate of the Monks & Fryars, and of the most Popish Priests and Prelates, and the having of communion with them in that estate, because diuers such haue ben Martyrs, and layd downe their lives for the trueth they faw, who yet neuer doubted of the lawfulnes of their cal­lings and estate in this behalf.

4 Fourthly, as there is a double Idolatrie and false worship, the one against the First commandement, when any haue others besides the true God for their God; the other against the Second commuand­ment when any having the true God for their God, yet worship him not as he hath commaunded, but after the inventions and prescriptions of men: So the scriptures alleadged, and the whole course of the word of God, condemyne ioyning and having fellowship with either of these, aswell this which is against the Second commaundement, as that which is against the First. See the Reasons alleadged by the Apostle, 2 Cor. 6. Are they not strong and weightie against ioyning togeather righteousnes & vnrighieousnes, light & darknes, Christ & Beliall, 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. whether it be in the breach of the First or Second commaundement? Sayeth not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth & walketh: and therefore requireth of them, that they be his people; that they be his sonnes and daughters; that they be separated from the world; that they touch no vncleane thing, whether it be of Antichrist, or of the Heathen or whomsoever breaking the law of God?

And touching the place of Ezekiel, who seeth not,Ezec. 43.8. that he speaketh direct­lie of the breach of the Second commandement, for ioyning togeather in the worship of the true God their thresholdes with Gods thresholds, and their postes with Gods postes, that is, their inventions with Gods ordi­nances? which though it bee done to the name and for the seruice of the true God, yet as the Prophet sayth, It is abominations in the sight of God, and they that doe so worship him, put a wall between God and themselves and defile his holy Name with their abominations. Loe here the vse and fruit of ioyning togeather the inventions of men (chieflie of Anti­christ that man of sinne) with the ordināces of God in his worship and seruice. As you and your complices Maister Iacob like this, so may you hold on in pleading for it, and practising of it.

The third place is out of 2 King. 17. where it is most plaine, that the scripture speaketh of the breach of the Second cōmaundement. For there we read that the Samaritans worshipped the2 King. 17 28.32.41. same God, and after the samevers. 26.27 29.33.34.40. maner that the Israelites of the Ten Tribes did, that were car­ryed [Page 68] from thence: That is, they worshipped the true God, but not as hee had commaunded, but by hauing Images of sundrie sortes, by which they thought God was represented, asExod. 32.4. of old they thought of the calfe that Aaron made, and by other inuentions deuised by the Isra­elites in their defection, and ioyned to Gods ordinances for the worship and seruice of him. That this was the sinne of those Samaritans against the Second commandement, will appear by comparing togeather with this chapter, these scriptures following, to which we refer the Reader, Ezra 4.1.2. with Exod. 20.4.5.6. and 32.1.4.5.6. Iudg. 17.2.3.4.5.13. Ezek. 20.39. Hosea. 2.16. Amos. 5.21.22.23. & 8.14.1. Kings. 12.27. and 18.21. and 21.29. and 22.12.24. Esay. 10, 11. Iohn. 4.19.20.25.26.29.30.

By these also, as by that of Ezekiel may appear, how false it is, that you say further, They did not so much as professe the written lavv to be their rule, neyther for outvvard order, nor their invvard doctrines of faith. If this were so, howe could it bee true, which Ezechiell sayeth of thou of whom he speaketh,Ezech. 43.8. that they set their posts and threshalls by Gods posts and Treshalls, that is, their inuentions by Gods ordinances. Howe also was it that the Samaritans (spoken of 2. King. 17.) sacrificed to the true God, euen Ezra. 4.2. the Lord God of the Iewes, offering vnto him burnt offrings and meat offringes, and peace offringes? Or howe came it, they still vsed Circumcision, and wayted for the Messiah to come, as he was promi­sed in the writen word of God? yea knowing also and beleeuing, not on­ly that the Messiah should come which is called Christ, Ioh. 4.25. but also that when he came he would tel them al things? The Corinthian infidels in deed, as the rest of the Heathen, knew not the true God by his writtē word. But so it was not with the Samaritanes or Tenne tribes fallen from Iudah: as is euident by the scriptures and reasons before alleadged. To that which you speak of your profession and practise, referring vs to your answer to the Second Exception going before, I haue there answered it.

Onely this I adde here, That seing it cannot in truth be denyed but the publique constitution of your Assemblies, and estate of your Minis­ters and people therin, is a most impious transgressiō of the Second cō ­mādemēt, which the Lord himself callethNūb. 15.39 Revel. 11.8. & 17.1.2.3.4.5. spiritual whoredome against him, yea grieuous iniquitie and hatred of him, threatning also to Exod. 20.5. visit it vpon the Fathers and children so remayning, to the Third and Fourth gene­ration: Therefore by it are the truthes you professe, made frustrate vnto you in this estate. Neither will it help you to pretend that it is your error in iudgement. For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured? And further seeing your publik professiō and practize is (at the best) a ioyning of Christ & Antichrist togeather, as hath bene shewed, there­fore can you not by the word of God be deemed in this estate to bee true Christians or true constituted Churches: And the Scriptures ap­plyed to proue this consequent, are fitlie alleadged.

False therefore it is, that you say we sinned against the Third com­maundement, in the application of the Scriptures aforesaid. That is your [Page 69] owne common custome and lamentable sinne, to break this commaunde­ment by taking Gods name in vaine, not onely in falsifying and peruer­ting the Scriptures for your turne, but in your administration also of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-gouernment, by vertue of such offices & cal­lings as Christ neuer appointed, but were first devised and are reteined by Antichrist. Hitherto of your answer cōcerning the proof of the Propositiō.

To the proof of the Assumption, youLet the Reader ther­fore mynde in Mr Iacob this his sound and Schol­ler-like dea­ling. answer not a word:Fr. Io. which yet most of all required answer, if you would in deed soundlie defend your estate, as you pretend. That your profession and practise ioyneth Christ & Antichrist togeather, I shewed by your Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Aduertisements, &c. & by your present Ministery, Worship, & Church-gouernement according therevnto. If it be not so, why bring you not warrant for these from the Testament of Christ, and so take away the proof of the Assumption? If it be so (as by your silence you graunt, and we are sure by the Scriptures the contrary cannot be showed) then the Assumption standeth firme: and consequently in this constitution you cannot be accounted true Christians, nor your Assemblies (so gathered) true constituted Churches.

H. Iacob his 2. Reply vnto the 1. Reason. IN this your defence of your first Reason, you would first of all fasten on me a con­tradiction, for graunting, that our Church corruptions are from Antichrist, which against your Second Exception, I sayd we holde to be Christes owne, viz. Because we hold, Christ hath giuen his Church that libertie to deuise them. Alas it pittieth me to see your simplicity, or it greeueth me for your malice; vvho could not see, that thereSee Pag. 28. 35. I spake in the person of our vvhole Church and state, and shevved vvhat they held: And here I speak as I thought my selfe. This is a silly contradiction.

Then you say, Pag. 62. I dazell the peoples eyes, in saying some outward orders and cere­monies are from Antichrist as if they were but few and of small moment. Therefore you are content to recken them vp full tediously God knovveth euen 91. in number: numero Deus impare gaudet. And vvhat of all these? vvill you say therefore, that vvhosoeuer holdeth these, cannot hold Christ vnto saluation. And so Mr. Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs vvere damned. But if not: Then I say againe, These some, these 91. are too few and too slight, and of too small mo­ment of themselues and of their owne nature to abolish vs from Christ. This ought you to haue proved, which you never do, but still your speach is most false, and not vnproper onely, that we ioyne Christ and Antichrist togeather: As in the maimed man beforePag. 57. 62. noted, there is not life and death ioyned togea­ther, but living things and dead things are, and yet the man aliue and a true man.

Then you will iustifie your applying the 2 Cor, 6.14. &c. Eze. 43.8. 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41 Scriptures which I sayd were mismatched and were meant against the Idolatry of the First commandement, not against the Idolatry of the Second onely, and meerlye, as our Church orders in question are. Therefore these Scriptures cannot inferre any abo­lishing from Christ by simple holding of the corruptions in our Church: [Page 70] vvhich they doe proue by the simple holding of those Heathenish Idolatries, vvhereof they speake. To this you reply in Foure points. (1) If these places bee meant of Heathenish Idolatrie, which could never stand with Gods truth togeather: Yet they for­bid all other corruptions against the Second commaundement also. That I neuer denied to be true after a sort. These places indeede do forbid the breach of the Secōd commaundement, but not principally, directly and of purpose, nor in that measure of fulnes. But their immediate purpose is against the Heathenish Idolatry breaking the First commaundement. So that they forbidde the breach of the Second commaundement, consequently and proportionately, but not in that full manner as they doe the First, They forbid the First so as that they shew there is no cōmunion vvith God, vvhilst men ioyne in such Idolatry: they simply forbid the Second, but deny not all communion vvith God to vvhome soever erreth therein.

(2) To your Second Reply I say, make much of it: for my parte, I neuer thought other but our church corruptions are against the Second commaū ­dement:1 Sam. 15. Your second Scripture here applyed, is of Saull, a presumptuous and vvilfull offendour: if you make our vvhole Churches so, your sinne is the greater.

(3) Thirdly, if you meane, any of Antichrists Idolatrie and false vvor­ship, and namely this in question (the outward corrupt orders and ceremo­nies onely and no more) doth abolish vs from Christ, and that this can not stand togeather with true faith, like as the Pagans idolatrie against the First commaundement, cannot. Then I deny it vtterly, you haue no proofe in the world for it. And this inwrappeth Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. in the same course. Your excuse here in Pag. 67. That Cranmer, Ridley, &c. forsooke all the cor­ruptions they saw. This belongeth to many Thousands in England now, no lesse then to them: Yea surely there are infinite, that know not so much of the corruptions, as those learned men did, which yet are not ignoraunt of redēp­tion by Christ, &c. Yea your self Maister Iohnson, though a man of learning, yea knowing our corruptions, and misliking them a long time before you forsooke vs, yet I think you stood not abolished from Christ all that while. I pray be so good to poore men as you may: yea to vs now also, aswel as to your self and them in those times. Where you say in Pag. 67. That since that time we are convicted by the Scriptures. If you meane some fevve, that here and there you could pick out, and do sinne still, speake to them, threaten them: throvv out your damnatory sentence against them, But smite not all whosoever comes neare you: Beware how you iudge, least you be iudged: The heart belongeth to God, therefore censure not every mans conscience too hastily.

(4) Fourthly, you vvould prove in your Third Exception before noted, Pag. 67. That both the breach of the first cōmaundment, and of the Second also, is forbidden: I have told you before, Pag. 69. 70. hovv it is true, and hovv not: Nothing at all to serue your turne.2 Cor. 6.14. That vvhich you say, Pag. 67. touching your first Scrip­ture, 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. in that sence and manner as I sayd, it is true, and not othervvise.

That vvhich of your Second Scripture (Ezek. 43.8.) Pag. Ibid. you say, [Page 71] VVho seeth not but it speaketh directly of the breach of the Second Cōmaundement, ioyning toge­ther in the worship of the true God their inventions with Gods ordinances. Ezec. 43.8 [...] I say it is most ma­nifest, that he speaketh not of the breach of the Second cōmandment onely, but also of the first, wherin men haue their inventiōs also. The Prophet shew­eth vers. 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple againe, vvhence he vvas departed for the abominable idolatries that had ben there cōmitted before, to shevv that he vvould restore Ierusalem, and the Temple, and vvorship of God againe: He meaneth this literally, of the returning of the Iewes after Ba­bylons captiuity, and of the reedifying of the Temple, and the appointing againe of Gods holy vvorship there: Also spiritually he may meane, the erecting of the Christian Church vvhen they should not fall to such impieties as the Ievves had done novv in that time before, for the vvhich he had departed a­way from them. Nowe if we aske, what were those Idolatours in Ierusalem and in the Temple before Ezekiels time, for the whiche the Lord forsooke them: it is manifest in Ahas, in Manasses, & Amon: and in the Kings after Iosiah, That the Iewes idolatrie was verie Heathenish, not onely against the Second, but against the First commandment also, in ioyning the Heathen gods with the true God of Israell in their Diuine seruice and Worship: Therefore this place of Ezekiell, is (as I say) not of the breach of the Second commande­ment onely & simplie, as our church corruptions are, but ioinctlie touching the breach of the First also.

The very same is that your third scripture pag. 67. 2 Kings 17.33.34.40.41. of the Samaritans Idolatrie, wherein because you are large,2 King. 17. I vvill deferre to explaine it till your Sixt Reason follovving: vvhere is a proper place for it.

Lastlie, in pag. 68. you agrauate the breach of the Second Commandment: as being spirituall whordome, &c. But I would haue you to knovv: Things may be mismatched to cruelly, asvvell as too gently. There is a sinne both vvayes, vvhen things are not called by their proper and right names. It is true in some sence, euery breach of the Secōd cōmandment, is spiritual vvhordome, as euery vvanton vvord, euery light gesture & countenance, euery immodest thought in a Wo­man, is Adulterie: yet vvho so shall angerlie & continuallie so call a Woman vvhore, harlot, or bande, that but thinketh, or looketh, or speaketh too vain­ly, shall doe her great vvrong, & incurre the iust daūger of lavv. Neither can she, nor ought shee, in such case, be diuorced, as an Adulteresse ought. And thus it appeareth true still, that you sinne against the Third Commaunde­ment in misapplying of Scriptures.

In the ende in pag. 69. vvhere you say, To the proofe of your Assumption I answere never a word, which most of all required answere. This I tell you, that it is your fancie and not my meaning heere, to ansvver to your Proposition first, and then to your Assumptiō to say nothing. Nay, if you had not dreamed, you might easily haue perceived that all my first words (viz. where I say your speach here is vn­proper &c.) are bent directly against your Assumptiō & the proof thereof, although at this time I expressed not those termes, Secondly, I shevv, that your scrip­tures applyed to proue the Proposition are altogither vnfitt, and intollera­bly abused, if you meane them in that sence as your Assumption must be [Page 72] 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 scholler-like dealing doeth light on your self, and bewrayeth eyther your deepe skil or your ouerflowing charitie. As for the rest, that I should iustifie our corruption, it is no part of my minde, neither belongs it to our present cause so to doe.

Fr. Io. his Aunsvver to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 1. Reason. IN deed you are the people that haue skill, and wisdome must dy with you. Yet let vs a litle examine this your wise handling of the matter. Being taken here with manifest contradiction, you say, you spake the one in the person of your whole Church and State, the other in your owne. If it were so, yet thus you yeeld both that there is contradiction in your speach, and that in stead of defending your Church you are driuen your self to contradict it. And who can give the cause more cunningly? Even your selfe (Mr Iacob) are drawen now at length to confesse you do the same thing we do, that is, contradict the assertion of your Church tow­ching Christs ordinances.

Now albeit this were ynough to show the simplicity and weaknes of your defence, yet still I vrge the contradiction to be yours. And I proue it, because in thePag. 28. first place your words are, we hold, we practise, &c. and in the “ latter, we thinck, vve shevved, &c. For who will otherwise iudge,Pag. 61. but this word (We) includeth your self for one among the rest? Agayne, when in the first place you say [thus we practise], and in the lat­ter [we shevved before], and both these are true of your self, who could exclude you from being one of the number in both the places?

Further, it is here to be noted, how playnely you affirme these two things agayne, 1. That your Church-corruptions are from Antichrist: 2. That yet your Church holds them to be Christs owne. A most silly, ab­surd, and godles defence of a Church, as ever was seen.

That it is tedious vnto you to have your corruptions reckned vp, it is no marvell. Yet if they be so odious, as it grieue you to heare them but named: why doth it not more affect you to practise them, to partake in and with them, and so to increase your sinnes and iudgement before the Lord? Heretofore when you preached against them, and sued to the Par­liament to haue them remoued, it was a pleasure to you and all the Re­formists, to name them, to print them, to make your pulpits ring of thē and every where to cry out against them as most filthy and abominable. Then if any reckned vpAdmon to the Parl. Miles Mo­nopodius. The R [...]gisur &c. above an hundred of them together, one after another, they were nothing tedious, but very welcome. Now to mention or heare but some of them, is altogether yrksome. A very great and straūge alteration: yet in deed not to be marveled at, if it be well mynded. For then you seemed to seek and stand for the truth, now you resist and strive against it: then you would professe Christ against the Prelates, now you do hand your selues with them against him.

[Page 73]And yet behold, in all these evils you blesse your selves and them to [...]. For what els is this that you say, these multitude of Antichristian abo­minations abolish vs not from Christ? Is it not as if you sayd,Deut 29.19. We shall have peace though we walk according to the stubbernes of our hearts? Alas Mr Iacob▪ that you should come to this height of impiety, thus to blesse and please your selves in the vnrighteousnes of Antichrist, that some of perdition: then which, what greater iudgement could haue come vpon you? 2 Thes. 2, 12. This is not to break and teach to break one of the least commaundements, but many of the greatest. Mat. 5.19.

Now vnlike are you and such other false Prophets of the Beast, which say, these are to fevv, to sleight, of to small moment &c. How vnlike (I say) are you to the Prophets of God and Martyrs of Iesus, who did alway cry out and witnesse against the least Idolatry they saw amōg the people? They did not sow pillowes vnder their elbowes, as you do: but denounced the judgements of God against them, and refused to par­take in their iniquitie. So do not you. But this belike is your follow­ing of Christ, this is your obedience of faith, even to plead for Antichrist and to do the works of darknes and abomination, and yet to say with your hypocriticall forefathers, Is not the Lord among vs? No evill can come vnto vs. Micah. 30 11.

Yet you would have vs bele [...], that you go not about to dazell the peoples eyes &c. Yes Mr. Iacob, you do it and proceed in it daily from evill to worse. But flatter your selues and them, towching the constitu­tion of your Church, as long as you will, with your lying words, of Christ, of fayth, Ierem. 7.4. &c. like as the Iewes amidst all their impieties still vaunted of the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord &c. yet this remaineth vpon your heads notwithstanding, that these abominations of Antichrist retained among you, do of themselues and of their owne natur [...] abolish your Assemblies from being the Churches of Christ, or holding his faith in that constitution and practise. This I haue pro­vedPag. 3.16.60.63. &c. before: wherein if you rest not, you may reply againe. Or if you de­sier more evidence, see these Scriptures, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. 2 Thes. 2-12. Col. 2.8.20.21.22.23. Psal. 119.21. Ephes. 5.11. 1 Ioh. 4.3. and 2 Ioh. ver. 9.10.11. Rev. 13.11. and 14.9.10.11. and 17.1-6. and 18. and 19. chap. and 22.18: 19.

And for mans record, see Mr Beza who is as playne, as playne may be. In an epistle written in the yeare, 1566. to Mr Grindall then Bishop of Lord [...], concerning the present estate of the Church of England, thus he saith: If those things be true, Bez. Epist. 8. vvhich I think haue not likely hood of truth, viz, that the Metropolitans retaine in vse those most filthy abuses, then which the Church of Antichrist hath not any thing more intolerable, namely pluralityes of benefices, licences of non-residency, licences to marry and eat flesh, and other the like: this vvere certainely, vvhich I speak with horrour, not a corruption of Christianity, but a manifest defection from Christ: and therefore they not to be condemned, but praysed rather, vvhich should op­pose [Page 74] themselues to such endevours. These are his words. Where note, 1. That the things are most true and rise among you, which he thought were not so much as likely. 2. That he speaketh but of fower or five of your corruptions, and yet sayth they are a manifest apostasy and depar­ture frō Christ, yea such as he affirmeth he speaketh not without horrour.

How miserable then is the estate of your Church, which hath not onely these fower or five, but even an huge masse and endles multitude besides? And how fearfull is the case of you all, who will yet notwithstanding still abide in that Church, and therefore cannot but partake in her sin­nes,Rev. 13.4. and be subject to her plagues? Most of all, what an heavy Wo hangeth ouer your head (Mr Iacob) who feare not yet so boldly to affirme, that these some, these 91. are to fevv and to sleight, and of to small moment, of themselues & of their owne nature to abolish you from Christ? Is not this to strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not re­turne from his wicked way, by promising him life? Is it not to say vnto him, Thou art righteous: every one that doth evill, is good in the sight of the Lord, and he deliteth in them? Yea is it not to please your sel­ves in vnrighteousnes to condemnation? Ezech. 13.22. Mal. 2.17. 2 Thes. 2.12.

Then also why proue you not that which you say? You heare beside the Scriptures before alledged, that Mr Beza speaking but of fower or five of your abominations, sayth they are a manifest defection from Christ. Now I suppose you will not deny, but manifest defection from Christ doth of it self and of it owne nature abolish from Christ. Besides if it be true of fower or five of your corruptiōs, how much more of your 91. yea of your hundreds? Specially when to the retayning of them you haue now a long tyme added persecution against the truth for the maintenance of them.

Or what will you aunswer to your self (Mr Iacob) who haue here confessed them to bePag. 37. errors, and Pag. [...]1.69 orders of Antichrist, Pa. 70.71. sinnes against the Second commaundement, &c. Every sinne (you know) doth of it self and of it owne nature make subject to the curse. Deut. 27.26. Psal. 119.21. Rom. 6.23. So if there were no other thing, yet even by your owne confession, the curse of God hangeth ouer your heads. And how wo­full then is your estate? Mynd withall, that when your self can not de­ny but your corruptions are of Antichrist, and it is certayne that Anti­christs Church even through the corruptions of their constitution is a­bolished from being Christs, you had need cleare this poynt well, or els you leaue your Church in a miserable taking euen in this behalf. Help it now, if you can. Your stale obiection and abuse of Mr Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs, is aunswered before, Pag. 8. 40. 41.

That the speach is both true and proper when I say, you ioyne Christ and Antichrist together, I need not further prove, seing your self can not deny but all the abominations of Antichrist before rehearsed, with ma­ny mo,Pag. 63. &c. are still retayned in your Church. And tell me Mr Iacob, [Page 75] May not I aswell say, you haue not Christ but some truths of Christ, as you say, you haue not Antichrist but some corruptions of Antichrist? Or if I say so, will you then graunt that the speach is proper?

Your comparison of a white Swan with a black bill, I perceyve you can not defend. Therefore you leave it, and betake your self to another of a maymed man vvith a vvoodden legg: Which yet fitteth not your estate neyther, as may be seen before, Pag. 59. 61. You must put the case of a de­formed boast, vvith the likenes of a mans face, womans heare, lyons teeth, Rev. 9.7-2. horses body, &c. And then may all see plainely, that although this have the likenes of some parts of a man, yet it is not therefore a true mā, but a monstrous beast notwithstanding. Yea although you ioyne your dead woodden legge to the foresayd living parts thereof, yet still it is no other but as it was, even a very beast. That it liveth, will nothing help you: for beasts have their life, aswell as men haue theirs. And you will not deny (I suppose) but Antichrist the man of sinne hath now lived and [...]aged, as a fierce and cruell beast, by the space of many hundred yeares,2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 13.11. one after another. If your comparison then be meant of this beastly man (as to pleasure you withall, I will not deny but it may very well) yet still your woodden leg will help it to go for no other but as it is, a mā of sinne and a monstrous beast.

Next, you come to the Scriptures by which I proved the Proposition, and pretend as if you would make a direct aunswer, and yet in deed do nothing lesse. Aunswer me therefore in your next, Whether do those Scriptures proue the Proposition, or not? If they do, why do you not graunt it? If they do not, why do you not say so, and shew it? And tell we, why you handle them, as if they had ben brought to prove the Assumption: and yet in deed leave vntowched that which was brought for the proof thereof? Such ignorant and double dealing, yll besee­meth a man professing so deep skill and syncerity, as you do. Yet least you please your self therein any longer, I will note the folly and false­hood of your aunswer in the particulars.

1. To the first, you say, you neuer denyed it to be true after a sort. Now that which there I sayd was this,Pag. 66. that these Scriptures forbid ioyning to Antichristian Idolatry, and that false worship vvhich breaketh the second commaundement. And such evenPag. 70. here you graunt your Church corrup­tions to be. So by your owne confession, these Scriptures forbid to joyne vnto them. Expound your (after a sort) as you please: and alter my words after your manner, as you think good. All will not help. Sure I am you do thus giue the cause. For those Scriptures forbid not to ioyne to the true worship and Churches of God.

And all your minesing speaches, when you say they forbid the breach of the Second commaundement, but not principally, directly, of purpose &c. what are they but so many testimonyes of your miserable halting and deceitfull dealing? For if it were as you say, were it not ynough to make you detest those sinnes, and never to partake with them any more? [Page 76] Hath not God to the Second cōmaundement annexed this severe threat­ning,Exod. 20.5 I a [...]ielours God, vvill visit this iniquity &c. Doubtles God fore­saw how the breach of this cōmaundement would be finally regarded and lessened among men professing the true God: and therefore here an­nexed the threatning after the Secōd, not after the First going before.

And tell me further, if you could not th [...] plead for the popish Orders, confession to Priests, extreme Vnction, prayer in an vnknovven toungue, Purgatory &c. To end this point then, I say againe (as I have shew­edpag. 67. 68 alreadie) that the immediate purpose ofEzec. 43.8. 2 King. 17.32. &c. two of these places is a­against the false worship which breaketh the Secōd cōmaundement, proving such worship and worshippers to be reiected of God: And the reasons vsed in the2 Cor. 6.14. &c. third Scripture, are aswell against the breach of the Secōd, as the First, convincing every such estate (against whether commaundement soever it be) to be in that case as cannot stand and ac­cord with Christ and his Church. The Scripture it self, and the argu­ments deduced from thence in my former aunswer, are so evident as I need not bring any further proof, vnles you brought other maner Re­ply against them, then yet you do.

2. For the second, you bid me make much of it. Therefore to pleasure you I meane so to do. To begin withall, here you say directlie, you never thought other but that your Church corruptions are against the Second cō ­maundement. And did you never think other in deed? How is it then that you plead for your Churches retaining and practising of them, yea holding of them to be Christs owne: that is, holding the transgressions of the Second commaundement to be Christs ordinances?

More speciallie for your owne part, how is it that you were made Deacon or Priest of the Prelates? Or being made in ignorance (as ma­ny be) that yet knowing these things since, you will still execute those offi­ces vnder them, And submit to their Iniunctions, Canons, Articles, &c. Yea even to this day partake with all the Antichistian filth and cor­ruption of your Church, which you know to be against the Law of God? Have you for gotten or do you not regard theE [...]o. 20.5. heavy sentence an [...]ered to the Second cōmaundement? Or is it onely against some, and not against all the transgressions thereof? Or will it take hold of others, and shall you staye free?

Howsoever your self seem careles what you say or do, yet let others mynd their fearfull estate in that Church, which retaineth such a mul­titude of Antichristian corruptions (here graunted by your self to be) a­gainst the Second commaundement: the breach whereof God hath threat­ned to punish most severely.

And let it be observed, that you who have taken vpon you the defence of your Churches and Ministery, yet cannot deny that to be your estate. Behold then to what issue your Defence is come in the end. And now that you see hovv much I have made of this point at your request: forget not to thank me for it in your next Reply.

[Page 77]The Scripture here alledged, you would turne away from your selves by saying, it is of Saul a presumptuous offender; 1 Sam. 15.23 But that Scripture is not for Saul onely, but for1 Cor. 10.11 Rom. 15.4. others likewise. And how will you shew that Saul was a more presumptuous and wilfull offender, then your self and your Church, Nay how will you shew that his sinne was meerly of presumption and wilfulnes? The Scripture mentioneth two other cau­se [...] alledged by himself,1 Sam. 15.15 an intent to sacrifice to the Lord; andvers. 24. feare of the people [...] and your Church can hardly yeeld like reasons for your sel­v [...]s. [...]et if you could they [...] not s [...]nd before God, as this Scripture witnesseth.

Your clause, of making your whole Churches so, importeth that you take the case of some (the [...] not of all) among you to be as Sauls was. Then take you heed Mr. Iacob, and the rest of like iudgement and pra­ctise as you [...]re. What I think of your whole Churches as towching their constitution, I have often shewed before.

3. For the third, I meane it of the Antichristian abominations re­mayning among you, and the like. Neither could you be ignorant hereof, seing I had a litlePag. 63.64.65. before reckned vp so many of them in particular. But you would not seem to know it, because you can not prove the contrarie against it. For proof of my assertion I alledg these Scriptures Exod. 20. [...] compared with 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. Col. 2.8. Revel. 1 [...]. [...]0.10.11. with ver. 4. & ver. 12. & Revel. 17.1-6. with Hos. 2.2. & Prou. 6.27, 28.32. & 7.22.23.27. & 9.13-18. 2 Thes. 23-12. 2 Ioh. vers. 9.10.11.

Your inwrapping of Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. I have vnfolded be­fore. Pag. 8.41. Of all the reasons and differences which I named concerning you and them, you picke out but one or two, and the rest you passe by. Now of them which you except against, the first is, that they suffred to death for the truth they saw. Which my words you have altered thus that they for seeke all the corruptions they saw. But beside the altera­tion your answer also is to be noted. I alledged: hat the Martyrs suffred to death for the truth they saw: you answer, this belongeth to many thousands in England, no lesse then to them. Can you now iustifie either your dealing or your answer? Or can you shew seme hundreds of your Church in stead of your manie thousands?

For myne owne part, if you had thousands of such, I wish they were many millions. But I feare that the contrarie of your speach is to true: viz, that there are many thousands in England so far from suffring death for the truth they see (like those Martyrs) as they will not [...] imprisōment, bannishement, losse of goods or the like, for that truth which they do not onely see, but which themselues have heretofore pro­fessed, preached, sued for to the Parliament &c. So far are they from for [...]al [...]ing all the corruption they see (that I may vse your owne words). Yea who can think otherwise by their estate and practise, but if a Que [...] Mary came againe which God for did) the [...] of the Land would [...] [Page 78] as the Prince beleveth and be ready to receive againe the points of Pope­rie now reiected, as it was heretofore after King Edwards decease?

Marke, that I speake of the face of the Land generally, not of ever it particular person therein. Of divers among you I have better hope, as I have shewed before. pag. 7. Yet for your generall state (as the questiō is) who can say but you are readie to receive any religion, or any thing in religion, to go forward or backward, even as pleaseth the Prince, and best fitteth your turne, for avoiding of trouble, and enioying your ease, wealth, safety, &c. And where then be the many thousāds you speak of? Or may wee think this is to forsake corruption and hold forth the truth, as the Martyrs did? Nay Mr. Iacob, it is far from it. And this you may note as a great difference between your estate and the Martyrs, and ioyne it to the other mentioned before. pag. 40.41.

Now where you say, there are infinite of your Church that know not so much of the corruptions, as those learned men did, which yet are not igno­rant of redemption by Christ &c. How shew you this to be true? Although if it be, it is no great commendation to your Church, considering what meanes of further knowledg God hath vouchsafed since that tyme. But of this point I will not stand so much. I aunswer, that to make your comparison hold, you must compare with those learned men, the learned among you; and with the vnlearned then, the vnlearned of yours now. So shall your self and others see how vntrue your speach is. Although I doubt not but even many of the vnlearned among you who have know­ledge of redemption by Christ, know also more of the corruptions afore­said, then those learned men did. Towching that you speak of my self, I have aunswered before. Pag. 41.

The second thing you except against concerning the Martyrs, is that I said, the things now controverted were not then so called in question and cō ­vinced against them by the Scriptures, as now they haue ben against you. So I sayd. Now speak you, were they, or not? If they were, shew it. If not, yeeld it. But you would have me to meane this, towching some few a­mong you, and not of all. If it were but so, yet then the thing is done more synce, then in those daies.

But in deed the calling in question and conviction of these things, hath not ben onely to some few, as you would perswade. The Admonitions have ben to the whole Parliament, which are as the body of the whole Land, and gathered from all the quarters thereof. Your preaching like­wise against those corruptions hath gone throughout the whole Realme. So have your books written and printed against them. Finally, our testimony by word, writing, imprisomnent, exile, death, is knowen throughout the Land. Why then would you have me speak this of some few, that here and there might be picked out?

And whereas you cannot deny but the case of some among you for these things is such as damnatory sentence may be threatned against them: take you heed Mr. Iacob that God being it not vpon your head for one, if you [Page 79] proceed in those sinnes still as hitherto you have done. And let your disci­ple D. B. that Apostate take heed of it for another: and likewise all the rest whomsoever you meane to be of those some you speak of.

It is the word of God that doth and must judge both now and in the great day.Ioh. 12.48. Psal. 149.9. 2 Chrō. 19.6. 1 Cor. 5.3.4.12.13. The judgement that is done according vnto it (by whomso­ever it be) is not mans but the Lords. Your hearts and consciences, I leave them to the Lord. It is your constitution and practise I speake of, and of the sundrie meanes of knowledge and conviction in these things vouchsafed to you, which the Martyrs in former times had not. This you knew (I doubt not) though you would not see it, because you know not how to aunswer it.

And thus the two differences between you and the Martyrs excepted a­gainst, do both of them stand firme against you. But why say you no­thing at all to the other differences which in the same places I noted as­well as these? Can you not bring so much as colour of exception against them? Why then do you not yeeld vnto them? Or will you that we take your silence for a consent?

Also, why aunswer you not that obiection when I saidPag. 67. you might thus justify the callings and estate of the Monks, Fryers, &c. and the having of spirituall communion vvith them: because divers such have ben Martyrs, gi­ving their lives for the truth they saw, vvho never doubted of the lawfulnes of their callngs and estate? Do you therefore hold their offices and functiōs to be lawfull? Or will you deny, that this hath ben the case of such? If you do, then I alledge for proof, Eckhardus a Dominican fryer; Thomas Rhedonensis a Carmelite frier; Henry Voes, Iohn Esch, William Neel, Doctor Cacalla, Augustine friers; Ioannes Mollius a gray frier; Ierome Savonarola, Dominicus, Siluester, &c. All of them being Fryers and Monks, yet Martyrs of Iesus, faithfullie witnessing the truth which they saw even vnto death. Act. & Monum. 5. edit. Pag. 387. 613. 672. 799. 829. 850. 854.

4. For the fourth point, it is so very playne and pregnant as you can say nothing against it, but refer vs to that you have said before: which I have shewed to be nothing at all to the purpose. So it remaineth firme against you. And so also do the reasons mentioned, 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. A­gainst which you neither have said nor can say any thing to serve your turne. Say but yourself (and speak plainly) whether that general clause [Towch no vncleane thing] include not both your and all other abomina­tions of Antichrist breaking the second commandement?

One of your selvesTriall of Subscriptiō: Pag. 7. alledging this scripture but against the ceremonies reteined in your Church, reasoneth thus from it, and ānexeth that note in the Margent which I have here set downe withall:2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17. This for­biddeth the vvhole cor­ruptiō in re­ligiō of hea­then or An­tichrist, al­though prin­cipally their false doctrin. What communion (saith he) hath the light of the word, vvith the darknes of mans inventions? What concord hath Christ our Saviour, vvith Belial, the Antichrist of Rome? And vvhere greement hath the Temple of God (vvhich is our selves) vvith Idols of humane traditions? Wherefore Rev. 18.2.3.4. come out of Babylon (that is, the [Page 80] confusion, or confused vvorship and gouernment of Rome) and tovvch no vncleane thing. These are his words. Now tell me, I pray you, is this Scripture and reason strong against your ceremonies? And is it not much more against your confusion, Leiturgie, Hierarchie &c. which are meerly the inventions of man, even of Antichrist, that man of sinne? Or will you be like the Papists also in this, to limit the bounds of the Scri­pture, that it may be applied no further, nor othervvise, but as pleaseth you?

That the place of Ezechiel is directly of the breach of the Second com­maundement, Ezec. 43.8. is as cleare as the Sunne at noone day. Beside the reasons which I alledged before, those so many clauses (My thres holds & theirs; My posts and theirs; Me and them; Myne holy Name with their abominati­ons) these, I say, so many concurring in this one verse, make it without all question, that he speaketh directly of ioyning their inventions with Gods ordinances in the worship of the true God. Which is the direct breach of the Second, not of the First, cōmandement.

The First is directlie towching Gods inward worship, as to have, love, trust, feare him onely as God, &c. The Secōd is directlie of out­ward worship: For Images and bowing downe to them (Exo. 20.4.5 there mentioned) are outward things. If this distinction be not observed, the first and second cōmaundement will be confounded: as the Papists (whom you follow) would have it. But if it be observed, it confoundeth both you and them (M. Iacob) and all your vayne pretences.

By this also it is evident, that the Idolatrie of Ahas, Manasses, A­mon &c. whereof you speak, was directlie against the Second cōmāde­ment. Ahaz (to give an instance in one of the grossest) is said to have2 Chrō. 28 23. sa­crificed to the Gods of Damascus: because he2 King. 16.10-15. made an altar like the altar of Damascus: though yet notwithstanding he offered thereon to the true God, both such offerings and at such seasons, as the Lord had appointed. His sinne then was against the Second commandement directlie, in that he made and vsed another altar then God had prescribed.

But your ignorance of the Scripture-phrase deceiveth you. For when you read that Ahaz, Manasses, or others sacrificed to the Gods of the Nations, you vnderstand that they worshipped some other then the true God against the First cōmandement▪ whereas the Scripture meaneth they worshipped the true God after the [...]er as those nations served their Idols, and so brake the Second cōmaundement. You may see it in that example of Ahaz before: and most plainly in Deut. 12.30.31.32. And likewise if Naaman worshipping God, had bowed downe before the Idoll in Rimmons Temple, but in heart honored the God of Israell, he had broken the Secōd, not the First cōmandement: and might be said to have worshipped the Idoll Rimmon. 2 King. 5.17.18.

The reason of all these is because God accounteth them to be served, whose ordinances are observed: and himself not to be had as God, when his true vvorship is not had. Now so must we esteeme things, and so the [Page 81] Scripture speaketh (not as men judge, but) as God esteemeth. Minde this well Mr. Iacob, for your worship of Antichrist.

But of these things more hereafter, when wee come to speak of the third Scripture (2 King. 17.) in the sixt Reason following,2 King. 17. whither you refer vs for it: though there the Reader shall finde you aunswer not the se­verall Scriptures here alledged for proof of it. In the meane time let this be noted, that here againe you graunt your Church corruptions are a­gainst the Second commaundement. Therefore may none that feare God and will be assured to escape his wrath, bow downe vnto them. Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 5.9.10. and 6.10.11. and 28.15.16. &c. Psal. 106.29.

Next, where I speak of your breach of the second cōmaundement, as be­ing spirituall whoredome: you except against it, as if I mismatched things otherwise then they are in deed. But how can that be, seing the Scriptures Pag. 68. there alledged prove that which I said? Or will you say your case is not spirituall whoredome, which God in that commaundement hath straitlie forbidden and severelie threatned to punish?

This then being so, it is your self Mr Iacob, that mismatch things other­wise then in deed they are. For your case is not as you would pretend by your similitude, like a wanton word, a light gesture or contenaunce, or an immodest thought of a woman. But I will tell you what it is like: Even as when a woman vnfaithfull to her husband, is found to commit filthy­nes with other men, after whom she goeth a whoring. Now such a one (whatsoever smooth speach, countenance, or excuse she pretend, yet) is in deed an whore, and for this cause to be divorced.

That your case is such, your going a whoring after Antichrist (whose ordinances, Hierarchie, worship, confusion &c. are retained among you) testifies to your faces. Fitly therefore do we applie the Scriptures against you: and your selves it is that sinne against the Third commaundement in misapplying of them, as I shewed sufficientlie in my former answer, against which you can say nothing.

To the proof of the Assumption you yeeld now at length. Neither can I otherwise thinke of your aunswer, seing I have proved my speach to be proper, and the Scriptures fitly alledged: and, you refuse to iustify your owne Articles and estate. Yet least you should againe cavill and delude the Rea­der, I aske you, Have I not concluded the question in a Syllogisme? Why then do you not aunswer directlie to some part of it? Have I not proved the Proposition by Scripture, and the Assumption by your owne Writings and practise? The Conclusion then must needs be true, vnles one of the Propositions could be disproved: which you are so far from, as you never go about to do it.

The marginall note then is no scoffe, but a iust reproof of your igno­rance: which in deed deserveth much more. But I spare you: and leave it to others to iudge, whether you do any thing els in all you say, but winde in and out, to hide the truth and blinde the Reader, if you could. The Scriptures which I alledged for proof of the Proposition, you handle [Page 82] as if I had brought them for proof of the Assumption. Who is it now (think you) that is in a dreame? Agayne, your owne Books, profession, and practise, by which I proved the Assumption, you towch not at all. Nay you say plainely, it is no part of your mynd to iustify them. Whether it be for that you see, they can not possibly be iustifyed, or because you want skill in your self or charity towards your Church for the doing of it, let o­thers inquire. Sure I am that thus you give the cause. For this belongs directly vnto it, as all may see that have any vnderstanding, and your self (I suppose) will not deny, when you have called your wits a litle bet­ter togeather.

Chap. 8. The second Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fr. Io. THat which appointeth and ratifyeth 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 worshipping of God in vaine, Therefore, &c.

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

That which appointeth and ratifyeth the worshipping of God by the precepts of Man, that appointeth and ratifyeth the worshipping of God in vaine. (This Christ affirmeth out of Esay the Prophet, Mat. 15.9. with Esay. 29.13.)

But the doctrine publiquely professed and practized by law in Englād appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man. (This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Articles of the book alledged, and by their other books of Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Common prayer, their Holy dayes, Fasting dayes, Censures, Hierarchy &c. All which are the precepts of men and authorised by Law in England.)

Therefore the doctrine publiquely professed and practized by law in England, appoincteth and ratifyeth the worshipping of God in vaine. And consequently cannot make a particuler man a true Christian, nor the assemblies so gathered together, true Churches.

H. IACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reason. THis your Second Reason is: This booke and others appoincteth and ratifyeth the wor­shipping of God in vaine, Ergo &c. 1. This also hath answere in the third Exce­ption Pag 57. 2. Also, note I pray you, this Scripture [Mat. 15.] is verified of such as were then of the true visibleMarke his open contra­riety with hī ­self, granting this in Reas. 6 Church, with vvhom Christ and his Apostles, both in Christs tyme and after his death, did sometimes ioyne and communicate. This therefore maketh for vs and against you most notably.

[Page 83] FR. Io. his Aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 2. Reason. THe Reason is as you see it propounded before. N [...]w what propositiō do you deny? Not any at all. What defence then bring you of your book of Common prayer and the particulars therein; of your books of Articles and Iniunctions; of your Prelacy and other Ministery receyved frō then according to your popish Pontificall; of your Canons and Excommu­nications &c. Surely none neyther. What then do you answer? Not a word, but that you refer vs to your answer before in the last Exception: whither also we refer the Reader with this note, that there he shall finde nothing, either for answer of any proposition of this argument, or for defence of your worship, Prelacy, Ministery, and Church gouernement called into question. Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like answer? Have you not (may we thinke) good proof for your present estate and Church-constitution, which thus leave it altogeather without defence, even when it most needeth, and as it were, beggeth your help and succor, if you could affoard it any. Yet now having no aunswer to any part of the Argument, you bid vs note, that this Scripture (Mat. 15.) here alledged; is verifyed of such as were then of the true visible Church, with whom Christ himself and his Apostles both in Christs tyme, and after his death, did sometyme ioine and communicate. This therefore you say ma­keth for you and against vs most notably.

1 But first tell vs, ifAs that of Lev. 10.1.2.3. Num. 16 1. &c. Esa. 1.11.12.13.14.15. Zeph 1.12. 1 Cor. 11.19. many things, which are verifyed sometymes of the members of a true Church, may not also fitly be applyed, and al­leadged against a false Church, and yet not iustify their estate and consti­tution, neither make for them, but against them altogeather. Otherwise you condemne at once all the Martyrs heretofore, who vsually alleadged thisMat. 15.9 very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church, as as your self cannot be ignorant. Yet in your learning it seemeth the Pa­pists might well have aunswered the Martyrs againe, that this Scripture was verifyed of them that were of the true visible Church, and there­fore made for them and against the Martyrs most notably.

2 Secondly, when you say, This Scripture is verifyed of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated, tell vp, whether you meane that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vaine traditiōs, or no. If you think they did, that very Chapter sheweth the contrary besides that the whole Scriptures testi­fy, that Christ was altogeather free from sinne,Mat. 15.2. which he could not have bene, if he had ioyned with them in those their inventions. If they did not, (as it is without all question) then what doth this helpe you, who do all of you ioyne and cōmmunicate with the fa [...]se worship of your Assem­blyes?

3 Thirdly I answer, that your note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand. For first, who knoweth not, that [...]e the Iewish Church; the doctrine publiquely pro­fessed [Page 84] and practised by their Law, did not appoint or ratifie any of those vaine traditions, but vtterlie forbid them? Wheras contrarilie, the verie doctrine publiquelie professed and practised by law in England, appoin­teth and ratifieth the false worshipping of God by the inventions of men. Secondlie, those vaine traditions aforesaid, were the personall sinnes of some particuler men in the Iewish Church, not publiquelie established by law, nor generallie received and practised in that Church:Luk. 1.5.6 8.9.10. & 2.21.22.23.24.25.27.36.37.38.39.41.46. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. Ioh. 10.34. Zachary and Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioseph, Christ himself, and his Apostles, with manie others kept the ordinance of God given by the hande of Mo­ses, and observed of that Church. Neither did they ioyne or pollute themselves with that vaine worship aforesaid: whereas in the Church of England, the false worship thereof devised by men, even by that man of sinne, is not the personall sinne of some particular men in it, but is pu­bliquelie established by law, and generallie received and practised in your assemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this scripture maketh nothing for you, but against you most notably.

Now whereas in the margent, you wish the Reader to marke an open contrariety, comparing this and the Sixt Reason togeather: we do also referre it to the Reader to iudge, whether there be not even an harmo­nie with this, and a direct confirmation of it.

H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2 Reason. TO this your defence of your Second Reason, I say, you have aunswer in your last Exception, page 57. You aske what proposition I do deny? I answer, I distinguish your assūptiō as being a fallacie called [...]. concluding a thing simply, from that which is after a sort, like vnto that Reason which I framed against you in pag. 57. A man hath a woodden legg, an eye of glasse, &c. Therefore he is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. held asmuch as wee, aftet mens precepts: Ergo they worshipped in vaine. Geneva holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper, Ergo, Geneva worshippeth God in vaine. Euen so your Assumption runneth. Our doctrine (say you Pag. 82.) appoincteth Gods worship by mens precepts. This is false, vnlesse you meane it [...], 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 Chistian and conscionable Disputer. Thus you have ansvver enough to this in the ansvver to your last Exception, though you vvould not see it.

Pag. 82.Further I noted Secondly, That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a visible Church, vvith vvhom Christ did cōmunicate, though they held also traditions of men: Therefore it affirmeth nothing a­gainst vs. Is not this true? Why then do you not admit it? We never denyed, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this onely vvee affirme, it disanulleth not our Churches: Euen as Christ here condemneth the Ievves corrupt traditions, but hee meant not there by [...] their Church▪ [Page 85] Therefore all this is not against our purpose, but notably for vs is before observed.

1. Concerning your First ansvver in Pag. 83. I knovv this Scripture may be applyed against false vvorshippers vvhich are no true Church: But it pro­ueth not I say, all them, to vvhom it may bee applyed, to bee no true Church: Therefore you abuse it against vs, Except you had first proved vs no true Church nor Christians, vvhich yet is in question.

2. Where in your Second answerepag. 83. you say That this helpeth vs not except we say that Christ communicateed with the Pharisies in these traditions, like as wee doe in the vaine tradi­tions now. For shame leave this folly. I say againe, I seke not to iustify our par­taking in our traditions, but I renounce it in sobrietie asmuch as you, yea bet­ter then you do: Yet I say this place shall admit those vvho doe in simplicitie partake of them, to be true Christians neverthelesse, like as it admitteth the Ievves then.

3. In your Third aunsvverpag. 83. 84 You deny that those Iewish traditions of washing, &c. were with them received generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I aunsvver, That they vvere generally received, as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doeth testify, and that they vvere rebuked vvho vsed rhem not: vvhich is sufficient to make it their Churches doctrine & practize, though no expresse law cōmanded it. But I suppose verse 5. where they say, [why walkest thou not after the traditi­ons of the Elders] he meaneth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as lawes, besides the lawe of Moses. What els is their Thalmud, which is till this day, 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 lavv. And though Zachary, Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioseph, Christ and his Apostles, did not actually ioyne in these corruptions, yet they vvere generall no doubt and by lavv never the lesse, and a number of the Ievves simply vsed them, and yet fell not from God, asThe Sixe waterpots of the Iewishe purifyings. Iohn 2.6. Therefore your Replies here are most vaine and false.

Lastlie, in pag. 84. you will not confesse your contrarietie, that is to say, 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. 82. 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.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the. 2. Reason. VVHhatsoeuer you brought against the last Exception before, is there answered. Pag. 58. 59. 60. 61. Your woodden leg will not make your Reply go for currant, neyther can your glassy eye see how to take [...] my aunswer. The vanitie of this comparison of yours applied to [Page 86] your estate, I have already discovered. And for Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. I have aunswered before. Pag. 40. 41. 59. 60. Divers of the diffe­rences there noted may likewise serve forYet if it be still with Geneva, as you say: the thing as of very yll note. If it be not so, note M. Iacob. Geneva. Besides that the con­stitution of that Church is in the way of Christ: whereas yours is in the apostasy of Antichrist. And so there is no comparing of your estate and theirs togeather: although in some things it may be they walke corrup­tly, and you in other with some show of piety.

Your [...] (M. Iacob) would aswell help the Iewes to have confu­ted the Prophet Esay and our Saviour Christ, as it doth you. For I pray you, did the doctrine and Law of their Church appoint all Gods vvorship by mens precepts, or yet the chiefest part of it? Or had it ben of waight, if they had thus aunswered Christ and his Prophets, as you do here? Shall I now say, you play the ignorant Sophister, yea and the false Sophister too.

And where you say next, Your Preaching, Sacraments, Prayers &c. are not appointed by mens precepts, Is not this also a manifest vntruth? Let your Offices of Ministery by vertue of which these are administred; your Prelates silencing of you at their pleasure; your Iniunctions, Canons, Ar­ticles, Common prayer book, according to which you are appointed and bound to administer all your holy things: Let these (I say) speak indif­ferently between vs. Yea let your owne men speak, and they will testify against you. In the second Admonition to the Parliament they affirme,2 Admon. pag. 6. That although some truth be taught by some Preachers, yet no Preachers may vvithout great dāger of the Lavves vtter all the truth compri­sed in the book of God. It is so circunscribed and vvrapt vvithin the cōpasse of Statutes, Penalties, Iniunctions, Articles, Canons, &c. Also, that these may not be offended against, but vvith more daunger then to offend against the Bible. Yea, that the Bible must have no further scope, then by these it is assigned.

Adde herevnto your Book of common prayer, by which you are enioy­ned how to administer your Sacraments, what to pray when to exhort &c. Which likewise you may not break, but with more danger then to offend against the Bible: as in the Admonition aforesaid is testifyed. Mynd al­so, that your Church is enioined in the service of God publikly to read the Apocrypha books which have errors, fables, magik, blasphemy &c. and to leave altogeather vnread some parts of the Canonicall Scripture as being (you say) least edifying, & might best be spared: as the book of Can­ticles and other parts of the Old Testament; And in the New also, part of the first Chapter of Mathevv, and of the 3. of Luke, and almost the whole Book of the Revelation: Of which the Spirit of God saith expressely, Blessed is he that readeth, Rev. 1.3. and they that heare the vvords of this Prophecy &c. For proof hereof, see the Kalender and Rubrick in your book of Commō Prayer, for the order of reading the Scripture in your Church throughout the yeare.

Speak now your self Mr. Iacob, Is it not cleare, that your Preaching, [Page 87] Sacraments, Prayer &c. are appointed by mens precepts? Vnles you will say, Your Iniunctions, Canons, Articles, Statutes, Common prayer book &c. be not the precepts of men. As it may be you will not stick much at it, if you can colour the matter with a [...], or like deceit. So Christian a Disputer and conscionable you are.

Againe, Is the Papists vvhole vvorship or the chiefest part of it other­wise by the precepts of men, then yours is? It may be you will take pepper in the nose, that I aske you this. For I perceive your little pa­cyence is already much moved. You shall not therefore heare it of me, be­cause I would not put you out of all quyet. I will but tell you what your owne men say of it, at whose hands I doubt not but you will take it bet­ter. Thus then they say, speaking of your estate:2 Admon. pag. 7. He that could not abide straunge fyer in the old Lavv but burnt them that vsed it, vvhat vvill he do to vs in the nevv Lavv that erect a nevv and straunge course or vvord to rule his Church by? What did the Pope but so? He did suffer Gods vvorde to have a course as far as it pleaseth him, so that he might have the vvhole authority above it.

What now Mr Iacob? How will you aunswer your owne men? Or will you be so good to the Papists your grandsiers, as a little to help them at a dead lift with your [...]? So may they plead for their wor­ship against this Scripture (Mat. 15.9.) opposed vnto them by the Martyrs, as you do for yours. Specially, seing your Book of common prayer was taken out of their Portuis; and your Book of consecrating Bishops and Priests, out of their Pontificall. So that if theirs, then yours also must needs be according to the precepts of men, yea of Antichrist that man of sinne. Thus you have aunswer enough to this, if you have eye enough to see it.

In your Second note, because this Scripture was spoken to them that were of a visible Church &c. you say,Mat. 15.9. Therefore it affirmeth nothing a­gainst you. This is a very straunge consequence. Have not your sel­ves alledged it against the Papists? and would you admit of such an an­swer? I shewed heretofore, that the things verifyed sometymes of the members of a true Church, may fitly be alledged against a false Church. and yet not iustify them in such estate to be a true one. See the Scriptu­resPag. 83. there quoted, which by the Martyrs and others are often so alledged against the Papists. Vnto which you can say nothing.

Besides also, the Iewes being a true Church, and yet their worship vn­to many of them by their traditions proving to be in vaine: it followeth more strongly against the false Church and her abominations, which are far mo and of another nature then those in Iewry. Thus should you apply it to your selves.

Lastlie minde that now you are driven to saie, you never denied but this Scripture condemneth your corruptions. So by your owne confessiō, your worship of God is in vayne. No part of it is free from your corru­ptions. Let such then ioine with you therein as have pleasure in vaine [Page 88] worship. 2 Thes. 2.12. vvith Exod. 20.5. Christ never communicated in any such, but rebuked it and all them that worshipped God in such ma­ner, even this Scripture being witnes. Therefore it maketh notablie against you and for vs, as is before observed.

1. In your Replie to the first point of my Aunsvver next following, you can not saie a word against it. Yet will you not yeeld. Still you would have me graunt that which I denie, and you should prove: viz, That in your estate you are a true Church &c. The contrarie whereof I have pro­vedPag. 3. 12. 16. 22. 33. 59. 60. 61. 63. &c. before. Therefore is it not yet in question.

2. To the second you yeeld with shame enough: though your follie be so great, as you see it not. For first, you neither do nor can aunswer (but against your selves) to that which I asked concerning Christ and his Apostles, vvhether they communicated in those traditions of the Ieevves, or not. If by your silence you consent that they did not (as in deed the truth is) then by their exāple are we also bound not to partake in yours. If you saie they did, then you both blaspheme Christ, making him a sin­ner, and give the holy Ghost the lie, who inMat. 15.2.13.14. this verie Chapter testifies the contrarie. Thus whatsoever you shall aunswer, it maketh against you excedinglie. And because you answer not, it importeth that you yeeld. So also doth that most plainlie, which here you speak for your self.

You saie you seek not to iustify your partaking in your traditions &c. Yes Mr Iacob, you seek it, but you are ashamed to professe it. Els why condemne you vs for not partaking therein? I know you will say (as is in the Preface of your book) that your minde is, we should partake with you in your lavvfull things, not in your traditions. But for shame leave this follie. None can ioyne with any of your Churches or Ministerie, but they must needs partake with your Antichristian traditions. Shew the contrarie in any Minister or Church of the Land, and we yeeld. O­therwise, what do you but yeeld?

The renouncing you speak of, is in word, not in work. You renounce evill with your lippes, but approve it in your deeds. And thus is ve­rified vpon you that which Christ out of the Prophet spake in theMat. 15.8. place aforesaid, This people dravveth neare vnto me vvith their mouth and hono­reth me vvith the lippes, but their heart is far from me.

And where you speak of such as do in simplicity partake of your traditions, to be true Christians nevertheles, Albeit in your constitution they can not by the word of God so be counted,Pag. 3. 7. 16. 33. 63. &c. as hath ben proved: yet I pray tell vs, what then you think of those that partake with your traditions, not of simplicity, but as your self do: that is, knowing them to be against the Second Commaundement; of Antichrist; vaine vvorshipp; never but nought &c.

3. In the third point of my aunsvver, I noted two differences between your case and the Iewes: the first towching the Law it self, the second towching the observation of it. For the Lavv, I shewed that the ordi­nance of God given by Moses (even the written word) being the Law [Page 89] of that Church, it did not appoint but forbid those traditions: Yours contrarilie. For the observation, I shewed that the traditions were not generallie observed of all the members of that Church, as yours be. Both these I proved by the Scripture, Luk. 1.5-10. & 2.21. &c. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. Ioh. 10.34. Where marke in Iohn those words of Christ to the Iewes [In your Law] speaking of the written word. Now vnto this so plaine evidence you aunswer nothing at all to the pur­pose.

For the former, you seem at first to yeeld, that these traditions were not commaunded by the Law of that Church? But yet being so generally received, and they rebuked who vsed them not, you count it to be as good. Which I denie. Then you would prove these to be the Law of that Church, because they are calledMar. 7.5. the Traditions of the Elders. But even by this appeareth, that they were not the Law of that Church, but a Tra­dition received from hand to hand from their forefathers. Which there­fore bound not anie, neither were observed by all, as it is with you. Nei­ther was their case then, as the Iewes is now with their Thalmud; or as the Turks with their Alcoran; neither as the Papists or yours with the Canon Law. If it had ben such, then could they not have ben a true Church. And to vnderstand this to be the ordinance of their present Governours (as to serve your turne you could be content) is altogeather without ground. It is both against the common vse of the word Tradi­tion here vrged, and against the true meaning of the word Elders in this place:Mat. 5 21.27.33. which plainelie appeareth by another word vsed in Mat. 5. in such sence as this is here, and in stead thereof, signifying Them of old tyme, or the like.

For the latter, that is the observation, you would prove out ofMar. 7.3. Mark, that they were generally received. If you meane, they were received of very many, but not of all, you speak nothing against that which I said. If you meane they were received of all among them (as the words seem to sound) then you misvnderstand and misalledge that Scripture. I will shew it by a like speach vsed also by Mark in another place, where he saith, all the countrey of Iudea and they of Ierusalem came out to Iohn, Mar. 1.5. and vvere all baptised of him &c. Now by the word All in this place he meaneth onely a great many, and not everie one, as the word might seem to import. For that all were not baptised of him, is evident both byMat. 21.32 Luk. 7.30. other Scriptures; and by this reason, that if all Iudea and Ierusalem had ben bap­tized of him, then had they all confessed their sinnes and become disciples. Which all men know was far otherwise. Likewise in this place, al­though he saie All the Ievves, because they were many, yet even in theMar. 7.2. next verse going before he saieth the Disciples (who also were Iewes) observed them not, and therefore the Pharisees complained.

Thus you see they were not received of all the Iewes: as heretofore I shewed not onelie in the Disciples, but in divers other by name.Pag. 84. Of whom you cannot denie but it is true. They were the personall sinnes [Page 90] of some, not the publik established Law, neither generallie received and practised in that Church, as I noted yours to be in your Assemblies, that is of all the members thereof. Neither is there anie comparison between yours and theirs: as (besides that which I have shewed before) may ap­peare even by the vvaterpots here mentioned by your self. Of the lawfull or vnlawfull vse whereof I need not stand to speak, it being evident that they were no waie so vnlawfull, or of such nature, as your corruptiōs are. Let this then which hath ben said suffice to shew how true and pertinent my aunswers be.

That there is no contrariety between anie thing spoken here and in the sixt Reason following, the Reader may see. And that it is your self who do evill, and defend it too, there need no other witnes, but the title and contents of your book, togeather with your estate. Concerning the thing which here you obiect, I have proved alreadie, thatMat. 15.9 this andSee before Pag. 83. o­ther Scriptures being spoken of vaine worshippers in the true Church, have ben and may be alledged much more against all vaine worship in the false Church: whether it be yours, or the Papists, or anie other what­soever. And saie your self, if the Martyrs have not both ben perswaded that the Iewes were a true Church, and yet alledged this Scripture a­gainst the Papists, as against a false Church. Are these contrary, I pray you, that they need be reconciled? Then do you reconcile them, for the Martyrs. For sure I see no need of it.

Chap. 9. The third Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fran. Iohnson. IF the whose doctrine, as it is publiquelie professed and practized by Law in England, be not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian, that should with all submit vnto Circumcision: Then much lesse, is it a­ble to make him a true Christian, that together with it, submitteth vnto a false Ministerie, Worship, and Governement of the Church devised by man, even the man of sinne. But the first is true: Therefore also the latter.

The consequence of the Proposition is good, because Circumcision was once the holie ordinance, and appointment of God himself to his Church and people, whereas the Ministerie, Worship, and Governement afore­said, never was so, but is mans device in religion, even Antichrists, that capitall enemie of Iesus Christ.

The Assumption is proved Gal 5.2.3.4. where the Apostle speaketh of them that held, not onelie such trueths of the Gospell, as are in that book of Articles, but more then those: Yet if they should withall submit to Circumcision, he saith, they vvere abolished from Christ, Christ vvould profit them nothing.

[Page 91] H. Iacob his first Reply to the 3. Reason. THis your Third Reason is from the more to the lesse negatiuely to this ef­fect, A Galatian vsing Circumcision, is a likelier Christian, then one of our Engl [...]sh holding the Hierarchy and other traditions: But a Galatian is a false Christian, Ergo, An English profes­sor is much more.

We ansvver, We denie the Assumption: Galatians vvere then true Christi­ans, and their Assemblies true Churches, Gal. 1.2. Therefore this Reason is nought. If you obiect, The Apostle saith, such are abolished from Christ. That is in deed some amongst them, as held Moses ceremonies, necessarie absolutlie to salvation, as Act. 15.1. And thatGal. 5.3 4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 Iustification vvas by the morall vvorkes of the lavv. Novv the Churches of Galatia generallie vvere not such, but held the saving faith sound doubtles, though manie amngest them vvere tain­red vvith that infection, by reason of some mischeuous teachers that vvere crept in, and too vvell interteined among them. Hovvbeit, vvith the Church, Communion vvas kept, and therefore, so vvith vs you ought to deale. If you say vve are vvorse Christians then those grosest Galatians, It is vtterly false: prove it if you can, and it must dravve in Maister Cranmer, &c. vvith vs also. If you say, there are many amongst vs as bad, or vvorse then those vvorst Ga­latians, you may say it, but prove it, you cannot. Also, if it vvere so, yet this disgraceth, it destroyeth not the Church, like as hath ben sayd of the Ga­latians.

Fr. Io. his Ansvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 3. Reason. YOur first answer is, that you deny the Assumption. Which in plaine termes is asmuch, as if you had given the holy Ghost the lye, who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it, Gal. 5.2.3.4. As in the proof of the Assumpti­on was shewed before. But for the more evidence of the truth, I will set this downe in a Syllogisme, thus:

If a Galatian submitting to Circumcision, though he hold all the truths of the Gospell professed in Englād withall, yet be notwithstanding abo­lished from Christ, and falne from grace, Then is he not in this estate a true Christian.

But the former is true, as the Apostle testifieth, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4.

Therefore also the latter. And yet the former you deny, that is the Assumption. Therefore you give the lie to the holy Ghost, who affirmeth it.

Next you aunswer, that the Galatians vvere then true Christians, and their Assemblies, Churches, Gal 1.2. Therefore (say you) this Reason is nought. But you may not thus runne away with the matter and deceive your self and your simple favourers. The question is not, Whether any Galatians vvere true Christians, or any of their Assemblies, true Churches. For who ever doubted of that? But this is the question, Whether a Galatian holding all the truths of the Gospell novv professed in England, and vvithall submitting to Circūcisiō; vvere in that estate a true Christian. Or putting the case that there were whole Assemblies consisting of such: Whether those Assē blies then in that case were by Gods word to be deemed the true Churches of [Page 92] Christ. The Apostle testifieth and saith No: You say, Yea. Now whe­ther of you two it is meet wee beleeve, let all men iudge.

But what is it then (will you say) that the Apostle termeth the assem­blies of the Galatians true Churches? Gal. 1.2. You shew the reason your selfe, the light of the truth is so cleare and manifest: There were but some of the Galatians that were infected with this error of Circumcision. True in deed, and of such onelie is the supposition made in the case aforesaid.

But the Churches of Galatia generally were not such, but held the saving faith sound: This also is most true: they being set in the way and order of Christ. And therefore although there sprang vp some heretikes and schis­matikes among them (which is the1 Cor. 11.19. Act. 20.30. lot and triall of the Church of God in all ages) yet was there not cause to break Communion with those As­semblies, but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Christ, and toGal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7.11.13. cut off and cast out such troublesome leauen from among them.

Now this being duelie weighed, it is nothing for but altogeather a­gainst the having of communion with the Assēblies of this Land, which are not set in the way and order of Iesus Christ, (as were those Churches of Galatia) but in the Apostasie and confusion of Antichrist, as hath ben at large declared before, in the defence of the former Reasons, where also that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. is answered.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Reason. TO this your Defence of your Third Reason, I answer. First it is too im­pudent a cavillation “ That you charge me to giue the H. Ghost the lye, in denying your Assumption. I meant not your Assumption, but that which I had made briefer, conteining the effect of yours. This was the Assumption denyed by me, But a Galatian is a false Christian. As he that hath but halfe an eye may see.

Secondly, to cease needles strife, I deny therefore your Proposition. Though a Galatianthat is, so holding it as the worst did or els this is a sophisticall aequiuocatiō holding Circumcision, cannot be a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the Hierarchye &c. may. The Reason of this denyall I gave you then, but that you would not see it: Namelie, because such Galatians, held Iustification by the workes, and ceremonies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papists, who by their cere­moniall and morall workes doe hold the same, and so doe erre Fundamentally. But our Churches and state, hold not the Hierarchye so, but onely as an in­different thing in it self. This blasphemous opinion of Circumcision, maketh it infinitelie worse (though once it was ordeined of God) then our indifferent opinion of the Hierarchye, though in deed it were never but nought.

Thirdlie and lastlie, you have no where cleared Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the rest of those holy Martyrs, from being abolished frō Christ, if the Hyerarchie be simply worse then Circumcision, so held as those Gala­tians did hold, Gal. 5.2.3.4.5.

[Page 93] Fr. Iohnson his Answer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 3. Reason. IS it of simplicity, or of impudency, or of both (Mr Iacob) that thus you do write? Your simplicity is more then Dunsicall, to say you denyed not my Assumption, but one of your owne. For with whom I pray you, do you dispute? With your self, or with me? Your impudency is to shame­full, not onely to give the holy Ghost the lye, but when it is shewed you, yet not to acknowledge it.

Therefore to hide it (if possibly you could) you say when you denyed the Assumption, you meant not myne, but one of your owne made briefer &c. Yet even thus appeareth, that you can not say otherwise but to de­ny my Assumption (which I proved by Scripture) were to give the holy Ghost the lye. Now that you did it before, your owne words here againe will testify against you. For you say, Your Assumption made briefer, conteyneth the effect of myne. Then in denying your owne, it must needs be that you denyed myne in deed and effect, and so now by your owne con­fession it is true (as I said) that you gave the lye to the holy Ghost, who by Paul affirmeth it. Gal. 5.2.4.

Simple Sir Priest, Had you no more wit nor better defence, then to aunswer thus as he that hath but halfe an eye may see you do nothing els but impudently cavill? Is this the Christian and conscionable dispu­ting you speak of? Or is it the deep and Cler klike skill in argumentation which every where you will beare vs in hand is lockt vp in the chest of your brest? Content your self (Mr Iacob) to keep hereafter within your line, and strive no longer against the truth, but for it.

Secondly you say, to cease needles strife you deny the Proposition. But if your former denyall of the Assumption was good, why do you not stand to it? If it were evill, why do you not confesse it? If your mynd be in deed to cease needles strife, then shew it in deed, not in word onely. The Proposition (which now vpon better advisement you chuse to deny) I have proved before. Against it you except,Pag. 90. that although a Galatian holding Circumcision cannot be a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the Hierarchy &c. may. But you should say thus Mr Iacob, if you aun­swer me, He that submitteth to a false Ministery, worship, and gouernemēt of the Church devised by Antichrist the man of sinne, &c. is a true Christi­an in that estate. For these were the words I vsed in my Argu­ment and proof thereof. But you delight to aunswer your owne words and Arguments, not myne. Yet why prove you not then from the Scri­pture that which you say towching Antichrists Hierarchy &c. Will you have vs beleev it on your bare word?

Mynd also that now you confesse, the whole doctrine, as it is publikly professed and practised by Law in England, is not sufficient to make a Gala­tian a true Christian that should with all submit to Circumcision, which once was Gods owne ordinance. Had I not cause then (think you) to deny the Assumption of your mayne Argument? Yea and to put you in mynd of [Page 94] the defects and lamenes both of your Proposition and Assumption▪

And where you say, the Galatians could not be true Christians, because they held Iustification by the works and ceremonies of the Law, like the Pa­pists who by their ceremoniall and morall works do hold the same, and so do erre Fundamentally: Whereas your Churches and State (you say) hold not the Hierarchy so, but onely as an indifferent thing in it self. 1. First what say you to theDamianus a Goes, de fi­de, Religione, et moribus Aethiopion. Pag. 63. &c. Ethiopian Churches which togeather with the Gospell hold and vse at this day the ceremonies of the Law, Circumcision, &c. onely as things indifferent: and therefore condemne not the Churches which vse them not at all? Are they in this constitution by the word of God now to be judged true Christians and true Churches? Or may not any separate from people so walking, to keep the faith of Iesus with­out such commixtion? By your marginall note, it seemeth you are so mynded. Let vs have your reasons and proof in your next Reply.

2. Or how will you prove for your Churches that it is as you say, viz, that you hold as a thing indifferent your Hierarchy &c. Do you not see that such as hold and walke otherwise, are imprisonned, banished, cō ­demned, killed among you? Is this to hold things as indifferent? What then (I pray you) may be your holding of the other poynts of Re­ligion among you which you count not indifferent?

3. And what say you to your forbidding of Meats and Mariage at certayne tymes: which the Apostle calleth Doctrines of Devills? Doth your Church hold them as things indifferent? Or will not this prove a blasphemous opinion, even in your owne judgement?

4. Mynd withall how the Dispensations given by your Prelates for eating of flesh in tymes forbidden, runne stil among you as they did and do among the Papists, with this clause, fana conscientia, that is, with a safe conscience; and your Excommunications with this clause Ad salutem a­nio [...]e, that is, for the salvation of the soule. Doth not this shew that your Churches hold not these things as you pretend, but agree with the Pa­pists therein? Or hold you matters of conscience and salvation for things indifferent?

5. Likewise for your Ministery, and book of common prayer &c. hold you them as matters indifferent, or as necessarie for the service of God and salvation of your soules?

6. And what say you to the blasphemy, magik, errors, lyes, in the A­pocrypha books retained among you for the service of God? Count you them also for indifferent things?

6. Finally, towching the Popish opinion of works (whereof you speak) know you not how they hold that their works merit not for the work sake, but for Christs, being dyed with his blood? Yet (notwithstanding this colour) the point being well considered, it doth highly dishonour Christ and derogate from his office of sole Mediation. In like maner the Hierarchy &c. that is, the governement, worship, confusion, and Ministery of Antichrist retained among you (whatsoever you pretend for [Page 95] them, yet) being duly weighed, do as towching your Church constitutiō, abolish the governement and Mediatiō of Christ: except you could prove him to be Mediatour of another Testament then his owne. Behold what your Indifferent opiniō will prove, when it comes to be throughly scanned. As you like it, you may hold it still.

To end this point, let the Reader note (and not forget it) how your self do here in playne termes confesse, that your Hierarchy (that is, your Churches governement, Ministery, &c.) was never but nought. This suites yll with the title of your book, and gives small encouragement for any to serve God by such Ministery, worship, &c.

For Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. Pag. 40.41. I have cleared them before frō your hasty censure. Now onely let the Reader observed how this is alway the foot of your song, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. As if their errors were better warrant for you, then Gods word for vs.

CHAP. 10. The fourth Reason against M. Iacobs Assumptiō aforesaid.

Fr. Iohnson. THe doctrines of faith conteined in that Book alledged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, should also still execute or joyne vnto the Ministery of Mahomet, that open Antichrist and enemie of Iesus Christ. 2 Cor. 6.14. &c.

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

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 4. Reason. THis your 4. Reasō is, Mahomets Ministery and Antichrists Ministery are both bad alike. But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot save a man that ioineth also to Mahomets Ministery.

Ergo, the good doctrines of that booke cannot save a man that ioineth also to Antichrists Mini­stery: 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 Equivocation, as we call it: Wee must therefore distinguish: Mahomets Ministerie, and Antichrists Ministerie, have a doubtfull mea­ning. If you meane, the whole function and exercise of publique worship per­formed in Mahomets or Antichrists assemblies, that is in the Turkish or Popish Churches: Then I graunt your whole Argument isBoth are nought alike as touching abol [...]shing vs from Christ. true. But that wee doe so in England, (which comes in the Cōclusiō) Or that any Christiā amongst vs thinketh so: That I vtterly 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, and some outward ceremonies, [Page 96] vsed by Mahomet or the Pope: Then I flatly and absolutly deny your Assum­ption, and your Scripture is answered before in the First Reason. For I affir­me, and it is manifest: That such errors being ioined with the good doctrines of that our Book, doe not destroy faith, and true Christianitie, as before was shewed in the Second Exception.

Fr. Iohnson his Answer to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 4. Reason. Here (Mr Iacob) the light of the trueth doeth so dazell your eyes, as you freely confesse you cannot deny any whit of the Reason. And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad. But why so? There is (you say) an Equivocation in it, and therefore you will distinguish. I answer, There is no equivocation at all in the words: they are all plaine, to him that hath a single eye and will vnderstand the trueth. Therefore your distinction here is idle and frivolous.

Yet let vs see between what things you do distinguish: It is between the whole function and exercise of publique worship performed in the Tur­kish or Popish Assemblies, and between the outward maner of calling to their Ministery and the outward ceremonies vsed amongest them. An absurd distinction towching the matter in hand. For first, who knoweth not, 1 that these latter are of the very same nature with the former? Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false, Antichristian, and accursed before God, aswell as the rest of their woship and service? 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 whatsoe­ver 2 thing vsed among the Turkes and Papists, but of the Ministerie and worship which they have devised and executed? As in particular, of the publique offices of Ministery reteined among them; of their maner of cal­ling and entrance into them; of their administration of them; of their stinted imposed Liturgie; their ecclesiasticall governement, Canons, proceedings, &c. All which in the Church of England are taken out ofRev. 17.4.5. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.7.8.9.10.11.12. that golden cup of abominations, wherewith Antichrist that man of sinne hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken. As may appeare by com­paring their Pontificals, Canons, and constitutions togeather. If you will needes be otherwise minded, then prove the particulars aforesaide, by the Testament of Christ.

And marke here that you graunt, the doctrine of faith conteined in your booke of Articles cannot make him a true Christian, who holding them doth withall receive and ioyne vnto the publike worship performed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies. This you say you graunt as most true. Wherevpō it followeth (even by your owne confession) 1. That such things may be ioined with the doctrines of faith receiued among you, as in such estate you cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches; Neither the truths which you hold, be avayleable vnto you. 2. That therefore [Page 97] the Proposition of your first and maine Argument, is not generall, but admittet limitation: and so your greatest defence is of no weight, as is shewed † before. 3. That your answer to the Second Exception is of no force, howsoever here and every where you refer vs to it.Pag 5. For which also we refer the Reader, to what is said in that place, in defence of that Exce­ption: And for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. vnto that which is said con­cerning it in defence of the First Reason. Pag. 67.

H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 4. Reason IN this your defence of your 4. Reason, you renew your Sophistrie, and that which is worse, you will not be told of it. Is it because of the goodnes of your Reason that I deny no Proposition? Nay, it is for the badnes of it: because all is nought, all deceitfull 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 Tur­kish, ot Popish Assemblies, doeth ioyne vvith their vvhole and vvorst abomina­tions, vvhich haue no communion or coherence vvith Christ in deed, Neither can vve also, if vve ioyne therein. The case is not like, vvhen vve reteyne and vse, some of their outvvarde 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 vn­christian and false dealing vvith me, in affirming othervvise of me, As I have 1 expressed in the beginning, about the taking of my First maine Proposition there. Which see further in pag. 6.

Lastlie, my reference to the ansvvere 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.

FR. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 4 Reason. SOphisticall distinctions (all men know) are the woonted refuges of bad causes. That yours is such, I shewed before. Now as it was, so you leave it still, even idle and frivolous. It was between the whole functi­on and exercise of publik worship performed in the Turkish or Popish Assē blies; and between the outvvard calling to the Ministery and ceremonies a­mong them. The first thing I brought against it was this, Who know­eth not that these latter are of the very same nature vvith the former? Now this you passe by, like a smooth Priest, as if you saw it not. And that which followeth after, you say is the first of my answer. Look againe, [Page 96] [...] [Page 97] [...] [Page 98] and see if you speak truth: and leave this dealing.

Yet what say you now to that which I asked next, vvhether the one vvere not asvvell as the other false Antichristian and accursed? Your answer is, they are not asvvell, that is not asmuch. But is not this meer Sophi­stry? Is not Antichrists forbidding of Meats and Mariage asvvell Anti­christiā and accursed, as his Masse, Supremacy, Iustificatiō by works &c. Yet in theMr Iacobs Replyes to the 7. Reason. seventh Reason following you say, they are not asmuch. Doth not he that stealeth but one horse, steale asvvell horseflesh, as he that stealeth five of six, though he steale not as much? When you say in the sixt ReasonMr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reasō. The Samaritans accompted the Idols of the Heathen to be Gods asvvell as the God of Israel, do you meane that they counted them as much? Or if Mr Iacob be deemed a learned man asvvell as Mr Cartvvright, shall we think it asmuch? By your leave, I deny it. Asvvell (properly ta­ken) respects the quality of a thing; Asmuch the quantity. Yet so, you confound them as all one. Thus traveling with a distinction, you have brought forth confusion.

Pag. 95. 96. 97.Further where your words and myne were before [of the rest of their vvorship and service] now you change them into these [their invvard impi­ety and false faith against Christ]. Belike you see your cause to be very bad, when you will not keep eyther my words or your owne, but chaunge them every foot as you do. But now if after all this chopping and chaunging I graunt all this which you say, what are you the nearer? Be it (as you say) that the one of these is more accursed and divelish then the other (as all sinnes are not equall but one more grievous then another): yet evē this maketh against you, and thus you give the cause. For now you can not deny but they are both of them accursed and divelish, though the one more, the other lesse. Can you then as you stand in that constitution which is accursed and divelish yet be reputed for true Christians and true Churches? If the Papists for to justify their outward constitution, should thus alledge, That the Turks invvard impiety or vvhole publik vvorship vvere more accursed and divelish then that outvvard constitution of theirs, would this any whit help them? Nay, should they not thus yeeld their owne case to be accursed and divelish, though the other to be more? Behold then how well you defend your Church, and how cūningly you yeeld the cause.

Where in the next place I asked, if God in his vvord hath given any cō maundement more for the latter (mentioned before) then for the other: Pag. 96. At this you are as mute as a fish: you have not a word to speak for your self. Now seing Gods word approveth neyther but condemneth both, seing also both of them are of Antichrist that sonne of perdition, is it not evidēt that they are of the same nature, and that the one asvvell as the other is false, Antichristian, and accursed before God? It skilleth not then for the que­stion in hand, whether of them be more or lesse. They that have the least of Gods curse, will fynd it heavy ynough: howsoever you flatter your self and speak peace to others, when there is no peace.

[Page 99]To the second point by which I shewed your distinction to be idle and frivolous, you answer not a word neyther. Vnles it be that you yeeld to it, in those words, where you confesse you retayne & vse some of their out­ward orders in your Assemblyes. For if you meane it of the particularsPag. 96. there mentioned, then you yeeld vnto it (except you had shewed by the word of God, that having communion with Antichrist in those things, yet you are notwithstanding to be judged in this constitution true Chri­stians and true Churches: which hitherto you have not done, neither ever will). If you meane it not of them, then you keep not the point: and besides you must prove the contrary to that I have said. Which you never go about.

For the note I gave, you graunt it is most true, that such things may be joined with the doctrines of faith received among you, as will vtterly de­stroy it, or (to keep the words of my aunswer, which you love not to do) that in such estate you can not be deemed true Christians or true Churches; neither the truths which you hold, be avayleable vnto you. Thus all the defence you bring of your Church proves to be quite nothing in the end. For hereby is evident (as heretofore I noted) that your Proposition is not generall; that both it and the Assumption are lame and vnperfect; and so your whole Argument faulty, and nothing els but meer Sophistry. Your vnchristiā and false charge rests vpō your owne head: as is proved already in the handling of your Proposition. For which see, Pag. 11. 12. 13.

Lastly your reference is nothing els but a refuge whither still you fly to hide your self, when you can no longer stand in defence of your Church. What you aunswered to the first Reason, is there taken away. Now to shut vp all, you sing againe the Cuckoes note, your old vnder song, Mr Crā ­mer, Ridley, &c. Towching whom I have shewed before,Pag 40. 41. how they may he counted true Christiās, and yet your estate be Antichristiā nevertheles.

Chap. 11. The Fift Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fran. Iohnson. AS the golden vessels taken out of the Lords house, had and vsed in Ba­bylō of the Caldeās, did not therefore make the Babyloniās true Iewes touching the faith: Nor their bankets wherein they vsed them, to be any of the Lords Feasts (spoken of Leu. 23.) but they still remained Babylonish people and banquets notwithstanding.

So the truths of the Gospel (vessels as it were of the Lords house) hol­den and received in the spiritual Babilō (whereof that other was a type) do not make the people so stāding, to be true Christiās, Neither their Ministery and cōstitution to be Christs. But they still remaine the people, Ministery, & cōstitution of Babylon notwithstāding. See the proofs hereof in Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared with Prov. 9.17.18. & Rev. 17.4.5. & 18.4. with 14.8.9.10.11.

[Page 100] H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 5. Reason. YOur Reason is this: The materiall vessells of Ierurusalem, 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 vessels were not sufficient to sanctifie those Babilonians.

Ergo, Neither these truths of the Gospell can sanctifie vs.

An absurd comparison: The Proposition is most false, and so the scriptu­res quoted (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared vvith Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 18.4. vvith 14.8.9.10.11.) are as idely and vainely applyed. See the Ansvver to the allegations in the First Reason before.

FR. Iohnson his Aunsvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 5. Reason. MY Reason is a comparison between the Caldean and the Romish Ba­bylon, also between the vessels of the Lords house and the true doctrines of the Gospell. Now this you say first is an absurd comparison. So be­like (if your grave judgement might goe for good payment) the manifold allusions which (in describing the spirituall Babylon) the Spirit of God ♣ maketh to the materiall Babylon of the Caldeans are to bee accompted absurd allusions and comparisons. As also the often alluding and likening togeather the * holy things of the Law with the holy thinges of the Gos­pell, and the † transgressions then with the transgressions now (which are so often vsed in the Scripture) are in your account absurd allusions & similitudes. ♣ Rev. 17. & 18. & 19. chap. compared with Ierem. 50. & 51. chap. Esay. 13. & 14. & 21. & 47. chap. * Esay. 66.20.21. Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. & 10.2.3.4. Col. 2.11.12. Heb. 13.15.16. 1 Pet. 3.20.21. Rev. 15.3. & 21.10. &c. † 2 Tim. 3.8.9. 1 Cor. 10.6. &c. Heb. 12.16.17. Iude, vers. 11. Rev. 2.14.20. & 20.8.9.

Secondly, you say the Proposition is most false. But in deed it is most true, and most plainely taught in the fift of Daniel, Vers. 1.2.3.4. & Lev. 23. chap. As was alleadged before when I first propounded the reason, wherevnto yet you have given no aunswer. So soundly you de­fend your cause.

Thirdly you say, These scriptures (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. vvith Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 18.4. & 14.8.9.10.11.) are idely and vainely ap­plyed. But how do you shew this? Verie profoundly sure. You bid vs see the aunsvver to the allegations in the First Reason: And this is all the proof you bring. Well: wee have seen your aunswer to the allegations there, and find, First, that the Scriptures here alleadged, are not so much as once mentioned there: Secondly, that your aunswer to those which are there, is most frivoulous and of no weight, but against your self, as there is declared. Pag. 67. 68.

Lastlie, in your propounding the Reason here, otherwise then I did myself (which is a thing very common, but nothing commendable in you) it seemeth, that being not able to aunswer any part thereof, as I had [Page 101] set it downe, yet you thought to helpe your self by this exception, that the materiall vessells of Ierusalem vvere not of like povver and vertue to sanctifie the Heathen Babylonians, as the true doctrines received among the Spirituall Babylonians, are to sanctifie them. But you shall finde (if you will consi­der and compare togeather the Scriptures here alledged) that the golden vessels being holy to the Lord, and taken out of his Temple, did asmuch sanctifie the Caldean Babylonians and their Feastes: As the holy doctri­nes (vessels as it were of the Lords Temple) had amōg the spirituall Ba­bylonians, doe sanctifie them and their constitution: That is, neither of their estates and Assemblies, are sanctified thereby at all.

For saith not the Lord, That the setting of mens postes and thresholds, (how much more of Babylons enormities) by his Postes and Thresholds, that is, by his truths and ordinances, is so far from sanctifying, as it defyleth his holy name, yea is abomination in his sight, and setteth a vvall between him and them that doe it? Ezech. 43.8. And saith not the Scri­pture againe, that the true doctrines in the false Church are among them as stollen vvaters and hid bread, which though they be svveet and pleasant, yet there also the mouth is filled with gravell and the guestes of those feasts and Assemblies, are so far from being sanctifyed by those truthes in that estate, as they are before God, even dead men, and in the deapth of hell. Prov. 9.17.18. & 20.17.

To conclude this poinct, hath not an Angell from heaven proclaimed with a loude voice, thatRev. 18.1.2.3.4.11. &c & 17.1.2.3.4.5. & 14.8.9.10.11. the spirituall Babylon (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 & Marchants that will not depart out of her, shall receive of her plagues and damnation, and drink of the vvine of Gods vvrath, and be tormented in fire and brimstone, before the holy Angells and before the Lamb for evermore? Loe here your fearfull estate, which you notwithstanding will needes ac­compt holy and acceptable before God.

H. Iacob his 2 Reply to the 5. Reason. IN this your defence of your Fifth Reason, you mislike that I call it an absurd com­parison: Where you affirme that the golden vessels of the Iewes were as available to sanctify the Babilonians, as the truthes of the Gospell which wee hold are to sanctify vs. In deed your ovvne vvordes be, holden and received in the spirituall Babylon. By which termes you meane vs of England I trow. But marke sir. Is not this grosse Sophistry againe? Is not this childish vanity, open beggerie, and craving of that which is the whole question? that is, That our Churches are spirituall Babylon, and as deepely infected in Babylonish 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 seing we professe our selves true Christians by those truths of the Gos­pell which wee hold (and as by Gods grace wee are in deed) Say I not well, that this is an absurd Comparison? Yes Maister Iohnson, it is a mostTo match those outvard vessells, (of no sanctity of themselves) with our in­ward doctri­nes of salva­tion. impious, absurd, and senceles comparison, and void of common Reason: And it in­wrappeth [Page 102] wrappeth Maister Cranmer, Maister Ridley, &c. within the same iniurious, you irreligious consequence likewise.

All that you have of allusions, and alluding, betweene the Typicall and spirituall Babylon, are meere delusions, and vaine cavils. Prove vs first to be spirituall Babylon: 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, 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 have not refuted. The very same I say of your other two scriptures towards the end, Prov 9.17. &c. Rev. 18.1. &c. As for Ezech. 43.8. I answered it beforePag. 71. in your First Reason.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 5. Reason. HAve you said any thing here first (Mr Iacob) but denyed the Conclu­sion? If you have, shew it. If not, confesse your owne childish va­nity and open beggery, &c. For which the name of Sophistry is to good, though otherwise it be bad ynough, and the cognisance of all your Replies. Now that this you say is but the denyal of the Conclusion, thus I shew, That which I conclude towching your Churches is this, that they are not constitute according to the ordināce of Christ but according to the apo­stasy of Antichrist, that is, that your Churches in their estate are spirituall Babylon. This (I say) is that which I have concluded heretofore, and still do throughout my Reasons, Exceptions, Aunswers: and now of purpose have I set it downe at the beginning of this treatise.Pag. 3. Your denying of this then, what is it els but the denyall of the Conclusion?

But this now being proved, you are driven (nill ye, will ye) plainely to graunt that in deed my Reason will follow. Well Mr Iacob, though it were long first, yet thus you yeeld now at length. Better late thrive, then never. Abide but by this, and I trow you will not now any lon­ger stand member or Minister of your Assemblies in that estate, neyther condemne vs any more for separating from them.

Next, howsoever it were for the question between vs, yet the Proposi­tion of the Comparison cannot but be true, which in your first Reply you said was most false, and now you would passe by, because you can say no­thing against it. Yet mynd Mr Iacob, that in denying it you did there a­gayne give the lye to the holy Ghost, whose doctrine it is, in these Scrip­tures, Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. Levit. 23. chap. Prov. 9.17.18.

By all this then you may see, it is your owne dealing that is most im­pious, absurd, sencelesse &c. thus to strive (as you have done) against so cleare a truth, and everie where in your Replyes to fight against God and his word. Which even here againe you cease not to do, whiles you call such allusions and comparisons as the Scripture vseth between the typi­call and spirituall Babylon, meer delusions and vayne cavils. How I mat­ched together on the one hand, the vessells of the Lords Temple and the [Page 103] truthes of the Gospell; on the other, The Caldean and spirituall Babylon, may be seen in my former aunswer. Which may suffice for any thing you say here, both your marginall note, and all the rest.

I could tell you further (if it needed) that Babel in English is confu­sion: And that such is the estate of your Church, even a confusion of all sorts of people good and bad. Besides that your tounges are divided and your language confounded (as it was inGen. 11.9. Babel of old) whiles the Prelates, the Reformists, your self and the like (as Neuters between both) speak some one thing, some another, towching your Hierarchy, worship, Canons, &c. someThe Prel. & Formal. that they are of God and to be kept and obeyed for conscience sake; someThe Sekers of Reform. that they are of Antichrist, and to be removed and witnessed against vnto death, though every haire of the head were a life; someMr Iacob & the like. that they are neyther of God, neyther of Antichrist, simply, fun­damentally, indifferently, &c. And thus as men confounded in your selves (by the just judgement of God) your toungues are divided, you know not your selves what to make and account of these things, or one of another.

I could also put you in mind, that as the Caldean Babylon was, so the spirituall Babylon is, notorious for false worship towards God, and for persecution of his people, keping them in thraldome and captivity.See M. Iacob [...] Repl. before, And that now the estate of your Church is such (viz, worshipping God after a false maner never prescribed by himself, kept in subiection to your Anti­christian Prelats, and persecuting the people of God by prisonment, exile, death, &c.) it is so evident, as when you are called vpon to shew warrāt for these among you, your vsuall aunswer is no other but after this sort:Pag. 37. Let the State which mainteyneth these things, aunswer for them; Pag. 70. For my part, I never thought other but our Church corruptions are against the Secōd commaundement; Pag. 72. It is no part of my mynd to iustify them; Pag. 84. Our doctrine appointeth Gods worship by Mens precepts after a sort; Pag. 92. Our Hierarchy was never but nought; Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reason following. I never intended, much lesse professed to iustify our whole Ministery, estate, and maner of worship; His Replies to the 7. & 8 Reasons. We depart from and deny the faith in our Ministery &c. but not totally, simply, fundamentally; His 2. Re­ply to the 9. Reason. I list not to medle with them, I have no leasure &c.

Now then Mr Iacob, say I not well that your Churches in this estate are spirituall Babylon? And have I not made a fit comparison between it and the Caldean Babylon of old, between the doctrines of truth in the one and the holy vessels in the other? If the comparison be good, strive no more against it, but yeeld to the truth, as you haue begun. If it be evill, convince it by Scripture whence I borrowed it, as the testimonyes I alledged declare. Vntill you do this (which will not be in hast) know that the Scriptures here cited are fitly applyed to the purpose in hand. If you see it not; feare least you be miserably and desperatly blynded. And take heed you do not still runne on wilfully to destruction. Remember what is written in Esa. 6.9.10. Mat. 13.14.15. Ioh. 12.37-43. Act. 28.25.26.27.

Towching the place of Ezech. 43.8. I have aunswered in the handling of the first Reason. Pag. 80.

[Page 104]For Mr Cranmer, Mr Ridley, &c. I have also answered, Pag. 40. 41. You that do so often tell vs of them, if you had but so much as how of any Scripture for your estate, is it like you would be silent therein? Nay sure you would not spare much more to tell vs of that agayne and agayne. And so let the Reader mynd it.

Chap. 12. The Sixt Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fr. Io. THe Samaritans (those counterfeit children of Abraham Isaak and Iacob) did publiquely professe that most excellent doctrine of the Mes­sias to come (the truth of which doctrine how powerfull it was to salva­tion the Scriptures testify). Yet doeth our Saviour Christ repute them false worshippers of God, because their worship was a mixt one, framed after the inuentions of men and traditions of their Forefathers. There­fore saith Christ vnto them, Ye worship that which ye know not, we wor­ship that which we knowe, for salvation is of the Iewes. By which appea­reth, 1. That although the Samaritans professed this saving truth, yet (being false worshippers of God) they could not truly challendge vnto themselves in such estate, the benefite thereof. 2. That the Iewes and they which held their faith, being then the true Church and people of God, to whom his Oracles were committed, and to whom his Coue­nantes and service did appertayne, Christ therefore accounted the Iewes (and not the Samaritans) to be the true worshippers of God and heires of salvation. Iohn. 4.22. compared with ver. 20.25.29. and with 2 King. 17.24. &c.

In like maner, the people of these Ecclesiasticall assemblies stāding sub­iect to a counterfeit Ministery and worship, (being also commingled togea­ther of all sortes of people:) Though they professe some truthes which o­therwise are available to salvation, yet can not in such estate by the word of God be deemed true Christians or true Churches. Neither can (so stan­ding) challendge vnto themselves the benefit of those true doctrines which they professe: because God hath not made his promise vnto any false Church or worshippers of him: neither committed vnto any such (but onely to his true Church and worshippers) his service and holy things of his word, prayer, Sacraments, Censures, &c.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 6. Reason. THis your Sixt Reason is, The Samaritans (beleeving that Messias should come, Iohn 4.25.) were as neere salvation as we of England are. But they were false worshippers for all that. Ergo, so are we, for all our holy doctrines beleeved according to that Book of Articles.

I deny the proposition. The Samaritans might know by hearsay and beleeve, [Page 105] the Messias should come, and Balaam did know it, Nomb. 24.17. and the Di­vels doe now knovv and beleeve, Iam. 2.17. Yet none of these beleeved [in] him. It follovveth not therefore, that they vvere as nigh salvation as vve of England. In a vvord, there is a Reason manifest. These Samaritans ioyned Heathenish Idols vvith the God of Israel. 2 Ki [...]g. 17. Which vvholy destroyed the truth in them, though they did reteyne some memoriall a­mongst them of Messias to come.Pag. 62 Wherefore here take the Second Ansvver to the First Reason before. But I vvill help you vvith an Obiection, surely one fitter then all these.

The Israelites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethell served not Pagan Idols,Obiection. but the true God after their ovvn deuises, vvhich yet resembled the ordinances of Ieru­salem. 2 King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. Hovvbeit they were false worshippers, onely 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 fot our false Ministerie and outvvard vvor­ship.

To this vvee aunsvvere also, vvhat additions of deuices,Ansvver. and hovv grosse Idolatrie they held, it appeareth not: But surely it seemeth farre grosser, and filthier then the vvorst is vvith vs: But yet this appeareth cleerly that the con­science of euery of them, euen of the simpliest, must needes be conuicted, that Ierusalem vvas the only place, andMy mea­ning vvas, the Levites vvere not of Aarons line, but the Prists onely. Aarons line the only Priests & Leuits. Therfore they could not be indeed true vvorshippers, nor vvithin the coue­nant, nor neere to saluation, vvhen they all openly rebelled, and forsooke them desperatly, vvhom the Lord had so expresly chosen. Novv our assem­blies throughout Englād haue not their consciences so conuicted in the Hye­rarchie and Ceremonies. Ergo, vvee may be in the couenant, vvhich they vvere not, for all our corruptions.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunsvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 6. Reason. THis Reason (as the rest) you neyther propound as we did, nor make aunswer directly and soundly to any part thereof. Now that the na­kednes of your answer, and light of the truth may better appeare, we will propound the Reason more plainlie in a Syllogisme, thus.

The people and assemblies, whose Ecclesiasticall constitution is such as to them in that estate the Covenantes, holy things, and service of God do not appertayne, they can not in such constitution by the word of God be deemed true Christians or true Churches, whatsoever truthes they professe besides.

But such is the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and assēblies of England, as vnto them in that estate the Covenauntes, holy things, and service of God do not apperteyne.

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

[Page 106]The Proposition none will deny. The Assumption is proved thus:

The people and Assemblies whose Ecclesiasticall constitution is such, as they worship God after a false maner, never appointed by himself, nor approved in his word: their constitution is such, as vnto them in that e­state, the covenaunts, holy things, and service of God do not apperteine.

But such is the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and Assēblies of England, as they worship God after a false maner, never appointed by himself, nor approved in his word.

Therefore the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and Assemblies of England is such, as vnto them in that estate, the Couenaunts, holy things, and service of God, do not apperteyne.

The Proposition was proved by the example of the Samaritans, and by Christs speach concerning them in such estate, Ioh. 4. & 2 King. 17. where­vnto you answer nothing to any purpose, save that what you say, is a­gainst your self. For where you graunt, That the Samaritans, and Balaam knew and beleeved the Messias should come, yea and that the Divels know & beleev 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 therfore in their estate true Christians or true Churches, to whom the Couenauntes, holy things and service of God do apperteine?

And where next you say, The Samaritans beleeved not in the Mes­sias, it will be heard for you to proove it, seeing you take beleefe in Christ so, as it is had in the spirituall Babylon and her daguhters; and seeing also the Samaritans professed and beleeved, not onely that the Messias should come, but even he which is called Christ, and that when he came he would declare vnto them all things. In so much as when Iesus was come, and had spoken but to a woman of Samaria, the Scripture witnesseth, that many of the Samaritans of that city beleved [in him] for the saying of the woman which testifyed, he hath tolde me all things that ever I did. Iohn 4.25.26.29.30.39.

Thirdly where you say, The Samaritans ioined Heathnish Idols with the God of Israell, whih wholy destroyed the trueth in them: By this a­gaine it is evident, even in your 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 do belong; and that there­fore also, the Proposition of your principall and maine Argument is not generall, but of necessitie admitteth limitation. So then your maine defence falleth to the ground. Of which see further Pag. 5. &c.

Moreover, in that you say, The Samaritans ioyned Heathnish Idols with the God of Israell (2 King. 17.) If you meane, that they worshipped the Idols themselves, [...] King. 17. sacrifycing to them, and accompting them to be Gods as well as the God of Israell, and so brake the First cōmaundemēt, as before you affirmed in your answer to the First Reason: then I take [Page 107] it, that here againe you are deceived. The scripture sayeth they worship­ped and sacrifized to the Lord God of Israell. So as their sinne was a­gainst the Second commaundement, in that worshipping the true God,See before, Pag. 67. 68. they did it in, and by those Images, as also by other devices of their owne and traditions of their predecessours.

That this was their case (besides that it appeareth in the chapter al­ledged) it is most plainly testifyed, 1. First by themselves, in the book of Ezra, where they speak to the Iewes of the captivitie, that builded the Temple, saying:Ezra. 4.1.2 We will build with you, for vve seek the Lord your God as ye do, and we have sacrifyced vnto him since the tyme of Esar Haddon King of Ashur, which brought vs vp hither. 2. Secondly, by the speach that was between Christ and the woman of Samaria, Ioh. 4. where it is manifest, theIoh. 4.20.21 22.23.24.25.29.30. contention between the Iewes and the Samaritans, was not whether onely the true God vvas to be vvorshipped, but (both of them agreeing in that) vvhether the solemne place of his vvorship vvas in Ierusalem, or in the mount of Samaria, &c. 3. Lastly, by your owne confession, whenPag. 105. you say the Israelites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel, served not Pagan I­dols but the true God after their ovvne devices. For the Samaritans (as the2 King. 17.28.32.33. Scripture testifyeth) worshipped the same God, and after the same ma­ner that the Nations did vvhich vvere caried from thence. Now the nati­ons thence carried, were the tenne Tribes of Israel that fel away from Iu­dah to Ieroboam. Who likewise1 King. 12.27.28.29.30.31. with 2 King. 17.32.33.40.41. feared the Lord and served their Ima­ges, that is, God in and by their Images: As now also the Samaritans did that were come in their stead. Hitherto of your answer which see­meth to concerne the Proposition of the latter Syllogisme.

The Assumption was shewed by this, that your Assemblies being com­mingled togeather of all sortes of people, you have also for your vvorship of God, a counterfeit Ministery and service, devised by man: This you do rightly vnderstand (as we meane it) of your Hierarchie and other abomi­nations before rehearsed.Pag. 63. &c. Which deceiptfully here againe you would smother vp vnder the name of ceremonies. Touching which sleight of yours, sufficient is said before in the handling of the First Reason.

But what say you now cōcerning the Assumption or proof of it? Do you deny it? Not so. What then do you say for your counterfet Hierarchie, vvorship, &c. Not a word but this, That your assemblies in England have not their consciences conuicted in these, as the people vnder Ieroboam could not but have their consciences convicted then, touching their vvorship and Priesthood. But first if this were so, is it any just defence of your Mini­stery, vvorship, or estate, that yet you see them not to 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 Papists plead likewise for their Ministery, worship, and estate: as also the Vsurers, extortioners, and per­secutors, for themselves and their wickednes? And by this reason, God should not have sent Lyons among the Samaritans, 2 King. 17.26. because yet they knew not the maner of worshipping the God of Israell, neither had their [Page 108] consciences convicted therein.

But Christ hath taught vs otherwise,Luk 12.48. that even that servant, vvhich knovveth not his Maisters vvill, and yet committeth things vvorthy of stripes, shalbe beaten, though vvith fevver stripes, then he that knovveth and doeth it not. And of those Israelites aforesaid the Lord himself testifiethHos. 4.6. that they vvere destroyed for lack of knovvledge. So then your peoples igno­raunce (which you plead) can be no sufficient defence for your estate. Or if it could, yet it seemeth they of Israell might aswell have alleadged it for thēselves, seeing the Lord witnesseth of themHos. 4.1. that there vvas no knovv­ledge of God in the land. And thus the Obiection also here brought by your self, remayneth still vnaunswered.

Where you say, Aarons Line vvere the onely Priests and Levites, you are also mistaken therein. In deed Aarons Line onely was the Priests, but the Levites were generally of the Tribe of Levi, though not of Aarons line.

But to let this passe: We would know a sufficient reason, why the true vvorship and Ministery appointed by Christ in his Testament, should not be aswell knowne vnto you in these dayes, as in the defection of Israell? You say, They could not but knovve that Ierusalem vvas the onely place, & Aarons line the onely Priests. Well then: Have not you the Scriptures asmuch as they had? Or hath notHeb. 3.1.2.3.4.5.6. Christ the sonne ben as faithfull in the house of God, and as plainly set downe his will for his true worship and Ministery in the tyme of the Gospell, as Moses the servant was and did for the tyme of the Law? Yea and have notVVitnes the publik Trea­tises, Ser­mons, Ad­monitions, Cōplaintes, Supplicatiōs & Demon­strations, to the Parlia­ment, beside the bandes & sufferings of many in this behalfe. these by the word ben made manifest to the consciences of men in these daies, and even to the high Court of Parliament, representing the whole body of the land: as the other were to the Israelites in the tyme of their defection? Finally doeth not this Land stand in as open rebellion against, and forsaking of the true Ministery, worship, and order appoincted by Christ to his Church now, as they did then (if not more open and greevous) not onely for the causes aforsaid, but because you have alsoVVitnes the Pontifical, Porruis, Ca­nons, and Constitutiō of the popish & your assemblies, compared together. received and still reteine a false Ministery, worship, and confusion of the Man of sinne, that sonne of per­dition, and capitall enemie of the Lord Iesus Christ? And yet moreover least you should be behind them in any thing, and not every way farre ex­ceed them, do alsoVVitnes your prisons gallovves Statutes & c persecute vnto bandes, exile, and death, such as beare witnes to the truth of Christ, against your abominations.

By this then is manifest, that you have neither iustifyed your estate in respect of the Apostate Israelites, nor answered the Obiection pag. 105. here fra­med by your self against your present constitution. So that it also still remaineth vpon you as a testimony against your present estate. We indeed neyther did nor needed propound it, as a severall Reason amōg those we set downe, because it is of like nature with those which we have alrea­dy mentioned in the Second and Sixt Reasons here before alleadged. Pag. 82. and 104.

[Page 109] H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 6. Reason. IN this your defence of your 6. Reason you say, That the Proposition of your last syllogisme, [They that worship God after a false manner, Pag. 106. are no true Christians] is proved 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 aequivocall and ambi­guous. If you meane they that vvorship God after a false manner, that is totally or els Fundamentally. Then I cleerely graunt it, and that the Samaritans doe prove the same, seeing they erred Fundamentally. But your Assumption touching vs, is then vtterly false. You bring not a syllable or one letter, to prove either of these tvvo against vs, in all your writing, neyther can you, but bare begging of the controversie which is infinite ofte. If you meane in your Proposition, They that serve God after a false maner, that is, in part, not wholly nor Fundamentally, As namely in the Hierarchy and externall ceremonies as Cranmer &c. Then I say and a vouch confidently in the presence of God, that such may be true Christians, though vnperfect in many things. Yea infinite, such have ben, are, and may be hereafter, true Christians. The contrarie whereof, is no lesse then horrible blasphemy against God and his Saincts, wherefore your Proposition is shewed to be againe sophisticall, as also those were in your Third Exception, & First and Second Reasons.

Secondly where you say, the Samaritans prove it, & I say nothing against it. Marke you. First I said, the Samaritans might knowe by hearsay, and yet not faith­fully beleeve [in] the Messias. You cannot be ignorant, that there is a great difference between 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 cōmon 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 wih the God of Israell which wholly destroyed the trueth in them. And this is the very truth indeed, howsoeuer you vvill not yeld it. For you say, that they broke not the First commaundement, they worshipped not the Idols themselues, nor sacrifised to them, &c. This is proued apparantly false in the Text. 2 kings. 17.29, 30, 31. Every 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. 2 King. 17. 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 Adramdech & Anammelech the Gods of Sepharuim: Therefore they vvorshipped the Idols of the Heathen and sacrifized to them, and accompted them to be Gods asvvell as the God of Israell. And so broke the First commandement, and therefore they touch not vs in this question, As the like Ipag. 71. haue truely and vvell declared before, against your First Reason. Your proofes,pag. 107. that the Samaritans brake not the First commandement are nothing. (1) That of Ezra. 4.1.2. that they sought the Lord as the Iewes did &c. vvas their counterfeit hypocrisy and false brag, yea their [Page 110] divelish cōspiracy against the worship of the Ievves God. Do you beleve their vvordes here in this place, that they are true indeed? I graunt as I noted before out of 2 Kings 17. they had a mixed vvorship, something of the Ievves God, but very much and (as by the Chapter seemeth) most of the Heathens Gods.

Pag. 107.2. Secondly, vvhere you say out of Iohn. 4. That it is manifest, there was no contention between the Iewes and the Samaritans, whether onely the true God was to be worshipped. There appeareth † no vvord of any such thing.A bold asser­tion. Our Sauiour indeed noteth vers. 21. One difference betvvene them, that vvas, but about the place of vvorshipping on occasion of the vvomans vvordes: But that there vvas no difference betvvene them in the observing of the First commandement, he saith not. The contrary you savv before proved in 2. King. 17.30.31.

3. Thirdly you vrge my confession, That the Israelites vnder Ieroboam served not Pa­gan Idols but the true God after their owne devices. And you would prove 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 aunsvvere, First it is great shame, that you make this my confession, vvhen I expressely bring it in as your Obiection,Pag. 105. vvherevnto I set myne ansvver, that the Idolatry vnder Ieroboam seemeth farre grosser anb filthier then the vvorst is vvith vs, vvhich I make manifest by the scripture, not onely 1. King. 12.28. vvhere Ieroboam e­rected visible Idols, and very filthy ones, even calues and brute beasts: vvhich if they vvere but to vvorship God by, yet vvho vvould compare our Ecclesia­sticall orders to them, which [...] viz. the ge­nerall state. we professe are but indifferent things, for order and comelinesse onely. Further I alledge 2 Chron. 11.15. where Ieroboam is said to appoinct Priests, for the high places, for Divels, and for the Calves that he had 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 Ieroboam at the First had not ioined in the Heathenish Idolatry, Yet Ahab did 1 King. 16.32.33. and his Sonne Ahaziah had further Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Yea the Israelites, as they of Ierusalem afterwards, were Idolaters much alike 2 King. 17.19. But wee read of the Ievves vnder Ahas 2 Chro. 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 Ten Tribes vsed the very same. Therefore the Samaritans doing as the Israelites did, 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.Pag. 109. Surely it appeareth more grosse and worse then the Israelites before them. And therefore you are greatly deceived both here and in the defence of your First Reasō before:Pag. 67.68. where you expreslie main­teine these Samaritans to holde no Heathnish Idolatrie but onely to cleave to the God of Israell in an outward devised corrupt worship. They acknowledged him I graunt, but him only I deny, as hath ben proved.

Pag. 68.Further you affirme in your defence of your First Reason, That they professed the written law to be the rule, both for their inward beliefe, and outward manner of worship. Where you vvould prove it For that the Apostate Israelites did so of whom Ezeck speaketh. Ezek. 43.8. First [Page 111] this followeth not, because the Heathnish Samaritans vvere further from sin­cerity, then the naturall Israelites commonly. Secondly, Israell it selfe in this vvretched Apostasie, helde not the vvritten lavv for their rule, seeing professedly they left this rule, and did constantlie vvorship Calves, and sacri­fized at Dan and Bethel. Thirdly, Ezechiell shevveth, 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 scene in Ahab, Ahaziah, Ahas, Manasses, and Amon, as is before noted.Pag. 71.110 Wherefore in these your sayings Maister Iohnson, you are intollerably too blame and foully deceaued. As for example, They professed that vvhich they did in 2 Kinges. 17.29.30.31. vvas that after the rule of the vvritten Lavv?

Next you oppugne me, for that I alleadged our Assemblies throughout England, haue not their consciences conuicted in the Hierarchy and ceremo­nies, you say" If this were so, is it any iust defence of your Ministery, worship, Pag. 107. estate &c. I tell you it is a iust defence for our Ministerie, vvorship, and estate to be as touching the substance and foundation of Christianitie, sound and acceptable to God. Refute it if you can. I know it is no iust defence of our vvhole Mi­nistery, estate, and manner of vvorship, vvhich I neuer intended, much lesse professed to iustifie.

Where you vvould snatch at an aduantage about Aarons line, my meaning vvas, that they of Aaron were only for Priests, and their brethren of Leui, only for Leuites.

But you passe this, and you set your self in earnest, to prove vs all conuicted in conscience about our Hyerarchy and ceremonies. So that here you auouch openly,Pag. 5. that third generall poinct which I obserued in my very beginning aboue, for the which you haue this Reason. Have not wee the scriptures as much as the Apostate Isra­lites had? Or did not Christ as fully and plainly sett downe our Ministery and worship in the Gospell, as Moses in the Law? I aunswer, this is true, as touching the word it self. In the Gospell we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word it self, as the Iewes were in Moses: But it is not yet so plaine for our vnderstanding and vse. Why? Because wee haue had a discontinuance of theThe Pastors of the Chur­ches since, have had many corrupti­ons mixed in their cal­lings, they have not ben pure & sim­ple ever since or at last vve cannot pro­ve it other­vvise, by any records novv 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 beleeued it, at least conuenient, 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, & 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 vvas not so in this matter that vve talke of. As Moses and the Prophets vvere 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 [Page 112] Ieroboam. When any sqared from this course, these vvere not onely rebuked expreslie by Gods voyce in his Prophets, from time to time: but also the ob­stinate, vvere most fearfully smitten vvith 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, vvith a high hand against God, and vvith a conuicted & seared conscience. Which I say cannot vvith any shevv 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. 108. yea to the Parliament of late times. You say vvell to the consciences of men: but not to the consciences of all men, or the most men throughout the land. Yea or the most of them that knovv and feare God, according to the religion novv mainteyned, This is the very question. If you meane so, that all mens cōsciences are cōuicted in this matter, all men surely vvill either pitty your simplicitie, or laugh at your folly. I pray you Maister Iohnson, consider your selfe, you vvere a true Christian, longe before you fell into this separa­tion. Yea moreouer you vvere learned, yea you knevv and acknovvledged 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 cōdemne your separation, & yet be true Christiās, as you acknowledg that your self then vvas? meipso teste.

That which you addepag. ibid. of persecuting vnto bandes exile and death, to proue our vtter abolishing from Christ generally: It is a toy. First if you were meerely inno­cent, yet this could not make vs worse then the Iewes in Chrstes time: who for all that they persecuted, yet were they not wholly falne from God. Se­condly you suffer indeed more then you need,H. [...]a. 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, ifM. Iohnson his contrari­ety proved b [...]tvvene his 2. Reason & his 6. reason. Fr. Io. Not proved, but preten­ded. See my Answer here following. here in this your 6. Reason you bee not directly contraty to your self, as I hue obserued in your 2. Reason: Pag. 85. For you say here, Pag. 104. That not the Samaritans, but the Iewes, were then by Christ counted the true worshippers of God, & heires of saluation, Ioh. 4.22. But in your Second Rea­son, Pag. 82. you say: They that teach for doctrine mens precepts, as Mat. 15.9. there Christ saith the Iewes then did, those in particuler are no true Christians, nor their assemblies true Churches. Ther­fore you inferre, (or else you pretend it) that those particuler Ievves were not then true vvorshippers, nor their Assembles true Churches: vvhich is a flat contradiction, Or else what is. But if you meane not this of the Ievves, then you abuse the scripture and vs, turning it cleane from them, vvhom in your Reason you speake of, and vvhom Christ therein expresly meaneth.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to M. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reason. MAny such things (Mr Iacob) I have often heard: Yet God forbid, that I should justify you or your estate. He that justifyeth the vvicked, [Page 113] and he that cōdemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Therefore dare I not eyther justify your Churches wicked estate and per­secution,Prov. 17.15. or condemne the righteous servants of God which witnes the truth against you. But you Mr Iacob have done both, in this Reply of yours: the abomination whereof will further appeare in the discussing of the particulers hereafter.

Words in deed you have ynough, as thinking belike that at least you have some show on your side: but they are all to no purpose, save against your selves. I will now examine them from point to point.

First for the Reason it self, the Proposition of the first Syllogisme being so cleare as you can with no colour deny it, you come therefore to the latter. Where you pretend first to set it downe, and then to aunswer it. Yet in deed you do neither. Thus first you set it downe; They that vvor­ship God after a false manner, are no true Christians. But put on your spectacles, or (if you please) your eye of glasse, and trye agayne if you can read any better. He that hath but the halfe eye you speake of sometymes, may see I propounded it thus,Pag. 106. The people and Assemblies whose ecclesia­sticall constitution is such as they worship God after a false maner, never ap­pointed by himself nor approved in his word: their constitution is such as vn­to them in that estate the couenants, holy things, and seruice of God do not appertaine. This you see is the latter Proposition; Why then did you not thus propound it? Why do you still transforme my words and Ar­guments into others of your owne? Is it because you can find no aun­swer to them, as I have propounded them? Or because men should see in deed that to be in your self, which you do vainly obiect vnto me, viz, That you do sophisticate, and can do nothing els in argumentation?

Towching your answer to the Proposition, If you had kept my words, what needed (I pray you) this vaine distinction of yours? Speciallie where there is no ambiguitie at all? Was there ever any professing to worship the true God in Christ that did worship him after a false maner totally, that is, in all the particulars of their worship? Look to the E­thiopian Churches, to the Papists, to anie other false worshippers of God professing Christ: and see if their case be such. Do they not hold and preach much truth? Do they not baytize in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost? &c. If you say, where the constitution of a Church establisheth a false worship of God never prescribed by himself, there though they seem to have some good things, yet by reasō of such con­stitution and practise their whole worship is false before God totally: then say I also your case is such, and therefore so of vs to be esteemed. Thus if there be any thing in your pretended distinction, it is against your self.

But you have another clause in it, of worshipping God after a false maner fundamentally. This you say you do not in the Hierarchy and ex­ternall ceremonies: and therefore you auouch confidently that such may be true Christians, and that the contrarie hereof is no lesse then blasphemy &c. [Page 114] 1. First Mr Iacob this is but your bare affirmation, without any warrāt produced from the Scripture. 2. Secondly you say, such may be true Christians: whereas for the point in hand you should have said, all such as towching the Church-constitution wherein they stand are true Chri­stians. If you thus affirme, prove it by the word of God. If you can­not, it will appeare to be blasphemy rather in your self so to affirme, then in others to deny it. Remember, it isOf this see Before, Pag. 7. 8. one thing for men to say, such may be accounted true Christians (being considered apart from the Church constitution wherein they stand); and another to say, such as towching their Chur-constitution are to be accounted true Christians. 3. Thirdly set the Reader mynd, how vnder the terme of externall ceremonies, you would still hide the impiety of your false worship, and most filthy heap of your Antichristian abominations. 4. Fourthly, set you downe by the word of God what is fundamentall: and see if I prove not the Antichri­stian errors among you to be such. They subvert Christs office; they are doctrines of Diuels; Col. 2.8. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3 Rev. 14.9-12. 2 Thes. 2.3-12 marks of the Beast; lyes and vnrighteousnes of Anti­christ; the mystery of iniquity; the apostasy of the sonne of perdition &c. Con­sider now with your self, what will follow herevpon. 5. Fiftly although your errors were not fundamentall, yet for the Proposition it skilleth not, so as your constitution be such as is there spoken of. Eyther therefore must you prove your constitution to be otherwise, or els both the Propo­sition and the Assumption stand firme against you: as I have proved for both. 6. For Mr Cranmer &c. (whose errors you oppose more vnto vs then any word of God) I have aunswered alreadie, and shewed how their case and yours is not alike. Pag 40. 41. Besides that I doubt not but some erring in fundamentall points (as divers of the Martyrs have done) may yet be partakers of salvation. Of which point see more in the second ExceptionPa. 44. &c before, and theThe answer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 7. Reasō. next Reason hereafter following. 7. Lastly, concerning your confident auouch in the presence of God, know you not that the Fryers and Monks for their callings, and all false wor­shippers for their service of God, will auouch as much and as confidently as you do here? Yea and alledge that it is no lesse then horrible blasphemy against God and his Saints, to say the contrarie? Is this therefore of any waight for their defence? No more then for yours. To turne your owne words then vpon your self, you bring not a syllable or one letter in all your writing, neither can you, for warrant of your estate, neither against that I have said to the contrary, but bare begging of the contro­versie which is infinite often, and meer sophisticall dealing everie where rife throughout your Replies. Of the third Exception and first and second Reasons enough is said before in the handling of them. All the So­phistry you have, will not prove them sophisticall. If you think good, you may trie your skill once againe. Yet remember how you are foyled alreadie, and know that still you shall fynde the light of the truth to shine and the power thereof to prevaile against you, as alway it hath and will against all adversaries whōsoever.

[Page 115]For the Samaritans (whose example proveth the Proposition) I noted first, that most excellent truths may be acknowledged, and yet they which so professe not be in their estate true Christians or true Churches, to whom ap­pertaine the couenants &c. This you passe by, as if you saw it not. Belike that your Reader might the lesse mind it. Next I required proof for that you said, The Samaritans beleued not in the Messias. Now in stead of proof you bring vs, it might be, if it were so, let it be howsoever &c. But Ifs and Ands cannot be received for proof. Speciallie when such evidence is shewed for their faith in the Messiah, as may be seen in Ioh. 4.25.26.29.30.39.

Where you say, you hold your faith and doctrine by the word profes­sedly, as the publik ordinance of your Church sheweth: I neither heare you prove it, nor see the ordinance of your Church shew it. The contrarie I have declared before, and occasion there will be to speake of it againe. In the meane tyme tell me, whether you hold by the word professedly your faith and doctrine towching the Hierarchy, the forbidding of meats and mariage, and the other particulars mentioned before, Pag. 63. &c.

Tell me also whether your Churches faith and doctrine, for Christs descension into Hell, be held by the word professedly among you, viz, That Christs soule went downe into Hell, whiles his body lay in the grave. I know (Mr Iacob) for your part you will not sticke to say, your Churches do­ctrine is not thus. For so I remember you have aunswered D. Bilson now Prelate of Winchester ‡ in a treatise which you wrote against him concerning this point. But how do you shew it in that book of yours?H.I. his trea­tise of Christs suffrings & descending into Hell. Pag. 172. 173 Thus forsooth. The Articles of the Synod holden in K. Edwards tyme have thus, As Christ dyed for vs and was buried, so also it is to be be­leeved that he went downe into Hell. For his body lay in the grave vntill the Resurrection, but his spirit gone out from it was with the Spirits which were deteined in prison or in Hell, and preached vnto them, as the place of Peter testifyeth. But your Synod holden synce in the yeare 1562. you say correcteth it, and hath thus onely, As Christ dyed for vs and was buri­ed, so we are to beleve also that he descended into Hell: Which you trans­late thus, that he went vnto the Dead. The rest following in the Article of the former Synod, your latter doth not mention. Herevpon you ga­ther thus. It repeateth and ratifyeth part of the foresaid Article in expresse words: but part of it, euen Not all. all and every whit that conteineth this doctrine expressly of Christs going down to the Hell of the damned, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it casteth away. Therefore you conclude, that the publik sen­tence of your Churches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the same, is a­gainst this opinion of Christs descending into Hell.

But in earnest (Mr Iacob) do you think this reason is good? Then for your learning marke this which followeth, as good as yours and all one. The Letany See the Books of Cō ­mon Prayer & Ordering Priests &c. printed in K. Edw. tyme. in K. Edwards tyme ran thus, From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormityes, good Lord deliver vs. But your Letany synce in this Queens tyme correcteth it, not mentioning [Page 116] this clause at all. It repeateth and ratifyeth part of that Letany in ex­presse words; but part of it, even all and every whit of the clause aforsaid concerning the Bishop of Rome and his enormityes to be prayed against, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it casteth away. Look in all your books of Common prayer now published, and you shall fynd it as I say. There­fore by your Logick it will follow, that the publik sentence of your Chur­ches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the same, is against this, that any should pray to be delivered from the Bishop of Rome and all his derestable e­normityes. If you will have your reason go for currant, then let this also go with it hand in hand.

Now because you would here persuade vs, that the publik ordinance of your Church sheweth you hold your faith and doctrine by the word pro­fessedly, I will further prove vnto you that it is the faith (or in deed an heresy) of your Church, that Christs soule went downe into Hell, while his body was in the grave. First the third Article ofBook of Artic. published 1562. your faith agreed v­pon in the yeare 1562. hath this title, Of the going downe of Christ into Hell. Then the words of the Article follow thus, As Christ dyed for vs and was buryed, so also it is to be beleeved that he went downe into Hell. Your translating and chaunging of the words of the Article otherwise then they do themselves (as I noted before) sheweth not their meaning, but your perverting thereof. I omit, that in your aunswer to D. Bilson you set not the words of the Article of K. Edwards tyme in English at all. Belike you saw, it would sooner have discovered your fraude. Se­condly M. Nowell in hisOn the Artic. of the Creed, He descended into Hel. Catechisme saith as much as your Article doth. And this Catechisme is authorised in an wholeSyn. Lond. Anno. 1571. Synod, and cōmāded to be taught throughout the Land. Thirdly (to put the matter out of all doubt) the singing Psalmes printed with priviledge and authorised to be sung in all your ChurchesIn the Psal. beginning thus, All my belief and cō fidence &c. have it expressely, thus,

Note also that the title of this Psalme is, The 12. Articles of Christian faith. Is not this then your Churches expresse faith and doctrine? Yea, is not that also expressed here, which in the Article in K. Edwards tyme was mentioned? How badly then and sophistically do you plead about your Churches faith and ordinance herein? Towching which (I meane, the ordinance of your Church) you may see D. Bilson hath the better of you: though otherwise, by the word of God, it is plaine he hath the worse, and standeth in a detestable error, both against all proportion of faith, and against the expresse evidence of these Scriptures, Luk. 23.46. with Psal. 31.5. Ioh. 19.30. Luk. 23.43. with 2 Cor. 12.2.4. & Rev. 2.7. & 3.21. Heb. 12.23. Col. 2.14.15. Eph. 4.8.9.10. 1 Pet. 3.18.19.20. 2 Cor. 13.4. Psal. 16.8.9.10.11. with Gen. 5.24. & 37.35. 2 King. 2.1.11. Eccles. 12.7. Act. 7.59. Luk. 16.26.

But tell me now Mr Iacob, what power of Christ your Church hath, [Page 117] and in whose hands it is to excommunicate D. Bilson for teaching and mainteining this or any other false doctrine a mong you? Your self are a member of that Church together with him: You haue written against him, and by the word of God convinced him. He notwithstanding per­sisteth, and leaveneth others as much as he can. Now if you be the Church of Christ (as you would beare vs in hand) why do you not pro­ceed with him by theMat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4.5.6.7.11.12.13. rule and power of Christ? Or if your Church haue not that power of Christ (as all may see), why do you not confesse it to be none of Christs? Even by this then (if you note it well) you may per­ceive what your Churches faith and ordinance is. Not to speak here, of other most erroneous doctrines and filthy abominations mainteined a­mong you.

In the third place, I proved the Samaritans sinne to be against the se­cond commaundement, inasmuch as worshipping the true God, they did it in and by the Images they framed. Now your aunswer is, that they worshipped the Idols of the Heathen, and sacrificed to them, and accompted them to be Gods aswell as the God of Israel, and so brake the first commaun­dement. And to prove this assertion of yours true, and myne false, you alledge 2 King. 17.29.30.31. Where it is said, Every nation made their Gods &c. But are you no better divine, then so Mr Iacob? Are you a teacher in this light of the Gospell, and vnderstand not yet this phrase of Scripture? Know you not that the Lord “ accounteth them to be made and worshipped as Gods, whose ordinances, Images, Altars, places, Ministeryes, rites, ceremonies &c. are kept and observed: though it be for his worship and service? Or mynd you not that2 King. 17.29.30.31. these and the like speaches in the Scripture are sacramentall? (“ Deut. 12.30.31. Iudg. 17. chap. 2 King. 16.10-16. with 2 Chron. 28.23. 2 King. 17.7.8. &c. Hos. 2.16. Ezec. 14.3.4.5. &c. & 20.39.40. Exo. 32.4.5.)

When theExod. 32.4. Iewes and1 King. 12.28. Ieroboam said of their golden calves, These be thy Gods ô Israell, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: Do you think they meant those golden Idols now made by them selves, were in deed the God of Israell that brought them out of Egypt? Or do you not thus vnderstand it, that they made and vsed those only for signes and representations of that God? That this was their purpose, appeareth both by the * occasion of making them, and by theirExod. 32.4. vse of them being made, wheras still they intended their feasts and worship before them and by them, to be to Iehovah the true God. (* Exod. 32.1. 1 King. 12.26.27.28.Exod. 32.4.Exod. 32.5. 1 King. 12.28.32.33. with Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.22.23. & 8.14. Micah. 6.6.7.)

The same may be seen in Michahs example of mount Ephraim, and in his mother, Iudg. 17. In her, that when she made a graven Image, even then she prayed to Iehovah the true God, and dedicated to him the silver whereof she made that Image. Iudg. 17.2.3.4. Iudg. 17.5.10. In Michah him­self, that heExod. 32.4. made an Ephod and Teraphim, and had an house of Gods, and took first one of his owne sonnes, then a Levite for his Priest: [Page 118] Yet by all these intended the worship onelie of the true God. As appea­reth both by his owne speach,Iudg. 17.13. when he † said, Now I know that the Lord (Iehovah, not Idols) will be good vnto me, seeing I haue a Levite to my Priest: and by the historie following, Iudg. 18.5.6.

Yea of the Samaritans themselves (of whom the question is) when they had made their Gods and put them in the houses of the hy places, the Scripture here cited by your self saith, Thus they feared [Iehovah] the Lord, and appointed out Priests &c. 2 King. 17.32.

The words then (when it is said, they made Gods &c.) are not lite­rallie to be taken, but sacramentallie, attributing that in phrase of speach to the signe, which in deed is peculiar to the thing signified. And this maner of speaking is vsuall throughout the Scripture, both towching the true and false worship of God. The Altar which Iacob set vp at Shechem he called, the mighty God of Israell. Genes. 33.20. Gedeon called the Altar he made, the Lord of peace. Iudg. 6.24. The Arke is called, the Lords strength and beauty Psal. 78.61. The bread in the Lords supper is called, the body of Christ. Mat. 26.26. And manie the like speaches in the Scripture are everie where to be found. Now as these in the true, so the other before in false worship of God, are sacra­mentall speaches. When it is said then, that2 King. 17.29.30.31 every nation made their Gods &c. the meaning is, they made Idols or Images for the repre­sentatiō of God, by them to be put in mind of him and so to worship him.

Mind further, that the Scripture relating the sinne of the Samari­tans vseth the verie same words and like phrase of speach as is in the se­cond commaundement: It saith, they made them Gods, that is, Images (as it is expounded,2 King. 17 29.33.41. vers. 41.) and served them. Which are the words also of that commaundement. Exod. 20.4.5. And note that whereas the first commaundement is directlie of Gods inward worship, viz, to love, trust, feare him &c. The Second is of outward, as the verie ter­mes of making, of Images, of bowing to them &c. which are things outward, do specifie. This being noted, it giveth light for the true vn­derstanding of both these commaundements (which will otherwise be cō founded,Pag. 80. as I have shewed ‡ els where) and proveth the sinne of the Sa­maritans directlie to have ben the breach of the Second, not of the First.

Now let vs come to the proofs alleadged in the former answer, and to your Replie here made against them. 1. By that of Ezra it is evidēt, † they sacrificed to the Lord God of Israell. Ezra. 4.1.2 The words of the Text are so plaine, as cannot be withstood. Neither is it anie thing to the questiō in hand, that in hypocrisy they conspired against the building of the Tem­ple, and so against the true worship of God. When your self or anie other amōg you do by counterfet hypocrisy and false brags set your selves against the synceritie and observation of Christs ordinauce (and so against the true worship of God) will it follow, that therefore your false worship is to some other then the true God; and not against the Second, but the First commaundement?

[Page 119]2 That the cōtention betwen the Iewes and Samaritās was not, whe­ther the true God onely was to be worshipped, but in what place & maner, is so cleare by Ioh 4. as it must needs be a bold assertion of yours to denie it. Doth not the woman of Samaria acknowledge Christ to beIoh. 4.19 a Prohet of the true God whom she worshipped? Is not the question and speach between them of this onelie,ver. 20.21.24. Where and How God must be worshipped? Now if the controversy had ben of the Person (whether the true God onelie or Idols also were to be worshipped) to what purpose had it ben to contend about the Place, when as yet there had not ben agreement a­bout the Person? Why did not she, taking him to be a Prophet, inquire aswell Whom as Where we are to worship? Nay why did she not aske this first and speciallie? To what end was it for her to alledge the example ofIbid. vers. 12.20. Iacob and the Fathers, for the place, if they had not worshipped the same God that Iacob and the Fathers did? Or was it ever heard, that any people but such as worshipped the true God onely, did know and look for the Messiah to come, spoken of by the Prophets, as the Samaritans did? Ioh. 4.25.28.29.30.38.39.40.41.42. Likewise inIbid. vers. 21-24. Christs speach and instruction of that Samaritane woman, how plaine is it that the controversie was as before I have noted? What commaundement (I pray you) doth the place and maner of Gods worship properlie con­cerne? Is it not the Second? Or would Christ (think you) instruct her so carefullie about the Second, and omit the controversies of the First (being the most waightie) if therein they had differed? The case is so cleare, as if you have your eies in your head, you can not but see it. There­fore will I spend no more tyme to confute you in it. Your misvnderstā ding and misalledging of 2 King. 17. I have also discovered here a little before.

3. Your owne confession I did and will still alledge, vntill you do as plainelie revoke it, as you did at first affirme it. I denie not but you brought the whole Reason in as our Obiection. Yet that point of the Israelites worship vnder Ieroboam and other clauses of the Obiection, any may see you set them downe, as being true also in your owne judgement. Otherwise how said you, that it is fitter then all our Reasons? Pag. 105. Or how did you acknowledge that their worship resembled the ordinances at Ieru­salem? And to what end els did you confirme it by those two Scriptu­res, 1 King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. A shame then it is and great shame for you Mr Iacob, at first to confesse the truth, and now when you see what followes vpon it against you, to draw back againe. But to cleare the point from all your double dealing, I aske, Is it not true, that the Israe­lites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel served not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their owne devices &c. Is it not true also, that the Samaritās coming after them so feared and served the Lord, as those Israelites before had done? If you denie either of these, see here the proof of both from the word of God: Of the first towching the Israelites, in these Scriptures, Hos. 2.16. Amos. 5.21.22.23. & 8.14. 1 Kin. 12.27. & 21.29. Of [Page 120] the latter towching the Samaritans in these, 2. King. 17.28.32.33.41. Ezra. 4.1. 2. Ioh. 4.19.20.25.26.29.30. Both these then being true, who seeth not that their sinne was directlie against the Second commaun­dement, as yours also is, by your owne confession? Pag. 70. 71.

But you say Ieroboams seemeth far grosser and filthier then the worst is with you. You say, it seemeth. You say not, it was. But be it that it were so, what would it availe for the question in hand? Doth such an­swer anie whit help the Papists when they alledg it? Your self do here a little after in this Replie jnsinuate as if the Idolatry of Ieroboam was not at first so ill,Pag. 110 as afterward Achabs was and Manasses &c. If it were so, was this anie defence of Ieroboams estate: seeing he notwithstā ­ding stood in transgression of the Second commaundement, though the other might exceed him in grossenes or otherwise?

Now for the comparison between yours and Ieroboams, you tell vs he * erected visible Idols, 1 Kin. 12.28 and very filthy ones, even calves and brute beasts. The same you might alledge of the Israelites with Aaron: Exod. 32.4. whose sinne notwithstanding was directlie against the Second comman­dement, as you confesse yours also is. Besides (Mr Iacob) have not you and your Church too your visible Idols? What els (I pray you) are your Service book; your books of Canons and Homilies; your Book of ordering Priests and Prelates taken out of the Popes pontificall; your Idoll-shepheards,Zach. 11.17 even the Prelates and Priests themselves: such as to whom (for any sound knowledge they have in themselves, or good instru­ction they give or receive of others) may fitly be applied that saying of the Prophet concerning Idols, They have a mouth and speak not, they have eyes and see not, Psal. 115.5.6. they have eares and heare not &c.

Where in the next place (to lessen your sinne in respect of Ieroboās) you say you professe your Ecclesiasticall orders to be but indifferent things, for or­der and comelines onely: how absurd againe and shameles is your pre­tence? Do you in deed professe that your Book of common prayer with the other aforsaid are but indifferēt things, for order and comelines only? If so, then are they not the true worship and service of God, commāded in his word, to be observed of his Church. For that is not an indiffe­rent thing, but straitlie enjoined to be kept without spot or chaunge vn­till the appearing of our Lord Iesus. Exod. 20.4.5.6. 1 Tim. 6.13.14. Col. 2.8.22.23. Rev. 22.18.19. Againe, do you professe the confusion of all maner people in the body of your Church, to be an indifferent thing, for order and comelines onely? If so, then you might aswell tell vs, you professe darkenes to be light, disorder and confusion to be order and comelines &c. Or do you professe that your Archbishops and other Prelates and Priests, with their offices and callings taken out of the cup of Babylon; your forbidding of meats and mariage (called by the Apostle, doctrines of Divels); your retaining the Apocrypha Books in your publik worship,Pag 63. &c which have many lyes and great blasphemy in them: Do you (I say) professe that these with the rest of your abominations ‡ before [Page 121] rehearsed, are but indifferent things, onely for order and comelines? And is this in deed the profession of your generall State, as ‡ here you note in the margent? Then sure you are not far behind Ieroboam: Pag. 110. if not far worse in some respects. And by this it is evident (to note it by the way) that your generall State is conuinced of great impietie: inasmuch as (howsoe­ver it stood for the controversy otherwise, yet) none can be so grosse as to deny, but thus far you are convinced that these are not indifferent things &c. You had need also look well about you, what to aunswer for spea­king in such maner of your generall State.

Now for Ieroboam, what will you say if he also held this, as the chief and mayne thing, ♣ that the true God, who is infinite and every where pre­sent, be worshipped: but whether at Ierusalem or at Dan; Ioseph. An­tiq. Iud. lib. 8. cap. 3. whether in Salo­mons Temple, or at the Calves▪ which he had now made; whether by the Levites, or by others consecrated to that service &c. that these and the like he accounted and vsed as indifferent things, as might seem best to serve for the opportunity of their dwelling, for that estate &c. See Iosephus Antiquityes, if he do not testify thus much concerning him: affirming further, that by these meanes he deceyved the people and drew them from the true worship of God: which in the end was the cause of their vtter ru­ine. Lo here the fruit and yssue of such pretences.

Further you alledge 2 Chron. 11.15. Where Ieroboam is said to appoint Priests for the high places, and for Divels, and for the Calves he had made. So have you also appointed Priests (such as God never ordeined) and that for your high places and Calves, that is, for your Idols Tem­ples and Service, the places and maner of your publik worship to this day. Of which three points, viz, your Priesthood, Idoll-temples, A treatise of the Ministery of the Church of England. and false worship, I have written in another treatise, to which I refer you.

Where it is said, Ieroboā appointed Priests for Divels, you are to know (if already you do not) that this is spoken mystically, in respect of Gods account, and as it was in deed, not that Ieroboam and the people did so think and esteem it themselves. And that you may have lesse preiudice of this which I say, heare it of Peter Martyr who writeth thus of it: Ie­roboam and his complices said, they worshipped not the Calves, but Iehovah in that figure & visible signe: but the Scripture in the Chronicles witnesseth their imagination to be frustrate, because in deed they did that service not to Iehovah, but to Divels. P.M. Lo. com. p. 1130. Epist. ad Eccles. peregrin. Lond. I will also help you to vnderstand this point by a like example, to which I suppose you will yeeld. The Papists in Gods account are worship­pers of Divels, Rev. 9.20. Yet in their owne judgement they do not so, but pretend to worship God himself. Even so it was with Ieroboam.

Further for the more clearing of this matter, see what it is in deed thus to worship Divels: And heare it of Mr Iunius, whose judgement (I know) in this case you will judge lesse partiall. He in his notes vpon Lev. 17.7. saith thus, Men sacrifice to Divels, if they sacrifice eyther in o­ther place or after other rite and maner then the Lord hath prescribed: See [Page 122] Deut. 32.17. & 1 Cor. 10.20. And this he sheweth was the sinne of the Iewes, both in Egypt, and in the wildernes: first by Exod. 32. chapter: then byLev. 17.7. this verse, where the word (hereafter, or, no more) is vsed; and lastly by Stephens testimony, Act. 7.42. Ieroboam then worshipped Divels (not in his owne purpose and judgement, but in Gods account) because his worship of God was in other place and after other maner then the Lord had apppointed.

Now seing you graunt this here to be true of Ieroboam, how will you denie it either for the Papists (from whom you have borrowed your wor­ship) or for your selves, the children of their fornications? And that you may see, it is a thing needfull to be mynded in your Church-consti­tution, note for your selves, that1 Tim. 4.1.3. the erroneous doctrines of Antichrist are by the Lord accounted and in the Scripture called doctrines of Divels; Rev. 9.20. the worship of Antichrist, the worship of Divels; Rev. 16.13.14. the Ministers of An­tichrist, the spirits of Divels; Rev. 18.2. the confusion of all prophane people and ab­omination in the body of Antichrists Church and religion, the habitation of Divels &c. Either therefore you must approve your Church-consti­tution to be such, as it reteineth not the erroneous doctrines, worship, Mi­nistery, and confusion of people brought in by Antichrist; but the truth & way of Christ prescribed to his Church: or els you see by evidence of Scri­pture, how like your case is to Ieroboams also in this respect. Not that you do so esteem it (any more then he did) but that God doth so account of you and of all such Churches whose constitution is to worship him o­therwise then himself hath ordeined: howsoever your devices may resē ­ble his ordinances,Pag. 105. as * you confesse Ieroboams also did. (1 King. 12.32. 33. Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.21.22, 23.) So you confesse ynough against your self.

Next you alledge the examples of Ahab; Ahaziah; the Iewes vnder A­haz, Manasses, and Amon, to whom the Israelites were like in Idolatry: also the Ten tribes: and finally the Samaritans themselves. These examples and the Scriptures cited about them, speak of Baall and like Idols, and their Altars, houses, Priests, &c. Now I have proved ‡ before that in and by these Idols and their appurtenances,Pag. 117. &c. they intended the worship of the Lord God himself. And yet further by these testimonyes of Scri­pture it is most plaine, viz. Hos. 2, 16. Micah. 6.6.7. 1 King. 21.28.29. and 22.12.24. Exod. 32.1.4.5. Iudg. 17.2.3.5.13. and 18.5.6.17.18.19.20. Amos. 5 21.22.23. Yea in the Scriptures which ‡ here your self alledge, they are said to worship after the fashion of the Heathen (though it was to the true God) because they sacrificed in their hy places: Pag. 110. or on the Altars and before the Idols, eyther of the Heathen or their owne, set vp for the representation and service of God. Finally none of these Scriptures do shew, that the Samaritans did so worship the Idols of the Heathen, as accounting them to be in deed Gods aswell as the God of Israell. Which is your assertion. So it is your self Mr Iacob, that are cleane gone.

[Page 123]Your perventing of my words I omit. But now what will you say, if the case of the very Pagans Idolatry be not so cleare as you take it, for the worshipping of the Idols themselves, and esteeming them to be so ma­ny severall Gods? Augustine saith the Pagan Doctors defend their many Gods to be butAugust. de Civit. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11. one and the same Iupiter, that is, one God: of whom the ♣ Poet sayth, He is throughout all the earth, the sea, and the heaven. Virgil. 4. Geo Againe, he testifyes that they themselves did thus aunswer him:Aug. Ibid. cap. 24. What, Should we beleev that our forefathers were so exceding foolish, as to think Bacchus, Ceres, Pan, and the like, were Gods? Nay they beleeved onely one God: whose name because they knew not, therefore did they honour his gifts & functios vnder divers names &c. Plato a Pagan himself, in one of his Epistles saith thus, Hereby you shall know whether I write in good earnest, Plato Epist. 13. ad Dion. or not. If in earnest, I begin my letters with the onely one God: If other­wise, with many. Yea Phocylides an heathen Poet could say,Phocylides. [...], There is but onely one God, wise powerfull and very happy. And Epictetus a Stoick, thus, It is before all things to be learned, that there is but one God: that he ruleth all things: Epictetus a­pud Arriā. that he provideth for all: that whatsoever we do, speak, or think, nothing can be hid from him: that we should worship him as our Creator and Father, and the onely authour of our felicity: And that if vve call vpon God aright, vvee shalbe advertised of the best things by his Angels at his cōmaundement. Calvin also saith, the prophane men thought not to dravv the onely God frō his heavenly throne, vvhen they feyned to themselves many Gods: Calv. in Hos. 2.17. but reser­ving a supreme Godhead over all, they vvould have Patrones, vvhom to vse for obteyning grace and favour of the most high God. And by Plato him­self it appeareth they took the Angels for such, whom he calleth [...],Plato in E­pinom. e [...] in Cratylo. Spirits: and therefore thought they were to be honoured, [...], as being the meanes of or, prayse-worthy. prosperous intercession or proceding. Whom therefore they vsed as helps for better accesse vnto God, as now do the Papists their many intercessors, who yet hold there is but one God. Thus they thought of God, and of his gifts, works, Angels, &c.

Then for the Pagans vse of their Idols or Images, Calvin (writing against such men as in excuse of their Idolatry pretend,Calv. Inst. lib 1. ca. 11. se. 9. 1 [...] they account not the Images to be Gods) sheweth that neither did the Ievves think their Calfe to be God, nor the Heathen their Images: but that as the Papists novv, so the Heathen and Ievves then, vvere persvvaded they vvorshipped God in and by those Images. Thus writeth Calvin. Then which what can be more full and pregnant against you? And Plutarch recordeth that Numa Pompilius (a Pagan) forbad the Romanes to think that Gods Image had eyther the likenes of Man or the forme of any creature. Plutar. in vi­ta Numae. Neither vvas there before vvith them (saith he) any Image or representation of God eyther painted or fayned: but in the first hundred and seventy yeares they built in deed Temples and erected holy Chappels, but consecrated no Image at all: Even as if it vvere detestable to resemble better things to vvorse, and because God can not othervvise be perceived but in the mynd and vnderstāding. And [Page 124] yet further, Plutarch also in an other place hath to this effect, that the Sunne, Plutar. de I­sid. et Osyrid. the Moone, the Heaven &c. are not to be vvorshipped; that they in deed are but looking glasses vvherein may be seen the vvorkmanship of God that adorneth the vvhole vvorld: And that the vvorld is no other thing but his Temple. Yea moreover (towching both these points now treated of) that the severall nations have not their severall Gods, so as vve should think the Grecians have theirs, the Barbarians theirs, the Northerne people theirs, the Southerne theirs: But like as the Sunne, the Moone, the Heaven, the Earth, the Sea, are common to all, yet are called by severall names of severall people; so likevvise that one divine Spirit, which framed this whole world & vvhose providence is over it all, yet hath severall honours, and severall names, attributed vnto him, according to the lawes of several natiōs &c. Behold then what the Pagans themselves do testify. Albeit I neither doubt nor de­ny but some among them (speciallie in later tymes) were far more grosse then others: even as now we may see in the Papists a great difference, a­mong themselves, both for their judgement and practise, in their Idola­try. Yet notwithstanding by the testimonies aforsaid you may see, you had need cleare this point even for the Heathen, far orherwise then yet you have done. To which purpose I might yet alledge manie mo testimo­nies out of other Writers, which I will not stand to relate. Onely, to take away all scruple,Arnob. cōtra Gentes. lib. 6. take this withall, That Arnobius writeth the Hea­then themselves said, they vvorshipped not the Stones (or stony Idols) but the presence of God exhibited at those Images. Thus you see what the wri­ters of all sorts, Christian and Heathen, testifie cōcerning this matter.

I could now alledge from the Scripture also, that the Apostle Paull affirmeth of the Gentils,Rom. 1.21.22.23. they knevv God, yet glorifyed him not as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the similitude of the Image of corruptible man &c. Againe where he saith1 Cor. 10.20 vvhat the Genttils sacrifice, they sacrifice to Divels, and not vnto God, it appeareth they thought thē ­selves that they sacrificed to God, when as indeed (before the Lord) it was to Divels. As alreadie the like hath ben shewed in Ieroboams and Antichrists worship. Otherwise if the Heathen themselves had professed their service to divels and not vnto God, what needed the Apostle have ben so earnest in affirming it, and in persuading the Church of Corinth therein? Why did he not also vrge the Heathens owne profession against them? Yea, what pretence any maner way could the beleeving Corin­thians have had, to be partakers with the Idolaters in their Feasts and Temples, if they had professedly appointed them to Divels, and not vn­to God? Further we read that in Athens (a chief City of the Heathen) Paul found an Altar wherein was written,Act. 17.23. Vnto the vnknovven God. Wherevpon he reasoned thus with them, Whom ye ignorantly vvorship, him shew I vnto you. God that made the vvorld and all things therein &c. Now you will not deny but Paul preached vnto them the only true God. And Paul himself testifyes, he preached the same God whom they did worship before (though ignorantlie): and of whom their owne Poets [Page 125] said, * We are his generation. Then which what can be more plaine?Act. 17.2 [...]. ex Arato.

Finallie consider, that an Idoll or Image is not the thing itself which is intended, but a representation or likenes thereof. So as even this very terme of calling them Idols or Images, sheweth that they took not any of them to be God, but all of them to be types or resemblances of him.T. C. Rep. 1. Pag. 42. & Rep. 2. pag. 184. &c. I could here also put you in mynd how Mr Cartwright hath set D. Whitgift at a Non plus in this very point: so as you might well have learned by your Archbishops foile, to have laid your hand vpon your mouth.

But to leave this, I conclude by that which hath ben said, that whe­ther we mynd the nature of the word Idoll, or the testimony of all kind of writers, or the Scriptures themselves: the matter is far otherwise and nothing so cleare for the very Pagans Idolary as you pretend, viz, that they should worship the Idols themselves, and take them to be so many seve­rall Gods. How much les may we admit it to have ben the case of the Israelites, yea or of the Samaritans, as you would perswade vs? Your self then Mr Iacob are greatlie deceived both here and in your Rtplie to the first Reason before: Where I proved that which I said, so as you are not able to take it away. In deed “ there you referred vs hither,Pag. 71. as to the proper place for it: yet here now you bring nothing of waight more then before, either for the point it self, or for the Scriptures which there I al­ledged. See them, Pag. 68. And Let the Reader note it.

Where you say I affirme, that they professed the vvritten Lavv to be the rule, both for their invvard belief, and outvvard maner of vvorship: Shew in what words I affirme this? In what sentence? In what clause? Set downe my words, and consider your owne dealing. In deed the falshood of that which you said concerning this point, I shewed both by other Scriptures (which you passe over without any Replie vnto them at all) and by Ezech. 43.8. Now against this you except,Ezech. 43.8. first That the Samaritans vvere further from syncerity then the Israelites commō ­ly. Vnto which I oppose both the Scriptures-testimonie, and your owne confession. The testimony of Scripture, in that which is written 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. which sheweth both their estates herein to have ben alike. Your confession,Pag. 110. who graunted here a litle before that the Samaritās did in deed vvorship like the Ten tribes of Israell that vvere be­fore them. Thus still you forget your self.

Secondly you except, that Israell it self in this apostasy held not the vvritten Lavv for their rule, seing professedly they left this rule, and did con­stantly vvorship Calues, and sacrificed at Dan and Bethel. This being grā ted, yet you both contradict and condemne your self. Your contradictiō is, that here you say Israel it self held not the written Law for their rule; and yet in the very next sentence before preferred them afore the Sa­maritās in this respect: Or els you speake nothing to the purpose. Your condemnation of your estate is, that by this reason of yours, neither doth your Church hold the written Law for your rule: seing you have as pro­fessedlie (as they) left this rule, and do as constantly worship according [Page 126] to your Sevice beast taken out of the Popes porruis, and by your Priests and Prelates, vnlawfull as the Calves and Priests of Ieroboam. Not to speak of your Idoll Temples, a breach of the second commaundement, as Dan and Bethel were. Besides, although the Israelites in their a­postasy left the written Law of God (as you also have done in yours) yet did they not in word professe so to do (anie more then you) but con­trarily: As I proved before out of Iosephus, Peter Martyr, and the Scripture it self.

Thirdly you except, that Ezechiel sheweth even here, cap. 43.7.8. they kept not this rule, but departed therefrom, and that as appeareth professedly and constantly &c. But marke how both here and before you chaunge the question: which is not whether they kept this rule, but whether they professed to keep it, so as they did. I shewed that the joining of Gods Thresholds and their ovvne togeather, did argue their profession in word, but breach in deed. Their profession in word, whiles they pretended to retaine Gods thresholds: their breach in deed, whiles they added their ovvne withall. To make the case more plaine, see it in your owne estate. Do not you professe in word the written Law to be your rule? Yet do you not also break it in deed, whiles you joine your tresholds with Gods, that is, your invenciōs with his ordinances? To the examples of Ahab, Ahaziah &c. Pag. 122. is aunswered before. Apply therefore to your self Mr Iacob the intolerable blame and foule error whereof you speak. As for exam­ple, you professe the forbidding of meats and mariage at certaine tymes: the worship prescribed in your Service-book and other the like, by read prayer; devised Homilyes: Saints dayes: Communion to one alone: women to ba­ptize: Ministery of Priests, and Prelates: Apocrypha; and the rest before mē ­tioned, Pag. 63. &c. Are these after the rule of the written Law?

Next followed the Assumption to be aunswered: which was this. Such is the ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and Assemblyes of En­gland as they worship God after a false maner, Pag. 106. never appointed by him self nor allowed in his vvord. This was proved by your confusion of People, counterfet Ministery, Service &c. Now neyther this Assumption nor proof thereof, did or do you denie. So here againe you yeeld the cause. And whereas you were told of hiding the fowle heap of your Abominati­ons vnder the terme of Ceremonies, you neither denie it nor amend it, but do still vse the same fraude. Mind it and amend it hereafter.

Now where you say, it is a iust defence of your Ministery, vvorship, & estate to be as tovvching the substance and foundation of Christianity sound and acceptable to God, if your Assemblies throughout the Land have not their consciences convicted therein: You may blush for shame to speak so sencelesslie. If you meane, that your Ministerie, worship, and estate is not in truth of the substance and foundation of Christianitie, then by your owne words you stand in a straunge and fearfull estate: besides that you speak not to the point in hand, and so there is in your speach no sence at all. Or if you meane, that howsoever your Ministery, worship, and [Page 127] estate be, whether approved of God or not, whether Antichristian or whatsoever els, yet your Church-constitution is for substance and foun­dation of Christianitie sound and acceptable to God: then is your speach againe most senceles and absurd. For how is it possible, that your Ministerie, worship, and estate should be condemned by God, Antichri­stian, or the like: and yet your Church-constitution either have the sub­stance and foundation of Christianitie, or be in such a way sound and ac­ceptable to God? To be disallowed of God, and to be acceptable to him, are contraries. Finally, howsoever your meaning be, yet still your speach is senceles and vntrue. ForLuk. 12.47.48. Hos. 4.1-6. 2 Thes. 1.8. Rev. 14.9.10.11. sinne is sinne before God, and so to be estemed of vs, though not so grievous before, as after conviccion. And mens consciences often are convinced, when they will not acknowledge it, but withstand the truth notwithstanding.Esa. 6.9.10. Act. 14.2. & 28.23-27. Ier. 17.9.10 For both which see the Scriptures here quoted: Which refute your assertion sufficientlie. Be­sides that you have without all sence fancyed to your self such a maner of conviction, as cannot eyther be knowen or expected. Of which point I have spoken before. Pag 42.43.

How straunge is it also that you say next, you knovv this is no iust de­fence of your vvhole Ministery, estate, and maner of vvorship, vvhich you never intended (you say) much lesse professed to iustify? How agrees this with the title of your book which you call, A defence of the Churches and Ministery of England? Or will you seem to plead for that which you know can not be iustifyed? Or will you have vs admit of an vnjust de­fence? For your self confesse this is not a iust one. Or is the Office, En­trance, Administration, and Maintenance of some of your Ministers law­full, of others vnlawful? and so likewise some parts of your estate and wor­ship? For you say here, this defends not the vvhole. Deale plainelie then Mr Iacob, and shew which you hold lawfull, which vnlawfull, and your proof of both. So will appeare (I doubt not) even by your self, both that our separation is just and of necessity to be made from your Mi­nistery, vvorship &c. and that your defence of them is most silly and senceles.

That which you speak of Aarons line, I said before was a mistaking: now I say, it is a grosse error. And you may be ashamed thus to hide it, whenas you should rather acknowledge it, when it is shewed you. As for the meaning,Pag. 105. which you have now coined and newlie added in the margent, your words will not beare it. Let others judge. Thus the defence you make for your self is as absurd, as that which you make for your Church.

After this you are earnest to perswade vs, that the vvord of God (though it be as plaine and full in it self, yet) is not so plaine for our vnderstanding & vse novv, as it vvas for the Ievves vnder the Lavv. An assertion most false, most impious, such as the very Papists (I think) would be ashamed of. Was it ever heard afore, that the Gospell of Christ should be more obscure for our vnderstanding and vse now, then the Law of Moses was for the [Page 128] Iewes then? Was not Christ (think you) as willing, as able, as care­full to explane it for our vnderstanding and vse, as Moses was for theirs? Or doth not Christ give his Spirit to his people now, aswel as he did then? Or hath he taken away those dimme shadowes and ceremonies, to bring now a cloud of darkenes in stead thereof? Or is it false which the Pro­phets foretold and the Apostles testify to be accomplished, for abundance of knowledge and vnderstāding in the tyme of the Gospell, far above that which was in the tyme of the Law? Compare together these Scriptu­res following, and see if the contrary to that you say be not most true. Esa. 11.9. Ier. 31.33.34. with 2 Cor. 3. cap. & 4.3.4. Heb. 8.10.11. Ioel. 2.28.29. vvith Act. 2.17.18. Hab. 2.2. 2 Pet. 1.19. 1 Ioh. 5.20. Rev. 1.3. & 22.18.19.

But you pretend three reasons of this your assertion. So also did Saul of his action, 1 Sam. 13.11.12. Neither was Ieroboam himself without colour for his devised worship, as I noted before. But this is the auncient cloke of sinne, with which it hath ben woont alway to hide it self, even from the tyme of our first parents. Gen. 3.6.12.13. And tell me your self, If pretences would serve, what Schismatickes, He­reticks, Apostates, factious or contentious men ever was there, that had not store of such, so both deceiuing others and being deceived themselves?

Yet let vs now examine yours. You pretend (1) discontinuance a long season of the simple offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, and continu­ance of the Prelacy all that vvhile. So might Israell have alledged, 2. Chron. 15.3. Had it therefore ben of waight? And this pretence might far better serve the Papist, then it can you who confesse Rome to be Babylon, and know that your Prelacy, Priesthood, and worship came from thence, not from Ierusalem. Besides how will you prove this cō ­tinuance and discontinuance to have ben so manie thousand yeares, as you speak of? Yet if it were, the word of God is still as plaine to disco­ver error, as it was at first to reveale the truth.

You pretend also (2) the opinion of many auncient and late learned godly Christiās: and (3) their expositiō of the Scriptures so as herein they cary ambi­guity, in infinite Thousands iudgment. To both which I answer: 1. That great antiquity was alledged by the Samaritans, Ezra. 4.2. Ioh. 4.20. and is also by the Papists at this day for their Prelacy, Priesthood, wor­ship, and other their errors of Purgatory, Masse, Prayer for the dead, mixing water and wine in the Cup, Iustification by works, Extreme vnction, Transubstantiation &c. And the Scriptures too are so expoū ­ded, as they carry no small ambiguity in these points, in the judgement of infinite Thousands.Pag. 44. 45. 2. I have also shewed before, how even some of the Martyrs, learned and godly Christians, held divers of these popish er­rors vnto death: And therefore doubtles so took and expounded the Scri­ptures as vpholding them. 3. And be sure whensoeuer you bring the ma­ny auncient and late learned and godly Christians (you speak of) for your assertion, that as many such, if not far mo, both auncient and new may [Page 129] he brought to the contrary. And what then are you the nearer? 4. But in deed I deny this which you say. There is not testimony from such antiquity as you speak of, for your Prelacy and the rest of your abomi­nations before rehearsed: Pag. 63. &c. If you can therefore, shew it in your next. And mynd (as for the rest, so) for the Prelacy in particu­lar, that you shew it to be such as yours, in office, entrance, administrati­on, maintenance, &c. For although ♣ the mystery of iniquity began to work betimes, yet it was both withheld a while from being revealed,2 Thes. 2.3.6 7.8. with Rev. 13.11. and coming vp out of the earth, it appeared and was exalted, not all at once, but by degrees. So as it was a long season in this rising of Antichrist, ere the Prelacy came to that height, which now it hath with you and in Rome the mother thereof. Search, and see if it be not thus. And in the meane tyme (because I know you haue a prejudice of whatsoever I say) heare a litle what Mr Cartwright (one of your selves) hath written of your Prelacy against D. Whitgift now Archb. of Canterbury. Our Arch­bishops, Bishops, Archdeacons &c. (saith he) besides the names have al­most nothing common vvith those of elder tymes. Againe, If those Bishops vvere alive, they vvould not knovv ech other. For that they vvould think ours Princes, and ours would esteeme them as hedge Priests, not vvorthy of their acquaintance or fellovvship. T. C. first Rep. Pag. 124. &c. and his 2. Rep. Pag. 660. And in the same place comparing them togeather, he sheweth vnanswerably in many particulars how farre they differ the one from the other. So as your Archbishop in this poynt also hath ever since ben at a Non plus. Now if you please, you may take your Archbishops quarrell in hand, and strive with as good successe, as he, for these and the rest of your Romish traditions. 5. Finallie, remember on the one hand how our grandmother Eue, at the first entring of sinne into the world, in­sinuated ambiguity in the word of God, which yet in deed was most cleare and plaine: Gen. 3.3. with Gen. 2.17. And mynd well on the o­ther hand, if at this day the Papists themselves bring not greater show of Scripture for their grossest heresies ofIam. 2.21.24.25. Dan. 4.24. Mat. 25 35.36. Iustification by works,Mat. 26.26. Ioh. 6.51.53. Trā ­substantiation,Iam. 5.14. Extreem vnction,1 Tim. 3.15 Ioh. 14.26. & 16.13. Impossibilitie of the Church to erre &c. then you or any other either have brought or can bring for your Pre­lacy and other impietyes before mentioned. Shall we therefore conclude as you do, that they are not easily convicted, though they be mistaken in these things, God having so disposed in his providence to suffer this among Christians, so long and so vniversally? God forbid.

Or shall we think, that Ieroboam and the Iewes (of whō you speak) had not their pretences and excuses, aswell as you and the Papists? I have shewed before that they had. Besides also, as Moses and the Prophets were plaine against their corruptions, so are both they and the Apostles as playne against yours. As for example, that there should be no forbid­ding of meats or mariage; no read or stinted prayer; no mens inventions to worship God by; no Priests in office of Ministery, neither any Lord Bishops, but Christ onely; no baptizing by women; no Idoll Temples, no Apocrypha [Page 130] books, or prescribed Homilyes, for the worship of God; no Popes Canon Lavv, or Prelates decrees, to rule the Church by &c. Compare now with these, the Calves, Images, Priests, and places, whereof you speak: and see if the word of God condemne not the one aswell as the other. Mind also how against these, Gods voice hath sounded in your eares by the testimo­ny of his seruants, from tyme to tyme: and how his hand hath fearfully smitten you with hardnes of heart, and given you over to false worship and persecution of the truth, besides all other impietyes raigning among you. Then which what greater judgement can there be in this life?

Consider also the example of Corah and his companions, whom the earth swallowed vp, and fyer devoured from heaven: Num. 16. chap. & 26.9.10. Whose case although it be handled and compared with yours in the Second Exception before (Pag. 33. 52. 55. 3.): yet because of the chil­dish excuses which you shame not still to plead vnder pretence of vvant of conviction, darkenes of the vvord vnto you &c. and becauseBefore, Pag. 37. your self al­so do judge their case to be most wretched and altogeather inexcusable, therefore will I here againe put you in mynd to consider well with your selves and to examine by the word of God, whether your sinne may not be esteemed in some respects greater then theirs. 1. The Office and fun­ction which they vsurped was a true one (Numb. 16.10) Yours false. 2. The things which they took and offred were such as God had cōman­ded (vers. 18.) Yours, such as man prescribeth. 3. The people to whom they would administer, were a true Church (vers. 2.3.) Yours a false. 4. The reasons which they alledged, divers of them, were more see­ming-good, then any you bring. (vers. 3.14.) 5. They thought they did well and as was meet (vers 3.13.14.18.19.) You, at least manie of you, know and have professed that your Ministery and worship is An­tichristian, and therefore evill and abominable. 6. They had not the written word, so as you have. (vers. 5.7.9.10.28. &c. & Lev. 8. & 9. chap. wiih Heb. 1.1.2. & 2.2.3.) 7. They sinned in one thing (vers. 10.): You in an hundred. 8. They were twise or thrice admonished and reproved (vers. 4.5.8. &c.) You ten tymes. 9. They stood vp a­gainst Moses and Aaron (vers. 3) You against Iesus Christ. 10. They, as they pretended, for the liberty and service of the Israel of God (vers. 3.13.) You (as your selves do know and acknowledge many of you) for Rev. 13.16. & 17.4.5.6. & 18.3. the slaverie and abominations of the Whore of Babylon. Of which see before, Pag. 63. &c. Now your case being thus Mr Iacob, it is high tyme for you to lay it to heart, and to look vnto it betymes. Or if you will not, yet let such among you as feare God and tremble at his word, be warned by this example of Corah and his partakers, that they do with speed depart from the tents of such vngodlie men, and that they towch nothing of yours, least they perish in all your sinnes. Numb. 16.26. with Rev. 18.4.

Neither need you or anie among you flatter your selves in this (as it seemeth you do) that the punishements of sinne are not now vnder the [Page 131] Gospell so outward and miraculous with Gods hand from heaven, as they were then vnder the Law. For first this argueth the more clearenes of the word now revealed (as lesse needing such outward work to be joined withall for help thereof). Which is contrary to that you spake before of greater darkenes in the word for our vnderstanding and vse now, then for theirs then. Secondly, the judgements that then came vpon them, were for ensamples, and are written to admonish vs, vpon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10.11. with Num. 26.10. Thirdly, even since the tyme of the Gospell there are some examples in the Scripture (though not so manie as in the tyme of the Law) of Gods miraculous hand smiting bothAct. 5.1-11 hypocrites in the Church, andAct. 13.6-11 oppugners of the truth without. Which should teach all men to take heed to their wayes, aswell as if there were a thousand mo besides. Not to speak here of such examples, as the Elclesiasticall storyes in all ages, older ond la­ter, do abundantlie afford. Fourthlie, the lesse outward punishment is now in this life brought vpon Idolaters, persecutors, despisers of the truth &c. the greater is reserved for them in the world to come. Els the Papists and the most prophane might pretend this for themselves, aswell as you. And yet too,In the yeare, 1593. &c. take heed you forget not * the great plague and famine by which God hath pleaded against England alreadie. Nei­ther do you know what other judgement he hath in store for you even in this life, if you still persist in your Antichristian estate, and will not be re­claymed. Finally, for full aunswer of all you say here, read and mynd well that which is written, Eccles. 8.11.12.13. & 9.1.2.3. & 12.13.14.

Towching the estate of Ieroboam and the Israelites compared with yours, I have spoken ynough before.Pag. 110. &c. I wish your case were not in divers respects worse then theirs.

Where I said, this cause hath ben made manifest to the consciences of men, to the high Court of Parliament &c. you graunt in this I say well. If so, then your self have done ill in resisting it so long. But now it is well you yeeld it at length. Yet behold, as if you feared to yeeld to much to the truth at once, you do by and by except, that it is not made manifest to the consciences of all men, or the most, no not of them that know and feare God among you &c. 1. If it be not, where is the fault? In the maner of conviction, or in your selves? That it is not in the conviction, your self testify, seing you graunt it is such, as thereby to some mens consciēces the cause is made manifest. Why then should it not be likewise to the rest, if your owne blyndnes or wilfulnes (through the just judgement of God) were not the hindrance?

When Paul at Rome testifyed to the Iewes the kingdome of God &c. some were perswaded with the things that were spoken, but some beleeved not, Act. 28.24.25. &c. Had it now ben any exception of waight to have said as you do here, it is made manifest to the consciences of some, but not of all &c. Nay the Apostle so rests, telling such as were not perswa­ded, that this came to passe through their owne wilfull blindnes and [Page 132] hardnes of heart, by the just hand of God vpon them, And to this end he alledged against them that saying of Esay the Prophet, Esay. 6.9.10. Which you in this case of yours may fitlie also applie vnto your selues.

2. Further you can not deny but it hath to the Parliament ben made manifest. Now that being gathered out of all the parts of the Land, and representing the whole body thereof (as I noted in my former aun­swer) by this is evident that the whole body of the Land have had it ma­nifested vnto them.Exod 3.16.18. Deut. 21.2.6.7.8. 2 Sam. 5.1.3 1 Chron. 13.1 2.4. & 28.1. 2. Act. 28.17. And this in such cases is sufficient, yea the best course that can be taken, for the generall State. Of which the question is. (In the place before alledged, we fynd that Paul judged it the best course, and sufficient, to call together but the chief of the Iewes, and to testify his cause vnto them. Act. 28.17. &c.) And otherwise how will you prove the Religion now mainteined among you to be the profession and con­sent of the whole Land? Do all and every one that is member of your Assemblies so professe? Nay do they so much as know what it or anie Religion is? As then it stands for your profession, so must it for your conviction, that what is done by or to the Parliament, it is reputed as done by or to the whole Land.

3. The books also that are published, and our testimony otherwise, not onely by word and practise of vs all, but (as is come to passe in ma­ny) even by death, exise, imprisonment, &c. are offred to all alike, and knowen so to be throughout the Land. If anie then be ignorant or vn­convinced, it lyeth vpō themselves, who either beleev not what they know, or might know further if they would.Ier. 9.6. But we may feare it is with you (as Ieremy said) that in deceit you refuse to know the Lord and his truth. Beware therefore, least that come vpon you, which is spoken of in the Prophets, Behold ye despisers, and wonder, and vanish away: for I worke a worke in your dayes, a worke which ye will not beleev, if any declare it vn­to you. Hab. 1.5. with Act. 13.40.41.

4. Finallie, can you give vs a rule or instance of such conuiction as you insinuate? Would you have vs go to all your parishes and Assem­blies one after another, yea to every Prelate and Priest, man and womā, old and young, high and low, bond and free, throughout the Land, and conuince them in particular? If you meane so, all men surelie will ey­ther pitty your simplicity, or laugh at your follie. I omit that the Pa­pists might thus plead, as you do. And that so much the more, as they bring more show of Scripture,Pag. 129. then you. More show (I say) as before I noted. For otherwise I know both they and you pervert the Scri­ptures to mainteine your errors. I wish it be not to your destruction. Consider these things Mr Iacob, and returne a sounder aunswer, or els learne to lay your hand on your mouth.

To that which you vrge next concerning my self, I have aunswered alreadie. Pag. 41. But that which I vrged next to you, viz, your forsa­king the true ministery, Pag. 108. worship, and order appointed by Christ (as the Israe­lites also did); and your retayning a false Ministery, vvorship, and confusion [Page 133] of Antichrist &c. This you passe by, and aunswer not a word vnto it.

Then where I alledged, that you vvere not behind, but rather exceeded the Israelites, in persecuting vnto bands, banishment and death, such as beare vvitnes to the truth of Christ &c. To this you aunswer, It is a toy. Thus first you make ‡ a mocke of sinne, and so carry your self as if you had ben Chapleine to Boner, Bancroft, Gardiner, Whitgift, or some such Caiphas. Pro. 14.9 By this also you testifie, that not onelie the Prelates and Formalists (as some would beare vs in hand) but even the Reformists among whom you reckon your self, have your hands in our blood, consenting vnto and ap­proving that which is done against vs. Further you do thus become like the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, vpō whom Christ pronoun­ced a most heavy Wo, Mat. 23.29-35. for that whiles they builded the tombes of the Pro­phets slaine by their Fathers, themselves did kill and persecute the wit­nesses of Christ sent vnto them. And yet they blessed themselues in their evill, even as you do. Behold to what height of impiety you are come, and in how fearfull estate you remaine.

But yet you comfort your selves with two things: 1. that this can not make you worse then the Iewes in Christs tyme, who for all that they per­secuted, yet were not wholy fallen from God. O most wofull estate: Though yet your case be worse then theirs, inasmuch as their Church was in a true constitution, yours in a false:Mat. 21. [...]3 &c. Act. 2. & 13. & 17. chap. & 19.8.9. And therefore they to be ad­monished (which was done by Christ and his Apostles) afore anie were required to separate and save themselves from that froward generation. Whereas the rule and commaundement concerning your and all false Churches is, forthwith to go out frō such and to witnes the truth against them. (Rev. 18.4.5.6. & 12.17. & 14.12. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Phil. 1.28.29. Hos. 4.15. Amos. 5.5.6. Micah. 2.10.) And thus far your estate is worse then theirs, so as both other account is to be made of it, and other maner of walking to be vsed toward it. But suppose you were both a­like in this, yet most miserable is your case, when for your persecution you are driven to plead the example of the Iewes, 1 Thes. 2.15.16. Mat. 23.33.34.35. † who both killed the Lord Iesus and their owne Prophets; and did by persecution drive a­way the Church and Apostles of Christ; and brought vpon themselves all the righteous bloodshed vpō the earth frō the beginning of the world; and had the kingdome of God taken from them; neither could escape the damnation of hell, wrath being come vpon them to the vtmost: as both Christ and his Apostles testifyed against them. How wofull then and miserable is your case, though it be no vvorse then theirs?

2. The second thing is, that you say we suffer more then we need, if we would but acknowledge the grace of God with you so far as it is: & that there­fore it is not Christs crosse in that regard, but our owne that we beare. 1. But what if the Iewes or Papists did or should say thus much vnto them they persecuted? Were it of anie moment? Nay did not Boner and other of the Papists often so speak to the Martyrs? 2. What think you also of the suffrings of Mr Vdall; Mr Cartvvright, Mr Fenner, Mr Dearing, [Page 134] Mr Merbury &c. Did they suffer more then they needed? Or di [...] they not acknowledge the grace of God with you so far as it is? Or was it not Christs crosse, but their owne that they bare? 3. Tell vs next what grace of God is with you, which we acknowledge not so far as it is? Hold you anie truth of doctrine, which we hold not? Or reject you anie errors, which we reject not? Approve you anie way of righte­ousnes, which we approve not? Or refuse you anie evill, which we re­fuse not? If thus we do not, convince vs by the Scripture2 Tim. 3.16.17. which is profitable to these vses, that the man of God may be absolute being fully furnished to everie good work. But if we do thus (as by the grace of God we do) then your speach against vs is vntrue, and your persecution of vs vnjust. 4. Shew withall in what particulars we suffer more then we need. 5. And prove that the things we suffer for, are not good but evill: Being carefull alwaie that your proofs be from the word of God, which onelie is the rule of truth. 6. Finallie we testify in all good con­science before God and men, that we suffer onelie for bearing witnes to the truth of Christ, against the abominations of Antithrist. And this the Confession of our faith alreadie published in English, Dutch, and La­tin, doth and will testifie to the ages present and to come. As also our o­ther writings, Examinations, Aunswers, Conferences &c. For which you have alreadie condemned and put to death divers of vs, and others you have imprisonned, impoverished, banished &c. It is then Christ his crosse, which we beare, through his grace. And you are become fighters against God, and persecuters of Christ in his members. Yea even this writing of yours proclaimeth, that you are now alreadie be­come drunken with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Iesus. Els could you never have pleaded so wickedlie, nor blessed your selves so foolishlie, as you do. But we will leave you and our cause vnto God, who judgeth righteous judgement, and will give every man according to his works. When he maketh inquisitiō for blood, he will remember all that you have done vnto vs, and will not forget the complaint of the poore. Therefore will wee wayte on him and say no more, but with Zechariah (when he was put to death)2 Chron. 24.22. The Lord look vpon it and requier it.

In the last place you vrge againe that there is contrariety betvveen my speach here, and in the second Reason before. (1) But I pray you tell me, Saith not the Scripture both the things that are spoken in these two pla­ces? Read we not for the one, that Christ accounted the Iewes, not the Samaritans, the true worshippers of God. Ioh 4.22. &c. And for the other, that Christ notwithstanding said to some of the Iewes,Ma [...]. 15.9. they vvorshipped God in vaine, teaching doctrines mens precepts. Mat. 15.9. How say you Mr Iacob, is the Scripture therefore contrarie to it self? Or were Christs speaches contrarie the one to the other?Pag. 83. (2) Besides, are you so dull as you can not conceive (no not when it is told you) that the sinnes and corruptiōs of the mēbers of a true Church, may fitlie be alledged against [Page 135] whole false Churches: and yet neither condemne the true constitution of that Church wherein the one stand, nor justifie the false constitution of the other? (3) Yea, know you not that a Church in true constitution jointlie considered may be said to be true vvorshippers of God &c. and yet some, yea manie of that Church be said also through their owne default in other respect to vvorship God in vaine, or to be tainted with Idolatry, or the like? And yet no contradiction be implyed in so saying. Seing you cannot vnderstand it in Christs words concerning the Ievves, see if you can per­ceive it in Pauls to the Corinthians. When he speaketh to the whole Church jointlie considered, he commendeth them for keping his ordināces, and acknowledgeth they call on the Name of the Lord Iesus. 1 Cor. 1.2. & 11.2. But when he speaketh in respect of some that sate and eat of the sacrifices in the Idol-temples, he biddeth them fly from Idolatry, and tel­leth them they cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Di­vels. 1 Cor. 10.14.21. & 8.10. Yet is he not contrarie to himself for all this. Mynd withall what I aunswerd before concerning this point, in the Se­cond reason. Pag 90. And so againe I leave it to the Reader to judge whe­ther the contrariety you speak of be not in deed an harmony, and that there­fore you abuse both the Scripture and vs.

Chap. 13. The seventh Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fr. Iohnson. If the Spirit of God account them to be departers from the faith (and consequentlie no true Christians) who though they hold other truthes of the Gospell, yet forbid to marry, and commaund to absteine from meats, vvhich God hath created to be received vvith thankesgiving: Then such ac­count must needs be made of the estate of the Church of England, which not onelie both these things, but withall forbiddeth the true Ministerie and worship of God, and commaundeth a false: Whose Ministers and people also do all of them partake therein. (For proof whereof, besides their practise of these, and persecution of the truth, see their owne Canons, Articles, Statutes, Iniunctions, &c.)

But the former is true, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Therefore &c.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 7. Reason. [...], 1 [...]. THis yout seaventh Reason is: They are departed from the faith, that forbid to marry and commaund to abstayne from lawfull meates: Also this is worse, then that: viz. to forbid the true Ministery and to commaunde a false: which we in England doe. Ergo we are departers from the faith.

(I deny this Antecedēt, that is your Assumptiō with a distinctiō.) The PapistsSee [...]h [...], Testam. in Mat. 15.18. Fr. Io. See D. Fulke [...] answer there­vnto. forbid­ding of mariage & meals, if they had don no worse doth not make them departers frō the [Page 136] saith (that is, not)or not fū ­damentally, not simply, vvhich vvor­d [...]s I think [...]itter to bee here vsed, as in my next Reply is fur­ther declard. totally. No more could their Hyerarchie and ceremonies simply: Neither doe these things make vs, the Protestants, to be such. The Papistes fall from Christ (That is fundamētally, & simply: see in the 2. Reply follovving. wholy) in other poincts, namely 1. The Papall supre­macy. 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, invid. in ab­stayning frō Mariage and meetes. these poincts they (erred or) departed from the faith, but not absolutly and wholy. 2. Furthermore (touching your Proposition) if you vnderstand Paul, of Martion the Heretike, and Tatianus, who did absolutly condemne Mariage and certen meats, they even therein might vvholy fall frō the faith, (I meane) somwhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and those Apostate Israe­litesPag. 105.112. lately spoken of, namely for having their consciences convicted, and sea­red with a whot iron. And thus are they in no comparison with vs of Englād (nor with the Papistes neither, if they had erred in nothing else).

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 7. Reason. HEre, being not able with any colour to deny the consequent of the Pro­position, neither to justify your present Ministery, worship, Canons, Articles, Iniunctiōs, &c. (which you must do Mr Iacob, and still we call for it, if you will justify your present estate): yet being desperate sure, for els you would never have done it, you feare not to gainsay the Assumption, that is the very words and testimony of the Scripture it self, 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. The Apostle saith, that they which forbidd Mariage and Meats, are depar­ted from the faith. You say, No. Now whether (I pray you) shall we beleev. You, or the Apostle?

But what colour have you for your deniall? This forsooth: That they which doe so, do not depart from the faith totally, and that the Apostles meaning is, that in these poincts they depart from the faith, but not absolutly and wholy. So by your conceit, none may be accounted departers from the faith, that depart onelie in some poincts, but they which doe it totally from all. And thus may no heretikes or Antichrists that euer haue bene, or shalbe in the world, be iudged departers frō the faith, because they de­part from it but in some poincts, and not absolutly from all. Thus have you justified at once the Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Papists, Familistes, Anabaptistes, and whom not? because they depart but in some, not wholy from all poincts of faith. Is it not great pitie that Antichrist hath so long wanted such a stout Champion, as can thus in one word justify his forbidding of meates and mariage, yea and his most detestable Hierarchie and superstitions withall?

By your learning (Mr Iacob) all the Martyrs and writers heretofore, which by evidēce of this Scripture convicted the Synagoges of Antichrist to have departed from the faith, and therefore separated from them, were vtterly deceived: Yea and the Apostles themselves were wholy mistaken, when they call Antichrists Church and Religion2 Thes. 2.7. a mysterie of iniquitie; which 1 Tim. 4.2. speaketh lies through hypocrisy; 2 Pet. [...].1. prively bringing in dānable heresies; [Page 137] and ‡ hauing a shew of godlines, but denying the power thereof: And Iohns eyes, it seemeth, were not matches,2 Tim. 3.4 when he saw in the whores fore­head (that is in Antichrists Church and Religion) a name written, A my­stery, great Babylon, the mother of vvhoredomes, and abhominations of the earth. Rev. 17.5. For now I would know of you who are so deep a Clerke, how Antichrists Church and Religion should iustly be accounted a mystery of iniquitie, and truely be said to speak Lies in hypocrisy, also prively to bring in Damnable heresies, and to haue a Shevv of godlines: if they did absolutly and vvholy departe from the faith, and not onelie frō some points thereof?

But over and above all, it seemeth by this reason, that not onelie the Apostles were mistaken, in giuing vs markes how to know false teachers and false religions: But also Christ himselfe when he said,Mat. 7.15. Bevvare of false Prophetes, vvhich come to you in sheepes clothing, but invvardly are ravening vvolves. And againeMat. 24.23.24. If any shall say vnto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, beleeve it not. For there shall arise false Christs and false Prophets, and shall shevv great signes and vvonders, so that (if it vvere possible) they should deceive the very elect. Now if they should totally depart frō the faith, what sheepes clothing (I pray you) should they have to come in? Or how should either themselves be said to come in the name of Christ, af­firming their Religion to be Christs, and shewing signes and wonders to draw men therevnto: Or the elect be in such vnspeakable danger to be de­ceived by them? This might suffice to shew the falsehood and impietie of your answer. But yet I will note a few things mo therein.

First it being graunted, that the popish forbidding of Mariage and meats, so they were no worse, doth not make them depaxters frō the faith totally: yet tell vs, if holding never so manie truthes besides, and yet for­bidding these, they could by the word of God truely be said in that estate to hold the faith of Christ, and to be true Christians? 1 Tim. 4.1.3. If they could not (as the Apostle * testifieth) then is your answer in this respect also nothing to the purpose, but against your self, both for the popish forbidding of meats and mariage, and for the English Hierarchy and other abominations among you received from the Papistes, which vnder colour of this answer you would defend.

Next, see in Bales Votaries, and in the Acts and monuments &c. what abominable filthines the forbidding of mariage, and what fowle super­stition the forbidding of meats, hath wrought in the kingdome of Anti­christ: And tell me then, what man fearing God durst once open his mouth for such divelish doctrines and estate.

Againe, where you say, The Papists fall from Christ in other poincts besides the aforsaid, Namely, 1. The Papall supremacie. 2. The sacrifice of the Masse. 3. Iustification by vvorkes: vvhich England novv is far from: Tell vs first, whether in this sence the Papists can for these be said to de­part from the faith totally? If they can not, what weight is there in this for defēce of your estate, that the Papists could not alledge for themselves, [Page 138] viz, that in these poincts, they depart from the faith, but not absolutly and wholy.

Secondly tell vs, whether there are no other poincts but these three in the Papists Religion, which make them in their estate to be departers from the faith, and consequentlie false Christians and false Churches? If there be (as you can not deny) of what weight then is your answer to defend the present constitution of your people and assemblies, seeing there are divers other things besides these, that do and may cause, that you can not be deemed true Christians or true Churches in that estate. ManyServetus, Sabellius, Arius the Anabap­tistes, &c. heretikes heretofore have, and at this day do reject these three aforsaid: Are they therefore in their estate to be accounted true Chrestians or true Churches?

Thirdly your manner of reasoning heer for your defence, is as if the Adulterers, to justify their course of life, should alledge thus, We are (1) no Blasphemers (2) no Persecutors (3) no Murtherers, as such and such are: therefore we depart not from the way of life, but our estate and course of life is good, and such as may be continued in. Yet the Scripture sayth,Iam. 2.10.11. whosoever shall keep the vvhole Lavv, and yet faileth in one poinct, is guiltie of all. For he that sayed, Thou shalt not commit adulterie, saied also, Thou shalt not kill. Novv, though thou doest no adultery, yet if thou killest, thou art a transgressour of the Lavv: and contrariwise. So that whatsoever sinnes the Adulterer be far from, yet (as Salomon saith) cō ­mitting adultery vvith a vvoman, he fayleth in heart and destroyeth his owne soule. Prov. 6.32. The same is the case of all spirituall Adulterers: who (whatsoever sinnes they be farre from) yet in the worship of God runne a vvhoring after their owne inventions, embracing the bosomes of strange vvomen, and drinking on their cup of fornications. Num. 15.39. vvith Prov. 5.20. and Rev. 17.4. Ier. 4.18.

Fourthly shew vs sufficient warrant from the Scriptures, why (setting these three aside) the Hierarchy and other popish abominations received among you, can not be judged to make you in such estate depar­ters from the faith, and therefore false Christians and false Churches, what­soever truthes you hold besides.Num. 16.1.2. &c. Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their partakers, were far from the Abominations of the Heathen; they held also the poincts of faith that Moses and Aaron held, differing onelie from them (and departing onely from the faith) in a matter concerning the Priesthood, whereof notwithstanding theyvers. 3. shewed their reasons why they were so perswaded. Yet will you not deny (I trow) but 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 you should, the Scripture is witnesse against you, Num. 16.26. Now compare case with case, and tyme with tyme, and you shall find the estate of your people and Assemblies to be far more grie­vous. As hath ben shewed alreadie in the Second Exception before, and in other Treatises to which we have yet received no answer. viz, The an­svver [Page 139] to Maister A.H. & The 9. Reasons concerning not hearing the Ministers of these assemblies of England.

To conclude this poinct, if your Abominations in England were farre fewer then they are, yet so long as you reteine that poisonfull leaven of your Hierarchy and vvorship, we must tell you as the Scripture saith, and experience teacheth, That 2. King. 4.39.40. a little poison bringeth death vnto the whole pot of potage, A 1 Cor. 5.6. litle leaven leaveneth the vvhole lump, And Eccl. 10.1. a fevv dead flyes cause the oynctemēt of the Apothecarie to stinke and putrifie. Although indeed your abominations are not a few, but swarme in abundance a­mong you. Some whereof see before, Pag. 63. &c.

In the next place (fearing belike that the evidence of1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. this Scripture could not by these shiftes of yours be avoided, but that still the reason de­duced from thence is of force against you, now you would have vs passe by you and not to apply it vnto you or your mother Church of Rome, but to vnderstand it of Martion and Tatianus, of whom you say, that they ab­solutely condemning mariage and certen meats, might indeed even therein vvholy fall from the faith, somevvhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and those Apo­state Israelites lately spoken of, namely for having their consciences conuicted and seared vvith an hote iron: And thus (say you) are they in no comparison vvith you of Englād. But first if your former answer were of anie weight, it might be asked why the followers of Martion and Tatianus might not likewise have defended them thus and said, that their departure from the faith, vvas but in some poincts, not vvholy from all?

Secondly, if this scripture was verifyed (as you graunt) in Martiō and Tatianus, for their condemning of mariage and meats, then we must needs think it verified also in the Romishe vvhore and her apostate childrē, which are falne into the very same sinnes that are heer mentioned. The Apostle nameth Martion and Tatianus, no more then he doeth the whorish Babylon and the children of her fornication: but comprehendeth heer all such (who so ever they be) as shall fall into this Apostasie.

And further, if the wordes of this scripture be duly weighed, and ei­ther other scriptures or the estate of the Romish harlot and her children cō ­pared therewith, it will be found as lively to describe these as either Mar­tion or any other that ever were in the world. 1. First when the Apostle sayth, that this shalbe in the latter tymes, who seeth not that it doeth most directlie point at the Romish Whore? (Though we doubt not but Martiō and Tatianus, who lived 1400. yeares since or thereabout, may also be cō ­prehended therein.)

2. Secondlie when it is said, they shall departe from the faith, thereby signifying that once they held the faith, how playne is this of the Romish harlot, which in theRom. 1.7. Apostles time was the spouse of God, and since is falne into Apostasy, and become the Mother of vvhoredomes and abomina­tions of the earth. 2. Thes. 2.3. and Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5.

3. Thirdlie when it is said, they shall give heed to spirits of errour, and doctrines of Divels, how fitly agreeth this to the Romish Babylon which [Page 140] (as the scripture els where testifies) is become the habitation of Divels, & hold of all soule spirits? Rev. 18.2.

4. Fourthlie when it is said, they shall speake lyes through hypocrisy (not to reckon vp the infinite particulars that might be alleadged for proof hereof) how fitlie doth this describe the Religion and practise of the man of sinne (the Romish Antichrist) which the Scripture also cal­leth “ a mystery of iniquity: as pretending to be with and for Christ, and to draw men vnto him, when indeed it is opposed against and exalted above the Lord Iesus, and all his holy ordinances. 2 Thes. 2.4.7.

5. Fiftlie when it is said, they shall have their consciences seared vvith an hote iron, how true is this found vpon the throne of the Beast and his Kingdome, concerning which the scripture also testifieth †, that vvhen the vials of Gods vvrath shalbe povvred out vpon them, and they conuinced of their jmpieties and abominations, they shalbe so farre from acknowled­ging and forsaking them, as they shall gnavv their tongues for sorrovv, and rather thē they will forsake their wickednes, shall fight against God and his truth,Let their raylings, slā ­ders, Edicts, Articles, in­iunctions, fi­nally their cō tinuall oppo­sitiōs & madnes against the truth & people of God be witnesses of all this. blaspheming the God of heaven for their paines & for their sores, and not repenting of their vvorkes. Rev. 16.10.11. Lo here a sea­red cōscience in the Beastes kingdome.

6. Finallie, when the Spirit of God giveth here two particular in­stances of this apostasy, 1. The forbidding of mariage, 2. And the com­maunding to absteine from meats, vvhich God hath created to be received vvith thankesgiuing: How directlie doeth he in both these, as it were with the finger point at the Romish Babylon and her daughters? In the one, that is, the forbidding of Mariage, when as the Romish Babylon forbid­deth it to Priests, Friers, Nunnes, and such like; and the English her daughter, to fellowes of Colleges, and prētises; and both these Churches to all men and women in Lent, Advent, Rogation vveek, &c. In the other, that is, the forbidding of meats, when they forbid the eating of flesh, on Fridayes, Saturdayes, Emberdayes, Lent, Saints eves, &c.

Thus you see this Scripture (which you would turne over to Martion and Tatianus) doth most fitlie agree vnto, and most plainlie describe the Romish Apostasy, whether we apply it therevnto, or compare this and other scriptures togeather speaking of the same Apostasy and defection. By this also may appeare, that as you say of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be said wholy to fall from the faith, somwhat like to Balaam, Iudas, & those apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for having their cō ­sciences conuicted and seared with an hote iron: So may be said also of the Romish Babylon and her daughters. Touching which point, see more­over what is said before in the sixt Reason. (Neyther will your margi­nall additions, nor your new clauses in the Reply it self, help eyther you or the Papists any whit. They are all as foolish, and as contradictorie to the Apostles expresse words, as be those which you vsed before. So the same answer may serve them all still. And whereas in the margent you refer vs to your next Reply follovving, thither also do I refer you for [Page 141] aunswer of whatsoever you can there alledge. In the meane tyme let the Reader mynd here, that both all your marginall notes, and such clau­ses also in this Reply of yours as are now included in a parenthesis, be newly added in your printed book, and were not before in your written copy which I aunswered. Your self belike do now see the folly and in­sufficiency of your former pretended distinctions and excuses. This by the way I thought now to adde, by reason of these your new additiōs.)

Now if seeing the evidence of this Scripture so full and plaine against your selves, you would therefore except,1 Tim. 4.1.2.3 that in deed in the Romish Church it is so, but not in yours of England: First by this meanes you should o­verthrow your owne answer here, who have denied it of the popish for­bidding of meats and mariage, and would turne it over from them to Mar­tion and Tatianus: Yea and feare not now againe to give the holy Ghost the lye, when you pretend that the very Papists themselves, if they erred in nothing els, have not their consciences convicted nor seared with an hote iron, which yet the Apostle affirmeth expressely of all such. 1 Tim. 4.2.3. Secōdlie, this would not hinder but that the consequent of the Proposi­tion, and the Assumption are good, and therefore the Argument strong and of force. Thirdlie, the particulars before mentioned, being found in your Church of England, will testifie it also to be verified of you. Lastly, although many of the abominations of the “ vvhores cup of Babylon be now cast out of England (for which we prayse God) yet so long as you reteine the Hierarchy, Leiturgie, confusion of people, Canons, Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5. Excommu­nications &c. derived vnto you from that mother of vvhoredomes and a­bominations of the earth, we must needs beleeve and alleadge against you the Scripture and common proverbe which saith, As is the mother, so is the daughter. Ezech. 16.44.

For a conclusion let it heer be observed, how to defend your estate you are glad to runne into the Papists Tentes, and to take vp their worne and rustie weapons, which have ben of no force to defend themselves, but have often and justly ben turned into their owne bowels.Rhemes An­not. vpon 1 Tim. 4.3. Read the † Rhemes Annotations vpon this place, and see if heer you would not avoyd the evidence of this Scripture against you, by the verie same shift and an­swer, as the wretched Iesuites there would turne it from their mother of Rome, that is, by posting it over from themselves to Martion and Ta­tianus. Read it and note it well.

H. Iacob 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.A strange vntrueth.

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, but not Absolutly and wholy.

[Page 142]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, Anabaptists, &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 whosoever 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 saving 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 de­part 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 vnlernedly and vngodly apply those scriptures, A litle leauen leueneth the lump, A few dead flyes make the oyntment to stinke, Scriptures abused. and a litle poyson bringeth death. Will you haue no tainte of euil in a Christian but it quencheth the life of God in vs needes? Is it not possible your selves might hold some such errors, & yet remayne true Christians notwithstanding? Then if Papists vvere no vvorse 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 theyThe same did Corah, Dathan and Abiram like­wise. See be­fore in āswer to the 2. Ex­ception, the 2. 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 save, 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 fundameneally, that is, eyther the first way or second, as I haue afore saide. And so doe these grosse Heretikes whom you mention, 1 Arius, Servetus Papists &c. 2. Martion, Tatianus, Iudas, Corah, Balaam, the Apostate Is­raelites &c. Thus then your questions and demaundes about the Papists & their errors, I passe by, as more vaine, then pertinent. Onelie note vvith­all, if this reason of yours vvere good, it maketh Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. to be departers from the faith, and no true Christians.

[Page 143] Fr. Iohnson his Aunsvver to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 7. Reason. LEt others iudge (Mr Iacob) whether in your self this be not in deed found true and vndenyable, which you do vainelie charge me withall, Though every vvhere you are very vnreasonable, yet no vvhere more vn­conscionable and vvilfull then here.

You have contradicted the Apostle, and yet have neither conscience nor will to acknowledge it, no not when it is told you. I proved my Assumption by the Apostles Yea, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Your denyall there­of then must needs be as much, as to say No to his Yea. Neither is there anie help for it in your vaine additions of totally, simply, fundamen­tally, absolutely &c. They are rather so many witnesses against your self: as anie men of vnderstanding may and will discerne.Pag. 136. &c But for this see further in my former aunswer. Against which you cannot say a word, but in stead of replying fall to plaine railing.

For the conclusions I gathered from your words, about Departers from the faith, the Papists, and other Hereticks: let the iudgement be the Readers, whether they follow not necessarilie vpon your erroneous and most absurd assertions and distinctions. Yea see both for them, and for your contradiction of the Apostle, if even here where you seek to co­lour and avoide them, you fall not into them againe. Here you would haue me know that this you say, That whosoever do forbid mariage and meats, do depart from the faith. Well: I heare you say so. But a while after I heare you say this too,Pag. 142. If Papists were no worse but in these errors onely, they might be true Christians notwithstanding. A most false and hereticall assertion. As if the doctrines of Divels were not bad ynough to make them Antichristians? Or as if they could both be true Christi­ans, and yet depart from the faith of Christ, give heed to spirits of error, mainteine doctrines of Divels &c. All which they do, even in these errors, as the Apostle saith expresselie 1 Tim. 4.1.3. Now then do you not thus still both contradict the Apostle, and forget your self? Will not the con­clusions also which I gathered from your words, still follow herevpon? And who then is it Mr Iacob, that speaketh straunge vntruth, and is vn­reasonable, vnconscionable, wilful, &c.

Yet mynd further, Whosoever (say you) do forbid mariage and meats, they do depart from the faith. But both the Papists Church and yours (say I) do forbid mariage and meats. Therefore both the Papists Church and yours do depart from the faith. What part of this Reason now do you deny? The Proposition or first part is the1 Tim. 4.1.3 Apostles saying, and now at length yeelded vnto by yourself. The Assumption or second part is the estate and practise both of your Church and the Papists: As I have proved before, and you have left vnaunswered, being not able to speake one word in defence eyther of their Church or your owne. The Conclu­sion or last part then is and must needs be true. This all men know, that know any thing in sound reasoning. And yet behold, to shew your [Page 144] self a notable Dunse, you shame not to trie about the Conclusiō, yea and to deny it, whiles you say, they are true Christians notwithstanding. Which is as much as if you should say, they do not depart from the faith notwith­standing. And what is this els, but to deny the Conclusion? Lo here your Clerklike skill in Argumentation, your Christian and conscionable disputing.

But you note that in departing from the faith, some do it more, some lesse. What then? They that do it least, do they it not to much? Because your case or the Papists is not worse then the Iewes, Turks, Arrians, Manichees &c. is it not therefore bad ynough? Yet thus you reason, There are that depart from the faith more then wee and the Papists. Be it so. What will you conclude thereby? That the Papists case and yours is therefore good ynough?1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. or that you are not within compasse of ‡ this Scripture? Or not subiect to wrath in and for such estate of your Church? If this be your meaning, speak it out plainelie, and fumble not still in the mouth as you do. But then note for your learning:Mat. 11.20-24. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, had more great works of God done among them, then Tyrus, Sidon, or Sodom had. Yet these who had lesse, perished notwithstanding in the wrath of God. To what purpose then do you reason in this maner? I will shew you a better way. Either iustify (by the word of God) your estate, that in it you depart not from the faith: or els yeeld to the truth, which all may see so dazels your eyes, as you can not go on, but are driuen to a flat Non plus.

Where you say, Men depart from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two wayes: Although I might yeeld to both, and your case be never the better: yet you must prove, first that the Scripture teacheth this distinctiō of yours. For els what waight is there in it? 2. Prove that there are no mo nor other wayes of such departing but these two. Els your divi­sion is vnperfect. 3. Shew that such may be found as holding the foun­dation in doctrine sound, yet do desperatly professe and teach somewhat els against the manifest light that is in them. Which is one of the wayes you speak of, and for example of it you bring Martion and Tatianus. But in these you prove it not: neither (I think) will you prove it by any other in hast. For is it possible that anie should both hold the foundation in doctrine sound, and yet desperatlie professe and teach somewhat els a­gainst the manifest light that is in them? If this be not a Paradoxe, what is? 4. Yet mynd that now you graunt, Men may hold the Foun­dation in doctrine sound, and yet erre fundamentally other wayes. Thus you are quite gone Mr Iacob. For heretofore you bare vs in hand, that you erre not fundamentally, so long as you hold the foundation in doctrine sound. (Pag. 28. 91. 92. 109. 111.) This also was the ground of your maine Argument, from your book of Articles. Which now your self have overthrowen. 5. Your distinction and acception of Fundamētall errors here and every where is such, as whosoever hold them, are vtterly abolished from Christ, and cannot possibly have a lively saving faith vvithall. [Page 145] This you must prove by the word of God, if you will have it receyved. Your words and distinctions (without such proof) cannot settle the con­science. I have shewed before that some of the Martyrs dyed in such errors, as your self account Fundamentall. Pag 44. &c. Shall we therefore say (as here you teach) that they were vtterlie abolished from Christ, and could not possiblie have a lively saving faith withall? God forbid.

(1) Some may erre in fundamentall points, and yet through the mer­cy of God in Christ be saved: failing therein of ignorance, and not stri­ving against the light of truth, but laboring to walk faithfully with God in that he hath revealed vnto them. For proof hereof I havePag. 44. 45. 46. before alledged, not onelie the example of divers Martyrs, but such also in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, as before they receyved admonition and better instruction, dyed in their errors whichpag. 28. 92. you acknowledge to be fun­damentall: And the like among the Israelites that dyed in Egypt,Ios. 24.14. Ezech. 20.5.7 where they had and vsed Idols, whichpag. 105. 109. your self esteem to be a fundamentall sinne, wholy destroying the truth in them that do so. Yet dare I not say but some of these might be saved, by the mercy and in the truth of God which they embraced notwithstanding: and namelie such who erred and dyed, before that admonition came to them, as did to the rest, whereof we read, Ezech 20.5.7. 1 Cor. 15. Gal. 5. chap.

Much more may and ought we to think thus of Terah Abrahams fa­ther (of whom Christ came according to the flesh): Gen. 11.27. vvith Ios 24.2.14.15. Not to speak of Haran, Bethuel, Rachel, and the like then, who did all of them serve the Lord by Idols. Yea though it had ben so, that Rachel had dyed before (as she did presentlie after) that cō ­maundement given by Iacob to his houshold and to all that were with him, for putting away the straunge Gods or Idols that were among them. Gen. 35.2.3.4.16.18. vvith Gen. 31.16.19.30.34. & 24.4.15.50. & 11.27.28. Ios. 24.2.14.15.23.24. So far am I from be­ing of your mynd, who think the truth wholy destroied in all such as have served Idols, or held any other fundamentall errors.

Consider also the Aethiopian Churches, which retaine many of Moses ceremonyes and of the grosse points of Popery: And the Greek Churches, erring greatlie of old about Freewill, and synce that tyme about the Per­son and proceeding of the holy Ghost, besides other very great errors a­mong them. Not to speak of the Lutherans, holding (with other errors) that of Consubstantiation, which by necessarie consequence overthroweth Christs humane nature, and therefore is fundamentall in your owne ac­count. Will you now say, that none of these can have a lively saving faith? I dare not be of your mynd. I hope and am perswaded otherwise. Nay even for the Papists and others of whom you speak; I dare not with you, say peremptorilie of them all, from the first arising of their errors, they are vtterly abolished from Christ. My reason I shewed before out of the Papists owne doctrine. To which I refer you, with this note:Pag. 47. [Page 146] that as on the one hand I acknowledgeExo. 33.19 Rom. 9.15. God sheweth mercy to whom he will; so on the other hand I am perswaded (neither can I see other­wise by the word of God, but) whosoever liveth and dyeth a Papist and member of that Church of Antichrist, in the knowledge, profession, and maintenance of that Religion, in the parts thereof, can not of vs be estee­med to live and dy in the state of salvation. (And this I speak as of all such generallie, so speciallie of them which have lived synce the height and clearer manifestation of that apostasy.) 2 Thes. 2.3-12. Rev. 13.8.11. & 17. & 18. & 19. chap. Such also take I to be the case of the Anabaptists, Arrians, and the like, departing from true Churches, and being once cō ­victed. Tit. 3.10 Heb. 10.25.38. 1 Ioh. 2.19. Iud. ver. 19.

This being noted, I could now further alledge, against your perem­ptory cōdemnation of all such as have held any fundamentall errors, that even your selves, yea the chiefest pillars of your Church, are of a contra­ry judgement herein. And for proof I could cite D. Whitgift (now your great Archb.) in his ‡ last book against Mr Cartvvright. pag. 83. But because where sound judgement is needfull in question of Religion, his testimo­ny is but of small valew, I will not stand vpon it: but refer you rather to Mr Iewell, a Prelate also, yet a man otherwise worthy to be reverented both for his suffrings in Q. Maryes dayes, and for his gifts and labours employed in defence of sundry points of the truth against the Papists. This Mr Iewell alledging the examples of Papias, Apollinarius, Victorinus, Tertullianus, Iewels defēce of the Apo­logy. Pag. 337. 338. Lactantius, and others in former tymes, confesseth that both they defended the heresy of the Chiliastae which said, that Christ after the ge­nerall iudgement should dwell here a thousand yeares together vpō the earth: and yet notwithstanding were godly, and worthy members of the Church of God. So also he thought of Irenaeus, though he held besides the former heresy, this alsoIbid. that Man at the beginning, when he was first created, was vnperfect. And of Hilary, who affirmed both thatIbid. pag. 353. Christ received not flesh, of the blessed Virgin, and that the flesh of Christ was impassible and could feel no grief. Also of the Picardes, concerning whom when Harding the Papist objected,Iewels Rep. to Harding. Pag. 119. that sometyme they pulled out their eye and cast it frō them: he aunswereth, it was an error of simplicity, if they did it, much like the error of Origen and others who ghelded themselves for the Kindome of heaven. Which two last things, of the Picards and Origen, it may be you include in your second sort of fundamentall errors, and the other before in your first: and so account them all without saving faith, and vtterly aboli­shed from Christ. Yet you see, the chief governors of your Church, are o­therwise minded. Yea and your Church it self: for Mr Iewels books were published with consent and speciall priuiledge thereof. Note this well.

(2) Some againe who erre not in any f [...]ndamentall point (as you distinguish) yet no doubt shall perish and be condemned. As, for not re­lieving the poore and people of God; for not yeelding obedience to Christ, but fearing of man more then God; for want of sanctification; for hypo­crisy, [Page 147] contention, wicked life &c. Mat. 25.41-46. Ioh. 3.36. Mat. 23. chap. Rom. 2.8. 1 Thes. 4.3-6. Ephes. 5.3-6. Gal. 5.19.20.21. Nei­ther can you be ignorant but thatDeut. 27.26 Rom. 6.23. Ezec. 18.10.11 Iam. 2.10. curse and death by the Law of God is threatned to all sinne, even to the least. Yea and that the very infants, through originall sinne alone, are subiect herevnto. Rom. 5.14. 1 Cor. 7.14.

For your defence then it is not sufficient, though it were graunted, that you hold the Foundation, and erre not in any fundamentall point. Your persisting in false worship and disobeying the ordinance of Christ (howso­ever you consider it) sufficeth to make your estate vnlawfull, and subiect to condemnation, God imputing it vnto you. Thus at once all your building and defence of your Church falleth to the ground.

But yet (that you deceive not your self nor your Reader in this point anie more) mynd if your Church do not also hold and mainteine sundry Fundamentall errors, against the true faith of Christ. For example,Fundamen­tall errors in the Churche of England.

1. Your self say before,pag. 28. 35. that your Church holdeth all outward gouerne­ment and ceremonyes to be vnwritten and vncertayne, but at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate &c. That this is a fundamen­tall error appeareth thus, 1. It doth wholie take away and annihilate the Second commaundement. 2. It maketh Christ the Sonne inferior to Moses the servant. 3. It vpholdeth these and the like fundamentall errors, viz, That it is not written nor certaine, but at the Churches and Magistrates pleasure, Whether the Pope be to be head of the Church, or Christ onelie; Whether now we may retayne the Priesthood of Levi, the Passeover, Circuncision &c. For these concerne the outward gouerne­ment and ceremonies of the Church.

2. Your Church holdeth that Christ in his soule descended into Hell. Which I haue shewed † before to be your Churches opinion.Pag. 116. And who knoweth not, that Whitgift P. of Canterbury, Bilson P. of Winchester, Chaderton P. of Lincolne, with other the pillers of your Church, do thus hold and mainteine? And that it is Fundamentall, your self I suppose will not denie. See but your owne book against D. Bilson, about this question: Pag. 92. 127. 133. 148. 156. 162. 165. 174.

3. Your Churches Ministery, worship, confusion, and governement are such, as they profane and disanull Christs office of Mediation, that is, of his Prophecy, Priesthood, and Kingdome. That this is Funda­mentall, against the true faith of Christ, these Scriptures prove, Deut. 18.18.19. Heb. 3.1-6. Mat. 6.24. Luk. 10.27. Rom. 6.16. Col. 2.8.19.20.21.22.23. 2 Thes. 1.8. & 2.3.12. Ioh. 3.36. Ier. 4.18. That your Churches cō ­stitution is such, I have proved in another treatise both by the Scrip­tures and your owne writings. viz: In a treatise of the Ministery of the Church of England. Pag 30-35.

4. Your Church forbiddeth Mariage & Meats. Of which the Apostle saith expressely, it is a departing from the faith of Christ: and therefore Fun­damentall. See 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Col. 2.8-23. And before, Pag. 137. 140.

[Page 148] 5. Your Church persisteth (and persecuteth such as refuse) to wor­ship the beast and his image, or to receyve his marke in the forhead or hand. That this bringeth damnation, and is Fundamentall against the cōman­dements of God and faith of Iesus, see Rev. 14.9.10.11.12. & 17.1-6. & 18.2.3.4.5. 2. Thes. 2.3-12. Exod. 20 4.5. That it is your case, appea­reth by your Hierarchy, Leitourgy, confusion of people, Courts, Canons, Dispensations, Licences, Suspensions, Excommunications &c. practised, mainteined, and yeelded vnto, by your Church, Ministers, and people, framed also according to the image and fashion of the Romish Apostasy: Which your selves confesse to be that Beast, spoken of in the Revelation.

6. Together with these, remember also the particulars which I no­ted before concerning this point. Pag. 22. 31. 60. 63. 73. 94. 103. 114. 122.. 126. 129. 133. In which places you may mynd divers the like, with further proof thereof. And so for the present let this suffice, till we see what your next Reply can bring against it.

The Scriptures alledged against you, what man of conscience know­ing your estate, durst ever open his mouth to say they were abused or mis­applyed? When the Corinthians did but neglect to excommunicate one wicked man from among them, the Apostle fitlie alledged this saying, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe. 1 Cor. 5.6. How is it then abused when we applie it to your estate, which swarmeth with so manie knowen wic­ked men, and yet hath not the power of Christ to cast out any one from a­mong you? That I say nothing of the other infinite corruptions among you towched before. Pag. 63. &c.

But in deed if these Scriptures be in anie respect not fitlie applyed, it is in this that your corruptiōs are so many and so abominable as you had need of far sharper corasives and other more deadfull sentences of Scripture to be applyed to your estate. Such as these be, If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his marke in his forhead or on his hand, the same shall drink of the vvine of the vvrath of God &c. Rev. 14.9.10.11. They that receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved, God vvill send them strong delusion to beleeve lyes, that they may be damned &c. 2 Thes. 2.10 11.12. He that obeyeth not the Sonne shall not see life, but the vvrath of God abideth on him. Ioh. 3.36. To them that are contentious, and disobey the truth, and obey vnrighteousnes: shalbe indignation and vvrath, tribu­lation and anguish vpon the soule of every man that doth evill. Rom. 2.8.9. Those myne ennemyes (saith Christ) vvhich vvould not that I should reigne over them, bring hither and slay them before me. Luk. 19.27. I protest to e­very man that heareth the vvords of this book, if any man shall adde vnto these things, God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are writtē in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life &c. Rev. 22.18.19.

And marke these clauses well, If any man vvorship, If any man adde, If any man take away, The soule of every man, I protest to every man, &c. None is excepted. Let everie man therefore mynd your estate, betymes [Page 149] to deliver his soule from the fierce wrath of God. Your estate (I say) wherein there are so manie things added, and so manie things taken a­way from the ordinance of Christ. And those also, marks of the Beast, even a multitude of abominations, derived from Antichrist, that sonne of perdition.

And will you yet perswade men, that this is but some taint of evill in a Christian? Can you put no difference between the sinnes and infirmityes of Christians walking in the faith, and the impietyes of Antichrist and doctrines of Divels making departure from it? Know you not that evenLuk. 22.24 Rom. 7.23. Gal. 2.11.12.13.14. Iam. 3 2. 1 Ioh. 1.8.10. the Apostles themselves were subiect to the former, and yet were who­ly free from the latter? Or are you growen so presumptuous against the holy Ghost, as what it directlie teacheth to be1 Tim. 4.1.3 Rev. 17.4.5. 2 Thes. 2.3. doctrines of Divels; forni­cations and abominations of the vvhore of Babylon; Apostasy of Antichrist the man of sinne: that you dare say, is but as the taint of evill in a Christiā? Belike you would have vs see this very Prophecy fulfilled in your self, viz, that you are led vvith the Spirit of error, and have your conscience seared vvith an hote iron. 1 Tim. 4.1.2. Otherwise how could you thus lewdly speak lyes in hypocrisy, if you were guided by the spirit of truth, and made any conscience of that you say?

But yet further to shew that you have gotten the very habit of falshood you shame not to call that a vvicked sclaunder which all the world may see is most true. For proof whereof compare but your Replyes here, with the Iesuites Notes vpon 1 Tim. 4. Thus they write,Rhem. Te [...]. on 1 Tim. 4. first in their margi­nall notes, We see plainly by these vvords such abstinence onely to be disal­lovved, as condemneth the creatures of God to be naught by nature and crea­tion. Then in their Annotations following they labour to prove that here the Apostle speaketh of the Manichees, Encratites, Marcionists &c. Tow­ching whom they say, They thought that Mariage vvas of Sathan, and cō ­demned divers creatures, as things by nature and creation polluted and abo­minable. And then they adde, Lo these vvere the Hereticks and their he­resyes vvhich S. Paul here prophecyeth of that forbid mariage and meats, as you have heard &c. These are their owne words. And thus they la­bour in vaine (as D. Fulk in his aunswer tels them) to post over the cri­me from themselves to the old Hereticks, vvho vvith as good reason might post it of from one to another, the Manichees to the Tacianists, and the Ta­cianists to the Manichees &c.

Now let the Reader well mynd your Replyes in this place, and com­pare them with this dealing of the Papists: and then let him judge how you are sclandered with a matter of truth, when I sayd you runne into the Papists tents, and fight vvith their vveapons, to shift of the evidence of this Scripture against you, by posting it over from your selves to the Hereticks of old, Martion, Tatianus &c. But thus in deed you do still shew your brasen forhead and seared conscience.

Towching Corah, Dathan, Abiram &c. besides that I have aunswe­red to your Reply in the Second exception (Pag. 53.) I have also purposely [Page 150] in many particulars compared their case and yours together, in the Sixt Reason: Pag. 130. Which if you can, you may refute in your next: or by silence give place to the truth.

Where I proved by sundry other Scriptures, compared with this to Timothy,Pag. 139. 140 that the Romish harlot and her children are here properly and specially deciphered, you aunswer not one word vnto it. Nay you are so turned out of all your shifts, as even now when you would shift it of to Martion and Tacianus, you giue more evidēce that it resteth on your owne heads, rather then on theirs. And this I prove by comparing together your saying here, with the Apostles there. You say here that Martion and Tatianus did Fundamentally fall from the faith, because they simply forbad those good ordinances of God, Mariage and meats, even against the light of conscience and nature, presumptuously quenching the instinct thereof. Now if this were so Mr Iacob, then (by your owne saying) they did not speak falsehood in hypocrisy, but in open and presumptuous blas­phemie. Whereas the Apostle noteth such expresselie, as speak lyes in hypocrisy. 1 Tim. 4.2.3.

And such in very deed I proved your case and the Papists to be, in my former aunswer. Pag. 137. &c. Against which you can bring nothing at all. Yet you blush not to say you passe by my puestions and demaunds about the Papists and their errors, as more vayne then pertinent. Whereas in deed the truth is, that the questions and reasons do so nearly concerne both the Papists and your selves, as you dare not medle with them. O­therwise if you could, you should at least not onely have said, but some way proued them to be vaine. But this labour it may be your reserve to your next Reply. If so, then examine them in particular, and shew the vanity of them from point to point. Els know they are so pertinēt, as here againe you are brought to a playne Non plus.

And because in my former aunswer I did but brieflie towch that point of your speaking lyes through hypocrisy, I will for further evidence of this Scripture against you, mention here some few particulars mo. 1. It cannot be denyed but you worship God by a Service book taken out of the Popes portuis, and by many other the inventions af men: Yet you pretend that you worship God in spirit and truth according to his word. A lye in hypocrisy. 2. Your Churches, Ministers, and people, stand subiect to other Archbishops and Lordbishops then Iesus Christ, and to their Courts, Canons, Excommunications, &c. Yet you beare men in hād that you receive Christ only as Lord and King of the Church, and obey his Lawes and ordinances. Another lye in hypocrisy. 3. Your Hierarchy and whole Ministery from the highest Archbishop to the low­est Priest, is Antichristian in you offices, entrance, administration, main­tenance: Yet who knoweth not that in all these you perswade the world you are the Ministers of Iesus Christ? Falsehood in hypocrisy. 4. You still, banish, and imprison vs because we separate from your Antichristi­an estate, and endevour to keep the faith and ordinance of Christ: Yet you [Page 151] give out that we suffer more then we need, that we are iustlie punished as ennemyes to the State, as Schismaticks, Hereticks, seditious &c. A­nother lye in hypocrisy. 5. Finallie, even the truths which you teach and professe, what are they els in your estate but the sheeps clothing of your wolvish Hierarchy and Priesthood, by meanes whereof you deceive and devoure the more? Lo here a tast of your speaking lyes in hypocrisy; and if you will also of your consciences burnt vvith an hote yron.

Besides these in your Church, note also in your self in particular, how even here you do sclaunder me, and yet pretend that it is I which sclaun­der you. Neither sufficeth it you in this one place to do it once, as I shewed before: Pag. 149. But here againe you will needs double it, that we might the better note this propertie in your self, which yet you shame not falsely to lay vpon me. And because you will not seem to want colour for it, you pretend this, that I say the words of your first Reply impor­ted such onely to depart from the faith, as fall from it totally: To depart from the faith (I say) so, as in that estate they cannot by the word of God be estemed true Christians.Reason. 7. Pag. 135. For this was the point which I pro­ved, and you denyed. Now towching this matter the case is so verie plaine, as I neither need nor will do anie more (for your conviction there­in) but set downe your owne words, as they were at first, and then with a note concerning your dealing synce, leave the iudgement thereof to the Reader: when he shall have compared together the words of your Reply and of my Aunsvver. Neither of which you love to keep vnto.

For your words then, thus it was: When against your Church I had proved by the Apostles testimonie, that forasmuch as all such depart from the faith, as forbid Mariage and Meats: therefore also your Church so doth, vvhich not only forbiddeth these things, & the true Ministery & vvor­ship of God vvithall, but also commaundeth a false, &c. You did then an­swer thus, word for word, The Popish forbidding of Mariage and of Meats, if they vvere no vvorse, doth not make them departers from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy & ceremonies simply: Neither do they make vs (the Protestans) to be such. The Papists fall from Christ in other points, namely, The Papall supremacy &c. These were your words then. The other clauses which now you have annexed in the Margent and Reply it self (though they help you no whit neither, yet) were they added synce you receyved my Answer: as I noted before, Pag. 141. Let the Reader mynd this: And withall, these two things, 1. That now you note in the mar­gent both “ here and in the Eight Reason following,Pag. 136. that you think the vvord fundamentally fitter to be here vsed, then the word totally. And why fitter, I pray you, but because this word totally implyeth that di­rectlie which I inferred therevpon in my Answer, Pag. 136. &c. 2. That whereas you did at first annexe a clause concerning the Apostles meaning that in these points they depart from the faith, not absolutly and vvholy this also is so far from helping you, as it maketh altogether against you, how­soever you would perswade otherwise in this your latter Reply (both in [Page 152] the beginning and end thereof.) Pag. 141. 142. Which will yet more fully appeare even to the most simple, whensoever you shall answer the parti­cular questiōs and obiectiōs, which I propounded in my former Answer, concerning the Papists and your selves. For which cause also it may be, you were the more willing to passe by them, being in deed afrayd and vn­able to deale with them.

But to let this passe, let others now iudge (by that which hath ben said) on whom the sclaunder lyeth. And note you by the way, that it is the common woont of sclaunderers, to impute that to others vnder some pretence or other, which in very deed they do themselves, yea and that often with an impudent forehead.

Of vour vaine distinction of fundamentall errors, and of the necessitie which lyeth vpon you to answer the particulars which I obiected about the Papists and your selves, I have spoken ‡ here before. If it stop not your mouth (as I suppose it will) yet let it teach you at least to take heed,pag. 144. &c. that your next Replie be lesse vaine, and more pertinent, then these former have ben.

In the last place (when all other shifts fayle) you would hale in a­gaine, to help at a dead lift, those good but dead men, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. whom you do neuer linne calling vpon, as if you would give them no rest, till you had brought them vp even from the dead, to beare witnesse on your side. But I have shewed before so great differēce between your case and theirs, as they can not help you at all. And now I tell you further as Christ hath said of old,Luk. 16.31. If you heare not Moses and the Pro­phets, neyther would you be perswaded, though one rose frō the dead againe.

All these things considered, I hope in your next you will either by the word of God iustify, that you depart not from the faith, in your leitourgy, Hierarchy, confusion of people, forbidding of Meats and Mariage, persecu­on of the truth &c. or els yeeld, that in such estate you do in deed depart frō the faith, and therefore cannot therein by the word of God be estemed true Christians.

Chap 14. The Eight Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumptiō afoersaid.

Fr. Iohnson. IF the Apostle account them denyers of the faith, and worse then Infidels, and consequently no true Christians, who (though they doe hold o­ther truthes of the Gospell, yet) provide not for their household: Then how are such to be accounted, who (though they professe some truthes of the Gospell, yet) are not true worshippers of God, but execute or sub­mit vnto a false Ministery, vvorship, & governement ecclesiasticall? (Which to be th'estate of the Ministery and people of the Church of England, ap­peareth as aforesaid, in their Canōs, Articles, Book of Cōmon prayer, &c.)

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

[Page 153] 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 pro­vide for his houshold: so is it to hold the Hierarchy &c. But that is to deny the faith, and to be worse then an infidell. Ergo so are we in England.

Those very answers to the last Reason, do fully and flattly satisfy this also: Eyther against the Assumption, namely that it is not meant simply of deny­ing the faith, norI meane Fū damentally, as in the last Reas. before I have shewed. wholy, but in this poinct onely: Or els the Proposition, as being meant of such, as neglect their families against the light of their consci­ences, and the manifest instinct of nature.

Er. Iohnson his Ansvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 8. Reason. FOr aunswer of this Reason, you refer vs (both for Proposition and As­sumption) to your answer to the last Reason. But there I have proved those your aunswers to be vntrue. Therefore yet we have no aunswer either to that Reason, or this.

(As for your new meaning, now (and not before) noted here in the margent, although it help you no more then the other, yet tell me in your next, where you learned thus to confound things that differ so much one from another. For now your Reply to both these Reasons is such, as if wholy and fundamentally were all one. Or els what have you said? But this (Mr Iacob) is to confound, not to distinguish, as you pretended before, Pag. 135. 142. Men may erre fundamentally in some points of the faith, who yet erre not wholy in all.Pag. 92. 136. 142. The Papists at this day (you confesse † your self,) do erre fundamentally in some things, as in Iustifi­cation by works, the Popes supremacy, the Masse, &c. Will you there­fore say, they erre wholy in all? Do they not, howsoever they erre other­wise, yet notwithstanding hold also these and manie other truths, viz, That there is but one God, and three persons in the Godhead; That he made heaven and earth and all other things, and that of nothing; That the Sonne (not the Father, or holy Ghost) took flesh of the Virgin Ma­ry; That the bodyes of the dead shall rise againe at the last day, &c. Likewise for the Corinthians and Galathians of old,Pag. 28. 92 of whom also you cō fesse that they erred fundamentally in some points, as about the Resurre­ction, Circumcision, &c Shall we therefore think that they held not anie one point of truth, but erred wholy in all? The Scripture it self doth witnes the contrary: as may be seen throughout the Epistles sent to those Churches. How sencelesse then and confused is this your new coy­ned meaning? Towching which I thought to adde thus much here, be­sides that which I spake concerning it in the last Reason before.)

Let the Reader moreover observe, that both there, and here, and in your Reply to the Reason following, the power of the truth so prevaileth a­gainst you, as you cannot but graunt, you depart from and deny the faith, in your Ministery worship and governement ecclesiasticall: As appeareth in your Canons, book of Common prayer, Articles, Iniunctiōs, persecution, &c. [Page 154] All which beeing mentioned as proofes thereof, in these severall reasons: when now they should be defended, if you would maintaine your standing, behold you are as mute as a fish therein. And not that onely, but in your Reply to the next Reason following,Pag. 156. you graunt that in these things we may and ought to separate from you. Which is directlie to yeeld vs the cause: Thus soundlie you answer vs, and dispute for your selves.

H. Iacob 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 providence, and no othervvise: then I deny your As­sumption. If the Apostle meane of such, as neglect their families against the light of conscience, and natures instinct, then I deny the Proposition. This I say, because the Apostle may very well meane both these, but in diverse measure and proportion of sinne: but then this concerneth not vs, Even so as I have said to your former Reason. Note also, if this were a true Reason, it maketh Maister Cranmer, &c. denyers of the faith, and not true Christi­ans also. For maintenance whereof, you have here not one poore vvord at all.

Tovvching that you say we cannot deny, but graunt, that we departe from and deny the faith in our Ministery: I have told you hovv, in my ansvver to your 7. Reason, Also see my Replyes to your 2. Exception.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 8. Reason. NOw that all your shifts fayle, you come with Ifs and Ands, If the A­postle meane this, and If he meane that &c. As if the Apostles * words were not playne,1 Tim. 5.8. so as the meaning may easily be discerned of anie that is not wilfullie blynd. Read and mynd in all such cases and Scriptures that which is written, Prov. 8.9. with Act. 28.26.27.

But you say the Apostle may very well meane, both such as neglect their houshold against convenient Christian providence, and such as do it a­gainst the light of conscience and natures instinct. If the first, then you deny the Assumption, that is, the Apostles owne saying. And thus a­gaine you give the holy Ghost the lye. If the latter, then you deny the Proposition. And then you must prove, that thus they do it. For who knoweth not, that such will not (for this case, any more then you for yours) confesse that they do it against light of conscience &c. Nay will they not say, as stiflie as you, that this concerneth not them? And more­over is not that also which is light in one mans conscience, often darke in another mans by one meanes or other?

See it in an example. One of your professors in London runneth to all your Sermons and Lectures from place to place throughout the City, e­very day and every houre. By this meanes he neglecteth his familie. [Page 155] You tell him he doth it against light of conscience and natures instinct. He denyes it, and saith he doth it not so, but as being perswaded in his con­science that he must first seek the kingdome of God, and that then all out­ward things shalbe cast to him and his. Herevpon (in a blynd zeale) he doth, as aforesaid. Now tell me, Is not this man notwithstanding within compasse of the Apostles rule here spoken of? Yet will he stand a­gainst it for his case, as stiffe as you for yours: yea and alledge for him­self more colour and show of Reason, then you do or can for your Hierarchy &c. So then both the Proposition and Assumption stand firme against you, and therefore also the whole Reason.

Now here againe, being loth (belike) to give them any rest, you call for Mr Cranmer &c. As if they were your Pages, to wayte at your heeles on every call, and to serve your turne at every need, whether they will or not. Never were poore men in all the world (I think) made such a stale. But they serve you accordingly. They let you commaund, and go with­out. For every where you commaund their names, and yet alway go without their fellowship. As I have shewed before in particular: Pag. 40. 41.

Towching your graunt, let the Reader note here againe, that you yeeld, you depart from and deny the faith in your Ministery &c. You say, you have before told vs how. But what you have said before is there aun­swered and taken away. And besides, for vs it is sufficient, that it is done. Look you vnto it, how you do it. It may be, some of you do it of ignorance; some of knowledge against the light of your owne consciēces; some for feare of men; some for love of the world; some of contention, or vaine glory; some for their profit, pleasure, ease, honour, quyetnes, or the like. Thus I deny not but in the maner of doing, there may be a­mong you in these respects a divers measure and proportion of sinne. But this concerneth not vs; but your selves to look vnto: and that greatlie.

Chap. 15. The Ninth Reason against Mr Iacobs Assumption aforesaid.

Fr. Iohnson. THey which do otherwise teach, and condiscend not to the wholsome words of our Lord Iesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is accor­ding to godlines, all such by the rule of the Apostle are to be separated frō, and therefore cannot in that case by the word of God be deemed true Chri­stians, 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5.

But such is the case of all the Ministers and people of the Church of England, in their ministery, worship, and Church constitution: As appea­reth both by the severall points of their false doctrinePoints of false doctrine. els where noted, and by the proofesPag. 61. 63. 135. &c. here before alledged out of their owne Canons, Arti­cles, Iniunctions, &c.

[Page 156]Therefore all the Ministers and people of the Church of England, in their Ministery, 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: Separate from them that teach otherwise then the truth. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. We holding those Articles, do teach diverse things in the Hierarchy &c. that be otherwise then is truth. Therefore we must be separated from, and consequently we are no true Christians.

This is a fallacy also, Separate from such, Ergo separate wholy. See my 1. and 2. Reply afore to the third Exception, also the Aunswer 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 wholy, or absolutly. And so the Apostle here meaneth. Wherefore briefly: Because you prove vs not wholy to deny the trueth, nor fundamentally, nor obsti­natly, perversly, and desperatly any part thereof, like those Iewes Act. 19.9. whom Paul separated from, which he did not from all other Ievves, Act. 13.14. & 16.3. & 21.23.24.26. & 3.1. Therefore you ought not vvholy to separate from vs, Neither to condemne vs vvholy as abolished from Christ, no more then Maister Cranmer & Ridley were vvith their Congregations in King Edwards tyme. And thus our Assumption in the beginning, standeth firme, The do­ctrine in the booke of Articles, is sufficient to make a true Christian.

CōclusionThe contrary vvhereof, is such a Paradox, as hath not ben heard of till this day: All reformed Churches in Europe doe and have alvvayes held other­vvise. ThemselvesM. Barrow Mr. Penry. Mr. Iohnson heretofore have acknovvledged and professed it. The holy Martyrs that lived in King Edvvards dayes, and dyed in Queene Maries dayes, must be othervvise cut of from Christ, vvho vvere true Christians by vertue of this doctrine and the practise thereof, or verily not at all. But now it is vvonder, vvhat extreame passion hath driven them to this denyall. Surely they see that it conuinceth flatly (as indeed it doth,) their peremptory separa­tion: And therefore, rather then they vvould seem to have erred in so mayne a poinct: vve cannot but thinke that meere desperatnes, hath driven them to it. Neverthelesse, all this vve leave to the Lord, vvith the iudgement thereof, vvho hath the hearts of all men in his hand: not only to search the secrets; but also to turne and dispose them, even as it pleaseth him.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunsvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 9. Reason. TO this Reason you answer, It is a fallacy, Separate from such: Ergo se­parate vvholy. But how shew you any fallacy therein? You bid vs see your Replyes to the third Exception, and tvvo last Reasons of all. Well we have seen them, and finde nothing there but against your self, as hath ben shewed. So this Reason and the rest stand still vnanswered, and strong against you.

[Page 157]And that we may not doubt, but your self also see it, howsoever you seem to plead the contrary before, therefore now you graunt it (and so yeeld the cause) both in expresse words, and by not defending the points of false do­ctrine, wherewith you were charged, neyther your Canons, Articles, In­iunctions, &c.

In expresse words, when you say, you graunt, that so farr foorth as you hold othervvise then trueth, so far vve may and ought to separate from you. Loe here what the evidence of the truth (against which you have strugled so long) hath now at length drawen from you. The trueth is mighty, and prevaileth.

But you adde, that vve must not separate from you any further, then as before: not wholy or absolutly: and so (say you) the Apostle “ here meaneth. 1 Tim. 6.3. [...] First of all, let vs know what your self meane hereby. If you meane that we must not for your other defection forsake the trueths which you hold, I aunswer that we doe it not, and this your self know well ynough. And in this sence your meaning comes nothing neare the Apostles. You say your selves, you have separated from the Papists: yet you neither can nor will say, that you have forsaken the truthes which the Papists hold: As, that there is a God; that there be three persons in the Godhead; that Ie­sus Christ is the Saviour of the world; that God made heaven and earth; that there shalbe a resurrection of the iust and vniust &c.

But if you meane, that because of the truthes which you professe, there­fore we should not separate from you: then first you contradict your self, having graunted that we must separate from you, so farr foorth as you hold otherwise then trueth. Secondlie, you condemne your owne practise in your separation from the Papists, notwithstanding the truthes they professe. Thirdlie, in this sence also your meaning comes nothing neare the Apostles meaning. Thus therefore is evident, both that there is no fallacy in the Reason, but that it is playne and forceable against you: And that you have directlie in expresse words given vs the cause,See the par­ticulars be­fore, Pag. 63 &c. and acknow­ledged our separation to be lawfull from your * Ministery, worship, Assem­blies, &c. because in these you hold otherwise then truth.

And as in expresse words you yeeld it, so in deed you shew it, in that you leave without all defēce (as vnlawfull and to be separated from) your Ministery, worship, Church-governement, Doctrine, Canons, Articles, In­iunctions, &c. mentioned both here, and more particularlie in the First and Second Reasons before: which thing we wish the Reader well to ob­serve. And because we are fallen againe into mention of your false do­ctrine, to the end that the Reader may yet more see the deceitfulnes of your dealing and insufficiencie of all your answers: therefore it shall not be yrkesome to set downe here, some such poincts of false doctrine as hereto­fore have ben obiected against you. They are as followeth:

1. That though the open notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Sacraments, yet neyther the Sacramentes, False do­ctrine in the Church of England, and in the defenders thereof. nor the people that ioine with them, are defiled therby. Which doctrine is contrary to the trueth of [Page 158] God in these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 10.17. Hag. 2.14.15. 1 Cor. 5.6. & 10.28. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17.18. Gal. 5.9. Mat. 18.8.9.15.16.17.18.19. Exod. 12.43. Levit. 15.4.5.6.7.31. & 11.24. & 13.45.46. & 19.7. Num. 5.2.3. & 19.21.22. Iosua. 7.11.12. &c. Ezra. 6.21.22. Ier. 3.1.

2. That the planting or reforming of Christs Church must tarrie for the Civill Magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the word and spirit of God in the testimony of his servantes, except they have authoritie from earthlie Princes. Which doctrine is against the Kinglie power of Christ, and these scriptures. Mat. 28.18.20. Actes 3.23. 1 Cor. 1.27. Psal. 2.6.9.10.12. Esa. 9.6.7. Zach. 4.6. & 6.12.13. Dan. 2.44. & 7.27. & 9.25. Mich. 5.7. 1 Cor. 14.27. with 1 Thes. 4.8. Phil. 2.6.12. 1 Tim. 6.13.14.15. Rev. 1.5. & 12.11. & 14.12. & 17.14. & 19.16. & 20.4.

3. That the true visible Church of Christ is not a separated company of righteous men and women, from the Idolaters and open wicked of the world, but may consist of all sortes of people, good and bad. Which doctrine is cō ­trary to the paterne of Christs Church, throughout all the scriptures, Gen. 4.26. vvith 6.2. Exod. 4.22.23. Levit. 10.10. & 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. & 19.9. Rom. 12.1.8. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. 1 Pet. 2.9.10. Rev. 14.9.12. & 18.4. & 21.27. and 22.14.15. &c.

4. To mainteine this error of their confused order and mixture of all sortes of persons togeather, they pervert the Parable of the tares, Mat. 13.24. tea­ching that all are the Church, and that they may be retained and communi­cated withall, in the Church. Which doctrine is against the trueth of the scriptures, yea against our Saviours owne interpretation in the 38. verse, who teacheth, that by the field is meant the world, in which his Church is militant here on earth. And as therein there is the good seed, the righte­ous, the Children of the Kingdome; so there are also tares, hypocrites, the children of the wicked: who as they are often espied in this life by the righteous servauntes of God, and being discovered are here cast out of the Church in the Name and by the power of Iesus Christ; so shall they in that great day be perfectlie severed from the godly by the Angels: how­soever here in the meane tyme making profession of the truth and having a show of godlines, they be suffred to grow together with the good seed, and be with the vpright of heart reputed mēbers of the Church on earth. Note also, that the Church because it is the Temple, House, & kingdome of God on earth, wherein he dwelleth by his spirit and ruleth by the scepter of his word, as also the gate of heaven through which he bringeth vs into his kingdome of glory after this life, is therefore by Christ in this place called the Kingdome of heaven, though yet it be here in the field of this world. Mat. 13.19.24.37.38.41.43.52. compared with Gen. 28.17. 1 Cor. 3.16.17. 2 Cor. 6.16.17.18. Ephes. 2.21.22. Mat. 8.12. & 16.18.19.28. & 21.43. & 22.12.13.14. & 25.1. &c. Luk. 8.1. & 11.20. & 13.18. & 17.20. [...]1. Ioh 1.49.51. Act. 1.3. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5.24.25. & 6.3.5. & 2. Tim. [Page 159] 2.20.21. & 3.5. And further, if Christs meaning were that men should here still deare and partake with the knowen wicked and prophane, not­withstanding that their estate, then by this it would follow that there should neyther be vse of Excōmunication in the Church, nor punishment of malefactors in the Common-wealth. Which could not but be the de­struction of both: And is directlie contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, in other Scriptures: As namelie, in Mat. 18.17.18. and 26.52. Rom. 13.4. 1 Cor. 5. chap. 1 Tim. 1.20. Finally, this their doctrine aforsaid, is against the expresse cōmaundement of God, the heavenly or­der of Christ in his Church, and the continuall practise of the Prophets Apostles and faithfull in all ages: For which see these Scriptures, Gen. 17.14. and 19.12-16. Lev. 18.29.30. and 20.22-26. Numb. 16.23-26. Ezra. 6.21. & 9.14. Esa. 8.12.18 and .44.5. & 52.11. Ier. 15.19. Ezeh. 22.26 zach. 2.7. & 8.21. 22.23. Mal. 3.16.17.18. Mat. 18.8.9.15.16.17.18. Act 2.40.41.47. and 5.28.29. and 17.4.7.34. and 19.9. Rom. 16.17. 1 Cor. 1.26.27. and 5.4-7. 2 Cor. 6.17. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. 2 Ioh. vers. 6.10 11. Iud. vers. 3.21.22.23. Rev. 2. & 3. chap. & 14.9.12. & 17.14. & 18.4. & 20.4.

5. That the people may tolerate & ioine with open iniquitie in the Church, vntill by the Magistrate it be redressed. Which doctrine is contrarie to these Scriptures, 2 Cor. 10.4.5. Mat. 28.20. Act. 2.40. & 3.23. & 4.19. & 9.26. & 19.9. 1 Tim. 5.22. Deu. 5.32. & 12.32.

6. That the gifts of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a sufficient and lawfull calling to the Ministery, &c Which doctrine is both false and Anabaptisticall, contrarie to the Scriptures, Heb. 5.4. Rom. 12.6.7.8. Levit. 22.25. Ezech. 44.8.9. &c Numb. 1.51. & 3.10.38. & 16.40. & 18.2.3.4. Act. 1.20.26. & 13.2.3. & 14.23.

7. That the Church may yeeld obedience vnto other Lawes, Canons, tra­ditions, officers and offices, then God hath prescribed in his Covenant. Which doctrine is contrarie to Gen. 49.10. Mat. 6.24. Iohn. 10.4.5. Rev. 14.4. & 22.18.19. Heb. 3.1. &c.

8. That the Church may read other mens words vpon a book, and offer them vp to God as their owne prayers and sacrifices in the publique Assem­blies. Which doctrine is contrarie to the scriptures, Esay. 29.13.14. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. Mat. 6.6.9. & 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Exod. 30.9. with Psal. 141.2. Rev. 5.8. & 8.3.4. Iud. vers. 20. Ephes. 4.7.8. & 6.18. 1 Pet. 2.5.

9. That it is lawfull to ioine with the Ministery of dumb and Idoll Priests, and to receive the Sacraments at their handes. Which doctrine is contrary to Mat. 15.14. & 7.15. & 24.24.25. Esa. 56.10. Iohn. 10.1.5. Num. 16.5.9.24.26.39.40. &c. 1 Tim. 3.2. & 6.5. 2 Iohn. vers. 6.11.

10. That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ, to ceasse preaching, and forsake his flock, at the Commaundement of the Lord Bishops. Which doctrine is contrarie to 1 Cor. 9 16. Esay. 62.1.6.7. Ier. 48.10. Zach. 11.17. Iohn, 10.11.12.13. Act. 4.18.19.20. & 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, [Page 160] to receive in, and to cast out by the Keyes of his 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 Ministery. Which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 18.15. Mat. 17.5. & 7.15. 2 Iohn. vers. 10 11. 1 Cor. 10.18. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 14.9.10.11. & 18.4. Iohn 10.5.

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 & Antichristian Prelates: who also gouerne by Romish Cannons, and not according to the lawes of Christs Testament. Which doctrine and practise is condemned by Luke 19.14.27. Iohn. 15.14. Rom. 6.16. Luke. 22.25 26. 1 Pet. 5.3. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.8. Iohn. 3.35.36. Rev. 9.3. & 14.9.10.11. & 19.14.15.19.

14. That there may be a prescript Leiturgy and set forme of service in the Church, framed by man. Which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 5.8. Esa. 29.13.14. Mat. 15.9. Mar. 7.6.7. Gal. 3.15. Iohn. 4.24. Rom. 8.26.27. Ephes. 4.7.8. Col. 2.23.

15. That an Antichristian Prelate, notwithstanding his dignitie (as it is called) spirituall, may be a Civill Magistrate, and obeyed of the people as their lawfull governour. Which doctrine is contrarie to Rom. 13.1. &c. Mat. 20.25.26. Mar. 10.42.43. Luke. 22.25.26. Rev. 14.9.10.11. and 17.14.16.18.

16. That men may giue the titles of Christ Iesus to these sonnes of men, his mortall enemies, to call them their Archbishops, Lordbishops, Fathers, Lords &c. Which doctrine is contrarie to 1 Pet. 5.3.4. with 2.25. Mat. 23.8.9.10. Esa. 42.8. and 48.11. Prov. 17.15. and 24.24. Esay 5.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.17.

17. That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ to be mainteyned in his mi­nistery, by Iewish and Popish tythes, Chrisomes, offerings &c. Which do­ctrine is contrarie to Heb. 7.12. 1 Cor. 9.13.14. 1 Thes. 5.12.13. Pro. 27.26.27. Phil. 4.10.18. Rom. 15.27. Gal. 6.6.

These are the points of false doctrine mentioned * before in the proof of this Reason.Pag. 155. Which you have left altogeather vnanswered: as also your Canons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c. And thus are you driven againe and againe (whether you will or not) to yeeld the cause.

That which you adde in the next place, of your not wholy denying the trueth, nor fundamentally, nor obstinatly, perversly, and desperatly any part thereof, is answered before in the second Exception, and sixt and sea­venth Reasons.

Where you say, you are not herein like those Iewes (Act. 19.9.) 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. you say nothing to any purpose. For what though you be not in all respects like those Iewes? Are you not therefore to be separated from? So in deed you would conclude. But then tell vs, if Corah, Dathan, Abiram, the Apostate Iewes vnder Ieroboā, the corinthian infidels, Papists, &c. might not alledge some particular exceptiō, [Page 161] wherein they were not like to those Iewes, Act. 19. Might not therefore separation be made from these? The Scripture teacheth otherwise, Num. 16.25.26. 2 Chron. 11.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4.

Secondlie, consider the case here spoken of (Act. 19.9.) and compare it with your estate and practise, and see if there be not now as great and iust cause to separate from you, as was then from them. The words are these, When some were hardned, and disobeyed, speaking evill of that way before the multitude, Paul departing from them, separated the disciples. Act. 19.9. Compare now your case with theirs, and aunswer for your selves. Are not you hardened against the truth? Let your writings against it, your imprisonning, banishing, and killing for it give evidence. Do you not also disobey it? Let your constitution and practise be witnesse. And do you not speake evill of the way of God before the multitude? Let the Sermons of your Ministers beare record, your books also and yll spea­ches of your Prelates, Iudges, people, &c. Therefore (by that Scri­pture) you are to be separated from. Wherevnto may be added in this case that which Peter saith, Act. 2. Save your selves from this froward ge­neration.

Thirdly where you obiect, That Paule did not separate from all the other Iewes, as he did from these, Act. 19. and shew it by Act. 13.14. & 16.3. & 21.23.24.26. & 3.1. I answer, that the Apostles had good and iust cause so to do. For first the Iewes were the people of God, separated from the world, and set in the true way and order of God. Rom. 9.4. Levit. 20.22.24.26. Luk. 16.8. &c. Secondlie, Christ commaunded the Apostles, when he sent them to preach his Gospell throughout the world, that they should first preach it to the Iewes. Luke 24.47. Act. 1.8. & 13.46. Thirdlie, the Iewes ministery and ceremonies being the ordinances of God him self, and given in writing by Moses the man of God, were therefore now (when they should cease) to be buried with honor. Act. 15.21. and 21.30.21.22.23.24.25. Heb. 8.5.13. and 9.1. &c. These things considered, we see the Apostles had iust cause so to do, as they did in those places mētio­ned.

But what is this to the assemblies of England, which never yet were separated from the world nor set in the way and order of Christ, but stand in theRev. 13.16.17. & 18.2. 2 The. 2.3.4.8 confusion and defection of Antichrist; whose Ministery and worship were never the ordinances of God, but taken out ofRev. 17.2.4 & 18.3. & 9.3. &c. the whores cup of Ba­bylon; for which God never gave Commaundement to go vnto them, but to depart from them, as being daughters of the great Babylon, that mo­ther of whoredomes and abominations of the earth. Rev. 18.4. with 17.5.

Adde herevnto, that even from those Iewes (notwithstanding the rea­sons aforesaid) when they put from themselues the truth and would not receive it, the Apostles departed and separated themselves, yea and shook of the dust of their feet against them, teaching others to do so likewise, Act. 13.46.51. and 18.6. and 28.25.26.27, 28. and 19.8.9.

To that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. is answered before.

[Page 162]And hitherto of your generall Assumption: which was this, That the whole doctrine as it is professed and publiquely practised by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian. Which by the Exce­ptions and Reasons aforesaid, is proved to be vntrue.

Touching the Cōclusion.Now let the godly Reader (trying all things by the word of truth) iudge, whether we or you hold Paradoxes.

In that which you speak of the reformed Churches, you are deceived, if you think they allow your present estate and Church constitutiō. Both their publique profession and practise witnesse the contrarie:In the answer to Mr T.C. Mr A.H. &c. as is decla­red at large in ‡ other treatises, which yet remaine vnanswered.

Where you say, we our selves heretofore have acknowledged and pro­fessed it, (viz your generall Assumption to be true) you are againe deceived. We have alway testified the contrarie, both by our profession and pra­ctise, and were and are therefore cast into prison, appointed to exile, and to death: besides many other iniuries and grieuances inflicted vpon vs for this verie cause. We have in deed acknowledged and do acknowledge, that you professe divers excellent truths, but that the whole doctrine, as it is publiquely professed & practized by law in England, doth make you in that estate true Christians, never any of vs (that I know of) did once acknow­ledge. Therefore till you shew the contrarie, I must needs think you do falselie burthen vs all, and speciallie such of vs, as you have mentio­ned here in particular.

To that of the Martyrs in Queene Maries dayes is answered already. Yet for more evidence of the truth, I will annexe some particular spea­ches and testimonies of the Martyrs themselves, both then, and in former tymes.

Maister Bradford, (speaking of the dayes before Queen Marie) said.Act. & mo­num. In the conference vvith Archb. Heath. The tyme was, when the Pope was out of England, but not all popery. And moreover,In his first speach vvith D. Harpsfild. That the scripture knoweth not any difference between Bishops and Ministers, which men call Priests. And that the Scripture speaking of Bishops, cannot be vnderstood of Bishops that minister not, but lord it.

Maister Hooper held,Hooper on the eight cō ­mandment. 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 drive a camell through the eye of a needle. And againe he saith, The primitiue Church had not such Bishops as be now a dayes. And againe, What blindnesse (saith he) is there befell in the world, that cannot see this palpable yll, that our mother the holy Church had at the beginning such Bishops, as did preach many godly Sermons in lesse tyme then our Bi­shops horses bee a brideling.

Iohn Bale (an exile for the testimonie of Iesu) writing vpon the Re­velation affirmeth,The Image of both churches: vpon Rev. 13.1. & 17.3. That the names of Blasphemy written vpon the Beasts head (Rev. 13. and 17.) are none other then the proud glittering tytles, where­with they garnish their vsurped authority, to make it seeme glorious to the world, having within them conteined the great mystery of iniquitie. What [Page 163] [...]her els (saith he) is Pope, Cardinal, Metropolitā, Primate, Archbishop, Dio­cesan, Archdeacon, Officiall, Chauncelour, Commissarie, Deane, Prebend, Parson, Vicar, and such like, but very names of blasphemy? For offices they are not appoincted by the holy Ghost, nor yet once mētioned in the scriptures. This Iohn Bale held and published. Then which, what can be more full and evident against you?

And writing vpon the 14. of the Revelation, he hath these words: To receive the beastes marke in their forheads and hands, Ibid. vpon Rev. 14.9. is both to agree to such decrees, traditions, lawes, constitutions, actes, and proclamations, as they vnder those titles have made onely for their owne covetousnes and pompe, and neither for the glory of God, nor yet for the right maintenance of the Christian common wealth: And also to be sworne to the same, to subscribe to it, to give counsel or ayde to it, to mainteine it by learning, to minister in it, to execute vnder it, to accuse, punish, and put to death for it, or to thinke it lawfull and godly, with such like.

And “ afterward vpon the 16. of the Revelation,Ibid. vpon Rev. 16.12. expounding the drying vp of the waters of Euphrates to be this, That the welthy Popes possessiōs and pleasurs of the Clergy (their false feates once known) are and shalbe cleer­ly taken away from them: He saith thus, In England by the Marke by this, of vvhat time & estate he speaketh, even of such vvhen the Gospell vvas preched, the Monasteries suppressed, &c. Gospell prea­ching have many of these waters bene dried vp in the suppression of the mo­nasteries, prioryes, couents, and Friers houses, yet are not all things brought vnto Christs cleare institution. A syncere 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, & with as many Heathnish observations, as ever they did, as cruelly harted and as bloody mynded are they yet, as ever they were afore. No mischief vnsought to hold in the wa­ters. Marke how Winchester, Durham, Yorke, London, and Lincolne worke (let vs also adde Canterburie) with such other pleasant disposed Eu­phratines. But be of good confort, and pray in the meane tyme. For the holy Ghost promiseth heer, that they shall wither away with all that the heavēly Father hath not plāted. All which generatiō will the Lords breath cōsume &c.

And (to speake also of others in former tymes) Iohn Wickleff held,Actes and Mon. 5. edit. pag. 414. b. That Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Officialls, Deanes, Ca­nons, &c. be disciples of Antichrist.

William Swinderby said,Ibid. pag. 431. b. that what Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Prelate, or Priest, in manner of living, or teaching, or Lavves making, contrary to Christs living & his Lavves, or any other ground, put in ruling of the Church of christ, but by Christ and his Lavves, is very Antichrist, adversarie to Iesus Christ and his Apostles.

Sir Iohn Oldcastle (Lord Cobham) witnessed,Ibid. [...]ag. 518. a. & b. that the Bishops, Priests, Prelates, and Monkes, are the body of that great Antichrist: And that the possessions and Lordships of the Clergy, are the venime of Iudas shed into the Church.

Iohn Claidon (burnt in Smithfield) professed,Ibid. pag. 588. b. that the Archbishops, and Bishops, speaking indifferently, are the seats of the beast Antichrist, [Page 164] when he sitteth in them and reigneth above other people in the darke Caves of errors and heresies. And that the Bishops licence for a man to preach the vvord of God, is the true character of the beast, that is Antichrist.

FinallyIn his trea­tises called▪ The obedience of a Chri­stian man, &. The pra­ctise of prel. William Tindall andIn his Pre­face before his Antithe­sis betvveen Christ & the pope. Iohn Frith published, That Arch­bishops, Lordb. Archdeacons, Deanes, Officials, Parsons, Vicars, and the rest of that sort, are the disciples of Antichrist, yea very Antichrists them­selves.

These are the speaches and testimonies of the Martyrs in former ages, wherevnto divers other such like might be added. But these may suffice for the matter in hand. Now compare therewith, the publique profes­sion and practise of England (even as it is by law at this day) and see whether your owne proofes be not so many witnesses against your selves.

But if it were so, that the reformed Churches, vve our selves, and the Mar­tyrs of former tyme, gave allowance of your present estate and Church cō ­stitution, what would this help you, when as the vvord of God condem­neth you, as we have shewed in the Reasons aforsaid and defence thereof. Wherevnto (if you will still iustifie your estate) we require direct answer from point to point, and that from the Scriptures, which only can stablish the conscience.

Furthermore, that the truth it self and your estate may better appeare what it is, as also that you may not turne away or obscure the truth by your shiftes and evasions, as your manner is: I will here propound a few questions concerning the points now in controversie, desiring your plaine and syncere answer therevnto, by the word of God, as you will answer to him at that day. The questions are these.

Seven questions contei­ning the vvhole con­troversy be­tvveen vs: yet vnansvvered. 1. Whether the Lord Iesus Christ have by his last testament given vn­to and set in his Church sufficient ordinary Offices, with their Callings, Workes, and Maintenance, for the administration of his holy things, and for the sufficient ordinary instruction, guidance, and service 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 appoincted by Christ in his Testament, as afore­said. Or whether the present ecclesiasticall Offices of Archbishops, Lord­bishops, Suffragans, Deanes, Prebendaries, Cannons, Petticanons, Priests, Deacons, Archdeacons, Doctors of divinitie, Batchelers of divinitie, Chaplens or Housepriests, Commissaries, Officialls, Pro­ctors, Apparitors, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Vagrant or Mercena­rie preachers, Churchwardens, Side men, Clerkes, Sextons, and the rest now had in the Cathedrall and parishionall assemblies, be those Offi­ces appoincted by Christ in his Testament as is aforsaid, or no?

3. Whether the Calling and entrance into these Ecclesiasticall offices aforesaid, their Administration, and Maintenance, now had and retai­ned in England, be the manner of calling, administration & maintenance which Christ hath appoincted for the offices of his Church above named, or no?

[Page 165] 4. Whether every true visible Church of Christ be not a company of peo­ple called and separated out from the world and the false worship and wayes thereof by the word of God, and ioined togeather in fellowship of the Gospell, by voluntary profession of the faith and obedience of Christ? And whether the Ecclesiasticall Assemblies of this Land be such, or no?

5. Whether the Sacraments (being seales of righteousnes which is by faith) may be administred to anie other but to the faithfull and their seed, or in anie other ministery and manner then is appoincted by Iesus Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our profession? And whether they be not o­therwise administred in the Cathedrall and parishionall Assemblies of England at this day?

6. Whether the Book of Common prayer with the Feastes, Fasts, Holy dayes, stinted prayers, and Leiturgy prescribed therein, and vsed in these Assemblies, be the true worspip of God commaunded in his word, or the devise and invention of man, for Gods worship and service.

7. Whether all people and Churches (without exception) be not bound in Religion, only to receive and submit vnto that Ministery, Worship, & order, which Christ as Lord and King hath given and appoincted to his Church? Or whether any may receive and ioine vnto another devised by man, for the service of God? And consequentlie, whether they which ioine to the present ecclesiasticall Ministery, worship, and order of the Cathe­drall and parishionall Assemblies, can be assured by the word of God that they ioine to the former ordeined by Christ, and not to the latter devi­sed vy man, even the man of sinne, for the worship and service of God?

Vnto these questions and the particulers thereof, for the causes afore­said, we desire your direct answer, with proofes of your answers from the scriptures. According to which word if you speak not (as I said before, so I say againe)Esa. 8.20. it is because there is no light in you.

And now to conclude, where you would in the end of your writing (be­ing not able to answer our Reasons) fasten vpō vs some strange passion, yea meere desperatnes, for separating from you, and answering of you as we have done: we refer it to the godly and discreet Reader to iudge by that which hath ben said on both parts, whether it bee not your selves that are taken with the strange passion you speake of, and driven therevnto by meer des­peratnes: when for to mainteyne your owne estate; you will haue the scriptures to fall and exalt the Church and Magistrate above Christ him­self, even flesh and blood above God blessed for ever. Your practise where­of see before, Pag. 28. 91. 100. 105. 135. &c.

But for this & all your vnrighteous dealing against the truth & people of God, we leaue you to the Lord, who searcheth the heart and tryeth the raynes, to giue euery man according to his wayes, according to the fruite of his workes: That is, to them that by cōtinuance in weldoing seek glorie & honor and immortalitie, eternall life; But vnto them that are contentious, and disobey the trueth & obey vnrighteousnes, indignation & wrath. Ier. 17.10. with Rom. 2.6.7.8.

[Page 166] 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 every 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 the scholes Fallacia ab eo quod est secundum quid ad simpliciter prouing a thing to be simply, by that which is but after a sort. The Second is the very same. The Third Fallacia equiuocationis, 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 from 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 desperate con­science: and then if that appeare, separate from such wholy: Or els, erring in simplicitie & of ouersight, and former preiudice, from such, separate nor 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 Praelacy and Ceremonies, be of these latter sort: which thing hetherto, you haue not nor cannot ouerthrowe, (& withall you must vtterly ouerthrowe Mast. Cranmer & the rest of the Martirs their Christianitie like wise): Therefore wee in England, by the grace of God, are still true Christians: & you ought so to acknowledge vs, as you will answer vnto God: All which you may doe, & 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. Nither is our absolute departure from the Papists, hereby anie whit impeached. Wee haue iustlie forsaken them cleane, because by their very professiō and doctrine, wee canot esteeme them true Christians, neither in case of saluatiō, while they so remaine, but indeed very Antichrists, 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,) conteyneth sufficient to make a true Christian:As it doth not. 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 easily 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 [Page 167] 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 have many probable & seeming reasons, & alleadge them, & publish them for the Praelacy against you: & are vnanswered. And yet will you say they are conuicted, & those infinite others depēding on them? I say cōuicted aswell as those Iewes? What if these speake euill of that which you hold for truth, but they hold to be errors & schisme? Are they all yea all the land therefore abolished from Christ? Might not all this at least, be sayd 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 quarells 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 apsolute 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 their obstinate & malitious resistance of the truth, which we deny not.

Touching the Conclusion. In the cōclusion of my former Reply, to proue your vtter separation from vs a Paradox: First, I alledged all the reformed Churches: For who knoweth not but they all hold Cōmuniō with vs as Churches of God? yet you dare either deny this or vtterly peruert it. You tell vs of your Answers to Maister Cartwright & Mr. Hildersam that are vnanswered. If they be like to this your answer here, verely they doe wisest in yeelding silence to such friuolous & wandring wordes.

Secondly I alleadged your selues to haue acknoledged heretofore, That our publique doctrine allowed, would & 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 answer, 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 words.

Mr. BARROW (in his last answer in writing to Mr Gif­ford, intituled, A fevv 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 conscience, yet against our expresse writngs every where, &c. Have we not commended the faith of the English Martyr, and [...] thousand, notwithstanding the false offices and g [...] [Page 168] corruptions in the worship they exercised, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their syncere [...]aith to Iesus Christ extended and super abounded above all their sinnes seene and vnseene. And what now should let, that we should not have the same hope, where the same pretious faith in synce­rity and simplicity is found? So that they neither neglect to search out the truth, nor despise the truth when they see it, &c.

Aftervvard in the same Section. The faithfull servants of Christ (denying the whole constitution and government of this Church of England) may iustly deny the people whilest they remaine in that constitution to be members of a true constituted Church, yet hereby not condemne them with any such peremptory sentence as Mai­ster Gifford suggesteth,Nota, from Christ. to cut them of from Gods election, 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, Iustifying faith, Sacramentes, Eternall life, and the rest, established by her Maiesties Lawes, and professed by her selfe, their Honors, and such as haue knowledge in the Assemblies of this land: I ac­knowledge from my heart to be such, as if I mainteined not the vnitie, and held not the communion of the same doctrine with them in these poincts, I could not possibly be saved: 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 l [...]ft: But ioyne notwithstonding with the publique worship in the assemblies of this Land, I dare not, for the former causes.

I doe moreouer willingly confesse, That many, both of the Teachers, & also of the Professors within these Parish assemblees, haue so embraced this truth of doctrine, established and professed in this Land, as the Lord of his infinite goodnes, hath graunted them the fauour, to shew outwardly many tokens, whereby (in regard of the Lordes election) I professe before men and Angels, that I iudge them to be mēbers 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 Master Fanshaw, lately published by your selves in print, he confesseth the Churches of England to be the true Churches of Christ.

And what say you, Maister Iohnson? Have you not affirmed this thing your self, to me, and to Maister Philips, namely towching 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) vvhat letteth but you may beleeue the like of many Thousands novve?

Further vvhere you say, my applying of the Martyrs, is answered before, Let the Reader iudge. You shevv here, that some of them misliked the Hyerarchie. But it maketh stronger against you, seeing for all that, they themselves refused not to communicate, and partake vvith them, as true Christians: as Hooper, Bale, Bradford &c.

After vvhere you say: though the reformed Churches, your selves, and the Martyrs, had thought otherwise then you now do, yet all this is no so und proof against you. Yes in deed, that novv you hold a Paradoxe, those vvitnesses are sufficient for that: vvhere vnto may be added, the vvhole Churches iudgment and practize, vvith [Page 169] all the auncient learned Fathers these 1300. or 1400. yeares, Chrysostome, Epi­phanius, Nazianzen. Hierom. Austen. Ambrose, &c. They all have thought, that vn­der the Prelacie, and humane ceremonies, men may be true Christians. Then these witnesses are sufficient, that your denyall hereof, is a strange & vnusu­all opinion, that is, a Paradox.

Finally to trie vs, you propound a many of questions. But I leave all this super­fluous stuffe to your self to be pondered. First let vs cleare this present que­stion, and your Reasons hereabout: Till then, we have no leasure to medle further. The Lord of his mercy open your eyes to see your extremitie, whereby you do greatly hinder, not helpe the truth, Not a Fir [...] for victorie but a lover of truth. which you would seem to suffer for. That you may indeed shew your self as becometh a Christian Pastor, not impossible to erre, but no lover of error, * [...], not regarding your owne, but the prayse of Christ in all things. AMEN.

Fr. Iohnson his Aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 9. Reason. AS if your bare word were proof ynough, still you say, but never prove, that this Reason is a fallacy. Yea and all the Reasons before in your schoole-learning are likewise. But the best is, you are not the greatest Clerk the schooles have knowen. Every of the Reasons is proved before to be true, direct, sound, and strong against you. And in all your Replyes a­gainst them, what els have you done but played the Sophister, and that notablie? Apply therefore to your self what you speake here. And of all these things, now let the Reader iudge.

It seemeth verie absurd vnto you that I say, you do here graunt vs the cause. But what if the absurditie be found in your self? Marke then first your owne words before,Pag. 156. ‡ We graunt (say you) so far forth as we hold otherwise then truth, so far separate from vs. Now you hold otherwise then the truth, in all the particulars † before rehearsed towching your Prelacy, Priesthood, Sacraments, Book of common prayer, Pag. 63. &c. confusion of people, &c. Thus far therefore you graunt we may and ought, to sepa­rate from you. And further we do not at all. For there is not anie truth you hold, which we also hold not with you. So then in expresse words you yeeld vs the cause. And yet further you yeeld it againe, in that you do not defend by the Scripture your Hierarchy, worship, doctrines, Canons, Articles, Iniunctions &c. received and ioined vnto by all in your Church. How absurd then and vngodlie is your denyall of so manifest a truth? And how distempered is your brayne, that can not perceive so plaine a contradiction with your self?

Your two fould sence of the Apostles words, is a silly fiction of your owne head, without anie ground or proof at all. If you will have vs think otherwise, bring warrant for the particulars of your distinction from the book of God. But I pittie you, Mr Iacob. For I see you are brought to a low ebbe. Who knowes not that this is the very last refuge of all ennemyes of the truth, when they are pressed with evidence [Page 170] of Scripture so as they can not avoid it, then to faine distinctions and to cast about for the sence, as if that were hard and obscure which in deed is most plaine and easy? Look in Bellarmine, Bilson, Whitgift, Bridges, and whosoever els have written against the truth, if their dealing be not such. This then doth not aunswer the Argument, but proveth it rather to be vnaunswerable.

Tim. 6.5.As for the words, The Apostle saying, from such separate thy self, if now you would know, from whom, Himself telleth it as plaine as may be, If any man teach otherwise and consent not to the wholsome words of our Lord Iesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godlines &c. from such separate thy self. vers. 3. But such is your case in particular: As hath ben proved, in your Prelacy and the other abominations of Antichrist, yet taught and mainteyned among you. Therefore are we bound by this rule of the Apostle, to separate our selves from you. Els should we aun­swer it to God at that day.

Of your continuall vayne distinctions of fundamentally, wholy, presumptuously, simply, &c. ynough is said alreadie in the handling of the for mer Reasons. As also of Mr Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs: Whom here you set before vs againe, as coleworts, not twise but ten tymes sodden. Leave this vsage of them Mr Iacob, for they have left you long synce. See before, Pag. 40.41.

Next, you tell vs we may ioyne with you, and yet towch no part of your ecclesiasticall corruptions at all, to give allowance vnto them. Prove this, and you say somewhat. But I doubt we shall find you as slow in pro­ving, as you are rash in speaking. Mind but these particulars follow­ing, which I will name for example. Can we receive your Priesthood from the Prelates, or execute it vnder them? Can we ioyne to your Ser­vice book, or anie part of your worship and Ministery? Can we receive the word or Sacraments from your Ministers in that constitution? Can we remaine members of your confused Assemblyes? Can we stand sub­iect to your Prelates, and their Courts, Canons, censures &c. Can we (I say) do these, or anie of them, and yet towch no part of your ecclesia­sticall corruptions at all, to give allowance vnto them? In your next Re­ply (Mr Iacob) declare vs this riddle, if you can. And in the meane tyme, I will attribute it to your distempered conceit, that you do thus every foot forget and contradict your self, and yet discerne it not.

But what will you say too, if such as ioyne with you in anie part of your worship (suppose it be the best) become thereby partakers of your whole worship and constitution, even of the worst things that are among you therein? To make it plaine and certaine vnto you, mynd these proofs. In Israell,1 Cor. 10.18. they that did eate of the sacrifices (as 2 Sam. 1.4.5 the people might) were thereby partakers of the whole Iewish religion, yea even of the al­tar: Vnto which yet they might not come at all, but the Priest onelie. Lev. 1. chap. &c. Numb. 18.7. Luc. 1.9.10. In Corinth, the Chri­stians that abhorred Idols and Idolatry, yet when after the sacrifices [Page 171] were offred,1 Cor. 10.14-22. & 8.4.10. they sate but in the Idol Temples to eat of the meats that had ben sacrificed (which in1 Cor. 10.25.26.27. other places they might have done) became thereby partakers of the whole Idolatrous wprship: though they were not present at it, but (as they thought) abhorred it. In like maner, they which connnunicate in anie part of your worship, become thereby parta­kers and guiltie of the whole: though it may be, neither you nor they so think. So false it is (which here you give out) that we may ioine with some of your worship and Ministery, and yet towch no part of your Eccle­siasticall corruptions at all, to give them allowance.

For the Papists (to omit that you aunswer not what I obiected) you see and graunt readily that they are no true Christians but very Antichrists &c. Yet for your selves, though your Hierarchy, Leitourgy, confusion of people, false doctrines &c. be meerlie Popish and Antichristian, you will not see and acknowledge it. Take heed least when you see, yet you wink with your eyes, and though you vnderstand, yet you harden your heart; because you will not be converted and healed. Esa. 6.9.10. Act. 28.26.27.

For the question between vs, let the Reader iudge how I have pro­ved it, and how you have quitted your self and your Churches.

Where you say, the points of false doctrine in your Church are most falsly laid to your charge, all may see here againe you have an hard forehead to deny anie thing, and yet are so sottish you can prove nothing. But you say you list not meddle with them at this present. I easily beleev you. They are so pregnant against you, as it is no marvell if you have no list to do it. Otherwise you shew list ynough to medle with anie thing that you think may cary any show against vs.

But you must mynd, the point is not, what you list, but what you ought to meddle withall. You have taken vpon you the defence of your Churches in the estate wherein now they stand. Therefore must you aunswer aswell for the false doctrines, as for the true, mainteined in your Church. Els would the Papists iustify their case against you well y­nough.

For this cause then must you aunswer aswell for your Book of cōmon prayer and other your books of Articles, Canons, Iniunctions &c. as for that book of Articles which was published in the yeare 1562. For they con­teine the doctrine and constitution of your Church aswell as the other, if not also more. They are publiklie authorised among you aswell as the other, whether you respect the Prelates and Clergy in the Conuocation house, or the whole body of the Land in the Parliament. They are ge­nerallie receyved professed and practised of all the people in every Parish and Cathedrall Church throughout the Land, aswell as the other: Yea and more too, your selves being witnesses. One of your owne Prophets,Mr Giff. Di. of the strife of the Church. Pag. 100. writing of your estate saith, There be thousands which be men and women growen, that if a man aske them how they shall be saved, they cannot tell. Neither can your felf deny this to be true. How do they then know and professe the faith of your book of Articles? Or will you say, they are as [Page 172] ignorant of your Service-book and of your Prelates other Articles, Iniun­ctions, Courts &c. vnto which they ioyne and submit dayly?

Either therefore you must meddle with the false doctrines and other publik books of your Church, aswell as with that book of Articles whereof you speak: or els you meddle not at all with the question between vs, neither defend your Churches estate. The question between vs is, Whether the truths you professe together with the false doctrines and abomi­nations of Antichrist retained among you, do make you true Churches and I true Christiās in that estate. If you keep not to this point, you may make as faire a plea for the Church of Rome and all other Hereticks, whilest you meddle not with their errors and false doctrines, but looke onely at the truths they professe. Mynd but the Papists profession concerning Christ, and his full and sufficient satisfaction for all our sinnes, whereof I spake before, Pag. 47. And consider now with your self, how well and soundlie you have defended your Churches estate.

How your doctrine and constitution erreth fundamentally, I have de­clared before, Pag. 22. 114. 147.

But now though you have no list to meddle with your Churches do­ctrine, yet let vs see in your next Reply, if your list will be to deale with your owne. Your owne (I say) which I had from your self, and take to be private to your self. I had it from you, in a Conference which passed “ between you and me,April. 3. 1597 in the presence of divers that can witnesse it. Yet for more certainty and better remembrance, I desired and obteined of you to write it downe your self. So you gave it me then vnder your hand, in writing, which I have with me yet to shew. Thus it is, word for word: ‘A power borrowed from Antichrist to excommunicate, may exter­nally be committed vnto a people & vsed by them who have power to excommunitate from Christ. Henry Iacob.’

When you had thus set it downe, I desired your proof of it from the Scriptures. But none could be had: I could not obteine that at your hands. Therevpon I tooke the paper, and wrote vnderneath your as­sertion, thus: ‘This is against the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 5.4.5. compared with 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17. Ezech. 43.8. Mat. 18.17.18.19.20. & 1 King. 18.21. Fran: Iohnson.’

It is a good while Mr Iacob, synce this passed between vs: and like, that you have had leysure ynough to consider of it all this tyme. There­fore in your next, I hope you will have some list to meddle with this do­ctrine of your owne, though you have none at all for your Churches.

Yet for the doctrines of your Church also (because I am fallen into the mention of them againe) let me put you in mynd of two things mo.

Mat. 13.24. &c.The first is towching the parable of the tares (spoken of before, Pa. 158.) of which, because it is straungelie and daylie perverted among you for the maintenance of your confused and wicked estate, therefore will I here [Page 173] in particular adde a word or two more, besides that which I annexed be­fore, for the further explication of this point, and conuiction of your er­ror. As first, that you do consider with your selves, if with this para­ble agree not also the Apostles doctrine, where he calleth the Church the house of God, and saith that in this house are not onelie vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and that as some of them be for honor, so some be also to dishonor, from which therefore if anie purge himself, he shalbe a vessel vnto honor, sanctifyed and meet for the Lord, and prepa­red to every good work. 1 Tim 3.15. & 5.24.25. & 6.3.4.5. & 2 Tim. 2.16.17.18.19.20.21. & 3.5. Next, that howsoever the parable be vnderstood by anie, whether of (1) the generall estate of the Church, from the begin­ning of the world to the end thereof, how Sathan alway hath his tares, his wicked ones (sometymes more open, sometymes more secret) even as God alway hath his righteous children and servants, vntill the day of that finall and everlasting separacion (Mat. 13.35.40.): (2) Or the particular estate of the Church, in the tyme of Antichrists apostasy, wrought by Sathan, vntill the discovery and full abolition thereof (2 Thes. 2.3.-14.): (3) Or the Churches continuall being and cōversing in the world, with the children of the wicked: Which they must needs do, or els they must go out of the world (as the Apostle affirmeth, 1 Cor. 5.9.10.). Howsoever (I say) the parable be vnderstood, whether of these or any the like, yet doth it no way make for the receiving or reteining of the knowen wicked (whosoever they be) in the body of the Church: The scope of the parable, by these interpretations also leading to no such thing: but onelie to comfort and instruct the godlie how to carry them­selves, with patience and wisdome, in such estate of things in the world.

And the Apostle (whose doctrine doubtles is not contrarie to Christs) teacheth expressely, in that place to the Corinthians and the other men­tioned before, both that the Church is a distinct body separated from the world, not partaking in their evill wayes; and that if anie of the Church will not so walk, but commit iniquity, and repent not, that then they be so far from being suffred to grow or remaine any longer in the Church, as they be forthwith cast out of it, and delivered vnto Sathan, the Prince of the world and children of disobedience, even the Enemy that soweth the tares here spoken of. And thus also was the Apostles practise. For both which, that is, both his doctrine and practise herein, see these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 5. chap. & 2 Cor. 2.6-11. & 6.14.-17. Act. 19.9. Ro. 16.17. Ephes. 2.1.2. Gal. 5.12. 2 Thes. 3.6.14. 1 Tim. 1.20. & 6.3.4.5. & 2 Tim. 2.16-21. & 3.5. & 4.14.15. Tit. 3.10. Heb. 10.38.39. To con­clude then, albeit that such having crept into the Church, do both before and after their excommunication, as do also the other of the world who never received the faith, offend and trouble the Church and children of the kingdome, yea and do often flourish also in outward prosperitie in the world: yet the godly notwithstanding must learne neither to fret at them, nor to faint in themselues, but alway to walk faithfullie in the truth, and [Page 174] to waite patientlie on the Lord, looking for the great harvest of the world. At which tyme God will for ever free his people from them all, both ca­sting the wicked into a furnace of vnquenchable fyer, and making the righteous to shine as the sunne in the kingdome of their Father. Mat. 13.37-43. compared with ver. 47-50. Rev. 2.20.-26. & 7.14-17. & 10.7. & 11.15-19. & 14.14-20. & 17-22. chap. and with the other Scriptures noted before, Pag. 158. 159. 173.

The second is, that besides the false doctrines mentioned before (Pag. 157. 158. 159. 160.) your Church hath also manie mo. Some whereof I have noted in * another Treatise,A treatise of the Minist. of Engl. pag. 10. 11. 12. 13. to which I refer you for them. So as if your list and leysure will serve in your next Reply, you may let vs have your defence of them also. Or els provide (Mr Iacob) that you chaunge the Title of your book, and call it not anie longer, A DEFENCE OF THE CHVRCHES AND MINISTERY OF ENGLAND.

Now to proceed, there followeth next the comparison between you and the Iewes from whom Paul separated,Act. 19.9. Act. 19. To which you can not replie a word to anie one thing I aunswered. Onelie you bring some new exceptions, but not anie of them all worth a rush. You might as­well except, that Paul was an Apostle and a Iew, we not; that the people he dealt withall, were in Asia, you in Europe; they at Ephesus, you at London &c. Such pretences, as they are verie common among you, so are they most absurd and frivolous, not worthy the hearing or anie refutation at all. Onelie note, that the very Papists themselves may likewise alledge against anie that witnes the truth vnto them: (yea and do they not dailie thus pretend as you do?) viz, that they be infinitely many mo, then Paul had there to do withall; 2. That Paul was better able to convince them &c. then any such are the whole Popish Church; 3. That there be many learned among them, which have many probable and seeming reasons &c.

Where you say, there be some of you that have published some rea­sons for the Prelacy against vs, and are vnanswered, it is most false. Name but one Reason (if you can) to which we have not given aunswer, to the stopping of all your mouths. But in deed (Mr Iacob) you and your fel­lowes have let the * the Prelates and their proctours insult over you,Bancroft. Bilson. Sutcliff. &c. with book vpon book, and yet aunswer not a word. You that ere while cryed out so earnestlie against dumbe dogs, are now become dumbe your selves, not moving the tounge against anie that writeth for the Hierarchy and leitourgy of Antichrist retained among you. But (to leave this to your selves to be better mynded hereafter) tell me now, if it were anie thing to the purpose, though that you say here were true? By your owne confession, the Reasons which are published against vs are but pro­bable and seeming, not true and vndoubted. And this also seeming so but to you, not to vs. What matter then, though they were never aun­swered by vs?

Where you aske, What if these speak evill of that which we hold for truth, but they hold to be errors & schisme? We aske againe, Do not the Papists [Page 175] also say so vnto you? Yea and did not the Iewes (think you) say so vnto Paul? Why then are you so partiall against vs? But for vs it skils not, what you or they think of our cause, vnles you speak according to the Law and testimony of God: which is far from you.

Let the Reader also note here, the maner of your speach. You say, that which we hold for truth, they hold to be errors & schisme. They (say you) as speaking of others, not of your self. You belike do not so hold it, as they do, but are perswaded it is truth, and not error. Why then do you not obey and practise it? Why are you become our ennemy for bea­ring witnes vnto it? Why are you so partiall against vs in it?

Towching the estate of the Iewes Church, I shewed three reasons why the Apostles neither did nor might wholy separate from them at first. Against which you are not able to open your mouth.Pag. 161. Petitio prin­cipii (whereof you speak) is the summe of all your Replies. Shew o­therwise, if you can. Do you not everie where beg, and no where prove, that you are separated from the world, set in the way of Christ, free from the defection of Antichrist &c. So your self are guiltie of that wherewith you charge me falslie, all that you say being nothing els but to beg the question and deny the Conclusion. As for your short writing about the cō parisō of your Ministery with Mariage, I did answer it * above three yeares since. But you have not yet replied againe, neither (I think) will in hast.In the yeare 1596. When you first acquainted me with the purpose of publishing these things you know (besides other things then spoken of) I did in particular desier you to publish that aunswer of myne with the rest. Therefore you have done me the greater wrong, both in leaving it vnprinted, and much more in giving out that I have not aunswered you these whole three yeares toge­ther and vpward. But I perceive, you will have your book sutable one part with another, and therefore you will end as you ‡ began, that is,Pag. 5. with lies and vntruths.

Of that which you annexe of the Iewes Church, in Christs tyme and af­ter, and of separation from them and communion with them, I have alrea­die spoken sufficientlie. Pag. 161. Neither can you with anie Reason de­nie or stand against anie thing I have there said: as I noted before. Tell vs yet I pray you, when and how that full experience of obstinate and ma­litious resistance of the truth (whereof you speak) may be had and discer­ned in anie, either Ministers or people. For your selves, you cannot de­ny, but this is your case, that you resist and refuse the truth, many times and sundrie wayes, witnessed vnto you; that you rayle and speake evill both of it and of vs that professe it; that you persist in the errors and defection of Antichrist; that you bereave vs of our lives, libertie, goods, countrie &c. And all these, because we will not runne with you to the same excesse of impietie. Now seing this is the case (as your self, I think, will not denie) of your Prelates and manie other of your Priests and people, and seing all the rest of you stand with them in one bodie and estate of a Church, cleaving vnto them in the same way, worship, Mini­sterie [Page 174] [...] [Page 175] [...] [Page 176] &c. therefore even in this behalfe can we not possiblie separate from some of you, but we must needs do it from all. And for your resistance, whether it be such as you speak of, or not, we leave to the Lord, who knoweth the hearts and wayes of all men. It sufficeth vs (as it did the Apostles, and must do the servants of God in all ages) that the Reasons of separation include and belong vnto you all, even all your Churches, Ministers, and people, in that estate: As I haue declared before through­out this Treatise.

Towching the conclusion. Therefore vntill you prove the contrarie (which will never be, mark what I say) the Paradox still remaineth vpon you and your Church.

Towching the reformed Churches, some of * your selves (men of far better iudgement and learning then Mr Iacob) have confessed and publi­shed,In the first Admonition to the Parl. that you have all the best reformed Churches throughout Christendome against you: And further, that you have an Antichristian Hierarchy and Po­pish ordering of Ministers, straunge from the word of God and the vse of all well reformed Churches in the world. Yet you (like blind Bayard) sticke not boldlie to say to the contrarie, that all men know they hold communion with you as Churches of God. First then reconcile your self (Mr Iacob) with your fellow Reformists at home: And then your Churches Hie­rarchy and constitution, with the Ministerie and constitution of the refor­med Churches abroad.

And remember here, that the Ministery of those Churches is not estee­med sufficient by yours: As the Priesthood of Rome is. (The proof of both which, you may see in the answer to Mr A.H. Pag. 96.) With whether of these then (I pray you) do you hold communion? Or do you not in deed halt, as newters, between both? Mynd further, that Mr Beza (whose iudgement, you know, is worthilie reverenced and approved in all the reformed Churches) speaking but of fower or five of your corruptions, af­firmeth that in the Antichristian Church there is nothing more intolerable, Bez. Epist. 8. yea that (your case being so) it is not a corrupcion of Christianitie, but in deed a manifest defection from Christ. His owne words I noted before, Pag. 73. Now when themselves do thus witnes and write of your e­state, how should anie think that they hold communion with you, as the Churches of God, vnles you could prove they do also hold it the Church of God, which standeth in manifest defection from Christ?

I know in deed that you have long deceived them, by the Apology, which you published for your selves against the Papists. In which you concealed from them all your corruptions and abominations. By meanes whereof, not hauing knowledge of the truth of your estate, they have therevpon for a tyme thought much better of it, then it doth deserve or will beare: As even some among them alreadie, vpon better informa­tion synce, have acknowledged. But of this matter, and of your dea­ling therein,Reason. 6 I have written alreadie † in the answer to Mr T. C. And therefore for these things I do still refer you, as I did.

[Page 177]The Answer to Mr Hild. (such as it is) now is published. And so may the answer to Mr Cartw. be in tyme: speciallie seing you do thus pro­voke therevnto. In the meane tyme, divers copies thereof are abroad in mens hands. In which, as also in the ‡ other Treatise,A [...]revis [...]o [...]f the Minist. of Engl. Pag 67. 68. 69. I have no­ted in sundrie particulars, the testimonie of the reformed Churches, a­gainst your present estate. You (Mr Iacob) may account of these or anie other our writings, as you please. Your toungue is no sclaunder. Yet till we be answered, and that soundlie from the word of God, all men of conscience will see and mynd how you bring nothing at all in defence of your Churches and Ministerie, but frivolous and wandring words.

Next followeth our owne acknowledgement to be discussed. For towching that bloody mind and speach of yours when you say, if we be troubled for witnessing against your Church estate, none can pitty our impri­sonnement, banishement &c. I leave you and it vnto God,See the like before, Pag. 112. who seeth and will iudge. Onelie let the Reader note here “ againe, that not the Prelates alone, but you also (the forward preachers and professors) have witting­lie and willinglie your hand in our blood.

Mr Barrow is the first you name: Whom together with Mr Greenwood youAt Ty [...]um by London, in the yeare 1593. Apr. 6. killed in time of Parliament: that the ages present and to come may know, it was done with knowledge of the whole Land. In all his speach there is not one word, that the members of your Church are true Christians in that estate. He testifyed vnto death and sealed with his blood, that you do all stand in Antichristian estate. I think your self will not be so shameles, as to deny it. Now in his speach here alledged by your self, marke fower things, which all do shew it is against you.

1. That speaking of the Martyrs false offices and corruptions, he dee­meth them saved notwithstanding, through the mercy of God which super­abounded above their sinnes &c. By which is evident that he thought them vnder the wrath of God in respect of their false offices & corruptions, had not the mercy of God superabounded above those their sinnes. For mercy (you know) presupposeth misery, and superaboundance thereof a great measure of sinne.

2. He intimateth as if he thought that these their sinnes were vnseen of them: as doubtles they were of manie of them, yea and of all of them as towching that measure of knowledge which God hath synce by his word revealed therein.

3. He declareth that he was far from cutting of all among you (as Mr Gifford suggested) from Gods election or from Christ. Where marke that he speaketh of Gods election (vnder which we also trust that manie of you are) not of your present outward estate.In his Disco. of the false Church Ref. of Mr Giff. Conferen. &c In respect whereof here he saith, the servants of Christ may iustlie deny you in that constitution to be members of a true constituted Church. A case very wofull and miserable. Yet adde herevnto, that which ‡ els where often he testifyed, that your Mi­nistery, worship, estate, are Antichristian &c. For which cause he could not ioine with you in such estate, but separated from you, and witnessed [Page 178] this against you vnto death, himself so signifying at the very tyme and place of his execution. So far was he from iudging you to be in that e­state true Christians. To make the case yet more plaine, know that we dare not condēne them of the Church of Rome with any such peremptorie sentence as Mr Giffard accuseth vs, to cutt them all from Gods election or from Christ. Doth it therefore follow, that in the constitution of there Church, we iudge them true Christians? Nothing lesse. Yet thus you shame not to reason.

4. He asketh, what now should let, that we should not have the same hope (as of the Martyrs) where the same pretious faith in syncerity and simplicitie is found? So as they neyther neglect to search out the truth, nor despise the truth when they see it &c. We also aske and say the same. But now if you say, this is your case, both we and your owne works deny it. For proof whereof see the differences between you and the Martyrs before spe­cifyed. Pag. 40. 41.

At Thomas a Waterings by London, 1593. May 29Mr Penry (whom you ♣ martyred also the same yeare) his speach fol­loweth. In which likewise note fower things, not one of them for you, as towching the question in hand.

1. The true doctrines established by Law and professed by her Maie­sty, their Honours, and such as have knowledge in your assemblies, he acknowledgeth to be such, as if he did not mainteyne and hold them likewise, he could not possibly be saved. We also are like mynded. And to put you out of all doubt, we tell you further, that if we did not hold and main­teine the true doctrines professed in the Church of Rome, towching the onely true God, the holy Trinity, the Mediator Christ, the Resurrection, Life eternall &c. we could not possibly look to be saved. Yet do we not therefore approve their Assemblies to be true Churches, or the members thereof true Christians in their estate.

2. He separated from your Church as remaining in Antichristian cō ­stitution, and professeth here that he durst not ioine with the publik worship of your Assemblies. The causes thereof he mentioneth in the same con­fession, which you conceale. Of which see further in his aunswer to Mr Fanshaw hereafter following.

3. He confesseth that manie of the Teachers and professors in your as­semblies, have so embraced the truth of doctrine established and professed in the Land, as the Lord hath given them to shew outwardly many tokens, whereby (in regard of the Lords election) he iudged them members of that body whereof Christ is the head: and prayed God herein to be mercifull to them (as to himself in regard of all his sinnes) that they are not vnder that out­ward forme of governement which Christ hath left in the Church. Now marke here, 1. that this is no other thing, then as we alway did and still do professe likewise. Of which see before, Pag. 7. 41. 2. That he speaketh but of some, not of all the members of your Church. Whereas your Assumption and Conclusion are of your whole publik Assemblies, and so of every member of your Church, as towching their outward stā ­ding [Page 179] therein. 3. That the perswasion he had of such among you was (as himself noteth) in regard of the Lords election, not of their estate in your Churches constitution. For towching this (which is the question be­tween vs) here he prayed God to be mercifull to them, as to him self in res­pect of all his sinnes. Now I suppose you will not denie but his sinnes (as also the sinnes of all Gods people) deserve in their owne nature the curse of God, if they were not forgiven in Christ. So that by praying thus, he acknowledged the estate of all (even of the best among you) to be such, as for this verie cause you are everie one subiect to Gods wrath, be­cause you are not vnder that outward forme of Governement which Christ hath left in the Church. Consider withall that even for Papists we may pray thus, that the Lord would be mercifull to them in this, that they are not vnder that outward forme of governement which Christ hath left in his Church: and yet not hereby iustify them to be a true Church in their estate, but rather the quite contrarie. For Christ his Church (wheresoever and among whomsoever it be) is vnder Christ his governement, not vn­der Antichrists. Neither have anie people, promise of salvation, in such estate. 4. By all this it appeareth, that he spake of them, as iudging them to be members of the invisible and Catholick Church, which contey­neth all Gods elect, not onelie among you, but among the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Papists, and all other people whatsoever. Now what is this to the poinct of the question controverted, which is not of men as they belong to the Catholick invisible Church, but as they stand members of some particular visible Assemblies in this or that constitution?

4. His speach in examination before Mr Fanshaw, why do you not set it downe in his owne words, as you did the other before? Belike you see your self, it is against you, howsoever you would pretend otherwise. That all may know it, thus it was. Mr Fanshaw asked him this questiō, Do the Martyrs teach you, that there is no Church in England? Mr Penry answered, If you meane by a Church (as the most do) that publik professiō wherby men do professe salvation to be had by the death and righteousnes of Iesus Christ, I am free from denying any Church of Christ to be in this Land. For I know the doctrine of the holy Trinity, the natures and offices of the Lord Iesus, free iustification by him, both the Sacraments &c. published by her Maiestyes authority and commaunded by her Lawes, to be the Lords bles­sed and vndoubted truths, without the knowledge and profession whereof no salvation is to be had. These are his words. By which you may see he saith no other thing here, then what he spake in his Confession before ob­iected. So as the answer given for it, may serve for this also. Or if that please you not, you may mynd it thus, If he had ben demaunded by Mr Fanshaw whether there were no Church of Christ in Rome: and had an­swered thus, If you meane by a Church, that publick profession whereby men do professe Christ Iesus, by nature to be truly both God and man, that one eternall Priest and Redeemer which by his sacrifice and death vpon the crosse hath reconciled vs to God, and payed his blood as a full and sufficient raun­some [Page 180] for all our sinnes &c. as the Papists do publikly professe: Rhem. Annot. on 1 Tim. 2.5. then am I free from denying any Church of Christ to be in Rome. If (I say) to this que­stion he had thus aunswered, would you have concluded vpon his words, that he acknowledged the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ, or the members thereof to be true Christians, in their constitution? Or do you see for the Church of Rome, but not for your owne, that such conclu­sion can not be pressed out of his words?

But yet further, for the more clearing of this matter, let vs marke what Mr Fanshaw next asked, and he aunswered, towching the estate of your Church and his separation from it. Vpon his former aunswer Mr Fanshaw said thus vnto him, Seing you acknowledge that her Maiesty hath established the truth in so many waighty points, seing she hath commaunded the true Sacraments to be administred, what mislike you in our Church, and why will you not be partaker of these truths and Sacraments with vs?

Mr Penry answered, I mislike 1. the false ecclesiasticall offices; 2. the maner of calling vnto the offices; 3. a great part of the works wherein these false offices are imployed; 4. the maintenance or livings whereby they are maynteined in their offices. All which I will be bound to prove (by the Lords help) to be derived, not from Iesus Christ, but from the kingdome of Antichrist his great enemy. And therefore forasmuch as I can not be parta­ker of the former holy things of God, but I must be subiect vnto the power of Antichrist in these officers, and knowen by those marks whereby his subiects are noted, therefore I am enforced & bound to seek the comfort of the word and Sacraments where I may have them without the submitting of my self vnto any ecclesiasticall power in Religion, save onely vnto that which is deri­ved from Christ Iesus the Lord, in whom all fulnes of power dwelleth (Col. 1.19.) and from whom all those must derive their power and office, vnto whom the Saincts of God are to submit their consciences to be wrought vpon in Re­ligion. Againe, seing the aforenamed 4. enormityes of this Church, are marks which properly belong vnto the Kingdome of the Beast, that is, the Romane Antichrist, we dare not have any communion and fellowship with them, nor be knowen by them, least we shovld be partakers of those most fear­full & most dreadfull iudgements, which are denounced by the Spirit of God, against all those that have communion with any of the irreligious inventions of the Beast. Rev. 14.9.10. These are the things, together with the want of Christs true order, which I especially mislike, and the speciall causes why I dare not ioyne with the Assemblyes of this Land &c.

Thus was his aunswer. In which you may see, how he professeth your Church offices and estate to be such as he dare not ioine therewith, both because they are not derived from CHRist IEsus the LOrd of his Church, and for that they belong to the kingdome and body of Antichrist, and are marks of that Beast against which and all that partake there­with God hath denounced most fearfull iudgements in his word. Vnto these most playne declarations of his mynd, I might adde many mo out of his letters and other writings. But what needeth it, whenas the lay­ing [Page 181] downe of his life in testimony against the Antichristian estate of your Church, is and will be alway as a thousand witnesses against you, what­soever you pretend otherwise.

And now (Mr Iacob) let me vpon this occasion aske you this question, whether you think Mr Barrow, Mr Greenwood, Mr Penry, &c. dyed Mar­tyrs and witnesses of the truth against your Antichristian estate; or whe­ther you account them evill doers, iustlie deserving to be put to death. The thing is a publik actiō, and cōcerneth the publik state of your Church which you would seem to defend. Therefore is it needfull that you de­clare your mynd fullie and plainlie therein: which yet I think you will be loth to do. You love so to walke in darkenes: and yet would seem to de­fend your Church, when in deed you do nothing lesse.

Next you alledge myne owne acknowledgement to Mr Philips and your self for the approbation of your estate. Of which, being also obiected before, I have spoken already, Pag. 41. To it therefore I refer you.

Yet before I end this point, I will note here three things more, for the Reader to observe. The first is, towching Mr Barrow, Mr Penry, and my self, that seing you spare not to wrest our words, whose meaning all men know and our owne practise proclaymeth, we can not therefore look for any other at your hands but that you will much more pervert the Scriptures and word of God, about the meaning whereof men make so manie doubts and controversyes from tyme to tyme.

The second is, towching your owne words in these Replyes: That whereas in the Conclusion of your first Reply (Pag. 156.) you sayd, we our selves acknowledged your Assumption to be true: now in the Conclusion of your second Reply (Pag. 167.) you chaunge your owne words, and say, we acknowledged your publik doctrine would and did make many of you true Christians. By which you cleare vs, and contradict your self. For if your Assumption were true, then not onelie many, but all and every mem­ber of your Church, should thereby be deemed true Christians, as tow­ching their outward estate: even all your Prelates, Priests, Dumbe dogs, Non-residents, Thieves, Coniurers. &c. Which you may speak with shame ynough. Sure I am, none of vs did ever acknowledge it, and I trust never shall.

The third is concerning some things spoken to me, in the presence of others, at one tyme by Mr Philips (whom here you name) and at ano­ther tyme by your self. Of Mr Philips, when once he had speach with me a­bout our cause, I asked, If her Maiesty should permit, both that way wherein the Prelates and you now are, and the way wherein we are, to be free for all men to walke in eyther of them as they should be perswaded, In which of the two then he would walke himself, as being perswaded it was the truth of God: Wherevnto he aunswered, that then he thought he should walke in the way wherein we are.

Of your self also among other things once I asked this, Whether you were so mynded for the Ministery which Christ hath appointed in his Church, [Page 182] as you thought you ought and would dy for it, God assisting you: To which you answered, Yea. Therevpon presentlie I asked agayne, Whether you were so mynded for the Ministery of the CHurch of ENgland, as you thought you ought & would also dy for it: To which you answered, No.

If now (Mr Iacob) I would presse conclusions out of Mr Philips words and your owne, as you do out of myne and others: might I not gather from your selves (far better then you do or can anie thing from vs) that in your consciences you see your Churches estate and Ministery to be vn­lawfull, and none of Christs at all? But I spare you.

The Martyrs (whom next you alledge) I shewed to be against you by their owne testimony. Vnto this you answer, That it maketh stronger a­gainst vs, seing although they misliked the Hierarchy, yet they themselves refused not to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians; as Hooper, Bale, Bradford, &c. But are you in deed so simple, as not to per­ceyve that this is of no moment at all? What if the Papists should so an­swer, when we bring against them the testimonie of the auncient Martyrs, towching the Masse, the Hierarchy, Auricular confession, and other cor­ruptions of that Church? Or are you ignorant thatSee before, Pag. 44.45. Iohn Hus, Iohn wic­kleffe, William Swinderby and manie other of the Martyrs in elder tyme did in these things communicate with the Popish Church vnto their dy­ing day? If this aunswer then be frivolous for them in such case, how should it not be likewise in yours? Besides that you may by this reasō perswade aswell to communicate with the Popish Church in their Masse and Ministery, as with yours in your worship and Hierarchy.

But further, by this aunswer you yeeld, that the Martyrs spake and wrote against your Church estate. Which being so, whether do you or we (I pray you) the better? You in following the error of their practise? Or we in receyving the truth of their testimonie? And then if all that you say be graunted, is it ought but this, that you have the weaknes and sinne of their practise, for a cloke of your standing in evill: whereas we have the truth and soundnes of their iudgement, for our walking in that which is good? Now let others iudge, which of vs follow them best, and have the best interest in them. And let it also be mynded, that they then com­ming newlie out of the darknes of Poperie, and being exercised also with other points of that religion, neither did nor could so consider of this mat­ter, as synce their tyme in this clearer light it hath in our dayes ben dis­cussed.

Lastlie, if you will have this answer of yours go for currant, then will I by like reason prove, that you may also submit to the Popes authority, and receive all the corruptions of the Romish Church. And albeit that which I have alreadie said of the auncient Martyrs before, be sufficient for proof hereof, yet will I shew it you further, thus: The Protestants (you know) do vsually alledg against the Popes Antichristian authority and other corruptions of that Church, the sayings of Bernard, Beda, &c. Suppose now the Papists should answer as you do here, This maketh [Page 183] stronger against you, seing for all that, yet they themselues refused not to yeeld to the Popes supremacy, and to partake with this Church, as being Christs, &c. What would you reply againe? Either you must say (as the truth is) that this answer is wandring and frivolous: or els you must needs confesse, that by this reason of yours you may also receive the Pope and all that popery which is alreadie cast out of England, and communicate therewith. Which I pray God be not the issue of this your pleading for and partaking with the remnants of Antichrist yet held in your Church.

To that where I demaunded, If it were so that the reformed Churches, we our selves, and the Martyrs of former tyme, had given allowance of your present estate and Church-constitution, what would this help you, when as the word of God condemneth you &c. You aunswer, that those witnesses are sufficient for this, that we hold a Paradox. So the testimony of Man (if you had it) is of more force with you, then the warrant of Gods word. And whatsoever the Scripture saith, yet to you it is a Paradox, if it be gainsaid by the reformed Churches &c. Blush for shame Mr Iacob, and fear any more to publish such godles assertions and shameles Paradoxes.

All your clipping and perverting of my words will not help you. Ney­ther your new supply of the whole Churches iudgement & practise, with all the auncient learned Fathers, these 1300 or 1400 yeares, Chrisostome, Epi­phanius, Nazianzen, Hierom, Austen, Ambrose &c. As if they had knowen and practised the Antichristian abominations now had in your Church. But when you bring proof of this your lavish speach, it will then be tyme ynough to aunswer it. In the meane tyme heare what Mr Tindall that faithfull Martyr sayd (speaking of the Prelates and Priests in his age, for their so alledging the Fathers as you do). As for the holy Doctors (saith he) as Augustine, Hierome, Cyprian, Chrysostomus and Bede, will they not heare. If they wrote any thing negligently (as they were men) that draw they cleane contrary to their meaning, and thereof triumphe they. Those Doctors knew of none authority that one Bishop should have above another, neyther thought or once dreamed that ever any such should be.

This is Mr Tindall his speach and observation. Which you may mynd. I note it now for this, that you may see how your Forefathers alledged the Doctors, and how it stands you vpon, well to mynd what proof is brought from them, whether it be for this point (which here he nameth) or for anie other corruptions of Antichrist retayned among you. Some of which I have rehearsed * before in particular,Pag. 63. &c. for which I will expect your proof from such antiquity as you speak of, ad Kalendas Graecas, in deed never. And yet I know that both 1400 yeares synce, and before also, they began to declyne very much. But Antichrist notwithstanding came not of a long tyme after, to that height and impiety, wherein now he is to be seen and felt both in your Church, and in your mother of Rome.

Note also, that when all is said that can be in this matter, it is but a Popish shift to fly from the Scriptures to the Fathers; and an impious Paradox to exalt their sayings (who are knowen to have erred in manie [Page 184] things) above the word of God, which alone is the rule of truth, and can not lye at all.

Finally you say, that to try you I propound a many of questions. Yet they are but seven in all. In deed I think it doth and will try both you and your fellow Priests to aunswer them. Such superfluous stuffe they are. And have you not read too,Iob. 32.3. how ‡ Iobs frends condemned him, and yet could fynd no answer? Apply it to your selves and your dealing with vs. But you say you would first have vs cleare this present question and our reasons thereabout. Well: besides that is already done, the deciding of these few questions will fully and plainly do it. Let others iudge if it would not. And mynd you then what you have answered. To shut vp all, you tell vs aforehand you have no leysure to meddle further. Very like so. You have leysure ynough, to write book after book, to no purpose: yet you have not so much as to aunswer a few short questions, which may end all the controversie between vs. He that can not see how you would shift of the matter, and yet labour to withold the truth in vnrighteousnes, what doth he see? The Lord open your eyes (Mr Iacob) that your self may see and mynd it. As for others that be seduced by you and the rest of your Prophets teaching lyes, let them in tyme (afore it be to late) apply vnto you and themselves in such estate, that which is written, The leaders of the people cause them to erre, and they that are led by them are devoured. Esa. 9.16. Therefore also let them all, even whosoever feare God and will be assured of his mercy, give no rest to their soules, vntill with the Prophet they can say in truth of heart, and shew it forth in their practise, My portion O Lord, I have said, to keep thy words. I have considered my wayes, & turned my feet into thy testimonyes. I made hast, & delayed not, to keep thy commaundements. I have refrayned my feet from every evill way, that I might keep thy word. Psal. 119.57.59.60.101.

CHAP. 1. The Argument of his Comparison (as it is now propounded) is this:

Fran. Iohnson his Aunswer. THe Reader is to know that Mr Iacob did at first propound this cō ­parison far otherwise. Which synce being aunswered, so as he could not defend it againe, he hath now chaunged and propounded it with some other termes then before: trying belike if he can any way help himself, or his cause. Now although both his first and last be alike in this, that nei­ther of them are of any moment, yet because the former aunswer here following was made vnto the cōparisō as it was first propounded (which Mr Iacob concealeth) and to the end the Reader may see what chaunge he hath made therein: I will here also set it downe, as himself did propound it at the first. Which was thus:

As a couple of ignorant persons that are contracted together, do think that vnles the Priest marry them, Mr H. Iacob his Comparison, as it was first propō ­ded & aun­swered. their mariage is nothing (whereas in truth the contract maketh the marriage): yet being married (though vnlawfully) by a Priest, their marringe is notwithstanding lawfull:

So the ignorant people that have made choyse of a Minister, do think vnles the Bishop make him a Minister, he is no Minister (whereas in deed their choise made him a Minister): yet being made Minister (though vnlaw­fully) by a Bishop, his Ministery is notwithstanding lawfull.

[Page 187]Thus did Mr Iacob at first make his comparison. In which and the change thereof, let the Reader observe and Mr Iacob answer these things following.

1. That before in the Proposition or first part of the comparison, he spake of persons contracted together; now of persons not contracted.

2. That in the Reddition or latter part, he spake of ignorant people; now of Christians: Before of ignorant people that had made choise of a Mini­ster; now of Christiā people intēding to choose or meaning to have a Pastor.

3. That he spake before of any man generallie for a Minister; now par­ticularlie of a sufficient man for a Pastor. Then of a supposed lawfull Mini­stery received afore the Prelates do vnlawfully make them; now of this vn­lawfull one received afore the other. Then of the peoples choyse first had, now of their mutuall accepting and ioining together afterward.

4. That thus chaunging the termes of the Comparison, his aunswer therefore to the ‡ Reasons first brought against it,The Reasōs were 7. hereafter set down. is even in this respect indirect and insufficient: besides that it is otherwise most weak and friuo­lous. Of which more hereafter.

5. Where now he speaketh of sufficient men for Pastors, set him tell vs plainlie what he thinketh of their Dumbe Ministers, and of the rest among them othewise vnmeet and insufficient: viz, Whether the Dumbe Mini­sters and Formalists, have not the same calling of the Prelates, that the o­ther have.

6. Whether they have not like, and many of them greater acceptance of the people, then those he speaketh of have.

7. Whether they therefore being thus ordeined of the Prelates and ac­cepted of the people, are by the word of God true and lawfull Pastors, to whose guyding men may commit their soules, and ioine to their publik Ministery.

8. Whether their Churches (as they stand) have power to choose to themselves their Ministers, so as being chosen by them they are by the Lawes of their Church their lawfull Ministers.

9. How it is possible, that any should hold mariage by a Priest vnlawfull, and yet think that vnles they be so married, their mariage is nothing? And a­gaine, to hold the Prelates making of Ministers to be vnlawfull, and yet to think that vnles the Prelates do so make them, they are no Pastors at all, nei­ther can be theirs? What straunge contradictions be here? Is it possible, that these things can stand together? Or can they ever be reconciled, vnlesse Mr Iacob think their people be so mad, as to hold that no lawfull Mariage or Ministerie can be had, but by vnlawfull meanes? And consequently, that whosoever will marry or become Mini­sters, must needs sinne against God: Yea so, as they know and hold it be­fore they do it: and therefore also sinne against their owne conscience.Pag. 186. For thus much do “ his Marginall notes, sayd togeather with the wordes of his Comparison, necessarilie import. And what a divelish doctrine also is this? 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.

[Page 188]10. Whether the Offices and functions of the Prelates he speaketh of, be not amōg them (as the Apostle fortold) exalted above and opposed against the holy things and offices of the Lord Iesus. Yea, Whether those very words of the Apostle,2 Thes. 2.4. thus describing the Man of sinne [ [...], that is, set against & life vp above all that is called God or Or, ap­pertaining to diuine vvorship. As the same word is vsed, Act. 17.23. holy] do not most directly as it were with the finger point out that Antichristian Prelacy. And here (to speake of it by the way) let the Reader mynd how wonderfully God hath disposed, that they should by themselves (in their Statutes, speaches, writings) be called by this name and title of [Prelates] which is the very English of the Greek word vsed by the Apostle when he describeth Antichrist: The word is, [...], that is, exalted above; lifted vp; set before; or (as we vsually speak) Prelate. 2. Thes. 2.4.

11. How it can be then that Pastors should be made by the Prelates, as here he taketh for graunted. Men surelie do not gather grapes of thornes, nor figs of thistles. Neither hath the throne of iniquitie (which forgeth wrong for a Law) fellowship with the Lord. And whatsoever be pretē ded to the contrary, certaine it is that Christ and Antichrist cannot ac­cord together. Mat. 7.16. Psal. 94.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.

To the end therefore that the Reader may better perceive Mr Iacobs corrupt dealing, it will not be amisse, brieflie to note here (out of their owne Pontificall and practise) how the Ministers he speaketh of are made by the Prelates.

1. First, they are made Deacons or half Priests, whose duty is to read the book of Common prayer and Homilyes, to minister Baptisme, to assist the Priest at divine service, and (if he have the Prelates licence) to preach withall.

2. Then after a yeares service in that Deaconship (or such tyme as pleaseth the Ordinary) comming to be made full Priests, they are presē ­ted to the Lordbishop or his Suffragane, by an Archdeacō or his deputy, saying,Note this Point of blas­phemy. For now Christ alone hath the Ministery of Priesthood, & that [...], that is, such as can not passe frō him vnto another. Heb. 7.23.24. Reverend father in God, I present these persons present to be admit­ted to the Order of Priesthood.

3 The Prelate then saith to such as be there (be they his Serving mē or any other that happen to come that way), Good people these be they whom we purpose God willing, to receive this day vnto the holy Office of Priesthood &c.

4. None of them shewing anie impediment to the contrary, the Clerks and people present say or sing the Letany &c. And the Prelate readeth over a number of Collects and stinted prayers taken out of the Popes pō tificall: with an exhortation, an Epistle and Gospell, wherein they abuse and pervert the Scripture.

5. The Prelate demaundeth of them thus, Do you think in your heart that you be truly called according to the will of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the order of this Church of Englād, to the * Ministery of Priesthood? And the partyes to be ordeined then aunswer, every one for himself, I think it.

[Page 189]6. After other questions and aunswers about the sufficiency of the Scriptures &c. (wherein they condemne themselves) the Prelate asketh, if they will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers of the Church (that is, the Lordbishop of the Dioces where they live, the Arch­bishop, Archdeacon, Chauncelor, Commissary and the rest of that Anti­christian Hierarchy). They make aunswer againe, every one of them saying, I will so do the Lord being my helper.

7. Then the Bishop readeth a prayer for them, that they may have strength and power to performe the same: and desireth the congregation, secretly in their prayers to make humble supplications to God for the foresaid things. For the which prayers, there is a certayne space kept in silence. (Note this mystery).

8. After a while, the Prelate prayeth againe in such wise as is set downe vnto him in the book: being not able belike otherwise to cōceive any prayer himself.

9. When this is done, the Prelate with the Priests present lay their hands severallie vpon the head of every one that receiveth orders: the re­ceivers humblie kneeling vpon their knees, and the Prelate saying vnto them,Note here againe blas­phemy. Receyve the holy Ghost: whose sinnes thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sinnes thou doest retaine, they are retained &c.

10. Then is sung the Creed, and they go to the communion: they that received orders, being appointed to tary and receive the communion with the Bishop the same day, and remaining in theWell fare all good tokens. same place, where the hands were laid vpon them, &c. So testifying that they are of the same faith and body with the Prelates, who are knowen to be notable persecu­ters of the truth, and very Antichrists themselves.

11. Now being thus made Priests (and yet I omit many like things that might be noted out of their Book and practise, for it were endles to recount all) they pay for their letters of orders. Which they must also have in a readines at all tymes, to shew (whensoever there shall be occa­sion) for better assurance that they have received the Beasts mark. And if now they be to enter vpon a benefice, or whensoever that day cometh (for which they are now prepared to day afore to morrow) then there is yet further required, that they have the presentation of the Patrone (who per­haps is a Papist, or an Atheist, or a child, or the like) and the institution of the Lord-bishop, who without question is an Antichrist.Ephes. 4.5. 1 Cor. 12. [...]5. with 1 Pet. 2.25. & 5.3.4 The true Church hath but * one Lordbishop, the Lord Iesus Christ. All other Lordbishops are Antichrists.

12. Lastly being thus ordered, presented, instituted, and having sworne Canonicall obedience to the Prelates: now whether the people will or not, they are and must be their Priests and have charge of their soules. And both themselves, their Ministery, and people remaine subiect to the Pre­lates and to their Antichristian courts, power, jurisdiction &c.

This is the case of all the Priests, even of them that have the most and best acceptance of the people whereof he speaketh. And would any now [Page 190] have thought, that the Prelates making, and the peoples accepting of Priests, being such, Mr Iacob would be so sencelesse as to perswade that these are true and lawfull Pastors? Might he not aswell tell vs, that a cleane thing may be brought out of filthines, yea that Christ may be made to agree with Antichrist? Which both Scripture and experiēce teacheth can never be. Iob. 14.4. 2 Cor. 6.15. Eyther therefore let him make the tree good,Mat. 12.33. and his fruit good; or els make the tree evill, and his fruit evill. If the Prelates and their functions be Antichristian and were never but nought, then such must needs be the Ministery derived and received from them. But so it is with the Prelates, even himself being witnes, who both yeelded itPag. 92. before: And here agayne in playne termes confesseth, that the calling received from them is vnlawfull.

By this it is too evident that the light of the truth shineth in his cōsciēce, howsoever he strive against it. Therefore will I not now further vrge it, hoping that himself in tyme will better mynd it. In the meane tyme, let the Reader note it: And withall, that this calling by the Prelates (which he yeeldeth to be vnlawfull) is the onely calling which by Law is ratifyed and allowed in that Church. And doth not Mr Iacob then (whiles he saith, notwithstanding, they are true and lawfull Pastors) speak riddles, and con­tradict himself?

These things being observed, and Mr Iacob desired to resolve them in his next: I will now proceed to shew the weaknes and insufficiency of his present pretended Defence. Where for more evidence of the truth. I will first set downe the Reasons heretofore alledged against his Cōparisō, and then aunswer his cavils now brought against them.

Chap 2. The first Reason against Mr Iacobs Comparison, as it was first propounded.

Fran. Iohnson. INfidels, Idolaters, prophane and godles persons, may marry togea­ther, with consent and choise of each other, notwithstanding their pro­phanenes: And their marriage is therein lawfull.

But it standeth not so with choise of Ministers in the Church. For prophane godles persons (such as these Assemblies consist of, being never rightlie gathered togeather according to Gods ordinance, remaining in subiection and bondage to their false Antichristian Offices and Courts, consisting of all sorts of people &c.) are not capable of chusing and ioy­ning to a true Minister in this estate, as Infidels and such like may mar­ry in their estate.

Therefore the comparison holdeth not, neyther is such choise of a Mi­nister by such people lawfull.

[Page 191] H. Iacob his Reply. THe strength of this Reason standeth in these last words: But these Assemblies consist of such people, 1. prophane & godles persons. 2. neuer rightly gathered together accor­ding to Gods ordinance. 3. remayning in subiection and bondage to their false and Antichristian of­ficers & courts: Ergo, &c. These three accusations availe nothing at all.

The first Accusation is from our question,Accusatiō. 1. for we speake of a Christian peo­ple, but you of assemblies consisting of prophane and godles persons. If you say, our assemblies all & wholy are such: That is false. If you say, some are: Of them we speake not. If you say in all & every one of our assemblies there are some, yea many open prophane and godles persons. 1. It is too bold a say­ing, and without knowledge to speak so of all. 2. If it were true, yet it were false to say, our assemblies consist of such, or to thinke that whole companies of Christians by such commixtures are made vnholy; prophane, and godles: which is contrary to these scriptures. Mat. 23.2.3. Luke 2.21.22. & 1.6. Act. 21.23.26. 1 Sam. 2.17. & cap. 1. vers. 3.9. Rev. 2.20.21. & 3.1.4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1.2. & 4.11.16. & 5.4.9.

The second Accusation [that our assemblies were neuer rightly gathered togeather at the first according to Gods ordinance.] I deny it:Accusatiō. 2 especially towching many famous Con­gregations in the Land, where the GOSpell was not vnknowen before the Queenes commaundement came to vrge them to receive this doctrine. And if the maner of receiving it then, in those hard and doubtfull tymes and ha­zardous beginnings, were not so perfect nor so exact, as should haue ben, yet we may see by the example of2 Chro. 30.17.18 19.20. Hezechias, and2 Chr. 33.15.16.17. Manasses, andZepha. 1.4.5. & 3.1. Ier. 3.6. &c. & 4.1. &c. & 5.1. &c. Iosias reformati­ons, That God imputeth it not to such godly and zealous restorers, the pil­lers and ground of the trueth in those dayes.

If you say, the vntaught people then suddenly receiving the Gospell by cō ­mandement, not by hearing, could not beleeve at the first, though they pro­fessed, and therefore at the first were no true Christians nor Churches? I aun­swer. 1. Though many received the Gospell for the commandements sake, yet who can say, That now they all generally wanted all knowledge, and all faith? The word then having ben in many places taught, very many bookes scattered, much conference, daily consultations and disputations vsed, and the blood of the Martyrs having preached so loud, and so lately before. 2. It was not so sudden. There wasFrom No­uember the 17. till Mid­somer follow­ing. more then halfe a yeare, for the people to heare, learne and consider, before the commandement came. So that it can not be counted meer force and compulsion, that at the beginning of our Queenes reigne, brought vs to the truth. 3. I would know, You condemne not (I hope) all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate. 2 Chron. 34.32.33. & 33.16. & 15.13.. Seeing therefore, the assemblies thus openly, and aduisedly, submitted to the proclaimed truth, who seeth not, but they cōfessed therein their former errors, and professed their present faith, and vndertooke a new life from that which before they led, though happely not so formallie, nor so perfectlie as were to have ben wished.

But they received all togeather, Papists, Atheistes, ignorant men, and all dissolute livers, Obiection. into one communion and fellowship.

[Page 192]Indeed all, who after this aduizement and notice taken, submitted to and receyved this doctrine,Answer. these were all receyued in. And therefore no open professed Papistes, Athistes nor other Heretikes. As for ignorant men, it is not possible but many will scape among the rest, in so great & so generall refor­mation of a publike state. And so questionles it was in Hezechias, Manasses, & Iosias reformation. 2. Chron. which we noted before. The notorious, dissolute, & wicked, some were reclaimed, all vndertook another profession, and a new appearance of Christianitie. And no doubt the like is to be thought of these, as before I obserued touching the ignorant men. Now all this was done, not intollerablie doubtlesse▪ though I graunt weakly and corruptly, & very like euen to your owne receiuing in to your Church at this time: nay more tollerable and more lawfull then yours: who to furnish onely one con­gregation, have received manyThis parti­cular Mr Iacob hath not printed: but it was in his written copy which I aun­swered. bankrupts, knowen bad men, and very igno­rant: yea and still retaine men full of contention, and bitter strife. 1 Cor. 3..3. In a word this I answer:

That which disanulleth not a Church gathered and settled, That disanul­leth it not in the gathering and beginning.

But such mixtures do not disanull a Church gathered and settled, as ap­peareth above in the scriptures quoted against the First Accusation, Mat. 23. Luke 2 &c.

Therefore such mixtures did not disanull our Churches then in their be­ginning.

The Third Accusation is, [Our Assemblies remayne in obedience to the false Antichri­stian Officers, Accusatiō. 3. &c.] Let this be our generall sinne: yet there is diversitie of sinnes. All are not of like detestation before God, not of like consequence against vs. I say not that any sinnes are veniall: but I say, all sinnes by their nature are mor­tall, yet do they not all alike abolish vs from Christ, nor deprive vs of the glo­ry of God. Now this sinne of outward Church orders is not of the most hey­nous, nor extreamest disobedience. There are sinnes against the1 Cor. 15 2.3.4. Rom. 1.25. 1 Cor. 3.10 11.12.13.14. foundation, and there are sinnes that stande with the foundation: ibid. wherein men living and dying ignorantly without particular repentance, may be saved. Such were the sinnes of the Iewish Church and estate in Christs tyme, and after, asBeza in Acts 15.20. some thinke, even till their Temple and Citie were destroyed, though they did per­sonally hate and persecute Christ. Such also was the sinne of the auncient de­clyning Bishops, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrisostome, Leo of Rome, &c. No lesse was in ours of late Cranmer, Ridly, Hooper &c. in King Edwards dayes: and no greater is now in ours presently, especially towching our Churches, & Mi­nisters too, generally. If you say, we are all convicted now, and sinne against our owne consciences, as they did not in those tymes: It is vtterly false, and a palpable vntruth. Whosoever knoweth any thing in our Church estate gene­rally, must needs see it, that this poinct towching the Hyerarchy, is not acknow­ledged even of ignorance in a thousand to one: many holding (and not of the simplest) this present governement to be th'only true and right kinde: but all men almost, to be indifferent, and lawfull: very few indeed, and scarce to be found, that see it to be meerly nought, or as you terme it, wicked & intolerable. [Page 193] And in king Edwards tyme, whosoever considereth, shall finde,H. I [...]. that the god­ly learned Protestans then, were not vtterly ignorant of this point of reforma­tion, and yet sinned not against their conscience in bearing with the tymes, neither were abolished from Christ. And surelie towching the Iewes, they were all generally more convicted then, that Iesus vvas the Christ, then vve are now that the Prelacy is of Antichrist: & yet they remayned a Church still, because generally indeed, they vvere not plainly conuicted. Thus then this our sinne issee the 2. sortes of fundamentall sinnes, in the 2. Reply to your y [...] [...]ea­son before. Pag. 142, Fr. Io. See the aun­swer thereto in the same treatise, Pag 144.147. no way fundamentall, it destroyeth not faith & Christianity in our vvhole assemblies: Therefore they remaine Christian people still, as I af­firmed: not all godles & prophane, as you vncharitably speak.

O beware of rash & hasty iudging, even of one brother, Rom. 14.3.4.13. how much more of such anb so many whole assemblies professing Christ in England? Woe be vnto him which curseth where God curseth not. Num. 23.8. As also indeed that blesseth, where God blesseth not. We desire you not to blesse vs in our evill, but we vvarne you, not to curse vs in our good: vvhich indeed turneth vs not to any furtherance, but to a great hinderance and stumbling block, stopping vs from that syncerity vvhich els vve should dravve nearer vn­to. Blessed is he that iudgeth vvisely (that is vvithout affection and partiali­tie) even of him that is despised. Better it is and more Christianlike, even to offend in too much compassion and patience (especially tovvardes so many hundreth thousands, by vvhom vve knovv nought saue good in this poinct) then to offend in too much rigor, and severity, and vniust anger. Mat. 5.22. Hovvbeit this vvere not indeed to offend, as hath ben above shevved. And briefly in twoo vvords, thus I conclude it farther, that,

That faith and religion taught in the booke of Articles published 1562. maketh the people that beleeve and obey the same, true Christians: such as so living & dying may be saved.

But our Church doeth so holde that faith.

Therefore they are true Christians.

The Proposition onely is doubted. I had thought none so desperate as to deny it: but lately I vnderstand, you haue denyed it. Hovvbeit for ansvver, I referre you partly to that vvhich here hath bene said before, & especiallie to that vvhich is replyed to your Answer in the former Treatise: which being well weighed, I doubt not but all indifferent, & Christian mindes will acknow­ledge, our publique Church assemblies in England to be true Christians.

Fran. Iohnson his Aunsvver. YOu have now ten tymes reproched me, and are not ashamed. What­soever your self or others do think of your Churches estate, God for­bid that I should eyther iustify it, or take away myne owne innocency in witnessing the truth against it. Heare therefore, and I will aunswer you once againe: I will open my mouth for the truth, against him that plea­deth for Baal.

The strength of the Reason standeth not (as you ignorantlie suppose) in the truth or falshood of the particulars you mention: but in this, that [Page 194] it is not so vvith choyse of Ministers in the Church, as it is vvith choyse of parties in mariage. For Infidels, Idolaters, godles persons &c. may in that estate marry togeather: but they are not in that estate capable of choosing and ioyning to a true Minister. And therefore your Comparison doth not hold.

1 Yet the particulars do all of them availe much against you, whatso­ever you pretend to the contrary. The first is directlie to the question. For although now (having seen my aunswer) you speak of Christian peo­ple, yet your comparison (which was given me to aunswer) spake at first of ignorant persons, and those also such as might marry togeather. Now you cannot deny but ignorant persons (be they never so prophane and god­les) may marry one with another. Yet have they not power in such case to chuse a Minister. It is your self then that keep not the point, but chop and chaunge the termes of your Argument, as you think may best fit your turne.

And yet all this chaunging of your hew will avayle you nothing at all, vnles you could prove, 1. That your people in that Church-constitution are true Christians: 2. That your Ministers so made and received are true Pa­stors. But neither of these can you do. For the first, let the Reader see the former treatise, where this point is purposelie handled. (And mynd here that your self confesse, some of your Assemblies are all and wholy pro­phane godles persons: Of which (you say) you speak not: Yet tell vs whe­ther you think such Assemblies be true Churches, such people true Chri­stians, and their Ministers (hauing like ordering of the Prelates and ac­ceptance of the people) true Pastors, or not.) For the latter, this is the treatise and place where you should prove it, if you could. But behold, you do nothing lesse.In the Com­parison, Pag 186. Nay even: here you yeeld, that your calling received from the Prelates is vnlawfull. Yet this is the onelie maner of calling that your Church constitution appointeth.

That which you speak, of your Assemlies not being all and wholy pro­fane and godles persons, is nothing to the purpose. You might easilie have seen (if you had mynded the words of my Reason) that I sayd expresselie, your Assemblies consist of all sorts of people, that is, some better, some worse: Yet seing the best among you remaine in confusion with the worst, and all of you in bondage to Antichrist: that even for this cause also you can not in that estate be deemed true Churches, having power to chuse such Offi­cers as Christ hath appointed for his Church.

And where you say, whole companyes of Christians are not by such com­mixtures made vnholy, prophane, and godles, it is wholy from the questiō. The point is not,A treatise of the Ministe­ry of Engl. in answer to M. A. H. whether the better sort among you do by such commix­ture become godles persons, like the rest; but whether your Assemblies in such commixture can be deemed true constituted Churches of Christ. The Scriptures you alledge, are therefore misalledged, and fit not your purpose at all. Yea they are direct against you, as I have [...] els where pro­ved at large. Now note but these things brieflie.

[Page 195]In Mat. 23.2.3. Christ speaketh of such as sate in Moses chayre, that is, in the offices and functions which God by Moses had ordeyned. Deut. 33.8.10. & Neh. 9.4. with Ioh. 1.19.24. Now what is this to your false Ministerie, which God never appointed? The same is to be mynded in those other Scriptures of 1 Sam. 1.3.9. & 2.17.

In Luk. 1.6. & 2.21.22. mention is made of Gods ordinances and offices then obserued, after the Law of Moses, vvithout reproof. Is not this then directlie against your Antichristian ordinances and offices, which are not according to the Law of God, but after the Apostasy of Antichrist: and therefore all the observers of them to be reproved?

In Act. 21.23.26. we read that the Legall ordinances were for a tyme permitted to the Iewes being zealous of the Law, and so observed of the Apostle, himself being also a Iew. Which was the honour of their buri­all. But what proportion is there between those ordinances of God, and the enormities of Antichrist? Nay, if we may not now keep those ceremo­nyes of Moses, once Gods commaundements: how far ought we to be from keeping the abominations of Antichrist, by God most straitlie for­bidden? Gal. 5.2. vvith Rev. 14.9.10. & 18.4.

In Rev. 2.20.21. & 3.1.4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1.2. & 4.11.16. & 5.4.9. the Scripture speaketh of true Churches and people set in the way and order of Christ. What is this to your Assemblies and people standing in the apostasy of Antichrist?

But you will say, these Scriptures shew in these Churches some corrupt men, opinions, and actions. What then? 1. This was not the estate of those Churches, but the personall aberratiōs of some therein. 2. Though true Churches planted in the order of Christ, be subiect to corruption: yet this doth not iustifie anie false Churches in Antichristian constitution. Though Iudah being the true Church of God had her enormities, yet Is­rael in apostasy was no wife but an harlot. Hos. 2.2. & 4.15. vvith 2 Chrō. 15.17. If you mynd not this difference, you may plead for Rome at this day and all the false Churches in the world, as you do for your owne. 3. Although bad men vnder a show of holines creep into the Church, till afterward in tyme they be descryed; yea although many hypocrites both enter and continew in the true Church: yet this nothing approveth the confusion of such Assemblies as are cages of every vncleane and hatefull bird even of knowen wicked persons, Atheists, Persecuters,Rev. 18.2. Whoremō ­gers, Drunkards, Vsurers, Idolaters &c. 4. When anie such are es­pyed in the true Church, there is Christs power to cast them out, if they repent not. Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.4.5.11.12.13. But such being cōmon and no­torious in your and the like Churches, yea and still remaining vnrepen­tant, yet you have not the power of Christ to remove them: but all the ec­clesiasticall power and iurisdiction among you is in the Prelates and their Officers, which is meerlie Antichristian. 5. Even in true Churches, when such persons and corruptions are not redressed or removed, they do in tyme leaven the whole lumpe, and Christ in iustice removeth his Candelstick, [Page 196] and taketh his kingdome away from among them. See it in such Chur­ches as are spoken of in these Scriptures here noted by your self. Mat. 21.42, 43. Rev. 2.5.16.22.23. 1 Cor. 5.6. Gal. 5.9. And if iudgement begin at the house of Christ, what shal be the end of the Synagogues of Antichrist?

These things I thought brieflie to note, partlie to shew that these Scri­ptures approve not your estate, partlie that the Reader may alway mynd to put difference between true Churches, and yours with all other false ones whatsoever. And let it be noted withall, how you seek out the verie Scribes and Pharisees with the corruptest tymes and people, by them to colour your vngodlie estate, if possiblie you could. Whereas the true feare of God would teach you to make choise of the Prophets and Apostles with the purest tymes and people, for examples, to walk in their steps.) But for the further handling of these things I refer you to other treatises, where they are more fullie spoken of.The answer to Mr A.H. &c. Now I will annexe (for more clea­ring of this question) a brief description of a true visible Church, which hath power frō Christ to chuse to it self such Officers as he hath ordeined in his word. Thus therefore I describe it.

A true visible Church of Christ, is * a company of faithfull people, † by the word of God called out & separated from the world & the false wayes thereof, ′ gathered and ioyned together in fellowship of the Gospell, “ by a voluntary profession of the faith & obedience of Christ. * Mat. 18.17.20. Ephes 1.1. Act. 1.15. Ezech. 36.38. † Ioh. 15.19. & 17.14.16. Lev. 20.26. Act. 2.39.40. & 19.9. Rom. 1.7. 2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4. “ Mat. 18.20. Phil. 1.5. Act. 1.15. & 2.41.47. & 17.4. Esa. 60.4. “ Esa. 44.5. 2 Cor. 9.13. Act. 2.41. Psal. 110.3. Rom. 1.8. & 16.19.

This I take to be a true description. If it be not, shew the errour by the Scriptures. If it be, compare herewith your Cathedrall and Parish Assemblies, and, if you can, prove them or anie of them (even the best a­mong you) to be such. And hitherto of the first of the particulars before mentioned.

2 For the second, it is needfull that you both name those many famous cō ­gregations you speak of, and that you shew how they were rightlie gathe­red and ioined together according to Gods ordinance. Otherwise who can know whereof you speak, or what to think in particular cōcerning them?

If [by Congregations where the Gospell was not vnknowen before the Queens cōmādement came to vrge them] you meane the persecuted Chur­ches that were in Q. Maryes tyme: this helpeth not your cause, but ma­keth against it directlie. For they were then separated from the rest of the Land; and voluntarily submitted to the Gospell of Christ: and enioyed th [...] true and lawfull offices of Pastors, Elders, Deacons: neyther stood in sub­iection to the Antichristian Prelacy and other Clergy of the Land, but re­nounced and forsook it. None of all your Assemblies were ever such, ey­ther at the beginning of her Maiestyes raigne, or at anie tyme synce.

If you obiect, that even they of that persecuted Church (when this Queen came) submitted to the Prelacy and Clergy aforsaid: I deny it not. [Page 197] But note withall, that such as did so, made thereby defection from the way of Christ, wherein they were before. And the rest that would not so do, were eyther cast into prison, and so deteined vnto death, or otherwise evill intreated: as both your prisons and so me yet alive are able to testify. Synce which tyme, your persecution hath increased far more, even vnto exile and death, vpon such as refuse to joine to your Hierarchy, worship, and other abominations of Antichrist, by your Law then established.

How absurd then is it to pretend for your estate, the reformations of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Iosiah &c. Of which the Scripture testifyes, that God gave the people one heart to do the cōmaundement of the King, and of the Rulers, according to the word of the Lord. 2 Chron. 30.12. And who knoweth not, that these Kings did both abolish the false worship and Ministery which before tyme had ben in their Kingdomes, and did in stead thereof establish that true worship and Ministery which God by Moses had ordeined. 2 King. 18.6. & 23.25. 2 Chron. 29. & 30. & 31. & 33. & 34. & 35. chap. Besides that those Churches consisted of people separated frō the world, and willinglie submitting thēselves to the Lord: as these Scri­ptures also do testify, 2 Chron. 15.8.9.12. & 30.11.12. 2 King. 23.2.3. with Exod. 19.5-8. Lev. 20.24.26. Howsoever then, being set in the way of God and walking therein, they had their blemishes and imperfections, yea and evill men arising among them (as the best Churches on earth are alway subiect to have): yet this is nothing eyther for such cōmaundemēt of Rulers, as is not according to the word of God, or for your Churches estate, which from the beginning to this day neyther are separated from the world, nor have the true Ministery and worship appointed by Christ, but stand both in confusion with the most prophane, and in subiection to the Hierarchy and worship of the man of sinne. Otherwise the ten Tribes of Israell might justify their defection, and the Romish Babylon her fil­thyest apostasy by such pretences.

For your people at the beginning of her Majestyes raigne, you alledge, 1. that they did not all generally want all knowledge and all faith. I do wil­linglie graunt it. But doth it therefore follow that your Assemblyes are true Churches, rightlie gathered according to the ordinance of Christ? Then by the same reason conclude the publik Assemblyes heretofore in Q. Maryes tyme, and now in Rome and the rest of Italy, Spayne, Fraunce &c. to be true Churches right lie gathered: because their people neyther did nor do all generally want all knowledge and all faith.

But your people had then had in many places the word taught, books scat­tered, much conference, daily consultations and disputations, and the blood of Martyrs preaching vnto them aloud & lately before. All these being grā ­ted, yet they are so far from excusing your sinnes, as even therefore it is far the greater: inasmuch as by this it should seem you knew better, and yet neyther did it then, neyther do it yet vnto this day. And so you are in the sinne and vnder the judgement spoken of in these Scriptures, Iam. 4.17. Tit. 1.16. Ier. 6.16. Luk. 12.47.48. Let him that readeth mynd it well. And [Page 196] [...] [Page 197] [...] [Page 198] this too, that you speak not of the whole Land and all your Churches, but onely of some places and persons, such as had the books, conference, and disputations you speak of:Pag. 3.6. Whereas your * former defence speaketh of your Churches, as they are established by Law, and therefore of them all.

2. Next you alledge, that there was more then half a yeare (viz. “ from November to Midsomer) for the people to heare, learne, and consider before the commandement came: so that it was not suddayne, neyther can be coun­ted compulsion &c. But know you not Mr Iacob, 1. That it neyther was, neyther could possibly be as you pretend, that the people in that tyme throughout the Land should be taught: Yet at Midsomer were all con­strayned to receiv it, whether they did so beleev or not. 2. That this tyme was appointed, not for the peoples instruction, that so vpon konwledge they might do what was enjoyned, but that in this tyme the Statute be­ing knowen throughout the Land, they should then do as was appointed howsoever they were perswaded thereof in themselves. This I prove, 1. Because the Priests and people that would, were suffred by Law all that halfe yeares space to say and heare Masse as before. Which I trow you will not say was to heare, learne, and consider, as here you alledge. 2. Because when Midsomer came, they were bound to receyv (and so did) what was published, for their faith, worship, Ministery &c. howsoever eyther themselves were perswaded, or the things imposed did agree or dis­agree with the word of God.

But now I would know what you will say to this, that all your for­mer pleading was from your Articles agreed vpon in the yeare 1562. and here you make your plea from your peoples estate in the yeare 1558. (for then began her Majestyes reygne: which I pray God long to continew and prosper.) If your professiō of those Articles made you now true Churches, which before you were not: how were your Assemblyes then right­ly gathered so many yeares before, as here you pretend? Or if you were not true constituted Churches at that Midsomer you speak of here, how could those Articles effect it, being afterward agreed vpon, not by your Churches,See the title of those Art. but by your Priests, neyther by all of them, but onelie by your Archbishops and Bishops and such other of your Clergy as were with them in the Convocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. If to this last point you say, this agreement of your Prelates and Clergy was then published through the Land, and so you count it as the agreement and ordinance of your whole Church: then must you graunt withall, that the Antichristian Canons, Iniunctions, Articles, Advertissements &c. agreed vpō at the same and like Convocations, and likewise published, are also the a­greement and ordinance of your whole Church. And so your Churches estate and profession is to be considered, not by those Articles onelie of 1562. but by the rest likewise agreed vpō among you from tyme to tyme. Thus all your defence is found to be full of deceit and contradictiō every where. But it may be in your next wee shall know your mynd better.

In the meane tyme we answer what you desier to know of vs: viz, That [Page 199] we condemne not reformation commaunded & compelled by the Magistrate, but do vnfeynedlie desier that God would put into the heart of her Maie­sty and all other Princes, within their Dominions, to cōmaund and cō ­pell a reformation according to the word of the Lord: As it is expressely no­ted, that Hezekiah and other the good Kings of Iudah did. 2 Chron. 30.12. 2 King. 18.6. & 23.25. 2 Chron. 17.3.4.5.6.

We acknowledge with thanks to God and her Maiesty, that out of her Highnes Dominions there be alreadie abolished manie of the abomi­nations of the Romish Babylon. And we pray God, that forasmuch as many of them be yet remayning in your worship, Hierarchy, confusion, Canons, Licences, Dispensations, Rev. 14.9.10.11. Exod. 20.4.5. Excommunications &c. with ♣ which no man may have spirituall communion vnder payne of eternall wrath: that if it be the will of God, her Highnes may be his instrument to sup­presse and abolish these also, and to establish the whole truth of God, ac­cording to his word. And further, that she may take to her owne Civill vses the Lordships and possessions of the Prelates and other Clergy, as God hath foretold and appointed should be done with them (Rev. 17.16. & 19.17.18.) And as King Henry the eight (her Maiestyes Father of famous memory) did with the Abbats, Monks, Fryers, Nunnes, and with their possessions and revennewes.

Which happy worke, by what Princes soever it be done (as certaynly will come to passe, for the Lord of hostes hath spoken it) it will greatlie redound to the glory of God, the honour of themselves, the free passage of the Gospell, the peace of the Church, and benefit of the whole Cōmon wealth. The Lord therefore hasten and accōplish it. Yea true and strong is the Lord, who hath spoken, and will performe it. Rev. 17. & 18. & 19. chap.

This is our mynd (which you desier to know) concerning reformatiō commaunded and compelled by the Magistrate. Where note withall, that it is the work of God onelie, to adde to his Church such as he will save. And therefore that it is not in the power of Princes or anie Man what­soever, to perswade the conscience and make members of the Church: but that this must be left to God alone, who onelie can do it. Act. 2.47. & 11.21. Gen. 9.27. 1 Cor. 12.13. & 14.24.25. Zach. 8.23. Ier. 32.38.39.40. Prin­ces may and ought within their Dominions to abolish all false worship and all false Ministeryes whatsoever; and to establish the true worship and Ministery appointed by God in his word, commaunding and com­pelling their subiects to come vnto and practise no other but this. Yet must they leave it vnto God to perswade the conscience, and to adde to his Church from tyme to tyme such as shalbe saved. But with you in these things, you know it is quite contrary.

Thus then neyther the examples of the aforesayd Kings of Iudah are in your case fitlie alledged: neyther is it of anie waight, if all your people and Assemblies in the Land willinglie, openly, & advisedly, submitted to what­soever was proclaymed at the beginning of her Highnes reygne: Vnles you could prove that Religion, worship, Ministery &c. then proclaymed and [Page 200] still vsed, to be by God prescribed in his word. Which still you take for graunted, when it is the very thing which we denie and you should proue, if possibly you could.

And what if here I should put you in mynd, how you might more fit­lie alledge for your case, the keeping of the Statutes of Omry, and the like, Micah, 6.16. But I will leave this for your next Reply. And then also tell vs, what truth it is you speak of, that was proclaymed at the begin­ning of her Maiestyes raygne, whereof the people had such aduizement & notice as you pretend, from November 17. to Midsomer following. For the book of Articles * heretofore so much pressed by your self,Pag. 3. &c was so far frō being proclaymed then, as it was not agreed vpon till the yeare, 1562. Which was at least fower or five yeares after the tyme you speak of here.

Now to proceed, you tell vs that no open professed Papists, Atheists, nor other Hereticks were then receyved into your communion &c. But how can we beleev you, when D. Whitgift your Archprelate of Canterbury (a man of as great reckning and of more experience in your Church then Mr Ia­cob) tels vs the cleane contrary, yea and prints it too (even then when he writeth in defence of your present estate) viz, Whitg. book, Pag. 176. & 178 639. 643. that now the Church is full of Papists, Atheists, Drunkerds, whoremongers &c. Even the Prelates themselves (I perceive) do in some things deale more syncerelie then you Mr Iacob, and are nothing so shameles. Yet I know that some others of your coat which seek reformation, deale herein as plainelie as the Pre­lates, and far more faithfullie then you. For example, they confesse and publish that you haveSermon on Rom. 12. swarmes of Atheists, Idolaters, Papists, erroneous and hereticall Sectaryes, the Family of love, and such like. Another spa­reth not to avouch more particularly,State of the Church of England be­tween Diot. & Tert. &c. that some Doctors of the Arches be the same men they were in Queen Maryes tyme. Others (also speaking of your Ecclesiasticall courts) write thus,Ad [...]. to the Parliament. God deliver all Christians out of this Antichristian tyranny where the Iudges, Advocates, and Proctors for the most part are Papists &c. Thus your owne men of all sorts beare witnes against you.

But to let their testimony alone, who knoweth not that the whole Land being polluted with most Popish and wicked Idolatry in Q. Maryes dayes, they were all straightway after (without repentance or the word preached going before) received into the body of your Church, and con­streyned to become members thereof? Who with their seed vnto this day do so remayne, and are commonlie called, the Church of England.

Neither will that clause of [open professed] be anie starting whole for you, as it may be you dreame. All know well ynough, it is no matter how open and professed they be, so as they will be conformable to come to Church once a moneth, and heare your Divine service book. Did Mr W. Smith (your great acquaintance) never tell you,Mr Wroth, Iustice. how ‡ one of the Cō ­missioners themselves (when he was called before them) said vnto him, Come to Church, and be a Divell, if thou wilt?

That which you say of ignorant men received in a generall reformation, [Page 201] if you meane of some having far lesse knowledge then others, being also vnable eyther well to expresse their owne mynd, or to defend the truth a­gainst an adversary: I deny it not. Otherwise know, that all who are received members of the Church, being of yeares, are to be such as in their measure (lesse or more) have learned Christ, and do willinglie submit to his Gospell, having heard and knowen the grace of God therein. Ephes. 4.7.20.21. 2 Cor. 9.13. Col. 1.5.6. Act. 2.41. & 17.3.4. Esa. 44.5. Zac. 8.20.21.22.23.

And so questionles it was in the time of Hezechiah &c. For which, see these Scriptures, 2 Chron. 29.31. & 30.2.3.4.11.12.13. 2 King. 23.2.3. 2 Chron. 15.15. Besides that the Iewes did long before Hezekiahs time vpō knowledge enter covenant with the Lord, to have him to be their God and they to be his people. Exod. 19.7.8. Deut. 29.10.11.12.13.

For the notorious, dissolute, and wicked, you plead that some were reclay­med, all vndertook another professiō and a new appearāce of Christianity &c. Which how false it is, appeareth not onely in the receyving and retayning in your Church the most profane of the Land and their seed, yea and con­streyning all whosoever in every Parish to be members thereof: but is confessed also by your selves on all hands, as I shewed * before,Pag. 16. 2 [...] ▪ by testi­mony both of the Prelates and of the Reformists: who do both of them testefy that your Church swarmeth with Whoremongers, Drunkards, Ly­ars, Extortioners, Blasphemers, Sorcerers, and other wicked persons. Now say your self, if these be not notorious, dissolute, and wicked? Or if your Church abound not with such, evē to this day? How were they then reclaymed &c. as you pretend? And how was your Church rightly gathered according to Gods ordinance? Are these fit stones for the Lords Temple, fit servants for the Lords house, fit members for the body of Christ? Whatsoever you think, such estate is before God intolerable, and by his word vnwar­rantable.. Learne it by these and the like Scriptures, 1. Pet. 2.5.9. 1. Ti­moth. 3.15. Zach. 14.21. Esa. 35.8.9. 1. Cor. 12.27.

But you say, we have likewise received bankrupts, knowen bad men, igno­rant, &c. 1. If it were so, would our sinne justifie yours? 2. Neither in deed is it so, as you charge vs. Knowen bad men we receive none at all. By bankrupts, if you meane such as are not able to pay their debts, and do therefore think that they are not to be received or retained members of a true Church, you do therein too much bewray your ignorance. The Scripture teacheth that the true feare of God, and want of ability to pay a mans debts, may meet together in the same partie. 2. King. 4.1. Levit. 25.35. &c. And who knoweth not, that it is a triall wherewith God sometymes exerciseth his dearest children? Iam. 2.5. with 2 King. 4.1. &c. Not to speak how there gathered to David (who was a type of Christ in many things that befell him) all that were in distresse & debt and troubled in mynd &c. 1. Sam. 22.2. Yet notwithstanding if any shall wilfully runne into debt, not caring what they borrow so they may get it,Rom. 13.8. with 2 King 4.7. neither making conscience to paie againe though they be able: such do both break the commaundement of God, which sayth vnto all: † Owe nothing to [Page 202] any man, but to love one another: and are therefore by the Prophet accoun­ted for wicked persons, The wicked (saith he) borroweth and payeth not a­gaine. Psalm. 37.21. Now any that are knowen to be such, we neither receive nor retaine. Yet you know, yourselves, it is common among you. And what power hath your Church to redresse it, if you would?

Towching ignorant men, you have our mynd † before. And as we are mynded,Pag. 201. so do we practise: Remembring alway, that which is written of Christ our Lord, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench: &c. Esa. 42.3. Math. 12.20.21.

Where you adde further, that we do still retayne men full of contention and bitter strife, it is also vntrue. For although with such men we have ben exercised (as the Church on earth is alway subject to be, that they which are approved may be knowen): Yet neither is it any other thing then the Primitive Churches even in the tyme of the Apostles them selves did susteine (as thei Cor. 3.3. Scripture here alledged by your self, andAct. 20.30. 1. Cor. 11.16.19. Gal. 5.12.15 other the like do testifie): and when such persōs and dealing once be manifest, we cast them out from among vs and avoide them, according to the rules prescri­bed in the word of God. Gal. 5.12. 1. Cor. 5.11.12. and 11.16. Rom. 16.17, Mat. 17.18. And yet, even then when they are hardned and please them selves in strife and contentiō, they may both be received and reteined mem­bers of your Church, any of them that will come to your false worship, and so returne to their former vomit againe.

That which followeth in the last place, for the shutting vp of this mat­ter (when you say, That which disanulleth not a Church gathered &c.) is directly against your self. For seing confusion and commixture with the world and wicked thereof in one body of a Church, will disanul and make voide a Church alredy gathered and setled: how much more shall it there, where a Church is but a gathering and beginning? (If we could ima­gine that to be a gathering of a Church, which leaveth it still in confusion with the world and bondage to Antichrist.) Now that such mixtures with the profane will disanull Churches before gathered aright, you may see by that which is written, Gen. 6.2. &c. Ezech. 16. chap. and 22.26. and 44.6.7.8. And in the Churches that were at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, &c. Rev. 13.16. and 17.1. and 18.1. and 18.2. being compared with Rom. 1.7.2. Cor. 6.14. &c. Thus all your aunswer is in a word taken away.

But further, mynd here a contradiction with your self. For now you graunt (which before you denyed) that your Church is commingled of all sorts of people, having mixtures of profane and dissolute, with the rest that are better among you.

The Scriptures you quote, I have shewed ♣ before how you do pervert them. Pag. 195. And thus much of the second particular.

3 The third was, that you remaine in bondage to Antichristian Offices. Courts, &c. This you graunt to be your generall sinne. Which is direct­lie to give the cause. For they which stand in bondage to Antichrist can­not possibly in such estate have also the power and libertie of Christ, eyther [Page 203] for choise of Officers, or for any other action to be performed by the pow­er and in the Name of the Lord Iesus.

Thus having given the cause, yet fearing belike to yeeld too much to the truth, you labour still to lessen and excuse your sinne, as much as you can. Now you alledge, that it is not of the most heynous nor extremest disobedi­ence. And thus may all sinne be pleaded for, except the sinne against the holy Ghost. Thus might Nadab and Abihu justifie their straunge fier: Corach, Dathan, and Abiram, their vsurping of the Priests office: the Ten Tribes their desertion: the Papists all their abominations: Hymena [...]s and Philetus all their impieties, and finally all Hereticks and lewd per­sons their heresies and bad dealing.

Next you tell vs, of sinnes that are against the foundation or not against it: of the Iewish Church, of the auncyent declining Bishops, Cyprian &c. of King Edwards dayes, M. Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c. of your Churches and Ministers generally, that you are not all convicted &c. These pretences are all aunswered before in the former Treatise. Mynd now withall, that the sinne of the later Bishops synce the exaltation of Antichrist, is far more grievous then was the sinne of the other that were before that tyme: hath because the Mystery of that iniquitie is now more more fully disclosed which then was more hid and secret: and because these later have seen before their eyes the mischief that followed vpō that declining, which the other of former time neither did nor could.

Adde herevnto the great vnlikenes (when they are compared together) in their Offices, Entrance, Titles, prerogatives, Courts, Canons, Iurisdiction, and other procedings. And tell me why you left out Cyprian in your prin­ted Book, whō you named in your written copy? (for which cause I have now also noted his Name with the rest.) Is it so, that you see alreadie how he is against you? Assure your self Mr Iacob, that so will the rest al­so be found, lesse or more (I alway except the Prelates of Rome) whensoe­ver due triall and comparison is made. Which I neither need nor pur­pose here to stand vpon, seing these things are purposely hādled and alrea­die published by others well knowen and approved also of your selves, as by Mr Beza against Saravia. T. C. his 1. and 2. Reply. The Demonstration. &c. I omit also that yours are become persecuters, whereas the other were persecuted. Therefore your sinne is far the greater.

And many other things I might alledge: but it sufficeth vs (and here­on we rest) that your Prelacy, and other Ministery, Worship &c. are none of Christs ordinances appointed in his word. If you be other wise myn­ded, prove it by the book of God.Ioh. 17.17. Psa. 119.105 Esa. 8.20. You know that ” it alone is the word of truth, and ought to be vnto all the lāterne of our feet. Hence forth there­fore speak according to that word: and seek not by the lesse sinnes of o­thers, to hide and nourish your owne far greater. Otherwise remember and applie to your selves the judgement that is written, Exod. 20.5. Ps. 129.21. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 14.9.10.11. and 22:18.19.

And note these things withall, 1. First, That here you speak of such [Page 204] as live and dy in your errors ignorantly. Now what defence is this for your self (Mr Iacob) and for all the rest of your Church throughout the Land who do not onelie know these errors, but have also taught, professed, and witnessed against them heretofore? 2. Secondly, that here you are glad to vse the same pretences (as rusty weapons) against the truth, which were sometymes vsed by D. Whitgift and the Papists for defence of the Prelacy, and found to be of no force at all. 3. Thirdly, that whatsoever you speak here in excuse of your conviction, may be likewise alledged by the Papists and other Hereticks for defence of them selves, viz, that they are not all cōvicted & sinne against their cōscience: also, that such and such points are not acknowledged even of ignorance in a thousand to one among them; that many of them (and not of the simplest) hold their way to be the onely true and right course: and almost all of them to be indifferent and lawfull: very few and scarce any that see it to be meerly wicked and intolerable. Yet these are the reasons and armour of proof you bring for defence of your Hierarchie and Church-estate.

And what should I speak of your manifold contradictions, fearfull clauses, notable vntruthes &c. Your cōtradictions, as when you graunt here,Pag. 28. 61 This is your generall sinne, and yet said before, you held these to be Christs ordinances. Your pretended excuse, that you speak some things in your owne person, some things in your Churches, I have shewed befo­re to be vayne and against your self. Pag. 55. 56. 72. Another contradicti­on, in that you professe the auncyent Bishops and yours have declyned (viz, from the truth and way of Christ, or els tell vs in your next, from what?) and yet plead, as if your Church generally were eyther ignorant hereof, or held your present governement to be the onely true and right kind, or at least to be indifferent and lawfull &c. For how (I pray you) can these stand together? If you say, your self know thus much, but as for any o­thers that know it, they are very few and searse to be found (these, I take it, are your owne words) this is but a vaine conceit of your self, and such as is still accompanied with folly. There are no doubt a thousand to you, who are but one, that know these things aswell or better a great deale. Yea I know manie of your Church my self, who have taught and writtē far more soundly and godly of them, then ever Mr Iacob did. And if these had all held their peace, yet your Book of common prayer (as grosse as it is) knoweth thus much,In the Com­mination. that in the Primitive Church there was a godly disclpline, which (it saith) is much to be wished that it might be restored agayne. The particular there mentioned, I stand not vpon. I note it one­lie for this, that you may see even by that book, received among you gene­rally, how your Church neither is so ignorant of the estate of things in former tymes, as you pretend, neither thinketh your present government to be the onelie true kind &c. Not to speak of your so manie and so publik suites to the Parliament, to have it removed as being vnlawfull and An­tichristian: Neither of the many books printed with Priviledge, avow­ching as much. A third contradiction (till you cleare it better) note in [Page 205] this also, that you acknowledge they in K. Edw. tyme were godly learned, and yet insinuate withall, as if they were litle better then tyme-servers.

Your fearfull clauses, importing partlie a yeelding of the cause, partly a seeking of starting holes and excuses for your sinne: As when you say, 1. Let this be our generall sinne, yet there is diversity of sinnes. 2. All sinnes by their nature are mortall, yet do they not all alike abolish vs from Christ. 3. This sinne of outward Church-orders is not of the most heynous, nor extre­mest disobedience. 4. There are sinnes, wherein men living and dying igno­rantly without particular repentance, may be saved. 5. No greater is now in our Bishops presently, especially towching our Churches, and Ministers too, gene­rally. 6. If you say, we are all convicted now, it is false. 7. The godly learned Protestants in King Edwards tyme, were not vtterly ignorant of this poynt of reformation. 8. The Iewes were not generally plainely convicted. 9. Our Assemblyes are not all godles and profane: Our sinne destroyeth not faith & Christianity in our whole Assemblyes, &c. As if your self thought it did in some.

Your notable vntruths also are many, as when you alledge Mr Beza vpō Act. 15.20. as if he spake of such Iewes as did personally hate and per­secute Christ: where as he speaketh expressely of such as beleved in Christ, but were withall zealous of the Law, being not yet perswaded of the a­bolishment thereof. Agayne, when from him you would teach, that they which did personally hate and persecute Christ, yet were the true Church vn­till the Temple and City were destroyed, yea and saved though they repented it not. Which is contrarie to these and many the like Scriptures, Act. 2.40.47. and 13.45.46.50.51. and 19.8.9. 1. Thes. 2.14.15.16. Rev. 2.9. Ano­ther vntruth is, that you say the sinne of your Bishops now is no greater then of the auncyent declining Bishops and them in K. Edwards tyme: Whereas many wayes it is incomparably greater, as I have shewed before. Pag. 40. 41. 129. 133. 148. 162. 175. 177. 183. 203. Another is, in that you say your sinne is no way fundamental. The contrarie whereof see proved before, Pag. 22. 73. 114. 147. And another, when you charge me, as if I held all a­mong you to be godles and profane: when I have alway thought and pro­fessed otherwise. Yea even here I said, your Church cōsisteth of all sorts, that is, both good and bad, better and worse, some making cōsciēce of their wayes according to the knowledg they have, some not, &c. For which also see further before, Pag. 7. 20. 21. 41. 78. 103. 168. 178. Finallie, it is [...]either vntrue also when you say, this poynt towching the Hierarchy is not acknowledged in your Church even of ignorance in a thousād to one: Or if it be true, it is a shame for you and all the Ministers of your Church, who have not in this cleare light of the Gospell, by the space of fourty yeares together, made knowen vnto the people so great a point of Antichristiani­ty, as the Hierarchy is: Which is the verie sinewes and strength of the Popes Religion: As (I feare) wofull experience will teach you further, if yet you do not see and feel it ynough. But of this also I have spoken before, in the Preface: Section 6.

[Page 206]Lo here, the ornaments of your Reply and Defence of your estate. The very naming whereof, is sufficient to shew your folly, and your Churches miscrie. Yet least you should please your self in this course, as also for the satisfying of such as desier further handling of these things, I have spoken of them before more particularly. As namely, of sinnes funda­mentall, Pag. 22. 32. 44. 46. 51. 73. 114. 147. Of the Scriptures which here you alledge in the margent, Pag. 51. and in the Preface, Section 3. Of the Iewes Church, Pag. 84. 161. 195. 197. & in the Preface, Section 5. Of the auncient Bishops, Pag. 129. 162. 183. 203. Of them in K. Edwards dayes Mr Cranmer &c. Pag. 8. 40. 41. 48. 49. 67. 77. 162. 182. Of your Chur­ches estate and conviction, Pag. 3. 7. 16. 27. 33. 42. 43. 53. 60. 61. 63, 73. 78. 82. 94. 101. 103. 108. 120. 130. 131. 132. 135. 147. 155. 157. 171. 180. 188, 194. 196. 200. &c.

Your caution against rash & hasty iudging of any, is very good and need­full. We do together with you exhort all to beware of such dealing: and to take heed they † iudge righteous iudgement, as Christ hath commaūded. And therefore that they be careful to search out and help forward the iudg­ment, Ioh. 7.24. given by the Apostles and Prophets, on the Whore of Babylon and all her Daughters. Rev. 18.20.21. and 17.1.5.6.7. with Ier. 51.61-64.

Neither let any think that this is to curse where God blesseth, or to lay an hindrance and stumbling block before any: but that it is in deed to reward Babylon as she hath rewarded vs, and to beare witnes to the truth and syncerity of the Gospell,Rev. 18.6. & 14.6.7.8 2 Thes. 2.8. that it may the more be brought to light, and re­ceived of the elect, to eternall life. To such, we know, Christ with all his ordinances is precious: but in deed to them which be disobedient, he is a stone to stumble at and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, to the which thing they were also ordeined. 1 Pet. 2.7.8. Take heed therefore you blesse not your selves in your disobedience of anie truth of Christ, promising your selves peace, though you walk ac­cording to the stubbernes of your owne hearts: so adding drunkenes vn­to thirst. For such blessing God hath threatned to curse, Deut. 29.19.20. Zach. 11.5.6. Malach. 2.2.

For our selves, we judge not any man. It is the word of God that iud­geth, which shall also judge in the last day. Ioh. 12.48. By it therefore let every man trie and examine his wayes (of what place or calling soever he be) first for the worship he performeth vnto God, and then for all the o­ther actions of his life: that he may so please God in this life, as he may in the next be partaker of the glorie that shalbe revealed. Neither let anie be daunted with the reproches and afflictiōs which accompanie the truth and witnesses thereof. Even Christ himself the Prince of our salvation was consecrate through afflictions: and he hath promised, if we suffer with him, we shall also raigne with him. Heb. 2.10. Rev. 2.10. Rom. 8.17.18. 2 Tim. 2.12. Therefore also we say with the Prophet (as you do here) and wish it might sound in the eares of all men as a trumpet, Blessed is he that iudgeth wisely of the poore, even of him that is despised &c. Psal. 41.1.

[Page 207]To conclude, your one word (whereof you told vs a litle before) is now become two words: and all litle ynough. For if your reason be good, all me your self, if a man might not (after your example) in two words con­clude the Papists also to be true Christians, thus:

That faith and religion taught in the Creeds commonly attributed to the Apostles, the Nicene Councell, Athanasius, &c. maketh the people that beleev and obey the same, true Christians: such as so living and dying may be saved.

But the Popish Church doth so hold that faith:

Therefore they are true Christians, &c.

If your reason be good, what will you say to this? If you say, they professe in word, but do in deed both in their Church-constitutiō and pra­ctise denie it: such also is your case. Besides that the question is not, whe­ther anie among you may be saved by the truth you hold: (For we doubt not but evē in the Popish Church God saveth his, by the truth there held.) But the question is, whether you (or they) can in your estate and Church-constitution be deemed by the word of God true Christians or true Chur­ches: such as none may separate from your worship and Ministery esta­blished among you.

And here I can tell you, that even some of your selves have acknowled­ged and openly avowched your Churches case to be such,Demonstra­tion, in the Preface. as “ a man may be any thing among you but a sound Christian. Yet I suppose you will not say they were desperate for saying so. And if I be not deceived, your self also have ben like mynded with them heretofore. Sure I am, you had need cleare these things very well: and in anie case take heed you become not desperate therein. Neither two nor three of your words will help the matter. It is the word of God that must decide it between vs.

Whatsoever you have replyed in the former Treatise, I have there an­swered. And now I leave it to all indifferent and Christian mynds to acknowledge your publik Church asseblyes for such Christians, as in that estate they are found to be by the word of God. If by it either you or anie other can prove them to be true ones, I have done. If not, then I wish you and all others to yeeld to the truth, and no longer to strive a­gainst it. Hitherto of the first Exception, against your Comparison.

Chap. 3. The Second Reason or Exception against Mr Iacobs Comparison.

Fran. Iohnson. THe Priest doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage without the married first giue their consent.

But the Prelate make ministers without and before the peoples cōsent.

Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.

[Page 208] H. Iacob his Reply. FIrst it is very vaine to make this any matter, viz, the peoples consenting ei­ther before or after the Prelats ordeyning. For whether before or after, it is in nature and value all one: They in their ignorance having respect only to the Pre­lats act. And if it were so, that the Priest should sometymes marie a couple, the Maide being meerly enforced, and denying consent, yet not striving nor resi­sting: and a while after shall willingly agree & like: Out of question there is now true wedlock betweene them. Even so the case is betwixt the Church and the Minister. 2. But what will you except here against those Pastors a­mongst vs, that were first chosen by the people, they first professing their con­sent, and are after instituted, and inducted by the Prelat. Many are thus called amongst vs: and the most have the peoples consent even together at their first inducting: at least wise they have soone after, by the peoples submitting & main­teyning them even presently. 3. Lastly in a word, where you say the Prelats make Ministers without & before the peoples consent: Beza in Act. 14.23. Fenner aga­inst Bridges Pag. 148. We" affirme, that they make not the Pastor at all indeed and in truth; but onely supposedly. It is the Churches consent that maketh him truly, whether before or after the Bishop, that skilleth not. If any thinke Imposition of hands to be simplie necessarie to the being of a Mi­nister: that is also an error, and can not be proved.

Fr. Io. his Aunswer. BEcause I see you need it (Mr Iacob) I will deale very liberallie with you. I graunt, that your peoples consenting (whether before or after the Prelates ordeining) is in nature and valew all one &c. that is, of no va­lew or force at all: Whether you respect the Law of God, which know­eth no such jugling of people and Prelates: or the Law of your owne Church, which appoynteth no such election by the people at all. And thus too it is a very vayne thing for you to make this any matter, viz, our peoples consenting eyther before or after the Prelates ordeyning.

Yet remember that your Cōparison (which I answered) spake of peo­ple that had made choyse of a Minister before he came for ordination to the Prelate. Therefore it was and is ynough against the Comparison, to shew that the Priests can not celebrate mariage before the partyes consent ech to other: Whereas the Prelates make Ministers both before and without the peoples consent, yea and without their knowledge commonly. It is vayne then in you to count such exception vayne.

I mynd also how deceitfully you passe by that clause [without the peo­ples consent.] Therefore to discover your fraud, and to see what better answer you can give in your next, I will propound the Reason also thus:
The Priest doth not celebrate any mariage without the maryed first give their consent.

But the Prelates make Ministers without the peoples consent. Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.

Your case [of a Mayde being meerly enforced and denying consent, yet not striving nor resisting] is meerly absurd and ridiculous. Can it possibly [Page 209] be, that one should both be meerlie enforced, denying consent, and yet not strive nor resist? As soone may you make Fier and Water agree toge­ther, as these two. For, to be enforced, yea meerlie enforced, must needs imply a striving or resisting against it. Els what needed there, or how should there be said, to be anie forcing?

But you say, if afterward she agree, there is true wedlock. True in deed if they both agree. But then it is not by reason of anie thing done before (which was sinfull altogether) but by vertue of the present mutuall wil­ling consent: they having liberty and power to marrie together according to Gods ordinance. But with your people and Assemblyes it is far o­therwise: seing you have not liberty or power in your estate to call a Mi­nister according to the ordinance of Christ. Which I have proved both in the first Reason before, and in the rest hereafter following.

2. To your demaund about Ministers first chosen by the people afore they are instituted by the Prelates: I aunswer, that if your people had po­wer in your estate to chuse a Minister (which they have not) yet the recei­ving of institution and induction by the Prelates afterward (being never ordeined by God) were at least to set your thresholds by Gods thresholds that is, your inventions by Gods ordinances. Which were in very deed to commit abomination against the Lord, and to defile his holy Name, and you in so doing become so far from having him present with you, as even by this meanes you set a wall between him and your selves. Ezech. 43.8. And not so onely, but do also rebell against the Lord, and turne a­way from him, in receiving an other Ministery for the administration of his holy things, thē he by his word hath ordeined in his Church. Ios. 22.29.

Let the Reader note here besides, how you speak onelie of the institution and induction by the Prelates, and closely passe over the Prelates first ordei­ning of them Priests and Deacōs. Without which they are in your Church no Ministers at all, neyther capable of anie benefice, though the people should never so much make choyse of any.

Where you say, most of your Ministers have the peoples consent at their first inducting, or at least soone after by the peoples submitting & mainteyning them even presently: First I aunswer (as before) that your peoples consent in your estate is of no moment. Secondly, if this reason of yours be good, then your dumbe Priests, Non-residents, and most Popish Ministers in the worst tymes and places, are to be accounted true Pastors, aswell as the best among you: because vpon their inductiō the people submit to their Ministery and mainteyne them even presently. For who knowes not, that when once a Priest is presented by the Patrone and inducted by the Prelate to a benefice, your people do and must joyne to his Ministery, and for his maintenance give him their tithes, &c. will they, nill they.

Adde herevnto, that even the maintenance belonging to your Ministery is such, as was never ordeyned by Christ: and therefore neither to be re­ceived by the Ministers, nor given by the people. Which I prove thus: 1. Your Ministrrs are mainteyned by Tithes, which is Iewish, and [Page 210] ceased with “ the Levitical Priesthood: Or if you will, Popish, derived from the Iewes:Heb. 7.12. which comes all to one end. 2. Your maintenance is such, as by it all maner Ministeryes once received in the Land might be mainteyned, were they never so Popish, or otherwise never so impious in anie respect. 3, You are bound so to mainteyne the Ministers you have whatsoever they be: and that also, whether you will or not. 4. On the contrarie, the maner of maintenance now ordeined by Christ for his Mi­nisters, is such,2 Cor. 9.14. as belongeth" but to them which preach the Gospell, and must come from the people of love and duty in that behalf. 1. Thes. 5.13. Gal. 6.6. Rom. 15.27. 1. Timoth. 5.17. 1 Cor. 9.7. &c.

3. Lastly you say in a word (but a shrewd word) that the Prelates make not the Pastors at all in deed and in truth, but onely supposedly. And now in your printed book (for more certainty) you affirme it with consent of others, whom you note in the margent. But for this point it needeth not. For we yeeld it most willingly. Yet note withall, that thus you do both give the cause, and condemne at once all your Ministery as vnlaw­full, such as may neither be received nor joyned vnto. See it for plaine­nes sake in a Syllogisme, thus: Witnes your Articles, Ca­nons, Iniun­ctions, Statutes, &c.

• Your Law and Church admitteth no other Ministery as lawfull among you, but that which is receyved from the Prelates.
• But this (say you) is none at all in deed and in truth.
• Therefore all the Ministery admitted amōg you by your Law & Church is none at all in deed and in truth.

A very sound defence of your Ministerie: such as all the Prelates and Priests in the Land may well thank you for, with cap in hand: At least wise, if you could draw them to be thus mynded. And here let me put you in mynd, how once you wished vs to set downe nothing in answer vn­to you, but that which is the doctrine of our whole Church. If your self have kept this rule, it is well. If not, how will you aunswer it?

That which you have added concerning Imposition of hands, I admit, with these cautions, 1. That it is not to be neglected where it may well be had. Hebr. 6.2. Act. 6.6. and 13.3. 2. That in Churches alreadie established it be done by the Eldership: and where people first come into the order of Christ, by the fittest among them, being therevnto appointed by the rest of the Church. 1 Tim. 4.14. Numb. 8.10. And thus much of the second Exception.

Chap. 4. The third Exception against Mr Iacobs Comparison.

Fran. Iohnson. THe people can not chuse their Minister, vnles the Prelate do either be­fore, or after, make him a Minister.

But a couple may chuse and take each other in marriage, whether the Priest will or no. Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.

[Page 211] H. Iacob his Reply. 1 VVE deny your saying, the people can not chuse. They can chuse. They have power in Christ, as being Christiās, though they know not their right therein. The ignorance of this simply, doth not cut vs of from Christ, nor from this holy priviledge: no more thē the blind Papists have lost their right & power of marrying together without a Priest, because they are ignorāt of it.

2. Againe where you say, But a couple may chuse each other whether the Priest will marry them or no: Marke, That we speake of blind Papists, that thinke that the Priest is the whole absolute and necessarie marriage maker. If you say, even such have right and power to marry, though they be farre from knowing it, and far­ther from practizing; Then graunt the like in chusing a Minister, to our Chri­stians: for so the Comparison importeth, Els if you meane those words of o­thers that be men of knowledge, Then you fight with your shadow: you touch not our question.

Fran. Iohnson his Answer. YOu do still take for graunted that which is denyed: viz, that your peo­ple have power in Christ to chuse their Ministers &c. I proved before that seing your people stand in Antichristiā servitude to the Prelates, their Canons, Courts, confusion, &c. they have not in that estate (neither can have, whiles they so remaine) the liberty and power of Christ, either to chuse them Ministers, or to performe anie other action belonging to the Church of Christ. And further that they can not in that estate by the word of God be approved true Christians. For which see the former Treatise.

In that you graunt the peoples choyse to be an holy priviledge, you con­demne both your Church which rejecteth it, and such of your people as seem to vse it, whereas in your estate they do nothing els but profane it. Why also do not such of you as know these things, deliver everie man his soule from that slaverie wherein ye stand vnder the Prelates, that so you might enioy and practise the priviledges and holy things of God, as Christ hath given them to his Church?

2. To that you pretend of such as be blynd and ignorant, thinking there­by to help your self: I answer, that we speak of your people, as now they stand in your Church-constitution. For so (you know) the question is. Now whether they be ignorant, or whether they have knowledge, it skil­leth not for the matter in hand. This we alledge, that none at all of your people or assemblyes have, in your estate, the liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Church: as the other haue for mariage. So we have towched the question directly. But in deed the fault is Mr Iacob,Iren. adver­sus Valem. lib. 1. cap. 1. that your Comparison and Arguments hold together, like ropes of sand: as “ Irenaeus said of the Valentinians.

Let the Reader note withall. 1. How you match together, and put as in an eaven ballance, the blynd Papists and your Christians. A worthy de­fence of your estate. 2. How here you pretend to speak of such as be ignorant, [Page 212] other where of Christians having knowledge of Christ, feare of God, faith &c. Thus turning your self into so manie shapes and colours, as a man can not tell where to have you, or what to make of you. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?

Chap 5. The fourth Reasō or Exceptiō against Mr Iacobs Cōparison.

Fran. Iohnson. IF anie that by the word of God are not capable of marrying togeather (as Brother and Sister &c.) do notwithstanding consent to take each other for man and wife: yet are they not therefore lawfull man and wife.

So if a people and some man, that by the word of God can not chuse & take each other as Pastor and Church in their estate (such as now is in this [...]a [...]d) do notwithstanding consent so to accept each other: yet are they not therefore lawfull Pastor and Church.

H. Iacob his Reply. THis is wholy presumed and from the Question also: Like to the first Rea­son, and hath the same answer as is made to the first accusation there. You reason against people not capable of a Pastor; And we speake of true Christi­ans which are alwayes capable. You do ill therfore in comparing this action to mariage betwene brother and sister: who indeed can not marry.

Happely you may likelyer compare it to a couple that have lived both of them wantonly: Afterwards they marrie togeather, and this marriage it selfe they vse not soberly, nor temperatly. Howbeit for all this, I professe these two are truly man and wife notwithstanding: Now even so our Churches and Ministers, &c.

Fr. Ioh. his Answer. KNowing the question Mr Iacob, you might well see (if you were not blynd) that this is directly vnto it. And so in deed it is like the first Rea­son: that is, it sheweth the folly of your Comparison, and is such as you can not aunswer. True it is that we speak of people not capable of a Pa­stor: that is, of yours in your Church-constitution. And if you speak (as you say you do) of true Christians which are alwayes capable, then speak you not of your people or Assemblyes in your estate. And so it is your self that f [...]ht with your shadow, and towch not the question, but still presume that which you should prove: viz, that standing in Antichristian bondage to the Prelates and their procedings, yet notwithstanding you are by the word of God to be judged true Christians, having the liberty and power given by Christ to his Church, whereof he is the head. Till you prove this, we must needs think that the comparing of your chusing a Minister in your estate, to a brother and sister or such like that can not lawfully marry to­geather &c. is good and pertinent.

[Page 213]Your owne comparing of it to a couple that have lived wantonly, and af­terwards marry together, yet vse not their mariage soberly &c. descryeth that your self see the wicked and vnlawfull estate of your Ministers and people, as now they stand, howsoever you labour to hide and excuse it, as much as you can. And besides, if you would describe your estate, as it is in deed, you should compare it to such, as both had and do still live wantonlie and wickedly in adultery and vncleannes: whom God will judge. Let all such therefore among you as feare God, delay no longer, but with speed forsake your adulterous wayes and turne vnto the Lord: that by his grace you may be “ maryed to him in righteousnes and judge­ment, in mercie and compassion,Hos. 2.19.2 [...]. and not still run a whoring after your owne inventions, and abominations of the man of sinne, whom the Lord will destroy. Rev. 17.1-6. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.8. Numb. 15.39.40. Ier. 4.18.

Chap. 6. The fift Exception against Mr Iacobs Comparison.

Fran. Iohnson. THe Priests joyning of the parties doth not make them Man and wife at all, but onely the parties mutuall consent.

But contrarily, in the present ecclesiasticall constitutiō of England, the Prelats ordinatiō maketh the Minister, and not the peoples choyse at all.

H. Iacob his Reply. THe second Proposition we here flatly deny. It is answered in our last words against the 2. Reason.

Fr. Ioh. his Answer. YOu have an hard forehead Mr Iacob, that can flatly deny so cleare a truth. But for proof thereof, besides your Churches-constitution, I cite your books of Articles, Canōs, Iniunctiōs, Statutes: togeather with the consent of your whole Church: and your book of ordering Priests and Dea­cons &c. All which are so many proofs of the second Proposition, and witnesses of the truth, which you shame not to deny.

Is it not your Churches expresse Law, that no other be receyved for Ministers, but such as are made Priests or Deacons by the Prelates? Yea, that every one must to this end have his Letters of Orders vnder the Prela­tes hand and seale that ordeined him? Can anie among you (though he have the consent of all your people) be Parson, or Vicar, or (as you speak) one of your Pastors, not having the Prelates ordination and institution? On the contrarie, having these of the Prelate, is it not sufficient for him, though all your people stand against him? Yea, must not all the people (whether they will or not) receive and joyne vnto his Ministery being by the Prelate so ordeined and instituted as aforesaid? The truth hereof is so well knowen and yll practised through the whole land, as it is straunge [Page 214] any man should have the face to deny it. But what wil not Mr Iacob deny, when he knoweth not what to aunswer, and yet hath not an heart to yeeld to the truth? It must needs be a weak and bad cause that can not other­wise be mainteined then by such impudent denyals.

Your Aunswer to the second Reason before, is there taken away, and proved to be both against your self and against the Law and constitution of your Church. Mynd it better next tyme.

Chap. 7. The Sixt Reason or Exception against Mr Iacobs Comparison aforesaid.

Fran. Iohnson. IF a woman consent to a man that is another womans husband, they are not therefore Man and wife.

So if a people consent to a false Minister, they are not therefore true Church and Minister.

H. Iacob his Reply. THis is answered as before in the Fourth Reason. It carrieth some likely­hood indeed, and some reason against Pluralities, but nothing any further.

Fr. Ioh. his Aunswer. NEyther the fourth Reason, nor this, nor any other of them are yet an­swered, Let others judge. And now your self are driven to confesse that, this hath both likelyhood and reason against your Pluralityes. Which is in deed to yeeld vnto it. For tell me, if your Pluralitie-men have not (as well as the rest among you) both the some calling by the Prelates, which your Church appointeth; and like acceptance of your people, who joyne vnto them and mainteine them, as you alledged before: Pag. 208. The Reasō then hath waight not onely against your pluralists, but against all your other Ministers too: seing they have all of them one and the same false Ministery, received from the Prelates, and executed vnder them,

Vnto which you may adde, that the Ministery of all among you is such as Christ never set in his Church: whether you look at your Offices, from the hyest Prelate to the lowest Priest: or at your Entrance, according to your Churches Canons and Book of ordinatiō; or at your Ministration, by your Book of common praier and other your Canons and Injuncti­ons: or finally at your maintenance, by Tithes, Chrismes, Offerings &c. When you have well mynded these things, you shall find this Argument reach a great deale further then to Pluralityes, even to all the Ministers of your Church in your estate. Make a tryal: search the Testament of Christ throughout, and if you can, shew it to be otherwise. If not, give glorie to God, and yeeld to the truth.

Chap. 8. The Seuenth Reason or Exception against Mr Iacobs Comparison aforesaid.

Fran. Iohnson. AS when a man and woman have consented each to other, if the man do afterwards give his body to another, and so commit adultery: Then is the marriage-knot broken.

So, if after a people have chosen a man to be their Minister, hee give himself to another and a false Ministery, and so commit spirituall whore­dome: Then is the former knot also broken.

H. Iacob his Reply. THe taking of orders from a Prelate, after consent given to a Minister by a people, is not like adultery in mariage: especially where both Pastor and people are simply ignorant of that error. Therefore that disanulleth not, as adultery doth the wedlok. So this Reason is much like to the last before, and the answer not vnlike to that of the Fourth Reason likewise. For

• That which at the First maketh not vncapable: That same afterwards doeth not dissolue.
• But this error maketh not Christians vncapable at the first: as thero is shewed, and in the Third chieflie:
• Therefore neither can it dissolue afterwards the Covenant betweene the Pastor and the people.

Fr. Ioh. his Answer. YEs Mr Iacob, albeit your peoples consent were the choyse of a true Church, yet such taking of the Prelates Orders were like adultery. How much more in your case, who have drunke so deep of the cup of Babels fornications? Yet you say, these two are not alike: but your saying you proue not at all. I do still affirme there is likeliehood between them, and thus I prove it.

To receive the Ministerie of Antichrist, is to commit spirituall whore­dome. (For Antichrists Ministerie is part of the Whores abominations, spoken of, Rev. 17.4.5.)

But the taking of Orders from a Prelate, is to receive the Ministery of Antichrist. (Witnes your Book of ordination, Adm [...]. to the parliam. compared with the Popes Pontificall: Wherein (your selves confesse) he sheweth himself to be Anti­christ most livelie. Witnes also the nature of your Orders and Prelacy, compared with the ordinance and Ministery of Christ.)

Therefore the taking of Orders from a Prelate, is to commit spiritu­all Whoredome.

Now that there is likelyhood and fit Comparison between corporall and spirituall Whoredome, the Scripture doth every where teach, and your self Mr. Iacob (I think) will not be so sencelesse as to deny it. Even [Page 216] here you confesse that your taking of Orders from a Prelate, is an error.

Neither will the ignorance you pretend, help the matter. For although it cannot well be thought, that after so open and manifold declaration of the truth, as you have had, you should still be ignorant thereof: yet if it were so, your ignorance (you know) will not warrant your action, nor justifie your sinne. Ignorance in deed causeth a sinne to be lesse, but not to be none at all. Suppose that two ignorant persons, not knowing (or at least pretending not to know) adultery to be vnlawfull, should commit that folly togeather: Were their action therefore not to be deemed adul­terie? Yet thus you reason. And your answer besides importeth some yeelding to the similitude, as towching them among you which know the truth. Let all such therefore, especially, weigh with them selves in what wofull estate they remaine wittinglie, even such as is spiritual whore­dome against the Lord.

So this Reason in deed is like to the last before, that is, direct and of waight against you: and your aunswer vnto it not vnlike to that of the Fourth Reason and the rest, that is, meerlie frivolous and to no purpose at all. For this error as you call it (that is, your subjection to the Prelacy and abominations of Antichrist yet remaining in your Church) maketh you in that estate evē at the first vncapable of chusing a Pastor: or of entring such Covenant as you speak of, or of performing anie other action, by the power and liberty which Christ hath given to his Church For what concord hath Christ with Antichrist? Or how can the liberty of Christ and bondage of Antichrist stand together,2 Cor. 6.15. 1 King. 18.21. and the one not expell the other? Or will you alway halt between two opinions, and never make streight steps vnto your feet, to turne them into the testimonies of the Lord? Be not deceived: God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. He that soweth to Antichrist, shall with him reap corruption: but he that soweth to Christ, shall by him reap life everlasting. 2. Thes. 2.10.11.12. Rev. 14.9.10.11.12. Gal. 6.7.8. Ioh. 3.36. Heb. 5.9.

Chap. 9. Of the clause annexed at the end of Mr Iacobs printed book, which is thus:

H. Iacob. THis last Treatise, hath remayned in their hands, these three yeares & more, vnanswered.

Fr. Iohnson. THis is most false, Mr Iacob. For I did aunswer it my self, “ above three yeares synce.In the yeare 1596. And (being then close prisoner) I sent it away from me sheet by sheet (as I did at the same time my aunswer also to the former Treatise) to be copied out and conveied vnto you. Since which time, you have not given any Replie vnto it againe. No, not vnto this day. [Page 217] So it is your self that have not answered me these three yeares and more. Mynd therfore how greatly you have abused both me and your Reader.

But perhaps you will say, my answer came not to your hands: For so by this clause of yours, it may seem to be. If it were so (as for myne owne part, I know not whether it did or no) yet of this I am sure, that when you sent me word these things were to be published,Moneth. 5.10. and 30.159 8. I wrote to you “ twice, desiring (among other things) this in particular, that then you would with the rest publish also my answer to this Reply of yours. So as by this you had knowledge (if not before) that it was answered. Yea you know moreouer, how I wrote vnto you at the same tyme, that you had not replyed vnto me agayne, synce I answered you: and that if you wanted any of my answers, or by any occasion had them not perfect, I would help you to them, if you sent me word &c. And these Letters of myne you received,In your Let­ters to me. Mon. 5.27 and 6.20. 1598. as your self “ certifyed me: Which I have yet to shew vnder your owne hand. Yet you have not onelie left my Answer to your Treatise vnprin­ted, but you shame not besides to affirme (contrary to your knowledge) that it hath remayned in our hands, these three yeares & more, vnanswered.

Think now with your self (Mr Iacob) what conscience or honesty there is in such dealing. But it may be you had not so much care to deale well, as to have the parts of your book agree together alike. For as with vntruth and bad dealing you began, and proceded in it hitherto, so you do now also end it: Principio medium, medio ne discrepet imum.

Thus in deed all the parts of your book from beginning to ending are suteable one with another. Yet such correspondence in your Book, is small commendation to your self. Better dealing would better become you: save that seing you fight for Antichrist his Churches and Ministery, it is no vnmeet thing that you vse the weapons of Antichrist: Which are chiefly two, falsehood and violence. Of the former whereof your book is full, from end to end, speaking lyes through hypocrisy. And with the lat­ter your Church (which you would defend) aboundeth, as your violent courses against the truth will alway testify to your face, howsoever you shame not to plead evē for this also. For which see before, Pag. 112.133.134.

If you write agayne, be better advised.Rev. 14. & 18. chap. Psal. 84. Ier. 50. and 51. Chap. Or rather learne to lay your hand on your mouth, and plead the cyuse of Antichrist no more. But fol­low the Lambe whithersoever he goeth: And give your self no rest, vntill you appeare before God in Sion. Forsake Babel: Let Ierusalem come vp on your heart, and help you to build the walles thereof, though it be in a strait and troublous tyme. And this which I speak vnto you, by the word of God, I wish to be mynded of all, that feare God, and love the Lord Iesus.