A DEFENCE OF THE CHURCHES AND MINISTRY OF ENGLAND.  
Written in two Treatises, against the Reasons and Objections of Master FRANCIS JOHNSON, and others of the separation commonly called BROWNISTS.  
Published, especially, for the benefit of those in these parts of the low Countries.  
MIDDELBURGH, By Richard Schilders, Printer to the States of Zealand, 1599   

THE PUBLISHER TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.  
ABout Three Years since, Master jacob having some speech with certain of the separation before mentioned, concerning their peremptory & utter separation from the Churches of England, was requested by them, briefly to sétt down in writing, his Reason for defence of the said Churches, And they would either yield unto his proofs, or procure an answer unto the same. Whereupon, the Argument following this Preface, was set down in writing by Master jacob: which the said parties did send to Master Fr. johnson, being then prisoner in the Clinke in Southwark, who made an answer unto the same, containing 3. Exceptions and 9 Reasons in denial of the Assumption: Whereunto Master jacob Replied. Afterward Master johnson defended his said Exceptions and Reasons: And finally, Master jacob Replied again. As by the particulars themselves appeareth.  
Now having weighed and considered with myself, the great ignorance and errors, wherewith those of the separation aforesaid, are and have been lately carried away: namely, to affirm, That all that stand members of the Churches of England, are no true Christians, nor in state of salvation, And such like most ungodly sentences, which would grieve any Christian soul once to think on, much more to publish to the view of the world: And weighing likewise withal, the great weakness of many Christians among us, who (through want of experience, or due consideration of things as they are) may easily by their delusions be drawn away into those errors with them: I have therefore: (Aswell in hope of reclaiming of the said parties from their said extremities, (which now I judge the most of them, for want of means see not:) As also for the staying of others from running into the same grievous excess with them) now published this discourse to the view of the world, which hath line buried in the hands of some few. Many being desirous of it, who by reason of the largnes in writing out of the same could not obtain it: Whereunto I am so much the rather induced, For that the Reasons herein by Master jacob alleged, have (by God's blessing) reclaimed many from their former errors, and satisfied others, who have been doubtful, and subject to fall into the same.  
In the examining of which Discourse, I shall desire the Reader to observe a few notes for his better proffiting in the same.  
1. And First, (among the rest) to note this, as a token of the strange and obstinate dealing of Master johnson and others of them, viz. That heretofore, (until such time as the Argument hereafter mentioned, was framed against them,) they never denied, That the doctrine and profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in state of salvation: But always held, professed and acknowledged the contrary: As by the public confessions of themselves, namely Master Barrow, Master Penry, and Master johnson himself, in this discourse mentioned in Pag. 81. appeareth: But now, they seeing; That if they should acknowledge the said Doctrines and profession, to be sufficient to salvation: That then this conclusion would of necessity follow, that those that hold and practise them, are a true 
* Which yet Master Penry confessed, see Pag. 82.  Church, And so their own former judgements should be crossed. Rather I say then they would be drawn to that, They now stick not to deny their own confessions (which they think to be the saifest way for them,) and like unnatural children, so vehemently hate, contemn, and despise their mother who bore them, nourished, and brought them up: from whose breasts they sucked that sweet milk of the means of everlasting life and salvation, (if ever they had any taste of it at all.) Being notwithstanding, not abashed now in a desperate manner, in the hardness of their heart, to affirne: 
* Which appeareth, generally by denying the Assumption of Ma. jacobs', & particularly in these pages 13. 62. 63. 64.  That none by the doctrine of the Churches of England, can be a true Christian, or saved: But that they all worship God in vain, Are abolished from Christ, Are Babylonians, Idolaters, departers from the faith, worse than Infidels; And such like most unchristian sentences, making them all one with the Church of Rome, etc. Which impious affirmations, would cause any Christian heart to lament and bleed for grief; Whose unchristian sentences, and false and deceitful Reasons, (the very naming whereof were sufficient to refute them,) are most plainly taken away, and clean overthrown, by these brief Replies of Master jacob unto every of them, unto which I refer you. Only this I add with all, which I would desire might be noted: That if they continue in their former confessions, That the doctrines and profession of the Churches of England are sufficient to salvation; (As they ought, it being the very truth) Then are they all in a most grievous schism, in so peremptorily condemning, and separating, from such true Christians and Churches. And if they deny it: (as they have begun to do:) Then do they run headlong, into an intolerable sin and extremity, without all warrant of God's word: And beside give just occasion to be called fearful 
* Which name they unjustly give to those, that justly for this their extremity forsake their fellowship  Apostates, in so wholly falling (and that advisedly, for advantage sake, as it seemeth plainly to appear) from so notable a truth which before they embraced, and acknowledged.  
2 Secondly, I would desire the Reader not to be carried away with the multitude of corruptions, from the Question or matter in hand, (viz. Whether the good doctrines of the Churches of England are sufficient to salvation in them that in simplicity of heart believe and embrace them, notwithstanding the multitude of errors and corruptions which Master johnson repeateth to the contrary:) But to have an especial regard unto the same. Which is the main point that hath and doth altogether deceive them, viz. To have an eye to the corruptions in the ministery, worship, and government of the Churches of England: But never to look unto the nature and force of them, whether simply of their own nature, they overthrow faith and Christianity, or whether they be held of obstinacy and a convicted conscience, or not. Therefore I pray you mark and examine the errors which they reckon up, (and I desire the same also of them, for whose good especially I published this Treatise.) And after due consideration, see if those errors are simply of that nature which before we have noted. If they be not, (as Master johnson nor all the men in the world, shall ever be able to prove they are:) Then do they get no advantage by those errors, to this purpose which they urge them for, although they were Thrice as many 
* Notwithstanding they are too many already.  more as they are. Thus they may see how they have all this while been deceived, and are now to seek a new for defence of their separation. For I hope they will not say, That every error, held in simplicity by Christians, doth cut them off from salvation in Christ; Then should they condemn themselves, unless they hold anabaptistical perfection, which surely though I think they hold it not simply in their consciences; Yet in their practise (by condemning others so peremptorily; that jump not even with them in every point) they come very near it: But let this pass; we see then, That of necessity, the nature of the errors must be regarded, Every sin is not a like. Me thinks then, that they should afford that favour to others, which they would have others to offoard unto them: namely, That as they would be accounted true Christians, through their faith in Christ, notwithstanding their errors (which they must acknowledge 
* Psal. 19.12 1. Cor. 13.9.12  are infinite many in this life.) So they should account of others in the like case: which even common sense and humanity would require them to grant.  
To impress this thing a little better in their minds, I will a little turn my speech unto them. And I would pray them, to call to mind the many errors and corruptions which they bear with among themselves, and lay them and the errors with us together, and they shall see their equality.  
Some of you, hold it utterly and simply unlawful, to swear by a book, to prove a will, take an administration or sue in the Ecclesiastical Courts: To shut up your shops upon Holly days and Festival days, etc. And that these are the inventions of Antichrist, etc. And others of you, hold these things altogether lawful, and have and do put them in practice, with many other such like things which I could name. But these shall suffice.  
Now the thing which I would from hence note is this. Can you among yourselves bear with such weighty points as these, which you say are the inventions & traditions of Antichrist that man of sin, which (in your account) are the 
† I would you knew the marks of the Beast a little better.  marks of the Beast, 
* Reu. 14.  which who soever receiveth, shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, and shallbe tormented in Hell fire for ever? And will not your stumackes serve you, to bear with the Churches of England, in the like, or rather in far lesser matters? What equity is there in this? Surely you are (for the most part) so wholly given, and bend your wits and minds so much, to look into the estate of other men & other Churches, & to apply the scriptures to them: As you seldom or never look into your own estate, or apply the scriptures to yourselves: But look unto it, it will be your decay in th'end. You may see them by your own practise all errors are not alike: But yet, will some say, Objection. are not all the scriptures and commandments of God fundamental, and to be obeyed alike? etc.  
Answer. Let such consider of this scripture 1. Cor. 3.12.15. amongst many other: which plainly proveth, that many errors (so they be not of obstinacy) may be built by a Christian upon the foundation Christ jesus, and yet be a true Christian still: For which see further Master jacobs' answer in Pag. 88 Again there are errors simply fundamental, which of their own nature clean abolish from Christ; such are the errors of the Arians concerning the Deity of Christ: of the Anabaptists concerning his humanity: of the Papists concerning justification by works, praying to, and trusting in Saints, and such like, which directly raze the very foundation. But that any one, or all, of the errors in the Churches of England are of this force (as you would seem to hold by all your 9 Reason's) is most impious and ungodly to affirm: And as Master jacob very well noteth in his answer to every one of them: You thereby overthrow the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days, from being Christians, who held the very same corruptions in their ministery, worship, etc. which is now held in England: But say you, the Martyrs saw no further. Then you confess against yourselves, that our errors do not simply abolish from Christ (as you every where affirm most ungodly, especially in defence of your 7. Reason.) But that if men in these things see no further, they are in the same estate with the Martyrs. Now if you would have your Reasons hold, you must prove the Churches of England all convicted in conscience, which I hope you will not go about to do.  
Thus much concerning the nature of our errors, whether they be of obstinacy, or against the foundation directly: Which is the Second note I desire to be observed.  
3 Thirdly, I would desire the Reader to observe, the wresting and misaplying of certain places of scripture, which (partly in this Treatise, and also in other their writings) they allege for their absolute and peremptory separation from the Churches of England: which I have thought not a miss here to set down, that thereby the Reader (and themselves, upon better consideration of the end and scope of the holy Ghost in these places) may see, how they wrist and misapply them, clean contrary from the true and natural sense thereof.  
The scriptures which they allege for their separation, are these.  Then the sons of God saw the daughters of men. Gen. 6.2. Ye shall keep therefore all mine ordinances and all my judgements and do them, that the land whether I bring you to dwell therein spew you not out, therefore shall ye be holy unto me, for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine. Leu. 20.22.26. So the children of Israel which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the Heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat, etc. Ezra. 6.21. Depart, depart ye, go out from thence, and touch no unclean thing, go out of the midst of her, be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord Esa. 52.11. Fly from the midst of Babel, and depart out of the land of the Chaldeans. jer. 50.8. And Fly out of the midst of Babel and deliver every man his soul from the fierce wrath of the Lord. jer. 51.6.45 Come not ye to Gilgall, neither go ye up to Bethaven. Hos. 4.15. Come to bethel and transgress, and to Gilgall and multiply transgression, etc. Seek not Bethellner enter into Gilgall, and go not to Beersheba. Amos. 4.4.5. Save yourselves from this froward generation. Act. 2.40. And when certain were hardened and disobeyed speaking evil of the way of god before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the discipels, etc. Act. 19.9. Therefore come out from among them, and separate yourselves saith the the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. 2. Cor. 6.17. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, go out of her my people, etc. Reu. 18.4. 
These are the very main grounds, on which their separation is builded, which being duly weighed with the scope of the text, you shall very easily find, that not one amongst them all, will hold in proportion with this time, nor bear the separation they gather from them. First because either they concern such times and states as the people that lived in th●●●; were professors of, or subject unto, open gross Infidelity, & either Heathen or Antichristian Idolatry, not in some particular customs & outward ordinances, but in the whole body and power of Heathen & Antichristian religion, such as could not possibly stand with true faith and religion at all: Which can not be said of these times & present standings, without open untruth. 2 Or else because if they be not of that sort, they afford no such absolute separation at all, but only from wilful, rebellious, & obstinate disobeyers, & evil speakers, and from apparent gross corruptions, but not from the whole public body of those Assemblies, nor from the lawful and good things used in such times and standings, as have not wholly swerved from the faith, though there were divers grievous faults, both in doctrine and practise, suffered among them. As by the example of the jewish Churches in the times of the Prophets, especially of Christ himself, may plainly appear. The Evangelists make mention in divers places, That they worshipped God in vain, teaching for doctrine men's precepts. They made their proselytes the Children of Hell Two fold more than they were before. They made the commandments of God of none effect by their traditions. Such as believed in Christ they excommunicated, etc. Yet were they a true Church, notwithstanding these, and many other grievous enormities: with whom Christ himself and his Apostles, had communion and fellowship, sometime in those good things that were among them. And so might they with the Churches of England, without justifying or allowing these things, which they see to be evil. All which things do more fully appear in the conference itself, as it followeth hereafter.  
But unto the examples of these Churches, me thinks I hear already that common answer and last refuge of theirs: which is this. Objection▪ Those Churches (say they) were in a true outward constitution, And therefore were the true Churches of Christ, notwithstanding those gross errors which they held in other points of doctrine and practise: But contrariwise (say they) the Churches of England have a false outward constitution, and therefore they are no true Churches of Christ, notwithstanding their truths of doctrine, etc.  
Answer. So the outward constitution is the main point on which they wholly depend, and for which, they wholly condemn the Churches of England from being true Christians & in state of salvation: Which I doubt not plainly to take away. 1 And first concerning the constitution of the jewish Churches. If we should examine the same, we should find that it was as greatly altered and corrupted, as is the constitution of the Churches of England. Two high Priests having by simony crept in at once, which was unlawful, and contrary to God's ordinance, (notwithstanding their gloss in their other 
“ 9 Reasons.  writings, to allow them to be lawful by 
* 2. Chron. 24.2.3.  Zadok and Ahimelech, and by 
“ 2. King 25.18.  Seruiah the chief Priest, & Zephaniah the Second: which make against themselves:) For there was never but one high Priest, as they confess 
* Answer to Master Hild. Pag. 50.  (Ergo not two as here were) the rest were indeed inferior to him: And yet amongst those, there was a chiefty also, who were called, sometimes Second Priests, or Priests of the Second order▪ 2. King. 23.4. and sometimes chief Priests, Mat. 27.1. These scriptures being compared with those in the margin by them cited, do make it more plain. Now, if the chief offices, were so corrupted and altered through covetousness, as the Histories make mention: It is not likely, that the inferior offices did remain sound, but were as much or more altered: The Priests (generally) being such covetous wicked persons, their offices being very gainful: and beside they living under the authority of the Heathenish Romans, who ruled over them. All these things considered, it is very likely that the offices & outward constitution (on which they so much depend) were wholly altered from the right institution, and therefore would make nothing for them. As for their allegation of Mat. 23.1. Where they say, Christ testifieth that they had true offices, by saying they sat in Moses chair: It will not help them, any whit at all. For Moses was no Priest, as they were, but a Magistrate: and therefore Moses chair must be understood of some what else: & themselves 
* Maist. Barrow and Mai. Greenwood, in divers Letters and Treatises.  have understood it heretofore, of Moses doctrine. 2. Secondly (to let their constitution pass, which yet as I have said, would be found as bad or worse than ours) we will examine their corruptions in doctrine: Wherein I would know of them, which are the greater sins, of these two sorts, viz. 

1. A false and corrupt outward constitution:  
2. Or false and corrupt doctrines.   I think they will say, the corrupt and false doctrines are the greater, as they are indeed: For that they, do wound, fester and corrupt the very conscience, and do deceive the hearers thereof, Whereas the errors in the constitution of a Church, (especially in some circumstances (as the errors with us are) and those of no small controversy, in matters also not fundamental) are nothing near so hurtful: by how much the Tithing of Mint, Annis, and Commin, are of lesser force than the other weightier matters of the law. Now from hence, I Reason thus.  
If the greater sins (namely in doctrine) do not simply overthrow a company of Christians, from being a true Church: Then much less will the lesser sins (namely in the outward constitution, etc.)  
But the false doctrines (which are the greater sins) themselves confess by the example of the said, Churches do not. Therefore neither will the lesser.  
For the better explaining of this point, I would pray them resolve me of this question. What if a company of Arians, anabaptists. or Papists, should be gathered and established in a true outward constitution, and still retain their fundamental errors before 
“ pag. 4.  named: Whether should their outward constitution make them a true Church, yea 〈◊〉 no? I think they will say no. Thus I hope than it appeareth, That the outward constitution whether falty or true, availeth nothing to the overthrowing or making of a true Church, unless other doctrines of the foundation, either false or true, do concur therewith. And thus their Objection of the jewish constitution, is (I trust) fully answered: So that still their peremptory separation and condempning of the Churches of England, for some outward corruptions, temayneth still a grievous sin upon their heads: for which (without hearty repentance) they shall one day answer before God, which will be too heavy a burden for them to bear.  
Lastly, concerning our corruptions: As we cannot justify them to be no corruptions, (but must needs acknowledge, that there are many yet remaining in our land, which were left by that man of sin & are as thorns unto our sides, 
judg. 2.3.  which we hope God will in time abolish): So dare we not run into your extremities, to condemn our Churches for such corruptions, but weight the appointed time of God for the redress thereof. Yet in the mean time, so long as those most excellent truths and doctrines of salvation, (for which God make us thankful) are still retained and held, as sound as by any Church upon the face of the earth (the other errors not simply overthrowing the same, being not held of obstinacy, and being also for the most part, of great controversy and disputation among the learned:) So long I say, communion in things lawful, is to be kept with them, as before is noted in the example of other Churches: Otherwise, it will come to pass, (by reason of the 
* Mat. 25.13. to 23.  diversity in opinions and judgements which by the corruption of our nature we remain in, in this tabernacle, as hath 
“ Leu. 4. Psal. 19.12.  been in all ages, and 
* 1 Cor. 13.9, 12.  shallbe, so long as this life of imperfection endureth,) that no communion can ever be had with any Church living, no nor any one Christian with another: Which to affirm, were most absurd and ungodly.  
These observations being considered, I doubt not but the Lord will add a blessing to this work, That such as are simple hearted, and have exceeded in eagerness of zeal: may see their extremity, in so rashly and unadvisedly separating from, and condemning the Churches of England, sometimes their Nurses and Mothers, as before is noted: Whereby God may have the glory, and themselves the comfort, even the salvation of their souls through Christ.  
D. B.   

AN ARGUMENT PROVING THAT the Churches of England are the true Churches of God.  
Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian and in state of salvation; That is sufficient to make a company so gathered together, to be a true Church.  
But the whole doctrine, as it is publicly 
* Book of Articles published Anno 1562.  professed, and practised, by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian, and in state of salvation (
* See further for these words in Pag. 3.  and our public Assemblies are therein gathered together.)  
THerefore it is sufficient to make the public Assemblies true Churches.  
H. JACOB.   

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

Fr. JOHNSON.  
TO omit the Proposition, until it better appear by their defence of the Assumption how to take and understand it, we will for the present only show the weakness of the Assumption: and this also the rather, because they seem wholly to depend upon it.  

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

Fr. JOHNSON.  
In our former answer to this argument, we omitted the proposition, not because of the certainty of it every way (as the Replier dreameth) but until we might see by his defence of the 
† The Assumption is examined and maintained Pag. 4.  assumption how to take it, as then we noted. Now therefore (having seen in his reply the unlearned, ungodly, and unconscionable pretences, by which he would seem to defend the Assumption, when in deed he doth nothing else but cast a mist before the eyes of the simple): we give him to understand, that the whole argument is lame and faulty in every part thereof. The Proposition is not absolutely true, as it appeareth he understandeth it, by his defence of the Assumption. The Assumption is not only false, as we proved in our former answer, but also lacketh a foot whereon it should go, 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 company so gathered together: he should (in the Assumption, if he would have had it sound and perfect) not only have assumed, that the doctrine etc. is sufficient to make a true Christian: but have added also, that their assemblies be companies so gathered together. Which being not done, both the Assumption wanteth one of the feet, and the conclusion inserreth more than was in the premises, and so the whole syllogism is faulty and disfigured.  
Thus might we, without any further answer, return this argument to the first framers of it, to be better fashioned: Yet in hope, that they may be brought (through the blessing of God) to receive the love of the truth, that they may be saved, and with their gifts no more to plead for, and deck the whore of Babylon, & to help forward the building & beautifying of Zion, we will more particularly lay open to them, the weakness of this his reply.  
And first, whereas he affirmeth, that the Proposition is most certain, & yet in his defence of the Assumption, he declareth, that he so taketh it, as whatsoever amongst them, be jointly together held, and joined with that, which otherwise might make a true Christian, or a true Church: yet notwithstanding, they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or commixtures: we answer that in this sense, the Proposition neither is, nor can be absolutely true, as it ought to be, if they would have their argument good. For who knoweth not, that such 
“ Gal. 5.2.4.  things may be joined with Christ, as abolish from Christ. And again, 
† 2. Cor. 6.14, 25.  that Christ and Antichrist can not accord together. Either therefore the Proposition is not general, but admitteth limitations, and then is not the Argument good: Or if it be general, without any limitation, so as whatsoever be added too (or commingled with) that which otherwise might make a true Christian, or a true Church, yet it hindereth nothing at all: Then is it not absolutely true in such understanding, as may appear by the former exceptions, & divers other that might be alleged.  
Next touching the Assumption, besides that it is lame, as before is showed, it is also untrue, as in our former answer appeareth. Some balm in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, save only to manifest to us so much the more, that the soar of their Assemblies cannot be healed. In our former answer, we first took 3. Exceptions against them, comparing together their profession and practice, than we alleged 9 Reasons, directly concluding the falsehood of the Assumption.  

H. JACOB.  
BEfore I examine this your answer, I would desire you, and all others, to note, that all your Exceptions and Reasons, with your defence of them, hereafter following, do consist of these three general points. 

1. That every person in England, holding our public faith, is no true Christian.  
2. That all the Christians and Churches in King Edward's time, and namely Master Cramner, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Taylor, etc. were all limbs of Antichrist, and no true Christians.  
3. That every soul in England, is convicted in conscience, that the prelacy is unlawful and untolerable.    
The First of these, is our main question, and the ground of all our reasoning, which you gainsay. The Second, though it be not expressly spoken, yet it is directly, evidently, and undeniably concluded, by all & every of your arguments against us. As in the severals hereafter we shall see. The Third, you are driven unto, for defence of your former Assertion, which else falleth to the ground. And this you affirm 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, or a Christian mind. And you M. johnson, if you list hereafter to say any more, defend these 3. points directly and plainly, that your answers may be briefer, and more certain, then now they are.  
Now I come to the particular examination of your former answerere.  
First you say, You omitted the Proposition before, not for the soundness of it, but only, because you would see how I meant it. Why? He that hath but half an eye, may see the meaning of those words, where is no darkness nor doubtfulness of sense at all. What fault find you in it now? Forsooth, first a want in the Assumption, & then untruths, both in the Proposition, and Assumption of my syllogism. There wanteth (you say) that I should express in the Assumption, That our Assemblies be companies gathered together in the doctrines & ordinances which we all by law publicly profess and practise. Who but a wrangler would not understand that I meant so much? Nay do not my express words imply as much: when I say, We by law publicly profess and practise them? Then are not our Assemblies (which are by la) gathered together in this profession & power? Fie for shame, these are senseless cavillations. But because what in me lieth, I would not have you any more to stumble at a straw, I have to satisfy you withal, 
Not that the Argument is unsound without this addition: But because the Reader may see how you will play at a small game rather than sit out, ut aiunt.  now added those words to the Assumption aforesaid in a contrary letter which you desire, viz. and our public assemblies are therein gathered together.  
Secondly, you say, that my proposition meaneth, that what soever is held together and joined, with that which otherwise might make a true Christian, or a true Church: Yet notwithstanding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or comixtures. O strange dealing: in all my writing I have no such word, no silable, no letter, sounding to that sense I have directly contrary, in my answer to your Fourth Reason, as yourself noteth there. Yet you M. johnson, with out all shame, in the view of the world, do Father on me this foul untruth, and most senseless error, in your first entrance.  
Further, where as it seemeth you reprove my Proposion, requiring to to have it set thus: Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian (and hath nothing added with it destroying the foundation of faith) That is sufficient to make a company so gathered together, a true Church.  
You must know Mr. johnson, that that were an idle & vain addition: for wheresoever there are any such things added destroying faith, there whatsoever else seemeth sufficient, indeed it is not sufficient to make a true Christian. Wherefore nodum in scirpo quaeris, this is to find a knot in a rush. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Proposition.  

The Assumption examined by the Exceptions and Reasons following  Lastly you come to deny my Assumption, or rather to maintain your denial heretofore given. Where first note that by denying my assumption, you affirm the first general point noted in this beginning.  
That every particular person in England, holding our public faith here, is not true Christian. Which (O Lord) who would not tremble to think on? Even that which this man above two years a go affirmed, and now again advisedly and wilfully defendeth. I take heaven and earth to record this day, whether this be not desperate madness, yea or no. But let us examine your exceptions, and reasons against my Assumption more particularly, & we shall see what stuff it is. Your first exception against the same is as followeth.      

Master johnsons I. Exception against the former Assumption: with Master jacobs' Replies to the same. EXCEPTION. I.  
FIrst let here be considered the 19 Article of that doctrine and book, which is alleged by themselves for their defence, and see if their profession and practise be not contrary one to an other: Yea whether even by their own doctrine and confession, contained in that book, it be not monifest, that they have not a true visible Church of Christ.  
The words of the Article are these.  
The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, 
Artic. 19  and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things, that of necessity are requisite to the same.  
These are their own words and doctrine: Now if they cannot prove their Assemblies to be such, they may see that their own witnesses, (even their own doctrine & book alleged) give verdict against them. If they can prove them to be such: where and what are their proofs, touching the particulars, mentioned in this their own description of a visible Church of Christ.  

H. JACOB his I. Reply to the 1. Excep.  
THis his first Exception, is the 19 Article of this very book which we allege, wherein a visible Church is described to be a Congregation, where the pure word is preached, and Sacraments ministered, according to all those things, that of necessity are requisite. Now this description, he rejecteth not, but our practice (saith he) is contrary: and therefore we have no true visible Churches, nor Christians.  
I answer: wherein is it contrary? in what things that of necessity are requisite? doth not all this Christian world see & confess, that our public practice, is agreeable to our profession in that book? Nay (saith he) but prove you your assemblies to be such, and if you can prove them, where and what are your proofs? if you do not, you are confuted. A worthy confutation sure, & very Clercklike: As if my Tenant should deny me rend for my house & land, yea and go to law with me for the fee simple, which he hath holden in farm of me these 40. years and I have hitherto, quietly enjoyed from my Ancestors, time out of mind: Now he suing me at law, for that which I thus possess, faith, prove your right to this land which you have; if you can, what, and where, be your proofs? let me see them: Or else I your Tenant will have it: This were goodly dealing, were it not, and very lawful. Even so do you, ask proofs of us for that which we possess, and have possessed before you made any question about it, nay you yourselves, held part of this possession of us and with us, till yesterday, when you began first to lay claim in this sort to the whole. Now your reason is, let us prove it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or else you will not acknowledge us any longer: see I pray you your own equity. If this suffice not to make you desist, I leave it to the judges to give sentence.  
Secondly note further: Our Article saith, A Church is where the word is preached, & Sacraments ministered according to all things that of necessity are requisite. Where we plainly insinuate, that many errors may be added, & truths wanting in a visible Church: but nothing which is absolutely necessary: Now, what doth our practise, in Preaching, or Sacraments, want, that is absolutely necessary, without which, there cannot be any true preaching or Sacraments at all, show it us because we see it not ourselves I assure you; until then, your first reason hath no reason in it.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Excep.  
HOw fit or unfit the said description of a visible Church (mentioned in the 19 Article of the said book) is, we neither did, nor do examine. Only because this is their own profession, and we see their practice is contrary unto it, we did therefore from hence take our first exception, requiring of them, to show their assemblies to be such, or else to know, that their own description, is a witness against themselves.  
Now in their reply, have they according to the particulars of that description, justified their Church-assemblies? nothing less. Let this therefore be first observed. But what then have they done? Surely this. First pretending as if they repeated our exception, and their own description, they leave out divers particulars, of special moment there expressed, as first, where the visible Church is described, to be a congregation of faithful men, they leave out these words (of faithful men) belike knowing that their Congregations, which are holds of all foul spirits, and cages of every unclean and hateful bird, 
Revel. 18.2.  cannot therefore justly be accounted congregations of faithful men. Secondly, where the description speaketh, that the Sacraments be duly ministered: they leave out the word (duly:) because it crosseth their women's Baptism, private Communion, receiving of the most profane and their seed, etc. Lastly, where in the description it is reqaired, both for preaching the pure word and due administration of the Sacraments, that they be done according to Christ's ordinance: they leave out altogether these words (according to Christ's ordinance:) belike because this clause quite overthroweth both their Antichristian Prelacy, from which all the inferior Ministers amongst them receive power and authority to preach, and minister the Sacraments, and their Priesthood and Deaconery, wherein they all administer, and their stinted imposed prayers, exhortations, crosses on the forehead, questiones to the infants, use of the same words in English in ministering the Lords supper, which the papists used and still use in Latin, not retaining the words of Christ's institution, and such like.  
Now thus having left out such particulars as were of special moment against them, they next demand wherein their practise is contrary to their profession, and description of a visible Church, in what things that of necessity are requisite? We answer, in all the particulars of that description aforesaid.  
For first, their Church-assemblies, are not congregations of faithful men, but a confusion of all manner of people though never so wicked and profane. The 
“ D. Whithg last book, pag. 176. and 178.  Prelates and Formalistes affirm, that their Church is full of Atheists, Papists, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whoremongers, & such like. The 
† Sermon on Rom. 12. pag. 65. and 66. Demonstration in the preface.  forward Preachers likewise aver, that in their church are swarms of Atheists, idolaters, Papists, erroneous & heretical sectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murderers, thieves, Adulterers, Liars, etc. Finally, that a man may be any thing amongst them, saving a sound Christian. These things being so, as both their estate and writings bear witness: let themselves judge, whether their Assemblies can be accounted Congregations of faithful men, or no: which is the first point of the description aforesaid.  
Secondly, in the same description is required, That the pure word of God be preached, according to Christ's ordinance. But amongst them, are allowed besides the word of God, the apocrypha books: and in stead of preaching the word, the reading of Homilies: as may appear in that book of Articles alleged by themselves. Yet who knoweth not, that in those books, are divers untruths, errors, contradictions, blasphemies, and such like? So far are they from being the pure word of God, or agreeing therewith. Moreover, when and where the word is preached among them, it is done by virtue of a false office and calling, never appointed by Christ. And the Ministers that preach it, do in their constitution stand always subject, to be silenced, suspended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when they are made Priests,) they promise, and (when they enter upon a benefice) they swear, Canonical obedience. Neither are they suffered any further to preach the word, and truth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Injunctions, adverticements, and caveats, in that behalf provided. If any preach the word of God any further, they are subject to be silenced, banished, & put to death. That these things accord with the ordinance of Christ, or with their own description of a visible Church, we suppose themselves will not for shame affirm it.  
lastly, in their description it is required, That the Sacraments be duly ministered, 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 lawful Minister. 2. A lawful people. And thirdly, A lawful administration, according to the Testament of Christ: In all which, their practise is conerarie to the ordinance of Christ, and their own description aforesaid. Their Ministers all of them are either Prelates, Priests, or Deacons (which amongst them is a step to the Priesthood:) none of which Christ hath ordained in his Testament for the work of his ministery. Their people are not separated from the world, but stand in confusion with it, and in subjection to the Antichristian Prelates and Prelacy: 
See john. 15.19. & 17.14.16. 1. john. 4.5, 6 Act. 2.40. and 19.9. Revel. 18.4. & 14.9.  And therefore can not be deemed a true church of God, & the people of Christ, unto whom in such estate the Sacraments (which are seals of the covenant of grace) do appertain, and may be administered. Finally, their administration is acçording to the inventions and precepts of man, with stinted prayers, exhortations, Epistles and Gospels: and besides those in Baptism, crossing on the forehead, & questions to the infant: in the Lord's supper, translating, and using out of the Mass book, other words than the words of Christ's institution, and such like, as may be seen at large in their book of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the Mass book, full of all abominations, as 
“ Admonition to the Parliament, second treatis.  themselves have published heretofore.  
These things we have been forced thus to mention at large, both because they twice demand (as if they knew not themselves) wherein their practice is contrary to that description aforesaid: and because they blush not to affirm, that all the Christian world seethe and confesseth their practise to be aggreeable to their profeession in that book. Whereas the contrary is most true.  
Touching which, what themselves have heretofore written to the contrary: See in the Admonitions to the parliament, Replies of T. C. against D. Whitguift, Demonstration of Discipline, etc., And what the reformed Churches profess to the contrary: see in the French, Belgic, and Helvetian Churches, and in the Harmony of confessions, Sect. 10. & 11. which would be too long to set down at large in this place: Neither is it needful, seeing it is most evident in the books and places alleged, whether we refer the Reader.  
Thus also it appeared, what just cause we had, to put them to prove their assemblies, to be such, as themselves describe visible Churches to be: Which, seeing they have not yet done, and seeing their practice is contrary to their profession, as now (at their request) we have showed in the particulars aforesaid: If they still be minded as before, we do also still ask, where and what are their proofs, touching the particulars mentioned in their own description of a visible Church.  
Their similitude of a Landlord and Tennaunt, is against themselves, so wortthy and Clercklike is their reply. If any have usurped, or otherwise made a false claim never so long, to a piece of land or other possession: may they not justly be called upon to show their title & bring fourth their evidence? Let the judges given sentence. If I deny their claim and title to be such, let him show their evidence from the Apostles writings: Let us from thence see their evidence for the offices of Archbs., Lordbs., Suffraganas', Archdeacon's, chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, Cnraets, &c: For their entrance into their Offices, according to their Cannons, and Book of ordering Priests and Deacons, and of consecrating Archbishops and Bishops: For their administration by their stinted imposed Liturgy, and by their Popish Cannons, Officers and proceed: For their Churching of women, praying over the dead, Holidays to Saints and Angels, Fasts on their Eaves, etc. For their maintenance by Tithes, Chrisomes, Offerings, etc. For their confused communion of all sorts of people, though never so wicked, in the body of their Church, etc. Let them (I say) show us evidence for those, from the Apostles writings, if they deny their claim to be such, as we have noted. Otherwise if they 
† Isay. 8.20.  speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, neither any right to that they challenged.  
Where they say, we held part of their possession with them heretofore: If they mean, that we with them received the beasts mark, and drunk of the cup of Babel's abominations, we deny it not: but acknowledge God's mercy, that passing over our sins, hath given us grace and strength at his 
“ reve. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18 Acts. 2.4.  commandment, to forsake that way of Antichrist, and to come out of that spiritual Babylon, to salvation of our souls, which mercy we wish also unto these men, that so being saved from this froward generation, they may become the sons and daughters of the Lord almighty in Christ our Saviour.  
Touching their Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Ministration, etc. enough is said before. Only where they say, they see not themselves wherein they fail, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things necessary, It is too impudent untruth, as their 
* Admonition to the Parliament: T. C. his replies in defence thereof: Demonstration of discipline. Declaration & defence of Ecclesiastical discipline, etc.  former writings do and will always testify to their faces, which we will not stand here to relate. That shall suffice which we have touched before, which till it be answered, it will be found that our first exception hath both reason and weight in it whatsoeverthey do or can pretend to the contrary.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 1. Excep.  
HEre is much ado to no purpose. You observe 4. points in our Article omitted by me, wherein our practise is contrary to our profession. first, our Article requireth a visible Church to be an assembly of faithful men: But our assemblies (say you) are not so. This is false, they are so, you shall never prove in us the contrary, more than appeareth was in the Church of the jews, both Ancient and in the time of Christ, And yet they then were the true Church: As I have elsewhere in this Book sufficiently proved and showed against you. That which you bring of D. Whitgift and other writers amongst us of the profaneness of many in our assemblies, you deprave their meanings utterly: for though they grant very many such to be amongst us, yet they say not, that all our assemblies are such, nor our whole assemblies: Neither deny they our assemblies to be companies of faithful men, or utterly to be separated from: Nay, the contrary do they: even that only they ought to be reform. Therefore you too grossly abuse them.  
Secondly, The Article requireth the pure word of God to be preached. But (say you) the Apocrypha books, & reading of Homilies, & other errors are allowed in our practise: Yea surely & in our profession too as yourself observeth in the book of Artic. yet then our profession & practice differ not, as you charge our Churches. But these points are not the pure word of God: Neither doth the Article mean, that in a visible church, every jot & title, both of our profession & practise, must needs be out of the pure word. They knew that every visible Church might & did err in somewhat. Only it meaneth, that a visible Church might not err in any point, that of necessity is requisite, as their words express. It resteth then that you show, that the pure word is not preached in our assemblies by law, sufficiently to salvation: which yet you do not, nor can do. Therefore you say nothing. For, I for my part know well, that our Churches fail from the pure word in sundry lesser points, which though they be errors, yet are they not Fundamental, neither do they in their own nature abolish from Christ.  
thirdly, the Article hath according to Christ's ordinance: But you say, that we preach in strange and false functions, such as are not Christ's ordinances. This is false too, Our ordinary Preachers are true Pastors, as touching the substance of Pastoral calling, as I have often answered you, albeit they have a wrong ordination from the Prelacy. See my defence of this point, as also of that concerning the confusion of our people, in my other writing long since delivered to you, touching the 
† In my answer to the 1. reason of that treatise following in the end of this book.  comparing of the condition of a ministery with Marriage. Now this ordinance of Christ to have a true Pastor to a faithful people, is sufficient for the being of a true Church, though not for the perfection of it. Contrary to the which, you have nothing but words.  
lastly, the Article requireth due administration of Sacraments: But our practise (say you) herein is not due or entire, because there concur divers corruptions withal: as stinted prayers, exhortations, Epistles, Gospels, & Crossing in Baptism, etc. I answer: all these simply of themselves do not abolish our Sacraments. If you think they do, say so, and you shallbe refuted. If nay, Then this very Article signifieth so much, That corruptions and faults might be in the Sacraments, but nothing amiss that of necessity is requisite.  
Now, all these 4. points I have omitted (say you.) True in words I have, but in sense I express them all and every one, when for brevities sake, I comprehended all in this general clause of this Article, according to all that is of necessity requisite. How say you, have I not herein contained and signified all these your exceptions, and that according to the meaning of the Article? If I have (as it is most true) then do you unconscionably abuse me, in saying, I pretended to repeat our description in the Article, and yet leave out divers particulars of special moment. And let this therefore be first observed, I have omitted nothing material in that Article. Yea let this be here noted, that in all this you have most fondly abused your pen and tongue. Yet will you still demand how our practice agreeth with our profession in that 19 Article? Still I answer you with that similitude of a foolish and importinate Tennaunt against his Landlord. If I have held possession, and my aunestors before my time out of mind, indeed the King laying claim to it, he may call for my evidence, because 
* Time prescribeth not against the Prince.  nullum tempus occurrit Regi, But against my fellow subjects, possession & inheritance (so long without interruption) is of itself evidence in law good enough, except the plaintiff can bring better to the contrary. Therefore it were absurd and senseless before any judge in England, for a Tenant to put such a Landlord to show his evidence in such a case. Even so, as absurd it is for you, seeing at first you were of us and now are gone out from us, to put us to prove ourselves to be such as heretofore you never doubted of. If now you doubt and contradict it, show you your reason as better evidence, or else all men will condemn your folly.  
Where you put me to prove all our offices of the hierarchy, their ceremonies, etc. What needeth it? I never took it upon me: Except first you do show, that these corruptions all or any of them, absolutely in their own nature do abolish us all clean from Christ, & make us unpossible to be saved, which until you do, still I say, I see not any piece of reason in all these your words.  
And lastly where you say, it is an impudent untruth, that I say we see not, that any thing necessary is wanting in our Church, And to this end you quote to convince me, The Admonition. T. C. his Replies, Demonstration, Declaration, and the Defence of Discipline, etc. This is indeed too bold an untruth, & a wilful perverting of your allegations. None of all these do grant any thing to be wanting with us that is necessary to the being of a Church simply, nor to the being of a true Ministry or Sacraments: But only to their well and convenient being. How honest then are you to falsify your own witnesses so openly?    

Master johnsons 2. Exception against the former Assumption, with Master jacobs' Replies to the same. EXCEPTION 2.  
SEcondly let them tell us, whether they hold & profess jesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinance only, and in no other. And if they do, then let them show us how their practise agreeth with this profession.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep.  
TO this Second Exception That Christ is our Prophet Priest, & King, I answer: The book of Articles, our Ministers now, and Congregations generally, do hold and profess the same (our practise being answerable likewise thereunto) even as before time Master Cranmer, Ridley Latimer, and such like, with their Congregations did then: viz. That Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King, and to be obeyed in his own ordinances only and in no other. This I say we generally profess and practise. Howbeit this note with all, we hold Christ's ordinance to be of two sorts, written or unwritten, the first necessary, the second arbitrary, The first touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion only, such as these, The doctrine of God, his Nature, his Persons, his Properties, of the Messiah Christ jesus, of justification, of Sanctification, of the Resurrection, etc. Wherein standeth the 
† 1. Cor. 3.12.23.  foundation of saving faith. All these must be in the written word or else to be none of Christ's. The second touching outward orders in the Church, which are truly called & accounted Christ's own also, although particularly devised and appointed by the Church, whom Christ hath authorized thereunto, even as it shallbe thought most fit and profitable for the present times, places and persons: such we hold all outward government and ceremonies to be, because they be not simply of the foundation, neither written, nor certain, nor perpetual, but at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate, and yet to be Christ's own nevertheless, who hath left this liberty for the Church to use; Thus we hold and thus we practise, and we are persuaded no Scripture to be against all this, but rather for it. I speak now concerning our Ministers and Congregations generally; that is our public Church state. If you say, but there are divers amongst us that think otherwise, I answer, But this is the general estate both of our Ministers and Churches, howsoever one or two amongst hundreds or thousands may think otherwise, show the contrary if you can. And our Churches, they certainly must be deemed after their general estate and constitution, not as one or two men think. If you say, this general opinion and practise is an error, Therefore they obey not Christ's ordinances in truth herein, though they think they do. I answer, let it be so, it is now 
* An error, though not foundamentall.  the error of their judgement, as it was in Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. Not pregnant rebellion and disobedience to Christ, not a convicted or seared conscience, so that their other 
“ 1. Cor. 3.12 15.  truths of the foundation are not frustrate, nor Christ made to none effect in them. And this is all our question, Whether they remain Christians still for all these faults, yea, or no.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Excep.  
COncerning our Second Exception, it was propounded by way of demand, requiring that they would show us, if they held Jesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, & King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinances only and in no other, how then their practise agreeth with this profession. One would have thought that here it had been good and needful (if they could) to have cleared this point by the Scriptures and the Testament of Christ, and from thence to have manifested, that their ministery, worship, ministration, government, etc. which are called in question, are no other than the Lord jesus Christ, (that Prophet, Priest and King of his Church) hath in his Testament given and appointed thereunto. And have they not done this? Surely no. What then do they say? First they tell us, That touching this point, their profession and practise now is so as before time it was with M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and their Cogregations. But what of this? Can the persons or age of thes whom he nameth, nay can any person or age's prejudice the truth? Were not they subject to error at all? or must their errors bind us: Did not john Hus (that worthy champion of Christ) and others also of the Martyrs in former times, say and hear Mass, even to their dying day, not seeing the abominations thereof? And did not divers of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy, some 7. Sacraments, some Purgatory, some Auricular confession, and such like grievous errors, etc., And yet notwithstanding died most constantly for the truths which they saw and testified, some for one, and some for another, as God manifested the truth unto them: As may be seen at large in their several Histories in the Acts and Monuments, whether we refer the Reader. But may we now so profess and practise in these things as they did? Or if we should, were their ignorance and errors a sufficient defence for us? yet thus would this man bear us in hand. But moreover, let him tell us, if Master Latimer and others, did not forsake the Prelacy and functions they had beforetime received? And Master Ridley at his death repent that he had been so earnest for the remnants of Popery in his time retained? Besides also, who knoweth not, that when Master Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, etc. died Martyrs for the truth of Christ, they neither had themselves, nor joined in spiritual communion with such as had the Prelacy and Manisterie now pleaded for? And not that only, but were also members of that persecuted church in Queen Mary's days, which was separated from the rest of the Land, as from the world, and joined in covenant, by voluntary profession, to obey the truth of Christ, and to witness against the abominations of Antichrist, As they also did even unto death, in the truth which they saw, though otherwise being but as it were in the twilight of the Gospel 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, what so ever truth God revealeth unto us by his word, And that otherwise, those holy Martyrs should rise in judgement against all such, as either withhold the truth in unrighteousness, or in any respect refuse to walk therein. Finally, seeing GOD hath given us his word, to be the light of our feet, and rule of our lives and religion: What mean these men to lead us from it, to the aberrations of any men whatsoever? Should not all people inquire at God, or would they have us go from the living to the dead? From God and his word to men and their errors? Doubtless this is that whereunto they would bring us, and whereby they misled their followers, as will yet further appear by that which followeth. For what say they next?  
Secondly, they tell us, and they wish it to be noted, (as we also do) That Christ's ordinances be of two sorts, either written or unwritten: the first necessary: the second arbitrary: the first touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion only: these (say they) are written: the second touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward gonvernement, and ceremonies: These, they say, are not written, but arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Thus (they say) they hold and practise, and think no Scripture is against it.  
In answer whereof, First we ask what scripture they have for this? Secondly, we allege against it, the scriptures 
“ 1 Tim. 3.10 15. & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5, etc. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. etc. & 6. cap.▪ & 14.23. & 15. cap. and 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. jam. 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1.2.3. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. cap. & 9 cap & 11. cap. & 12. cap. & 14. cap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6 1.6.2 Thes. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18 15.16 17. & 28.18.19.20.  quoted in the margin, whereunto many other might be added. thirdly, let it be observed, that themselves here grant and can not deny, but all the outward government and ceremonies of their Church, are invented and arbitrary at the pleasure of man, and not written in the word of God. Whereupon it followeth, that they are none of Christ's, and therefore not to be joined unto in the worship of God, as afterwards more fully will appear. fourthly, see how near they are driven that are glad to run back into the Papists tents, where yet they know there is no succour. Before they pleaded possession time out of mind: now they tell us of ordinances unwritten, etc. are not these mere popish shifts, even the old worn arguments of antiquity and unwritten verities, so often and so much stood upon by the Papists? Alas that these men should plead to be true Christians, and ye thus openly take part with Antichrist! What shall we say to these things? Surely God is just and will verify his word, where he saith," That they which receive not the love of the truth, that they may be saved, he will send them strong delusions, to believe lies, that they may be damned. Fiftly, note how he maketh the ordinances touching outward government and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither written at all. Surely this is strange divinity. It is an ordinance not only concerning the inward, but also the outward government of the Church, that Christ is Lord and King thereof: It is therefore no matter of faith? It concerneth the outward government, whether the Pope be (under Christ) head of the church or no? Doth it not therefore concern faith? Public prayer, preaching of the Word, and hearing of it preached, administration and receiving of the Sacraments, are matters concerning the outward government and orders of the Church: do they not therefore touch faith? Admonition and exhortation concern also the outward government of the Church, do they not therefore concern faith? Finally, by this divinity, the Sacraments of Baptism and of the lords supper, being ceremonies, shallbe no matters of faith at all amongst them.  
But here they stay not, but add moreover, That the outward orders, government, and ceremonies of the Church, be arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate, and not certain nor written in the book of God. Whereupon it followeth, that it is not certain nor taught in the scriptures, but arbitrary at the Churches & Magistrates pleasure: Whether Christ, or the Pope of Rome or of Canterbury, be head and Archbishop of the Church of God: Whether Jews only of the tribe of Levi, may now minister the holy things of God in his Church: Whether Christ have given any gifts, and set any offices in his Church for the ministery and guidance thereof: Whether prayer must be in a known or unknown tongue: Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and honoured: Whether the church may excommunicate: Whether the Popes, or any other Prelate's excommunication be to be regarded: Whether there be two, or three, or seven Sacraments: Whether the Passeover, Circumcision, and other ceremonies and sacrifices of the Law, be now to be used: Whether the Heathenish sacrifices and worship be to be joined withal: Whether cream, oil, salt, spittle, crossing and conjuring, be to be used in Baptism: Whether the bread only and not the cup, is to be given to the lay people (as they call them:) Whether holy water, holy ashes, holy palms and such like, be of the holy things of the church: Whether the jewish and Popish vestiments, fasts, and holy days are to be observed: and a thousand such like, which are all of them, concerning the outward orders, government, and ceremonies of the Church. By these men's Divinity, these and infinite such like, are unwritten and uncertain, but left only to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrate. Moreover, if it please them, the Princes and civil Magistrates may themselves be the public ministers of the word, Sacraments, and censures of the Church: any that will may without a calling take upon him to be a public officer in the church: Women may baptize, or administer the Lords supper: The Jewishe, Romish, or Heathenish priesthood may be retained: Auricular confession may be used: The Keys of the kingdom of heaven, may be appropriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Prelate of Canterbury, or any other whom soever: The Prelates and their Officials excommunications do bind in heaven: The Apochriphall books and Decretal epistles are canonical scriptures: The Papes Portuis and the English book of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawful worship of God: The Prelates and Priests are the true and lawful Ministers of God: Orders, penance, extreme unction, matrimony, etc. are the Sacraments of the Church: Cap, Surplis, Cope, Tippit, Rotchet, etc. are ornaments of the ministery. Finally, all rags and trumperies of the Romish religion, are good and lawful, if it please the Church and Magistrate. For why? They concern the outward government, orders and ceremonies of the church: And touching them (say these men) Christ hath not left any ordinances written, certain, or perpetual, but left them at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Is not this strange Divinity? Yet they stay not there neither, but as men that have bend their tongues like bows for lies, they fear not to add moreover, that when the Church and Magistrate appointeth any ordinances, (whether these or any other) touching the outward government & ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them to be Christ's own ordinances, who hath left this liberty to the Church for to use. O shameless mouth: O unchristian heart: Can any Papist or Atheist say more? or can any desire a more evident proof than this, that these men and assemblies thus holding, professing, and practising (as here themselves affirm) can not in this estate by the word of God, be deemed true Christians and Churches. Sixtly, observe how yet moreover they seek shifts, & would colour the matter, pretending That the things which concern outward government and ceremonies, are not of the foundation simply. But this will help them no more than the other. For first we ask, are they of the foundation at all, though not simply? If they be, then seeing they are not written, not certain, nor perpetual (as here is affirmed) it will follow, that neither the whole foundation is written certain, or perpetual: neither the Apostles were faithfuull and skilsull master builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this word (simply) added, as if they granted that they were of the foundation, though not simply as they speak. secondly we ask, whether the outward government and ceremonies ordained by Christ for his church under the Gospel, be not of the foundation, as much as the outward government and ceremonies appointed by Moses for the Church under the law? Or if they be, whether they are not as faithfully set down by Christ, as the other were by Moses, and as carefully to be observed by us, as the other were by the Jews, 
Heb. 3.2.3.  or rather much more, inasmuch as Christ the Son is worthy more glory and honour, than Moses the servant. thirdly we ask, what foundamentall points Moses and Aaron with the rest of the jews joining with them, held: that Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companions held not: Differing from them and erring only touching the Priesthood and ministery which concerned the outward orders & government of the Church: was therefore Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companies in that estate the true Jsraell of God? Or were not the other truths they held by this means frustrate and of none effect unto them? Nay, were they not therefore wholly to be separated from, and left to the judgement of God, 
Num. 16.  which overtook them and all that joined unto them? Yet was their error only in matters of order and outward government of the Church. This may suffice to convince the adversaries untrue assertions in this place. To that of Master Cranmer and Ridley etc. is answered before.  
For conclusion therefore, this we add, concerning this point. That all such assemblies and people, as hold, profess, and practise, (as doth the Church of England) these abominations following: They can not by the word of God, be esteemed in such estate truly to hold Christ, their Prophet, Priest, and King: Towit, The confusion of all sorts of people (though never so wicked) and their seed in the body of the Church: The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then jesus Christ: also of Archdeacon's, Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, Priests, half Priests, Parsons, Vicars, Vagrant and Mercenary Preachers, etc. The entrance into the ministery by an other way, and by other Lord, than jesus Christ: The executing of it under those strange Lords, & leaving it at their pleasure: The preaching of the word, administration of the Sacraments, and governing of the Church, by virtue of the offices and callings afore said, & according to the Popish Canons and constitutions: The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their officials: The confounding of Civil and Ecclesiastical offices and authority in the Ministers of the Church: The forbidding of Marriage at certain seasons: The imposing and using of stinted devised Liturgies: The English Portuis, taken out of the Pope's latin word for word (save that a few of the grossest things are left out) yet keeping the same frame and order of collects, Psalms, Lessons, Pater nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Versicles, Respondes, etc. Appointing holy days to all Saints and Angels, to the Virgin Marie, john Baptist, Mark, Luke, and twelve Apostles severally: together with Fasts on the Eaves and on Ember days, Fridays, Saturdays & Lent: Prescribing the Ministers to pray over the dead, over the Corn and Grass at some seasons of the year, and over Women at their Courching or purification: joining them also to marry with the Ring, which they make a sacramental sign: And to baptize likewise with the sign of the Cross, with Godfathers and Godmothers, with questions demanded of the infant that can not speak nor understand: Giving power, to Women to baptize: And ordaining that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they receive their maker: and with change of the words of Christ's institution, taking in steed of them, the words of the Pope's Mass book, translated into English, etc. Finally, the upholding of these and all such amongst them only by carnal weapons, of imprisonment, death, confiscation of goods, banishment, and such like. The assemblies (I say) and people which hold, profess, and practise (as doth this Church of England) the abominations afore said, concerning the outward order and government of the Church, what soever truths they hold beside, yet can they not by the word of God, be deemed truly to hold the Lord jesus, their Prophet, Priest, and King, in such constitution of a church. Neither therefore can they in this estate by the word of God be accounted true Christians, nor the true constituted churches of Christ: & this is the question between us and our adversaries. 7. lastly, let the godly and indifferent Reader! judge, whether it will not follow upon this answer in this place: First, that the 
a Contrary to 1. Tim. 3.15. 2. Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1. Corin. 4.6. Reu. 22.18, 19  Scriptures are not sufficient for the building up and guidance of the Church here on earth: secondly, that the 
b Contrary to the 2. Tim. 3.17 with 1. Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Psal. 119.105.13.  men of God can not by the Scriptures be made absolute and fully furnished to every good work: Thidlie, that 
c Contrary to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1, 2, 3. Esay. 32.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1. Cor. 11. and 12. and 14. Rom. 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Mat. 28.20.1. Tim. 6.13, 14.  Christ himself in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid, yet was so foolish, careless and unfaithful, as having an house and kingdom (which is his Church) he hath not in his word appointed unto it, any offices, laws and orders, for the due governing and ordering thereof: Finally, That the 
d Contrary to the 2. Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Psal. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Reu. 9.1, 2, 3, and 14.9, 10, 11.  Hierarchy, Worship, Sacraments, Traditions, Canons, and whatsoever constitutions of Antichrist, concerning the outward orders and government of the church, being appointed by the Church and Magistrate, are to be accounted Christ's own ordinances: O shameless impiety: Doubtless this is that same strange passion, and mere desperateness, wherewith afterward unjustly they charge us: which we will not prosecute, as it deserveth, but exhort them only, to take heed lest that woe come upon them which is written: Woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good: which put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight, Esa. 5.20.21.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 2. Except.  
IN this your defence of your second Exception, it pitieth me to see your extreme folly: which is the more miserable, because it appeareth to be not of weakness, but of wilfulness. You would know of us if we hold Christ to be our Prophet, Priest and King, and if we profess to obey him in his own ordinances and in no other. I answered, we do constantly profess so, and as we profess so we practise. But to make our profession & practise in this point more manifest, I noted how our stare meaneth Christ to be our Prophet, Priest and King, and how he is to be obeyed viz. That the written word ought of necessity to show us our inward and mere spiritual belief & obedience. As for the outward Church order, our state holdeth that it is arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated again at the liking of the Church and Magistrate, And that the word no where forbiddeth this liberty: Where note in this explication two things.  
First, it is foul wrong to our Churches and to my words, to say as you do, That they mean, no outward orders at all, be matters of faith, or constant in the Scriptures. Nay it was never doubted, but to preach, to pray to administer Sacraments etc. though external, yet are perpetual things and necessary and unchangeable by the Scriptures. My express words, and our Church's meaning is, That any reasonable kind of Church government, and rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures; And yet still Christ to be our only, and absolute King & Prophet nevertheless. Whosoever doth urge upon our Churches further, or on my words; doth slander and cavil, and malitionsly deprave them and nothing else.  
Secondly, note in my explication, that I justify not this opinion of our stare, but I say, Thus to believe and practise, simply, destroyeth no man's salvation in Christ, which you denying generally and vehemently, in your sixth answer, You deny directly Master Cranmer, etc. to have held the foundation, or to be saved: wherein, you openly profess and proclaim, that second general point which in the beginning I charged you with: That all Churches and Christians here in King Edward's time, and namely Master Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Philpot, Saunders, Rogers, Tayler. etc. held not Christ their Prophet, Priest and King, and so consequently they were limbs of Antichrist (for they bore his mark even to their deaths) and no true Christians. Alas to see how malice and prejudice hath blinded you. Is there not greater cause for us to cry & say against you, O shameless mouth, o unchristian heart, which terms, you vainly charge upon me? Is this you that white the Toombs of those Martyrs, and yet in fine, condemn them for no true Christians, nor their Assemblies for Churches?  
You add a clause, They that profess and practise as doth the Church of England, etc. If you mean hereby to put a difference, between those good men's holding this opinion, and our Churches now. Yea between your own lately, and ours now, speak out, what is it? You can imagine none but this. Those good men Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. and yourself of late, held these very same errors of the outward Church order which we do; But they and you, did (it seemeth) of simplicity, we maliciously: they of ignorance, we of plain obstinacy, and having a convicted and seared conscience: whereby, they & you might be true Christians for all these errors, but we now cannot be so. If this be your meaning, than you grant us our Assumption, against which all your dispute here is bend. You grant it I say, That the whole doctrine, as it is by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian. Secondly we now err not in these points of simplicity, but of wilfulness and malice.  
Say you so? Speak that plain then. Our whole assemblies? all and every of our assemblies? of wilfulness and of a convicted conscience? Are you sure of this? Do you know every man's heart and conscience so well? If you do, than you say somewhat indeed. But you are then near as wise as God himself, to know men's hearts so perfectly, whose faces you never saw; You will say, you know divers, whom you dare say are convicted in conscience. That is much also to affirm. But if you do, that serveth not your turn, unless all be so convicted. Christ knew a great many in the Church of the jews, yea of the learnedst and chiefest in authority, that were convicted in conscience, that he was the Christ, who blasphemed in denying him, And yet the Assemblies then where not convicted, they still were true Churches. Wherefore in this saying, if you say to the purpose, you then affirm the Third general point that I noted in you at the beginning of this my last Reply: That every soul in England is convicted in conscience.  
But here I marvel that you say, Master Hus and others of the holy Martyrs did hear and say Mass till their dying day, Also that others did acknowledge the Pope's supremacy. I ask you, do you mean that they held and used the Popish Mass, according to all the abominations that are in it? If you think so, then surely neither Hus, nor any of the rest, were holy Martyrs. For therein are found errors plainly fundamental, which of themselves abolish from Christ; They are not to be compared to our public errors now in England, The like I say of the Pope's supremacy. If you think any of the Martyrs acknowledged it in the large and ample meaning thereof, as the Popish Doctors do set it down; Then verily neither were they any Martyrs. The book of Acts and Monuments whither you send us, affirmeth not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort. It may be therefore they held many and grievous errors of ignorance, both in the Popish Mass and in the supremacy, which might nevertheless stand with Christ crucified, And so they might be & were holy Martyrs: But I affirm, that according to the damnable grossness of the very Papists, they neither did nor could hold them. Therefore in these instances you say nothing to us, nor against the question in hand.  
Further, you said before in the beginning of your defence of this Exception, 
* Pag. 13.  That Master Cranmer Ridley, Latimer and the rest of the Martyrs then, neither had themselves, nor joined in spiritual communion, with such as had the Prelacy, and Ministry now pleaded for. Now I see you make no conscience of untruths, yea you are bold to avouch open and known falsehoods. Did not Master Cranmer hold himself for Archbishop still, and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed, and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it? Did he ever repent of holding that Office till his death? Also did not Ridley stand upon his right to the Bishopric of London though ready to die? Latimer though he renounced his Bishopric, yet he kept his ministery, and never repent him of it. Philpot never misliked h●s archdeaconry: Yea when he refused bloody Bonner, Yer he appealed to his ordinary the Bishop of Winchester. The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar. And generally whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelate's ordination, they never renounced it, though they died Martyrs. Thus appeareth your bold untruth in this behalf.  
Further in your sixth answer Pag. 16. First you will not see what I mean in saying, That these outward orders be not of the foundation simply: I meant, not at all of the very 
* 1 Cor. 15.2, 3, 4. Rom. 4.25. 1. Cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  foundation, neither are they. Secondly you ask if our outward orders under Christ be not fundamental aswell as the jews under the Law, I answer, neither were the jews outward orders of the very foundation, without which they could not be saved. Thirdly you ask how Corah, etc. differing from Moses and Aron only about the Priesthood and ministery, were separated from, and damned. I answer, not that the matter was fundamental, but the Manner was rebellious, with consciences a thousand times convicted, and so done with a high hand against God himself.  
But now this considered, How vainly do you charge me in your entrance into this Excep. pa. 13. That I & others of my mind, go about to justify these matters of order in controversy by Cranmer, Ridlies and Latimers' example, and their Congregations then. For shame do you not see the contrary, that I call them errors. I only justify by their example that these corruptions abolish us not from Christ, as theirs did not, And that I trust is sound. Which thing also you might have remembered, if you had been so charitable, by that which I wrote in 
“ In the next treatise following, of the comparison of the Ministry with Marriage: Ans. to your first Reason.  another place.  
Then in your first answer, Pag. 14. How vainly do you ask us for Scriptures to prove those orders, seeing I expressly called them errors.  
The like in your Second, where you load up Scriptures to disprove them.  
Also thirdly, you charge an unconscionable untruth on me (if you mean this answer unto me) that I should grant and cannot deny, that all outward ceremonies and government, are arbitrary at man's pleasure: I only said, that our state holdeth that general opinion, Not that I myself held it, If you mean them, writ to them, and speak to them, if you mean me, you do me foul injury.  
Fourthly, whether they are Popish shifts or no, let our state, which maintaineth these things, answer you.  
Your Fift is answered in the first point of my explication noted before. pag. 19 To your sixth in pag. 16. we answered before in the Second point of my explication pag. 19  
Your Seventh in pag. 18. is also against the state of our Church, and not against me.    

Master johnsons 3. Exception against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. EXCEPTION 3.  
thirdly, let them show by the Scriptures, how the 36. Article of their doctrine & book alleged, agreeth with the Gospel of Christ and true Christianity.  
The words of the Article are these as followeth. The Book of consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering, neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that book, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.  
Moreover, how it agreeth with the Gospel and true Christianity, That apocrypha books and the book of Homilies, be read in the church by the Ministers diligently and distinctly. As is in Art. 6. and 35. of that doctrine and book aforesaid.  

H. JACOB 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 books and Homilies in the Church, agree not with true Christianity: Ergo, the Assumption above is false, that is, the whole doctrine of that book of Articles is not sufficient, to make us true Christians.  
I answer, you should have said, those points destroy utterly true Christianity, Ergo, etc. Else the Argument followeth not: But then we deny flatly the Antecedent or first part of the reason. But your Reason you will say shall go as you have put it. Then mark these reasons even as good as yours and all one. An Ethiopian is white of his teeth, therefore he is a white man. A Swan is black of his bill, therefore a Swan is black. My brother hath an eye of glass, or he hath a wooden leg, therefore my brother is no true man.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Excep.  
Our third Exception was this. Whereas they referred us to their book of Artieles 1562. were quired that they should show by the Scriptures how the 36. Article there mentioned, which is of the book of consecrating Archbiships and Bishops, and of ordaining Priests and Deacons: And how also the 6. and 35. Articles of that book, enjoining the apocrypha books and Homilies, to be read in the Church by the Ministers distinctly and diligently. How these, I say, do agree with the Gospel of Christ, and true Christianitis.  
Now I pray you, have they showed us these things by the Scriptures, as we desired: nothing less. First therefore mark this here and every where also in their reasons and answers, that though we call never so much to them for proof and evidence from the Scriptures, yet they never bring it, but labour to put it off with other shifts & devices of their own: As if our consciences were to be built upon their fancies, and not upon the written word of God. But what do they say to our demand? First they tell us, These things do not utterly destroy true Christianity. Secondly, they grant notwithstanding, that they agree with it as black doth with white, that is, they are clean contrary unto it: For this their similitudes do import. Now whereas they allege, That these things destroy not true Christianity, We answer, That even that hierarchy, worship, constitution, and government, which they profess and practise (as appeareth by those and other their Articles and injunctions in our former answer alleged, to which yet we have received no answer) being directly Antichristian, do 
* Nota  utterly destroy true Christianity. so as the people and Churches so professing and practising, can not in that estate by the word of God be judged true Christians, or the true constituted Churches of Christ. And touching the similitudes here used, besides that which we have noted before, we add moreover, that they are not against us, but against themselves, in as much as comparing the doctrines of the Gospel, which they profess, with the whiteness of an Aethiopians teeth: And their Antichristian ministery, Worshop, courts, and confusion of people, with the blackness of an Aethiopians body. This and such like similitudes do fitly declare their estate. And the approving of the black constitution of their church Assemblies, by some white doctrines of the Gospel which they profess: Is even as if they should reason thus: An Aethiopian is white of his teeth: therefore he is a white man. A black Raven is white of his bill: Therefore a black Raven is a white bird.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Exception.  
YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of consecrating Bishops & Priests, and the 6. and 35. Artic of apocrypha and Homilies, do not agree with the Gospel. What then? Ergo, our Church's profession and practise differ. Most false: For our Churches do profess, that these things do agree with Gospel well enough: Also their practice is thereafter, Or do you conclude, Ergo our Churches hold not Christ to salvation. In deed so I took your purpose at the first: but now in plain categorical terms you avouch it, That these things being directly Antichristian, do utterly destroy true Christianity. So then Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, etc. were very Antichristes, and no true Christians. As before also, I trow, you affirmed.  
Surely, this gross and wicked absurdity, I could not open better then by this similitude: This man hath a wooden leg, an eye of glass, his nose deformed, add if you will, both his arms not natural, 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 concerns not the very life and being of a man, though these be most unnatural additions, and very many, The like do I affirm of these external corruptions in the Church: Which my sentences you go not about to refute, but only with words, with bare yea, and nay, and no more.    

Mr johnsons I. REASON against the former Assumption: with Mr jacobs Replies to the same.  
Having before noted 3. Exceptions out of their doctrine and book alleged: we now proceed to show the weakness of their Assumption aforesaid, by these. 9 Reason's following.  
REASON I.  
THat which joineth Christ and Antichrist together, 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 doctrine and book alleged, as may be seen by comparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest. And furthermore it appeareth both by their profession, which is to be seen in their book of Cannons set forth anno 1571. and in other their Articles, Jniunctions, Advertisements, etc. published at other times, and by their practise also, which is to be seen in their ministery, Worship, and Church government even to this day:  
Therefore, etc.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Reason.  
THis your first Reason is thus: That which joineth Christ and Antichrist together, can not make a true Christian: But that doth this Book, Ergo, etc.  
I say you must mend your unproper speech, that Christ and Antichrist is there joined together, you mean Christ, and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist: then so speak, and say not Christ and Antichrist simply. Which things yet we think to be Christ's own, as we 
* Pag. 12. 18. 19  showed in the Second Exception before. Therefore, this reason is answered as the last Exception before. The Swan is black of his bill, Ergo, the Swan is black, and my brother hath a wooden leg: Therefore my brother is a wooden man. So here this book joineth Christ and some orders of Antichrist: Therefore it joineth Christ and Antichrist together, which are most fond conclusions.  
Furthermore, the scriptures alleged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek 43. 2. Kings 17. are wholly mismatched, the joining there forbidden, is unto such idolatry, as can not stand by any means with Christian faith, and breaketh most directly the First commandment: Our transgression yourselves do judge to be but against the Second, and such as hath stood and may stand together with true faith as in Master Cranmer, etc. 
* Namely, the Idolaters in those places spoken of.  They did not so much as profess the written law to be their rule, neither for outward orders, nor their inward doctrines of faith. But yourselves know, we profess and practise that, namely, so as is showed before in the second 
“ Pag. 11. 1. 18.  Exception. Therefore to apply those scriptures in this unto us, is your great sin even against the third Commandment, which is your common custom, as all do see and pity, viz. To take the name of God in vain, by misusing his word.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Reason.  
HIs answer here is First concerning the Proposition of this reason, then concerning the Assumption: Concerning the Proposition: First he saith, Our speech is unproper, that Christ and Antichrist is there amongst them joined together. Secondly, he taketh upon him to expound our words and meaning to be thus, Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. To this we answer: First, that it is meet that we (not he) expound our own meaning, which together with the propriety of the speech, will afterwards appear in our defence of the Assumption against his answer thereto. His answer therefore concerning the Assumption is this: First, That the things among them which we charge to be of Antichrist, they think to be Christ's own: For proof whereof, hereferreth us to his answer to our Second exception going before, whether also we refer the Reader for answer to him again. Secondly, forgetting himself, he granteth that in deed they be orders of Antichrist: yet that they are but as the blackness of the swans bill to the rest of the body. Well then by his own confession they are of Antichrist, and therefore not Christ's own, as before he said and laboured to prove. Thus at once both he contradicteth himself, and overthroweth that which he answered 
* Pag. 1●.  before to our Second exception.  
This were sufficient to manifest their deceitful and evil dealing: But that it may more fully appear, specially seeing Bee would dazzle the people's eyes with these mincing words (of some outward ceremonies & orders of Antichrist, comparing them with the blackness of the swans bill as if they were but a few, and of small moment, Therefore will we reckon up some of their Antichristian enormities and abominations (for it vere infinite to number them all): And then let the Reader judge of his inswere and their estate, whether it be not more like the black Raven with a white bill, than the white Swan with a black. Sorry we are that we should thus trouble the Reader, or ourselves: specially considering that already we have mentioned divers of the particulars following: But seeing we are constrained hereunto by their sly and colourable answer in this place, therefore can we not but do it, for the clearer manifestation of the truth, & better discovering of their deceitfulness. In which respects we entreat the Reader also, to take in good part, and duly to weigh the repetition and recapitulation following.  

Antichristian abominations yet retained in England.  
1 The confusion of all sorts of people in the body of their Church, even the most polluted and their seed being members thereof.  
2 The offices and callings of Arch L. Bishops.  
3 Lord Bishops.  
4 Suffragans.  
5 Prelates Chancellors  
6 Deans  
7 Subdeanes  
8 Prebendaries  
9 Cannons  
10 Petty cannons  
11 Chanters  
12 Virgerers  
13 Pistlers  
14 Gospelers  
15 choristers men and boys  
16 Organistes  
17 Organ Flowers  
18 Arch deacons  
19 Subdeacons'  
20 Deacons, or half priests  
21 Priests  
22 Parsons  
23 Vicars  
24 Curates  
25 Vagrant & Mercenary Preachers  
26 Churchwardens  
27 Clerks and Sexions  
28 chaplains  
29 Doctors of Divinity  
30 Bachelors of Divini.  
31 Doctors and  
32 Proctors in the Prelate's courts  
33 Commissaries  
34 officials  
35 Registers  
36 Summoners with the rest of that Antichristian and viperous generation  
37 Their Ministration of the word, Sacraments, & government of their church by vorive of the offices aforesaid  
38 The titles of Primate, Metropolitan, lords grace, Lordship, etc. ascribed to the Prelates.  
39 The inferior Prelates swearing obedience to the Metropolitical seas of Canturburie & York.  
40 The inferior Ministers when they enter into the ministery promising obedience to the prelates their ordinances: and when they are inducted to benefices, confirming it with their oath  
41 The Deacons and Priests presentations to a Lord Bishop by an Archdeacon  
42 Their receiving of orders of the Prelates, or their Suffragans  
43 Their Pontifical, or Book of consecrating Bishops, and of ordering Priests & Deacons, taken out of the Pope's Pontifical, where their abuse of scripture to that end their Collects, Pistles etc. may be scone  
44 Their making and being made Priests, with blasphemy, the Prelates saying to them whom they make Priests, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven, etc.  
45 Their confounding of Civil and Ecclesiastical offices and authority in Ecclesiastical persons  
46 Their retaining and using in their public worship, the Apocrypha Books, which have in them divers errors, untruths, blasphemies, & contradiction to the canonical scriptures  
47 Their stinted prayers, and liturgy, taken out of the Pope's Mass book, with the same order of Psalms, Lessons, collects, Pater Nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Versicles, Responds, etc.  
48 The Cross in Baptism  
49 The Hallowed Ponte, Questions to the Infants at Baptism  
50 The Godfathers and Godmothers promising that the child doth believe, forsake the Devil and all his works, etc.  
51 Weomans baptizing of children: which maintaineth that heresy, that the children are damned, which die unbaptised.  
52 Their howselinge of the sick, and Ministering the communion to one alone  
53 The Ministering it, not with the words of Christ's institution, but with other taken out of the Pope's Portuis  
54 Their selling that Sacrament for two pence, to all comers  
55 The receiving of it kneeling, which maketh it an Idol, and nourisheth that heresy of receiving their maker, of worshipping it, etc.  
56 Their Ring in Marriage, making it a Sacrament all sign, and Marriage an Ecclesiastical action: thereby nourishing the Popish heresy, that Matrimony is a Sacrament  
57 Their praying over the dead, making it also a part of the Ministers duty, and nourishing the heresy of prayer for the dend  
58 Their churching or purifying of Women, than also abusing that Scripture, The Sun shall not burn them by day, nor the Moon by night  
59 Their Gang week, and praying then over the corn and grass  
60 Their forbidding of marriage in Gang week, in Aduent, in Lent, and on all the Ember days: which the Apostle calleth a doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.  
61 Their Saints, Angels, and Apostles days, with their prescript service  
62 Their fasts, and abstaining from flesh on their Eaves, on fridays, saturdays, Ember days, and all Lent through  
63 Their dispensations from the Prelate's courts of Faculties, to eat flesh at these times: Which dispensations also have this wholesome caluse in them, sana conscientia, (that is, with a safe conscience:) plainly showing, that they make it a matter of conscience. This is another doctrine of Devils, noted in the scripture before alleged 1 Tim. 4.  
64 Their Dispensations in like manner to marry in the times among them forbidden, which are noted before  
65 licenses from the same authority, to marry in places exempt  
66 Dispensations also from thence for Boys and ignorant fools to have benefices  
67 Dispensations likewise for non-residents  
68 For having Two, Three Four, or more benefices, even tor, quot, that is to say, as many as a man will have and can get.  
69 tolerations  
70 Patronages of, and presentation to benefices with buying and selling of advowsons  
71 Their institutions into benefices by the Prelates, their Inductions, Proxes, etc.  
72 Their suspensations, absolutions, degradations, deprivations, etc.  
73 The Prelates Chancellors, and Commissaries courts, having power to excommunicate alone, & to absolve  
74 Their penance in a white sheet  
75 Their commutation of penance and absolving one man for another  
76 The Prelates confirmation, or Bishoping of children, to assure them of God's favour, by a sign of man's devising  
77 The standing at the Gospel  
78 The putting off the cap, and making a leg when the word jesus is read  
79 The ring of peals at burials  
80 Beadmen at buriah, & hired Mourners in mourning apparel  
81 The hanging & mourning of churches & heerses with black at burials  
82 Their absolving the dead, dying excommunicate, before they can have (as they say) christia burial  
83 The Idol Temles.  
84 The Popish vestments, as Rochet, Horned cap, Tippet, the Surplise in parish Churches, & Cope in cathedral churches  
85 The visitations of their Lord Bishops and Archdeacans  
86 The Prelates, Lordly dominion, revenues and retinue  
87 The priests maintetenance by Tithes, Chrismes offerings, etc.  
88 The oaths ex officio in their ecclesiastical courts, making men swear to accuse themselves  
89 The Church Wardens oath to present to the Prelates, all the offences, faults and defaults committed in their Parishes, against their Articles and Injunctions.  
90 The Prelates ruling of the Church by the Pope's cursed canon law  
91 Finally, their imprisonning, banishing, such as renounce and witness against these abominations a foresaid, and the rest yet retained among them.   
Thus being constrained, we have repeated and reckoned up divers of the Antichristian enormities still remaining & practised in their church: By which the Reader may better see and judge, both of the sleightness of their answer in this place, and of the black constitution of their church. As also comparing these and the book by him alleged together, it may hence appear that our speech is proper; and fitly declaring their estate, when we said they join Christ and Antichrist together: And therefore his answer in this place to be frivolous and of no weight.  
Next he cometh to the proof of our Proposition, which was confirmed by these scriptures, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. with Ezek. 43.8. & 2 King, 17 33, 34, 40, 41. The Proposition which we proved by these Scriptures, was this.  
That which joineth Christ and Antichrist together, can not make a true Christian.  
Now let even the adversaries themselves judge, Whether these Scriptures do not so evidently prove this Proposition, as none can deny it, but such as are Wilfully blinded, and strive against the light of their own consciences But what saith he of these scriptures here alleged? Forsooth That they are wholly mismatched. And why so? Because the joining there forbidden, is unto such Idolatry, as can not stand by any means with Christian faith, and breaketh most directly the First commandment: whereas their transgression is but against the second, and may stand with true faith, as he supposeth in Cranmer, etc. First, this answer of his, concerneth our Assumption, whereas those scriptures were the proof of the Proposition. But to let this pass, let us consider the answer itself, how worthy and clerk like it is. These scriptures (he saith) forbidden joining to such Idolatry, as can not stand with Christian faith, and breaketh most directly the First commandment. 1. If this were so, what then? Do they not therefore forbidden joining to Antichristian idolatry, and that false worship which breaketh the second commandment? 2: secondly, he can not deny, but as we judge of their way and estate, so it is a transgression against the Second commandment. Now, Samuel saith, Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and transgression is wickedness & idolatry. 
1 Sam. 19  See then what advantage he getteth by his own answer? 3. Thirdly, as the Pagans Idolatry breaking the First commandment, cannot stand with true christian faith, so neither can the idolatry and false worship of Antichrist breaking the second. To that of Master Cranmer, etc., is already answered in pag. 13. whereunto may be added, that their case now, is nothing so as theirs was then: both for that they suffered to death for the truth which they saw, And because the things now controverted, were not then so called into question and convinced against them by the scriptures, as now they have been against these: neither were then by them so resisted and persecuted as they are by these men now adays, even unto bands, banishment, and death itself: Otherwise we might justify the callings and estate of the Monks and Friars, and of the most Popish Priests and Prelates, and the having communion with them in that estate, because divers such have been Martyrs, and laid down their lives for the truth which they saw, who yet never doubted of the lawfulness of their callings and estate in this behalf, which then were not so called into question, nor convinced by the scriptures, to be unlawful, as since they have been. 4. fourthly, as there is a double idolatry and false worship the one against the First commandment when any have others besides the true God for their God: the other against the Second commandment, when any having the true God for their God, yet worship him not as he hath commanded, but after the inventions and prescriptions of men: So also these scriptures alleged, and the whole course of the word of God, condemneth the joining and having fellowship with either of these, aswell this which is against the Second commandment, as that which is against the First. See the Reasons alleged by the Apostle: 
* 2 Cor. 6.14. etc.  Are they not strong and weighty against joining together righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, Christ and Beliall, whether it be in the breach of the First or Second commandment? saith not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth and Walketh, and therefore requireth of them that they be his people, his sons and daughters, separated from the world, and touching no unclean thing: whether it be of Antichrist against the Second, or of the Heathen against the First commandment? 
Ezech. 43.8.  And touching the place of Ezekiell, who seethe not, that he speaketh directly of the breach of the Second commandment, in joining together in the worship of the true God, their thresholds with God's thresholds, and their posts with God's posts, that is, their inventions with God's ordinances: which though it be done to the name and for the service of the true God, yet saith the Prophet, It is abomination in the sight of God, and they that do so worship him, set a wall between God & themselves, and defile his holy Name with their abominations. Lo here the use and fruit of joining together the inventions of men (chiefly of Antichrist that man of sin) with the ordinances of God in his worship and service. As Master jacob and his complices like this, so let them hold on in pleading for it, and practising of it. The third place alleged, is out of 2 King. 17. where also it is most plain, 
2 King. 17.  that the scripture speaketh of the breach of the Second commandment. For there is set down that the Samaritans worspipped the 
b Vers. 28.32 41.  same God, and after, 
c Vers. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40.  the same manner that the Israelites of the Ten Tribes did, that were carried from thence: That is, they worshipped the 
b Vers. 28.32 41.  true God, but 
c Vers. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40.  not as he had commanded, but by having Images of sundry sorts, by which they thought God was represented, as 
d Exod. 32, 4.  of old they thought of the calf that Aaron made, and by other inventions devised by the Israelites in their defection, and joined to God's ordinances for the worship and service of him. That this was the sin of those Samaritans against the Second commandment, will appear, by comparing together 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. Jug. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 13 Ezek 20.39. Hosea 2.16. Amos 5.21, 22, 23. & 8.14. 1 Kings 12.27. and 18.21. and 21.29. and 22.12, 24. Esay 10.11. john 4.19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30. By these also, as by that of Ezekiell likewise may appear, how false it is, that he further saith, They did not so much as profess the written law to be their rule, neither for outward order, nor their inward doctrines of faith. If this were so, how could it be true, which Ezechiell sayeth of them, of whom he speaketh, that they set their posts and threshalls by God's posts and Treshalls, that is, their inventions by God's ordinances. How also was it that the Samaritans, spoken of 2 King. 17. sacrificed to the true God, even the Lord God of the jews, offering unto him  offerings, and meat offerings, and peace offerings? Or how came it, that they still used circumcision, and weyted for the Messiah to come, as he was promised in the written word of God: yea knowing also and believing, not only that the Messiah would come which is called Christ, but also that when he came he would tell them all things? The corinthian infidels in deed, as the rest of the Heathen, knew not the true God, nor his written word. But it was not so with the Samaritans or Ten tribes of Jsraell fallen from Judah, as is evident by the scriptures and reasons before alleged. To that which he next addeth to their profession & practice, Referring us to his answer in pag. 11, 12, 18 to our Second Exception going before, we have there answered already, pag. 12. 13. and will not therefore repeat it.  
Only this we add moreover, That seeing the public constitution of their Assemblies, and estate of their Ministers & people therein, is a most impious transgression of the Second commandment, which the Lord himself calleth 
“ Num. 15.39 reve. 11.8. & 17.1, 2, 3, 4.  spiritual whoredom against him, yea grievous iniquity and hatred of him, threatening 
† Exod. 20.  to visit it upon the Fathers and children so remaining, to the Third and Fourth generation: Therefore both by it are the truths which they profess, made frustrate unto them in this estate. Neither will it help them to pretend that it is their error in judgement, (For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured?) But seeing their public profession & practise is (at the best) a joining of Christ and Antichrist together, as hath been showed before, therefore neither can they by the word of God be deemed in this estate, to be true Christians, on true constituted Churches. And the Scriptures applied to prove this consequent, are fitly alleged, as hath been seen. Falsely therefore it is, that he saith, We sinned against the Third commandment, in the application of the scriptures aforesaid. That is their own common custom, and lamentable sin, to break the Third commandment, in taking the name of God in vain, not only by falsifying and perverting the scriptures, but also by their Ministration of the Word, Sacraments, and Government of the Church, by virtue of such offices and callings as Christ never appointed in his word thereunto, but were first devised, and still are retained by Antichrist, that son of perdition. Hitherto of his answer concerning the proof of our Proposition.  
To the proof of our Assumption, he 
“ Mark this his sound and Scholarlike dealing in this place and afterwards.  answereth not a word: which yet most of all required answer, if he would in deed soundly defend their estate, as he pretendeth. That their profession and practice joineth Christ & Antichrist together, we showed in pag. 28 etc. by their Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Advertisements, etc. published at sundry times, & by their present ministery, Worship, and Church-governement, according thereunto. If this be not so, why brings he not warrant, for these particulars from the Testament of Christ, and so take away the proof of our Asumption? If this be so (as by his silence he granteth and we are sure he cannot show the contrary by the Scriptures) than our Assumption standeth firm, and consequently in this constitution, they cannot be accounted true Christians, nor their Assemblies so gathered, true constituted Churches.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply unto the 1. Reason.  
1 IN this your defence of your first Reason, you would first of all fasten on me a contradiction, for gráunting, that our Church corruptions are from Antichrist, which against your Second Exception, I said we hold to be Christ's own, viz. Because we hold, Christ hath given his Church that liberty to devise them. Alas it pitieth me to see your simplicity, or it grieveth me for your malice; who could not see, that there I spoke in the person of our whole Church and state, 
See Pag. 12. 18. 19  and showed what they held: And here I speak as I thought myself. This is a silly contradiction.  
2. Then you say, Pag. 25. I dazzle the people's eyes, in saying some outward orders and ceremoines are from Antichrist as if they were but a few and of small moment. Therefore you are content to reckon them up full tediously God knoweth even 91. in number: numero Deus impare gaudet. And what of all these; will you say therefore, That whosoever holdeth these, cannot hold Christ unto salvation. And so Mr. Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs were damned. But if not: Then I say again, These some, these 91. are too few and too slight, and of too small moment of themselves and of their own nature to abolish us from Christ. This aught you to have proved, which you never do, but still your speech is most false and not unproper only, that we join Christ and Antichrist together: As in the maimed man before 
* Pag. 25.  noted, there is not life & death joined together, but living things and dead things are, and yet the man alive and a true man.  
3. Then 
“ 2 cor. 14. etc. Eze. 43.8. ● King. 17.33, 34, 40, 41.  you will justify your applying the scriptures which I said were mismatched & were meant against the Idolatry of the First commandment, not against the Idolatry of the Second only, and merely, as our Church orders in question are. Therefore these scriptures cannot infer any abolishing from Christ by simple holding of the corruptions in our Church: which they do prove by the simple holding of those Heathenish Idolatries, whereof they speak. To this you reply in Four points. (1) If these places be meant of Heathenish Idolatry, which could never stand with God's truth together: Yet they forbidden all other corruptions against the Second commandment also. That I never denied to be true after a sort. These places indeed do forbid the breach of the Second, commandment, but not principally, directly and of purpose, nor in that measure or fullness. But their immediate purpose is against the Heathenish Idolatry breaking the First commandment. So that they forbidden the breach of the Second commandment, consequently and proportionatly, but not in that full manner as they do the First, They forbidden the First so as that they show there is no communion with God, whilst men join in such Idolaty: they simply forbidden the Second, but deny not all communion with God to whom soever erreth therein. (2) To your Second Reply I say, make much of it, for my part, I never thought other but our church corruptions are against the Second commandment: your second scripture here applied, is of Saul, 
I. Sam. 1●.  a presumptuous and wilful offender: if you make our whole Churches so, your sin is the greater. (3) thirdly, if you mean, any of Antichristes Idolatry and false worship, and namely this in question (the outward corrupt orders and ceremonies only and no more) doth abolish us from Christ, and that this can not stand together with true faith, like as the Pagans idolatry against the First commandment, can not. Then I deny it utterly, you have no proof in the world for it. And this inwrappeth Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. in the same course. Your excuse here pag. 29. That Cranmer, Ridley, etc. forsook all the corruptions they saw. This belongeth to many Thousands in England now, no less 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 ignorant of redemption by Christ, etc. Yea yourself Master johnson, though a man of learning, yea knowing our corruptions, and misliking them a long time before you forsook us, yet I think you stood not abolished from Christ all that while. I pray be so good to poor men, as you may: yea to us now also, aswell as to yourself and them in those times. Where you say, pag. 29. That since that time we are convicted by the scriptures. If you mean some few, that here and there you could pick out; and do sin still, speak to them, threaten them: throw out your damnatory sentence against them, But smite not all whosoever comes near you: Beware how you judge, lest you be judged: The heart belongeth to God, therefore censure not every man's conscience too hastily. 4 fourthly, you would prove in your Third Exception before noted, pag. 29. That both the breach of the First commandment, and of the Second also, is forbidden: I have told you before, pag. 32, 33. how it is true, and how not: Nothing at all to serve your turn.  
That which you say, pag. 30. touching your first scripture, 
2. Cor. 6.14.  2 Cor. 6.14 etc. in that sense and manner as I suide, is true, and not otherwise. That which of your Second scripture (Ezek. 43.8) pag. ibid. you say, 
Ezek. 43. ●.  Who seethe not but it speaketh directly of the breach of the Second Commandment, joining together in the worship of the true God their inventions with God's ordinances, I say it is most manifest, that he speaketh not of the breach of the Second Commandment only, but also of the first, wherein men have their inventions also. The Prophet showeth vers. 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple again, whence he was departed for the abominable idolatries that had been there committed before, to show that he would restore lerusalem, and the Temple, and worship of God againet He meaneth this literally, of the returning of the jews after Babylon's captivity, and of the re-edifying of the Temple, and the appointing again of God's holy worship there: Also spiritually he may mean, the erecting of the Christian Church when they should not fall to such impieties as the jews had done now in that time before, for the which he had departed away from them. Now if we ask, what were those idolaters in jerusalem and in the Temple before Ezekiels' time, for the which the Lord forsook them: it is manifest in Ahas, in Manasses, and Amon: and in the Kings after josiah, That the jews idolatry was very Heathenish, not only against the Second, but against the First Commandment also, in joining the Heathen gods with the true God of Izraell in their Divine service and worship: Therefore this place of Ezekiell, is (as I say) Not of the breach of the Second commandment only & simply, as our church corruptions are, but joinctly touching the breach of the First also. The very same is that your Third scripture pag. 30. 2 Kings 17, 33, 34, 40, 41 of the Samaritans Idolatry, 
● King. 17.  wherein because you are large, I will defer to explain it till your sixth Reason following: where is a proper place for it.  
4 lastly, in pag. 31. you aggravate the breach of the Second Commandment, as being spiritual whoredom, etc. But I would have you to know: Things may be mismatched too cruelly, as well as too gently. There is a sin both ways, when things are not called by their proper and right names. Is it true in some sense, every breach of the Second Commandment, is spiritual whoredom, as every wanton word, every light gesture and countenance, every immodest thought in a Woman, is Adultery: yet who so shall angerly and continually so call a woman whore, harlot, or bawd, that but thinketh, or looketh, or speaketh too vainly, shall do her great wrong, and in●●●●e the just danger of law. Neither can she, nor ought she, in such case, be divorced, as an Adulteress ought. And thus it appeareth 〈◊〉 still, that you sin again stab Third Commandment in misapplying of scriptures.  
In the end in pag. 31. where you say. To the proof of your Assumption I answer never a word, which most of all required answer. This I tell you, that it is your fancy and not my meaning here, to answer to your Proposition. First, and then to your Assumption to say nothing. Nay, if you had not dreamt, you might easily have perceived that all my first words (viz. where I say your speech here is unproper etc.) are bend directly against your Assumption and the proof thereof. although at this time I expressed not those terms. Secondly, I show, that your scriptures applied to prove the Proposition are altogether unfit, and intolerably abused, if you mean them in that sense as your Assumption must be meant, that is to say, as they touch us. This, a very child might have seen, Master johnson. So that your marginal scoff at my sound and scholarlike dealing. doth light on yourself, and bewrayeth either your deep skill or your overflowing charitic. As for the rest, That I should justify our corruptions, it is no part of my mind, neither belongs it to our present cause so to do.    

Master johnsons II. Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON II.  
THat which appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vain, That cannot make either true Christians or true Churches.  
But the doctrine publicly professed and practised by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vain. Therefore, etc.  
Of the truth of the Proposition, none can doubt: And the Assumption is thus proved.  
That which appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man: That appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vain. This Christ affirmeth out of Esay the Prophet, Mat. 15.9. compared with Esay. 29.13.  
But the doctrine publicly professed & practised by law in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man. This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Article of the book alleged, And by their book of Common prayer, their Fasts, Feasts Holy days, etc., which are executed by their Popish Courts and Officers. All which are authorized by Law in England.  
Therefore the doctrine publicly professed and practised by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vain. And consequently cannot make a particular man a true Christian, nor the assemblies so gathered together, true Churches.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 2. Reason.  
THis your Second Reason is. This book and others appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vain, Ergo etc. 1. This also hath answer in the third Exception Pag 22. 2 Also, no●e I pray you, this Scripture [Mat. 15.] is verified of such as were then of the true visible 
† Mark his open contrariety with himself, granting this in Reas. 6.  Church, with whom Christ and his Apostles, both in Christ's time and after his death, did sometimes join and communicate. This therefore maketh for us and against you most notably.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Reason.  
Our Second Reason is as you see: now what proposition doth he deny? Truly none at all. What defence bringeth he of their book of common prayers, and the particulars therein: Of their Prelacy, & other ministery received from them according to their book and Pontifical: Of their Canons and Excommunications, etc. Surely none. What then doth he answer? Forsooth he referred us to his anuswer before in the last exception. Whether also we refer the Reader with this note, that there he shall find nothing, either for answer of any proposition of this argument, or for defence of their false worship, prelacy, ministery, and Church government called into question. Is not this then a worthy and Clerck like answer? And have not these men (think you) good proof for their present estate and Church constitution: Which thus leave it altogether without defence, even when it most needeth, and as it were, beggeth their help and succour, if they could afford it any. But now having no answer to any part of our argument, yet he bids us note, that this Scripture (Mat. 15.) here alleged, is verified of such as were then of the true visible Church, with whom Christ himself and his Apostles both in Christ's time, and after his death, did sometime join and communicate. This therefore he saith maketh for them and against us most notably.  
1 But first let him tell us: if many 
“ As that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 etc. Esa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Zeph. 1.12. 1. Cor. 11.19.  things, which are verified sometimes of the members of a true Church, may not also fitly be applied, and alleged against a false Church, and yet not justify their estate and constitution, neither make for them, but against them altogether. Otherwise he condemneth at once all the Martyrs heretofore, who usually alleged this 
* Mat. 15.9.  very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church, as himself cannot he ignorant. Yet in his learning it seemeth the Papists might well have answered the Martyrs again, that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true visible Church, and therefore made for them, and against the martyrs most notably.  
2 Secondly, when he saith, this Scripture is verified of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated: Let him also tell us, whether he meaneth that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vain traditions. If he think they did, that very 
“ Mat. 15.2.  Chapter showeth the contrary: besides that the whole Scriptures testify, that Christ was altogether free from sin, which he could not have been, if he had joined with them in those their inventions. If they did not, (as it is without all question) than what doth this help those men, who all of them join and communicate with the false worship of these assemblies?  
3 Thirdly, we answer, that his note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand. For first, who knoweth not, that in the jewish Church, the doctrine publicly professed & practised by their law, did not appoint or ratify any of those vain traditions, but utterly forbidden them? Whereas contrarily, the very doctrine publicly professed and practised by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the false worshipping of God by the inventions of men: Secondly, those vain traditions aforesaid, were the personal sins of some particular men in the jewish Church not publicly established by law, nor generally received and practised in that Church: 
* Luk. 1.5, 6, 8, 9, 10. &. 2.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27.36, 37, 38, 39 Mat. 15.7. & 8.4. and 15, 2. joh. 10.34.  Zachary and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Mary, joseph, and Christ himself, and his Apostles, with many others, kept the ordinance of God given by the hand of Moses, and observed of that Church. Neither did they join or pollute themselves with that vain worship aforesaid: whereas in the church of England, the false worship thereof devised by men, even by that man of sin, is not the personal sin of some particular men in it, but is publicly established by law, and generally received and practised in these assemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this scripture maketh nothing for them, but against them most notably.  
Now, whereas in the margin, he wisheth the Reader to mark a contrariety with ourselves, by comparing this and our 6. Reason together: we also refer it to the Reader to judge, whether there be not even an harmony with this, and a confirmation of it. Hitherto of the defence of our second Reason.    

H. JACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reason.  
TO this your defence of your Second Reason, I say, you have answer in your last Exception, pag. 22. You ask what Proposition I do deny? I answer, I distinguish your Aflumption as being a fallacy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: concluding a thing simply, from that which is after a sort, like unto that Reason which I framed against you in Pag. 22. A man hath a wooden leg an eye of glass, etc., Therefore he is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, etc. held as much as we, after men's precepts: Ergo, they worshipped in vain. Geneva holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper. Ergo, Geneva worshippeth God in vain. Even so your Assumption runneth. Our doctrine (say you Pag. 35.) appointeth God's worship by men's precepts. This is false, unless you mean it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after a sort, not simply. For our doctrine appointeth not all God's worship by men's precepts, nor the chiefest part of it: as the preaching of the Gospel of life, Sacraments, and Prayers, etc. So that it concludeth nothing in that sense. Therefore here you play the false Sophister, not the Christian and conscionable Disputer. Thus you have answer enough to this in the answer to your last Exception, though you would not see it.  
Further I noted Secondly, 
* Pag. 35.  That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. yieldeth the offenders to be of a visible Church, with whom Christ did communicate, though they held also traditions of men: Therefore it affirmeth nothing against us. Is not this true? Why then do you not admit it? We never denied, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this only we affirm, it disannulleth not our Churches: Even as Christ here condemned the jews corrupt traditions, but he meant not thereby to disannul their Church. Therefore all this is not against our purpose, but not ably for us as is before observed.  
1. Concerning your First answer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applied against false worshippers which are no true Church: But it proveth not I say, all them, to whom it may be applied, to be no true Church: Therefore you abuse it against us, Except you had first proved us no true Church nor Christians, which yet is in question.  
2. Where in your Second answer 
* Pag. 37.  you say That this helpeth us not, except we say that Christ communicated with the pharisees in these traditions, like as we do in the vain traditions now. For shame leave this folly. I say again, I seek not to justify our partaking in our traditions, but I renounce it in sobriety as much as you, yea better than you do: Yet I say this place shall admit those who do in simplicity partake of them, to be true Christians nevertheless, like as it admitteth the jews then.  
3. In your Third answer, 
“ Pag. ibid.  You deny that those Jewish traditions of washings, etc. were with them received generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I answer, That they were generally received, as Mark in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doth testify, and that they were rebuked who used them not: which is sufficient to make it their Church's doctrine & practise, though no express law commanded it. But I suppose verse 5. where they say, [Why walkest thou not after the tradition of the Elders] he meaneth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as laws, besides the law of Moses. What else is their Thalmud, which is till this day, even like to the Canon law of Popery, and the Alcoran of Turkey. Some also understand this of the ordinances of the Elders, that is, their present Governors: and then doubtless it was law. And though Zachary, Elizabeth, simeon, Anna, Mary, joseph, Christ and his Apostles, did not actually join in these corruptions, yet they were general no doubt, and by law never the less, and a number of the jews simply used them, & yet fell not from God, as 
† The Six water-pots of the jewish purifyings.  john 2.6. Therefore your Replies here are most vain and false.  
lastly, in pag. 37. you will not confess your contrariety, that is to say, between this your Second Reason, and certain words in your sixth Reason. But the greater is your sin, to do evil, and defend it too. Here in this Reason pag. 35. you would have this scripture Mat. 15. to be meant against such vain worshippers, that they become hereby no true Church: (Or else what do you urge it against us?) But in your sixth Reason following, you say, That the jews, even now when these words were applied to them, were the true worshippers of God. Are not these contrary, I pray you, then reconcile them.    

Master johnsons III. Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON III.  
IF the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed and practised by law in England, be not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian, that should with all submit unto Circumcision: Then much less, is it able to make him a true Christian, that together with it, submitteth unto a false ministery, Worship, and Government, of the Church devised by man, even the man of sin. But the first is true: Therefore also the latter.  
The consequence of the Proposition is good, because Circumcision was once the holy ordinance, and appointment of God himself to his Church and people, whereas the ministery, worship, and government aforesaid, never was so, but is man's device in religion, even Antichrist, that capital enemy of jesus Christ.  
The Assumption is proved Gal. 5.2.3.4. where the Apostle speaketh of them that held, not only such truths of the Gospel, as are in that book of Articles, but more than those: Yet if they should with all submit unto circumcision, he saith, they were abolished from Christ, Christ would prosit them nothing.  

H. JACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reason.  
THis your Third Reason is from the more to the less negatively to this effect, A Galatian using Circumcision, is a likelier Christian, than one of our English holding the Hierarchy and other traditions: But A Galatian is a false Christian, Ergo, An English professor is much more.  
We answer, We deny the Assumption: Galatians were then true Christians, and their Assemblies true Churches, Gal. 1.2. Therefore this Reason is nought. If he object, The Apostle saith, such are abolished from Christ. That is in deed some amongst them, as held Moses ceremonies, necessary absolutely to salvation, as Act. 15.1. And that 
† Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4.  justification was by the moral works of the law. Now the Churches of Galatia generally were not such, but held the saving faith sound doubtless, though many amongst them were tainted with that infection, by reason of some mischievous teachers that were crept in, and too well entertained among them. Howbeit, with the Church, Communion was kept, And therefore, so with us you ought to deal. If you say, we are worse Christians than those grofest Galatians, It is utterly false: prove it if you can, and it must draw in Master Cranmer, etc. with us also. If you say, there are many amongst us as bad, or worse than those worst Galatians, you may say it, but prove it, you cannot. Also, if it were so, yet this disagraceth, it destroyeth not the Church, like as hath been said of the Galatians.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reason.  
TO this our Third Reason, His First answer is, That he denieth the Assumption: which is as much in plain terms, as if he had given the holy Ghost the lie, who by the Apostle Paul affirmeth it, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4. As in the proof of the Assumption we showed before. But for the more evidence of the truth, we will set down the proof of the Assumption in a syllogism, thus:  
If a Galatian submit to Circumcision, though he hold all the truths of the Gospel professed in England withal, yet be notwithstanding abolished from Christ, and fallen from grace, Then is he not in this estate a true Christian.  
But the former is true, as the Apostle testifieth, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4.  
Therefore also the latter.  
Next he answereth, That the Galatians were then true Christians, and their Assemblies, Churches, Gal. 1.3. Therefore (sayeth he) this reason is nought. But he may not thus run away with the matter and deceive himself and his simple favourers. The question is not, whether any Galatians were 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 Gospel now professed in England, and withal submit to Circumcision, were in that estate a true christian Or putting the case that there were whole Assemblies consisting of such: Whether those assemblies then in that case were by God's word to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and saith, no: This man saith, yea. Now whether of these two we shall believe, let all men judge. But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the assemblies of the Galatians true churches? Gal. 1.2. This man showeth the reason himself, the light of the truth is so clear and manifest. There were but some of the Galatians (saith he) that were infected with this error of Circumcision. True in deed (say we) & of such only is the supposition made in the case afore said: But the churches of Galatia (saith he) generally were not such, but held the saving faith sound: which also is most true, they being set in the way and order of Christ jesus: and therefore though there sprang up some heretics and schismatics amongst them (which is the 
“ 1 Cor. 11.19 Acts 20.30.  lot and trial of the true churches of God in all ages) yet was there not cause to break the Communion with those assemblies, but to proceed with them in the faith, and order of Christ, and to 
* Gal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7, 11, 13.  cut off and cast out such troublesome leaven from amongst them. Now this being duly weighed, it is nothing for, but altogether against, the having of communion, with the assemblies of this Land, which are not set in the way and order of jesus Christ, (as were those churches of Galatia) but in the Apostasy and confusion of Antichrist, as hath been at large declared before, in the defence of the former Reasons, where also that of Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. is answered.    

H. JACOB his II. 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 give the H. Ghost the lie, in denying your Assumption. I meant not your Assumption, but that which I had made briefer, containing the effect of yours. This was the Assumption denied by me, But a Galatian is a false christian. As he that hath but half an eye may see.  
Secondly, to cease needles strife. I deny therefore your Proposition. Though a Galatian 
* that is, So holding it, as the worst did, or else this is a sophistical Equi vocation.  holding circumcision, cannot be a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the hierarchy etc. may. The Reason of this denial I gave you then, but that you would not see it: Namely, because such Galatians, held justification by the works, and ceremonies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papists, who by their ceremonial and moral works do hold the same, and so do err Fundamentally. But our Churches and state, hold not the hierarchy so, but only as an indifferent thing in itself. This blasphemous opinion of Circumcision, maketh it infinitely worse, (though once it was ordained of God) than our indifferent opinion of the hierarchy, though in deed it were never but nought.  
thirdly and lastly, you have no where cleared Master Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, & the rest of those holy Martyrs, from being abolished from Christ, if the hierarchy be simply worse than Circumcision, so hold as those Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4, 5.    

Master johnsons FOUR Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON FOUR  
THe doctrines of faith contained in that Book alleged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, should also still executs or join unto the ministery of Mahomet, that open Antichrist and enemy of Jesus Christ. 2. Cor. 6.14, etc.  
Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian, that holding them, yet doth still execute or join unto, the ministery and worship of the man of sin, the covert Antichrist and enemy of jesus Christ.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reason.  
THis your 4. Reason is Mahomet's ministery and Antichristes ministery are both bad alike.  
But the good doctrines of our book of Articles cannot save a man that joineth also to Mahomet's ministery.  
Ergo, the good doctrines of that book cannot save a man that joineth also to Antichristes ministery: which thing we in England do.  
I deny neither the Proposition, nor Assumption: And yet the Argument is too bad. It is a fallacy of Equivocation, as we call it: We must therefore distinguish: Mahomet's ministery, and antichrist's ministery, have a doubtful meaning. If you mean, the whole function and exercise of public worship performed in Mahomet's or Antichristes assemblies, that is, in the Turkish or Popish Churches: The I grant your whole argument is 
* Both are nought alike as touching abolishing us from Christ.  true. But that we do so in England, (which comes in the conclusion,) Or that any Christian amongst us thinketh so: That I utterly deny. And thus indeed, that Scripture alleged 2. Cor. 6.14. is rightly understood. But if you mean by ministery, the outward manner of calling to the ministery, & some outward ceremonies, used by Mahomet, or the Pope: Then I flatly and absolutely deny your Assumption, and your Scripture is answered before in the First Reason. For I affirm, and it is manifest: That such errors being joined with the good doctrines of that our Book, do not destroy faith, and true Christianity, As before was showed in the Second Exception.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reason.  
HEre the light of the truth doth so dazzle the Answerers eyes, as he freely confesseth he can not deny any whit of our Reason. And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad. But why so? There is (he saith) an equivocation in it, and therefore he will distinguish. But First we tell him, there is no equivocation at all in the words, but they are all plain, to him that hath a single eye, and will understand the truth. Therefore his distinction here is idle & frivolous. Yet see also between what things he doth distinguish? Forsooth between the whole function and exercise of public worship performed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies, and between the outward manner of calling to their Ministry, and the outward ceremonies used amongst them.  
An absurd distinction touching the matter in hand: For first, who knoweth not, that these latter are of the very same nature with the former: Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false, Anticristian, & accursed before God, aswell as the rest of their worship and service? Or hath God in his word given any commandment more for these then for the other? Secondly, who seethe not, that the argument here, is not of whatsoever thing is used among the Turks and Papists, but of the ministery and worship which they have devised and executed: As in particular, of the public offices of ministery retained among them, of their manner of calling, and entrance into them: of their administration of them: of their stinted imposed Liturgy: their ecclesiastical government, cannons, proceed, etc. All which in the church of England are taken out of 
* Reu. 17.4, 5 2. Thes. 2.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  that golden cup of abominations, whereby Antichrist, That man of sin, hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken: as may appear by comparing their Pontificals, Canons, and constitutions together. If this man will needs be otherwise minded, then let him prove the particulars aforesaid, by the Testament of Jesus Christ.  
Furthermore also, mark here, that he granteth, the doctrine of faith contained in their book of Articles, cannot make him a true Christian, that holding them, doth withal receive and join unto the public worship, performed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies. This he saith he granteth as most true, Whereupon it followeth, even by his own confession: First, that such thingh than may be joined with the doctrines of faith received among them, as they in such estate cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, Neither the truths which they hold, be available to them. secondly, that therefore the Proposition of his First and main Argument, is not general, but admitteth limitation, & so his greatest defence is of no weight, as before is showed in the beginning, in our answer to that Proposition. thirdly, that his answer to our second Exception before alleged, is of no force, howsoever here and every where he refer us to it. For which also we refer the Reader, to that which is said in that place, in defence of the Exception aforesaid, As also for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. unto that which is said concerning it in defence of our First Reason before alleged.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reason.  
IN this your defence of your 4. Reason, you renew your Sophistry; And that which is worse, you will not be told of it. Is it because of the goodness of your Reason that I deny no Proposition? Nay, it is for the badness of it: because all is nought, all deceitful and sophistical. Therefore I must distinguish even so still as I did before, and my distinction is good, clearly discovering all your fraud. 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 & service? Aswell? Forsooth, I trow not, (that is, not as much). Their inward impiety and false faith against Christ, the only all-sufficient Saviour, is far more accursed, and devilish than their bare outward orders, separated from the rest of their faith. But whosoever joineth simply, and indifferently, either to Thukish, or Popish Assemblies, doth join with their whole, and worst abominations, which have no communion or coherence with Christ in deed, Neither can we also, if we join therein. The case is not like, when we retain and use, some of their outward orders in our Assemblies.  
And here you note that I grant, Some thing may be joined unto our Christian faith in England, which would utterly destroy it. Most true, And here I note your most uncristian and false dealing with me, in affirming otherwise of me, As I have expressed in the beginning, about the taking of my First main Proposition there. Which see further in pag. 4.  
lastly, my reference to the answer 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 Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. to be no true Christians neither, as hath been often alleged.    

Master johnsons V Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON V.  
AS the golden vessels taken out of the Lords house, and had & used in Babylon of the Chaldeans, did not therefore make the Babylonians true jews touching the faith: Nor their banquets wherein they used them, to be any of the Lords Feasts (spoken of Leuit. 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 Babylon (whereof that other was a type) do not make the people so standing, to be true Christians, Neither their Ministry and constitution to be Christ's appointed in his Testament: But they still remain the people, Ministry, and constitution, of Babylon notwithstanding. See the proofs hereof in Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Prou. 9.17, 18. and Revel. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10.11.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 5. Reason.  
Your Reason is this.  
THe material vessels of jerusalem, were of the like power and virtue, to sanctify the Heathen Babylonians, As the holy christian doctrines in that Book, are to sanctify us, that hold together with them some Popish ceremonies and orders as indifferent things:  
But those vessels were not sufficient to sanctify those Babylonians, Ergo, Neither these truths of the Gospel can sanctify us.  
An absurd comparison: The Proposition is most false, and so the scriptures quoted (Dau. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Rom. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10, 11.) are as idly and vainly applied. See the Answer to the allegations in the First Reason before.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 5. Reason.  
THis he saith, is an absurd comparison. So belike (if his grave judgement might go for good payment) the manifold allusions which (in describing the spiritual Babylon, the Spirit of God 
“ Reu. 17.18. and 15. compared with jere. 50.51. Cap. Isay. 13. & 14. and 21. & 47.  maketh tooth material Babylon of the Chaldeans) were to be accounted absurd allusions and comparisons. As also the often alluding, and likening together, the 
* Isa. 66.20.21 Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. and 10.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.1.12 Herald 13.15, 16.1. Pet. 3.20.21 Reu. 15.3. and 21.20, etc.  holy things of the Law, with the holy things of the Gospel, and the 
“ 2. Tim. 3.8.9.1. Cor. 10.6, etc. Heb. 12 16.17. Jude vers. 11. Reu. 2.14.20. and 20.8, 9  transgressions then with the transgressions now, which are so often used in the Scripture: Are in his account absurd allusions and similitudes. secondly, he saith the Proposition is most false. Which we answer is most true and most plainly taught and declared in the fift of daniel's prophesy, vers. 1, 2, 3, 4. and Leuit. 23. as we alleged before, when we first propounded the reason, Whereunto we yet have received no answer. So sound he defendeth his cause.  
Thirdly he saith, The scriptures quoted (Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Revel. 17.4, 5, & 18, 4. and 14, 8, 9, 10, 11.) are idly and vainly applied. But how shows he this to be so as he saith? Very profoundly, I warrant you. For he bids us see the answer to the allegations in the First Reason: And this is all the proof he brings. Well: we have seen his answer to the allegations there, and find: First, that those scriptures here alleged, are not so much as once mentioned there. secondly that his answer to the allegations there set down, is most frivolous and of no weight, but against himself, as there we have declared.  
lastly, in his propounding of our Reason otherwise then we had done (which in deed is a thing very ordinary, though nothing commendable in them) it seemeth, that being not able to answer any part of our Reason, as we had set it down, yet he thought to help himself by this exception, that the Material vessels of jerusalem were not of the like power and virtue to sanctify the Heathen Babylonians, as the true doctrines received among the spiritual Babylonians, are to sanctify them. But he shall find, if he will consider and compare together the Scriptures here alleged, that the golden vessels being holy to the Lord, and taken out of his Temple, did as much sanctify the Chaldean Babylonians and their Feasts: As the holy doctrines (vessels as it were of the lords Temple) had among the spiritual Babylonians, do sanctify them and their constitution, That is, neither of their Estates and Assemblies are sanctified thereby at all. For saith not the Lord, 
“ Eze. 43.8.  That the setting of men's posts and thresholds, (how much more of Babylon's enormities) by his Posts & thresholds, that is by his truths and ordinances, is so far from sanctifying, as it defileth his holy Name, yea is abomination in his fight, and setteth a wall between him and them that do it? Saith not the scripture also, 
† Prou. 9.17, 18. &, 20.17.  that the true doctrines in the false church are among them as stolen waters and hid bread, which though they be sweet & pleasant, yet there also is the mouth filled with gravel, and the guests of those feasts and assemblies, are so far from being sanctified by those truths in that estate, as they are before God even dead men, and in the depth of hell.  
To conclude this point, hath not an Angel from heaven proclaimed it with a loud voice, that 
“ Reu. 18, 1, 2, 3, 3, 11. etc. and 17, 1, 2, 3 4, 5. and, 14.8, 9, 10, 11.  the spiritual Babylon, (notwithstanding any truths she holdeth yet) is so unsanctified and abominable, as she is become a cage of all unclean and hateful birds, and that all her children and Merchants that will not depart out of her, shall receive of her plagues and damnation, and drink of the wine of God's wrath, yea of the pure wine, which is powered into the cup of his wrath, and be tormented in fire and brimstone, before the holy Angels and before the Lamb for evermore. Lo here their fearful estate, which this man will needs account holy and acceptable before God.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 5. Reason.  
IN this your defence of your Fifth Reason, you mislike that I call it an absurd comparison: Where you affirm that the golden vesses of the Jews were as available to sanctify the Babylonians, as the truths of the Gospel which we hold are to sanctify us. In deed your own words be, holden and received in the spiritual Babylon. By which terms you mean us of England I trow. But mark sir. Is not this gross sophistery again? Is not this childish vanity, open beggary, and craving of that which is the whole question? that is, That our Churches are spiritual Babylon, and as deeply infected in Babylonish impiety as those old Chaldeans. If they were so infected, I grant in deed your Reason would follow: But seeing it is the question, And seeing we profess ourselves true Christians by those truths of the Gospel which we hold (and as by God's grace we are indeed) Say I not well, that this is an absurd Comparison? Yes Master johnson, it is a most 
* To match those outward vessels, (of no sanctity of themselves) with our inward doctrines, of salvation.  impious, absurd, & senseless comparison, & void of common reason: And it inwrappeth Master Cranmer, Master Ridley, etc. within the same Iniurions, Yea irreligious consequence likewise.  
All that you have of allusions, and alluding, between the tipical and spiritual Babylon, are mere delusions, and vain cavils. Prove us first to be spiritual Babylon: Or else you fight with your shadow.  
So that still I say, those Scriptures quoted of Dan. 5. etc. As also all the rest here packed together in your Margin, they are miserably and desperately abused, according as I rightly referred you to my censure to your First Reason: which for all your words, you have not refuted. The very same I say of your other Two scriptures towards the end, Pro. 9.17. etc. Reu. 18.1. etc. As for Ezek. 43.8. I answered it before 
† Pag. 34.  in your First Reason.    

Master johnsons VI Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON VI.  
THe Samaritans (those counterfeit children of Abraham, Isaac and jacob) did publicly profess that most excellent doctrine of the Messiah to come: (the truth of which doctrine how powerful it was to salvation, the Scriptures testify): yet doth our Saviour Christ repute them false worshippers of God, because their worship was a mixed worship, framed after the inventions of men, and traditions of their Forefathers: Therefore saith Christ unto them: Ye worship that which ye know not, we worship that which we know, for salvation is of the jews. By which words of Christ it plainly appeareth, that (although at that time, some professed such truths which otherwise were available unto salvation) yet none that were false worshippers of God, could truly challenged unto themselves in such estate, the benefit of those truths, but they only which were the true Church and people of God, to whom the Oracles of God were committed, and to whom the covenants and service of God did appertain, such as were at that time, (not the Samaritans) but the Jews, and they which held the faith of the jews: whereupon (not the Samaritans) but the jews, were then by Christ accounted the true worshippers of GOD, and heirs of salvation, John 4.22. compared with verse 20.25, 29. and with 2. King. 17, 24.  
In the like manner, the people of these Ecclesiastical assemblies, standing subject to a counterfeit ministery and worship of God, (being also commingled together of all sorts of people:) Though they profess some truths which otherwise are available to salvation, yet can not in such estate by the word of God, he deemed true Christians or true Churches: Neither can, so standing, challenged unto themselves the benefit of those true doctrines which they profess, because God hath not made his promise unto any false Church or worshippers of him: neither committed unto any such his holy things, to wit, his word, prayer, Sacraments, Censures, etc. But he hath made his promise, & committed these things only to his true Church and people, which worship him aright, and yield obedience to his Gospel, keeping whatsoever he hath commanded them: Whereupon it followeth, that such people only are true Christians, and true churches of Christ, to whom the promises & holy things appertain, and not to the people and Ecclesiastical assemblies of England, neither any such, abiding in false worship or false constitution of a church, as is aforesaid.  

H. JOCOB his 1. Reply to the 6. Reason.  
THis your 6. Reason is, The Samaritans (believing that Messiah should come, john. 4.25.) were as near salvation as we of England are. But they were false worshippers for all that. Ergo, so are we, for all our holy doctrines believed according to that Book of Articles.  
I deny the Proposition. The Samaritans, might know by hearsay and believe, the Messiah should come, and Baalam did know it, Nom. 24.17. and the Devils do now know and believe, jam. 2.17. Yet none of these believed [in] him. It followeth not therefore, that they were as nigh salvation as we of England. In a word, there is a Reason manifest. These Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel. 2. Ki. 17. which wholly destroyed the truth in them, though they did retain some memorial amongst them of Messiah to come. Wherefore here take the Second Answer to the First Reason before. 
* Pag. 25.  But I will help them with an Objection, surely one fit than all these.  
Objection: The Isralites under jeroboam at Dan and bethel served not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their own devices, which yet resembled the ordinances of jerusalem 2. King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. Howbeit they were false worshippers, only for their false Ministry and outward false worship, for all that they believed in the God of jerusalem otherwise rightly.  
Ergo, so are we of England only for our false ministery and outward worship.  
Answer. To this we answer also, what additions of devices, and how gross Idolatry they held, it appeareth not: But surely it seemeth far grosser, and filthier than the worst is with us: But yet this appeareth clearly, that the conscience of every of them, even of the simpliest, must needs be convicted, that jerusalem was the only place, and Aaron's line the only Priests (
† My meaning was the levites were not of Aaron's line, but the Priests only.  & levites.) Therefore they could not be indeed true worshippers, nor within the covenant, nor near to salvation, when they all openly rebelled, and forsook them desperately, whom the Lord had so expressly chosen. Now our assemblies throughout England have not their consciences so convicted in the hierarchy and Ceremonies. Ergo, we may be in the covenant, which they were not, for all our corruptions.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 6. Reason.  
THis our 6. Reason, he neither propounded as we did, nor answereth directly, and soundly unto any part of it. But that the nakedness of his answer, and light of the truth may better appear, we will propound the Reason more shortly in a syllogism, thus.  
The people and assemblies, whose Ecclesiastical constitution is such as to them in that estate the covenants, holy things, and service of God do not appertain, they can not in such constitution by the word of God be deemed true Christians or true Churches, whatsoever truth they profess beside.  
But such is the Ecclesiastical constitution of the people and assemblies of England, as unto them in that estate the covenants, holy things, & service of God do not appertain.  
Therefore the people and Assemblies of England, can not in that constitution, by the word of God, be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, whatsoever truths they profess beside.  

The Proposition none will deny,  
The Assumption is proved thus.   
The people and Assemblies whose Ecclesiastical constitution is such, as they worship God after a false manner, never appointed by himself, nor approved in his word: their constitution is such, as unto them in that estate, the covenants, holy things, and service of God do not appertain.  
But such is the Ecclesiastical constitution of the people and Assemblies of England, as they worship God after a false manner, never appointed by himself, nor approved in his word.  
Therefore the Ecclesiastical constitution of the people and Assemblies of England, is such as unto them in that estate, the covenants, holy things, and service of God, do not appertain.  
The Proposition was proved by the example of the Samaritans, and Christ's speech and sentence of them in such estate, joh. 4. and 2 King. 17 Whereunto he answereth nothing to any purpose, save that, what he saith, is against himself. For where he granteth That the Samaritans, and Balaam knew and believed the Messiah should come, yea and that the Devils know and believe there is a God, and that jesus is the Christ, the holy one of God. Who seethe not, that most excellent truths may be acknowledged, and yet they which so profess, be not therefore in their estate true Christians or true Churches, to whom the covenants, holy things and service of God appertain? Where next he saith, The Samaritans believed not in the Messiah, it will be heard for him to prove it, seeing he taketh belief in Christ so, as it is had in the spiritual Babylon and her daughters, and seeing also the Samaritans professed and believed, not only that the Messiah should come, but even he which is called Christ, & that when he came, he would declare unto them all things. In so much as when Jesus was come, & had spoken but to a woman of Samaria, the scripture witnesseth, that many of the Samaritans of that city believed in him for the saying of the woman, which testified, he hath told me all things that ever I did, joan 4.25, 26, 29, 30, 39 Thirdly, where he saith, The Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel, which wholly destroyed the truth in them which they held. By this again it is evident, even in his own confession, Both that such things may be joined with the doctrines of truth, as in that estate, they which profess those truths, can not be judged true Christians, or true churches, to whom the promises and holy things of God do belong: And that therefore also, the 
* See further for the answer of this in Pag. 4.  Proposition of his principal and main Argument first propounded, is not general, but of necessity admitteth limitations: So as then his main defence falleth to the ground, as already we have noted both in the beginning of this writing, in the answer to that Proposition afore said: and again in the defence of our Fourth Reason a little before. Moreover, in that he sayeth, the Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel. (2. King. 17.) If he mean, that they worshipped the Idols themselves, 
2. King. 17.  sacrificing to them, and accounting them to be Gods as well as the God of Israel, and so broke the First commandment, as before he affirmed in his answer to our First Reason: then we take it, that here again he is deceived, as there we have showed. The scripture saith, 
Pag. 30.  they worshipped & sacrificed to the Lord God of Israel. So as their sin was against the Second commandment, in that worshipping the true God, they did it in, and by those Images, as also by other devices of their own, and traditions of their predecessors. That this was their estate and sin, besides that it appeareth in that chapter alleged, it is also most plainly set down, first by themselves, in that book of Ezra, 
Ezra. 4.1, 2.  where they speak unto the jews of the captivity that builded the Temple, saying:  
We will build with you, for we seek the Lord your God as ye do, and we have sacrificed unto him since the time of Esar Haddon King of Asshur, which brought us up hither. Then also between Christ and the woman of Samaria, Joh. 4. where it is manifest, that the 
“ joh. 4.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30.  contention between the jews and the Samaritans, was not whether only the true God was to be worshipped, but both of them agreeing in that, whether the solemn place of his worship was in jerusalem, or in the mount of Samaria, etc. lastly, by this man's own confession, when he saith in this place, 
Pag 49.  that the Israelites under jeroboam at Dan and B●thel, served not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their own devices. For the scripture testifieth, 
“ 2. King. 17.28, 32, 33.  that the Samaritans worshipped the same God, and after the same manner that the Nations did which were carried from thence. Now the nations that were carried from thence, were the tenns Tribes that fell away from judah to jeroboam: which likewise feared 
* 1. King. 12.27, 28, 29, 30, 31. with 2. King. 17.32, 33, 40, 41.  the Lord & served their images, that is, God in and by their Images as now also the Samaritans did that were come in their steed. Hitherto of his answer, which may seem to concern the Proposition of the latter syllogism.  
The Assumption was showed by this, that these assemblies being commingled together of all sorts of people, they have also for the worship of God among them, a counterfeit ministery and service, devised by man's which he rightly understandeth, as we also do, of their Hierarchy, and other abominations (before rehearsed) which deceitfully hear again he would smother up under the name of ceremonies. Touching which flight of his, sufficient is said before in the handling of our First Reason. But what now saith he here, concerning the Assumption or proof of it? Doth he deny it? No. What then doth he say for their counterfeit Hierarchy, worship, etc. Surely nothing but this, That their Assemblies in England have not their consciences convicted in these, as the people under jeroboam, could not but have their consciences convicted then, touching their worship and Priesthood. But first, if this were so: is this any just defence of their ministery, worship, or estate, that they yet see them not to be unlawful, as it could not be, but they under jeroboam saw theirs to be? If this were a sufficient reason, might not the grossest Papist plead likewise for their ministery, worship, and estate, as also the Usurers, extortioners, and persecutors, for themselves and their wickedness? By this reason, God should not have sent Lions among the Samaritans, because 
“ 2. King. 17.26.  yet, they knew not the manner of worshipping the God of Jsraell, neither had their consciences convicted therein. But Christ hath taught us otherwise, 
* Luk. 12.48.  that even that servant, which knoweth not his masters will, and yet committeth things worthy of stripes, shallbe beaten, though with fewer stripes, than he that knoweth and doth it not. And even of those Jsraelites aforesaid the Lord himself testifieth 
“ Hos. 4.6.  that they were destroyed for lack of knowledge. So then neither can this people's ignorance (which he pleadeth) be a sufficient defence for their estate. Or if it could, yet it seemeth they of Israel aforesaid, might aswell have alleged for themselves, seeing the Lord witnesseth of them 
“ Hos. 4.1.  that there was no knowledge of God in the land. And thus the objection also here brought by himself, remaineth still unaunswered. Now where he sayeth, that Aaron's Line were the only Priests and Levites, he is also mistaken herein, In deed Aaron's Line only were the Priests, but the Levites were generally of the Tribe of Levy, though not of Aaron's line. But to let this pass: We would know of him a sufficient reason, why the true worship and ministery appointed by Christ in his Testament, should not be aswell known unto them in these days, as in the defection of Israel? He saith They could not but know, that jerusalem was the only place, and Aaron's line the only Priests. Have not these the scripture as much as the other had? Or hath not Christ 
* Heb. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  the Son, been as faithful in the house of God, and as plainly set down his will for his true worship and ministery in the time of the Gospel, as Moses the servant was and did for the time of the Law? Yea and have not 
“ Witness the public Treatises, Sermons, Admonitions, Complaints, Supplications, & Demonstrations, to the Parliament, beside the bands and sufferings of many in this behalf.  these by the word been made manifest to the consciences of men in these days? And even to the high Court of Parliament, representing the whole body of the Land as the other were to the Israelites in the time of their defection? Finally, doth not this Land stand in as open rebellion against, and forsaking of the true ministery, worship, and order, appointed by Christ to his church now, as the other did then, (if not more open and grievous) not only for the causes aforesaid, but because also they have 
“ Witness the Pontifical, Portuis, Canons & Constitution of the Popish, & their assemblies, compared together.  received and still retain a false ministery, worship, and confusion of the man of sin, that son of perdition, and capital enemy of the Lord jesus Christ? And yet moreover, lest they should lack any thing of the other, and not every way far exceed them, do also 
* Witness their Actions, Statutes, etc.  persecute unto bands, exile, & death, such as bear witness to the truth of Christ, against their abominations aforesaid. By this than it appeareth, that the adversary here, neither hath justified their estate in respect of the Apostate Israelites, nor answered the objection which himself framed against their present constitution: which therefore we will here set down as he propounded it.  
The Objection was this.  
The Israelises under Jeroboam at Dan and bethel served not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their own devices, which yet resembled the ordinances at jerusalem. 1. King. 12.32. Amos 4.4. How be it they were false worshippers, only for their false ministry, & outward false worship, for all that they believed in the God of jerusalem rightly. Therefore so these of England, only for their false ministery and outward worship.  
This is his own Objection and Reason, unto which he hath given no sufficient answer, as before hath been showed. So that it still remaineth upon himself as a testimony against their present estate. This we neither did, nor needed to propound, as a several Reason, amongst those which we set down, because it is of like nature with those we mentioned amongst ours in the Second and sixth Reasons before alleged.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 6. Reason.  
IN this your defence of your 6. Reason you say, That the Proposition of your last syllogism, (They that worship God after a false manner, 
pag. 50.  are 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 again. And it seemeth you can do nothing else in argumentation. For your Proposition is equivocal and ambiguous. If you mean they that worship God after a false manner, that is totally, or else Fundamentally. Then I clearly grant it, and that the Samaritans do prove the same, seeing they erred Fundamentally. But your Assumption touching us, is then utterly false. You bring not a syllable or one letter, to prove either of these Two against us, in all your writing, neither can you, but bare begging of the controversy which is infinite oft. If you mean in your Proposition, They that serve God after a false manner, that is, in part, not Wholly nor Fundamentally, As namely in the Hyerarchy and external ceremonies as Cranmer, etc. Then I say and avouch confidently in the presence of God, that such may be true Christians, though unperfect in many things. Yea infinite, such have been, are, and may be hereafter, true Christians. The contrary whereof, is no less than horrible blasphemy against God and his Saints, wherefore your Proposition, is showed to be again sophistical, as also those were in your Third Exception, and First and Second Reasons.  
Secondly where you say, the Samaritans prove it, and I say nothing against it. Mark you. First I said, the Samaritans might know by hearsay, and yet not faithfully believe [in] the Messiah. You cannot be ignorant, that there is a great difference between an obscure rumour, which some of them might receive from their neighbour jews, and yet not have it constantly believed, and held publicly among them, as their common faith. If thus the Samaritans believed the coming of Messiah, they are in no comparison with us, we hold our most holy faith and doctrine by the word professedly, as the public ordinance of our Churches showeth. But further let it be howsoever they held the coming of Messiah, yet I answered, The Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel which wholly destroyed the truth in them. And this is the very truth indeed, howsoever you will not yield it. For you say, that they broke not the First commandment, they worshipped not the Jdols themselves, nor sacrificed to them, etc. This is proved apparently false in the Text 2. Kings. 17.29, 30, 31. 
2. King. 17.  Enery nation made their Gods and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their Cities wherein they dwelled. 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 fire to Adramelch & Anammelech the Gods of Sepharuim: Therefore they worshipped the Idols of the Heathen, and sacrificed to them, and accounted them to be Gods aswell as the God of Israel. And so broke the First commandment, and therefore they touch not us in this question, As the like I have truly and well derlared before, 
“ pag. 34.  against your First Reason. 
●● pag. 51.  Your proofs, that the Samaritans broke not the first commandment are nothing. (1) That of Ezra. 4.1.2. that they sought the Lord as the Jews did, etc., was their conterfet hypocrisy and false brag, yea their devilish conspiracy against the worship of the jews God. Do you believe their words here in this place, that they are true indeed? I grant as I noted before out of 2. Kings 17. they had a mixed worship, some thing of the jews God, but very much and (as by that Chapter seemeth) most of the Heathens Gods. 2. Secondly, 
Pag. 51.  where you say out of john. 4. That it is manifest, there was no contention between the Jews and the Samaritans, whether 
* A bold assertion.  only the true God was to be worshipped. There appeareth no word of any such thing, Our Saviour indeed noteth vers. 21. One difference between them, that was, but about the place of worshipping on occasion of the woman's words: But that there was no difference between them in the observing of the First Commandment, he saith not. The contrary you saw before proved in 2. King. 17.30.31.3. Thirdly you urge my confession, That the Isralites under jeroboam served not Pagan Jdols but the true God after their own 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 dwelled there before they came, who were the Ten tribes that jeroboam drew away. I answer, First it is great shame, that you make this my confession, when I expressly bring it in, as your Objection, whereunto I set mine answer, 
Pag. 49.  that the Idolatry under jeroboam seemeth far grosser and filthier than the worst is with us, which I make manifest by the scripture, not only 1. King. 12.21. where jeroboam erected visible Idols, and very filthy ones, even calves and brute beasts: which if they were but to worship God by, yet who would compare our Ecclesiastical orders to them, which 
* Viz. the general state.  we profess are but indifferent things, for order and comeliness only. Further I alleged 2. Chro. 11.15. Where jeroboam is said to appoint Priests, for the high places, for Devils, and for the Calves that he made. So I confess little to your advantage. Secondly, if the Samaritans worshipped (as they did indeed) like the Ten tribes before them, than you are clean gone. For though jeroboam at the First had not joined in the Heathenish Idolatry. Yet Ahab did 1. King. 16.32, 33. and his Son Ahaziah had further Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Yea the Isralites, as they of jerusalem afterwards, were Idolaters much a like 2. King. 17.19. But we read of the jews under Ahas 2 Chr. 28.23. and Manasses and Amon. 2 King. 21. and 23.4, 5, 10, 11.12, 13. That they used the very Pagan's Idolatry. Yea it is expressed, 2. King. 17.8, 11, 16, 17. That these Ten Tribes used the very same. Therefore the Samaritans doing as these Isralites did, 
Pag. 54.  held such gross idolatry as could by no means stand with the true serving of God. Finally as before is noted 2. King. 17.29, 30, 31. doth express this gross Heathenish idolatry of the Samaritans. Surely it appeareth more gross and worse than the Isralites before them. And therefore you are greatly deceived both here & in the defence of your First Reason before: 
Pag. 30.  where you expressly maintain these Samaritans to hold no Heathenish idolatry, but only to cleave to the God of Jsraell in an outward devised corrupt worship. They acknowledged him, I grant, but him only I deny, as hath been proved.  
Further you affirm in your defence of your First Reason, 
Pag. 30.  That they professed the written law to be the rule, both for their inward belief, and outward manner of worship. Where you would prove it For that the Apostate Israelites did so of whom Ezeck. speaketh. 
Zeck. 43.8.  First this followeth not, because the Heathenish Samaritans were further from sincerity, than the natural Israelites commonly. Secondly, Israel itself in this wretched Apostasy, held not the written law for their rule, seeing professedly they left this rule, and did constantly worship Calves, and sacrificed at Dan and Bethel. Thirdly, Ezekiell showeth, even 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 seen in Ahab, Ahaziah, Ahas, 
Pag. 34. 55.  Manasses, and Amon, as is before noted. Wherefore in these your sayings Master johnson, you are intolerably too blame and foully deceived. As for example, They professed that which they did in 2. Kings. 17.29, 30, 31. was that after the rule of the written Law?  
Next you oppugn me, for that I alleged our Assemblies throughout England, 
Pag. 52.  have not their consciences convicted in the Hyerarchy and ceremonies, you say" if this were so, is it any just defence of your ministry, worship, estate, etc. I tell you it is a just defence for our ministery worship, and estate to be as touching the substance and foundation of Christianity, sound and acceptable to God. Refute it if you can. I know it is no just defence of our whole Ministry, estate, & manner of worship, which I never intended, much less professed to justify.  
Where you would snatch at an advantage about Aaron's line, my meaning was, that they of Aaron were only for Priests, & their brethren of Levi, only for Levites.  
But you pass this, and you set yourself in earnest, to prove us all convicted in conscience about our hierarchy and ceremonies. So that here you avouch openly, that third general point which I observed in my very beginning above, 
pag. 3.  for the which you have this Reason. Have not we the scriptures as much as the Apostate Isralites had? Or did not Christ as fully and plainly set down our ministery and worship in the Gospel, as Moses in the Law? I answer, this is true, as touching the word itself. In the Gospel we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word itself, as the jews were in Moses: But it is not yet so plain for our understanding and use. Why? Because we have had a discontinuance of the 
“ The Pastors of the Churches since, have had many corruptions mixed in their callings, they have not been pure and simple ever since: or at least we cannot prove it otherwise, by any records now extant.  simple offices of Pastors, Teachers and Elders for the space of a Thousand Three hundredth, or a Thousand Four hundredth Years, and a continuance of the Prelacy all this while hitherto. Also, for that many ancient, and late learned, and Godly Christians, have believed it, at least convenient, if not necessary in the Church. And they have expounded the Scriptures so, that they carry no small ambiguity in this matter, in infinite Thousands judgement. Thus it hath pleased God in his providence, to suffer this mistaking amongst Christians, thus long, and thus universally. Whereby it cometh to pass, that infinite Thousand consciences are not easily convicted, though they be mistaken in this case. With the jews it was not so in this matter that we talk of. As Moses and the Prophets were most plain, that jerusalem must be the only place of solemn worship, Aaron's line the only Priests, no Calves, nor any visible kind of Image or means to worship God in: So also they constantly and perpetually practised that course, even from Moses till the Apostasy of jeroboam. When any sqared from this course, these were not only rebuked expressly by God's voice in his Prophets, from time to time: but also the obstinate, were most fearfully smitten with God's miraculous hand from heaven. So that for any to offend in these points as jeroboam did, It could not possible be but in presumptuous rebellion, with a high hand against God, and with a convicted & seared conscience. Which I say cannot with any show of sense, be said of many Thousand Christians in this case touching the prelacy, etc.  
Further you urge * these Reasons That this cause hath been made manifest to the consciences of men, 
Pag. 53.  yea to the Parliament of late times. You say well to the consciences of men: but not to the consciences of all men, or the most men throughout the land. Yea or to the most of them that know and fear God, according to the religion now maintained, This is the very question. If you mean so, that all men's consciences are convicted in this matter, All men surely will either pity your simplicity, or laugh at your folly. I pray you Master johnson, consider yourself, you were a true Christian, long before you fell into this separation. Yea moreover you were learned, yea you knew and acknowledged these very corruptions a great while, and yet condemned us not, Nay you condemned the separation earnestly. I pray you is it not possible that numbers, who see not so far as you did then, should still condemn your separation, and yet be true Christians, as you acknowledge that yourself then was? meipso teste.  
That which you add" of persecuting unto bands, exile and death to prove our utter abolishing from Christ generally: It is a toy. 
Pag. ibid.  First if you were merely innocent, yet this could not make us worse than the jews in Christ's time: who for all that they persecuted, yet were they not wholly fallen from God. Secondly you suffer indeed more than you need, if that you would but acknowledge the grace of God with us so far as it is. It is therefore not Christ's Cross in that regard, but your own that you bear.  
Finally let it be noted, if here in this your 6. Reason you be not directly contrary to yourself, as I have observed in your 2. Reason: 
Master johnson his contrariety proved between his 2. Reason and his 6. Reason.  Pag. 39 For you say here, Pag. 48. That not the Samaritans, but the Jews, were then by Christ counted the true worshippers of God, & heirs of salvation, joh. 4.22. But in your Second Reason, Pag. 35. you say: They that teach for doctrine men's precepts, as there Christ saith the jews than did, those in particular are no true Christians, nor their assemblies true Churches. 
Math. 15.9.  Therefore you infer, (or else you pretend it) that those particular jews were not then true worshippers, nor their assemblies true Churchest which is a flat contradiction, Or else what is. But if you say you mean not this of the jews, than you abuse the scripture and us, turning it clean from them, whom in your Reason you speak of, and whom Christ therein expressly meaneth.    

Master johnsons VII. Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON VII.  
IF the Spirit of God account them to be departers from the faith (and consequently no true Christians) which though they hold other truths of the Gospel, yet forbidden to marry, & command to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving: Then what doth the Lord account of them which forbidden the true ministery and worship of God, and command a false: and of them also which partake therein? Which to be the estate of the Prelates, and other Ministers and people of these assemblies, appeareth, not only by their practise and persecution, but also by the book of Articles here alleged, as may be seen in the 35. and 36. Articles, compared with their book of Cannons, set forth, Anno 1571. and with the Articles lately set forth by the 
* Richard Eletcher.  Prelate of London, that now is, and inquired of in his visitation Anno 1595. As also by other their Articles, Cannons, Aduerticements, Injunctions, etc. which were long here to rehearse.  
But the former is true, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. Therefore, etc.  

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 7. Reason.  
THis your seventh Reason is: They are departed from the faith, that forbidden to marry, & command to abstain from lawful meats. Also this is worse, than that: viz. to forbid the true ministery and to command a false: which we in England do. Ergo we are departers from the faith.  
I deny this Antecedent, that is your Assumption, with a distinction. The Papists 
* See Rhemi-Testa. in Mat. 15.18.  forbidding of Marriage and of meats, if they had done no worse, doth not make them departers from the faith: that is, not 
“ Or not fundamentally, not simply, which words I think fit to be here, used, as in my next Reply is further declared.  totally. No more could their hierarchy and ceremonies simply: Neither do these things make us (the Protestants) to be such. The Papists fall from Christ 
“ That is fundamentally, & simply: see in the 2. Answer following.  wholly in other points, (namely 

1. The Papal supremacy.  
2. The sacrifice of the Mass.  
3. justification by works:   Which blessed be God we are far from. Therefore the Apostle in saying, They departed from the faith, meaneth, in 
* Viz. in abstaining from Marriage and meats.  these points they erred or departed from the faith, but not absolutely & wholly. 2. Further more touching your Proposition, if you understand Paul, of Martion the Haeretike, and Tatianus, who did absolutely condemn Marriage and certain meats, they even therein might wholly fall from the faith, I mean somewhat like to Balaam, judas, and those Apostate Israelites lately spoken of, 
Pag. 49. 57  namely for having their consciences convicted, and seared with a hot iron. And thus are they in no comparison with us of England, nor with the Papists neither, if they had erred in nothing else.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 7. Reason.  
HEre the adversary being not able with any colour to deny the consequent, of our Reason neither to justify their present ministery, worship Cannons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. (which yet he must do, & still we call for it, if he will justify their present estate): yet being desperate sure, for else he would never have done it, he feareth not to gainsay the Assumption, that is, the very words and testimony of the scripture itself, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. The Apostle saith, that they which forbid Marriage & Meats, are departers from the faith, This man saith no. Now, whether of these shall we believe? But what colour hath this man for his denial? Forsooth this: That they which do so, do not depart from the faith totally, and that the Apostles meaning is, that in these points they depart from the faith, but not absolutely and wholly. So by this man's conceit, none may be accounted departers from the faith, that depart only in some points, but they which do it totally from all. And thus then may no heretics or Antichristes that ever have been, or shallbe in the world, be judged departers from the faith, because they depart from it but in some points, and not absolutely from all. Thus in one word hath he justified at once the Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Papists, Familistes, anabaptists, and whom not? because they depart but in some, not wholly from all points of faith. Is it not great pity that Antichrist hath so long wanted this stour Champion, that can thus in one word, justify his forbidding of meats and marriage, yea and his most detestable hierarchy, and superstitions? Now by this man's learning, all the Martyrs & writers heretofore, that by evidence of this scripture convicted the Synagogues of Antichrist to have departed from the faith, and therefore separated from them: were utterly deceived. Nay and the Apostles themselves were wholly mistaken, when speaking of Antichristes church and Religion, they call it a 
* 2. Thes. 2.7.  mystery of iniquity, 
“ 1. Tim. 4.2.  speaking lies through hypocrisy, 
“ 2. Pet. 2.1.  privily bringing in damnable heresies, and having a 
* Tim. 3.4.  show of godliness, but denying the power thereof, And John's eyes also it seemeth were not matches, when he saith, 
† reve. 17.5.  he saw in the whore's forehead, (that is in Antichristes church and Religion) a name written, A mystery, great Babylon, the mother of whoredoms, and abominations of the earth. For we would know of this deep Clerk, how Antichristes church and religion should justly be accounted a mystery of iniquity, and truly be said, to speak Lies in hypocrisy, also privily to bring in Damnable heresies, and to have a Show of godliness: if they did absolutely & wholly depart from the faith, and not only from some points thereof? But over and above all, it seemeth by this reason, that not only the Apostles were mistaken, in giving us sure marks how to know false teachers and false religions, 1 Tim. 1.2, 3. 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Thes. 2.7. 2 Tim. 3.4. Revel. 17.5. But also Christ himself, when he said, 
“ Mat. 7.15.  Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. And again 
* Mat. 2.23.24.  If any shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not: For there shall arise false Christ's and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so that (if it were possible) they should deceive the very elect. Now if they should totally depart from the faith, what sheeps 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 Christ's, and showing signs and wonders to draw men thereunto: Or the elect to be in such unspeakable danger to be deceived by them? This might suffice to show the falsehood and impiety of his answer: But we will note a few things more therein. It being granted him, that the popish forbidding of marriage and meats, if they were not worse, doth not make them departers from the faith totally: yet let him tell us, if holding never so many truths beside, 
“ See in Bales Votaries, Acts and monuments etc. what abominable filthiness the forbidding of marriage, and what superstition the forbidding of meats, hath wrought in the kingdom of Antichrist.  yet forbidding these, they could by the word of God truly be said in that estate 
* What man fearing God durst once open his mouth for such Divelilh doctrines and estate.  to hold the faith of Christ, and to be true Christians. If they could not (as the Apostle" testifieth) then is this answer in this respect also nothing to the purpose, but against himself, both for the popish forbidding of meats and marriages, and for the English hierarchy, and other abominations amongst them received from the Papists, which under colour of this answer here he would defend. Again, where he saith, That the Papists fall from Christ in other points besides the aforesaid, Namely, 1 The Papal supremacy. 2. The sacrifice of the Mass. 3. justification by works: which England now is far from. Let him tell us: First, whether in this sense the Papists can for these be said to depart from the faith totally? If they can not, then what weight is there in this for defence of their estate, that the Papists could not also allege for themselves, to wit, that in these points they depart from the faith, but not absolutely and wholly. Secondly, let him tell us, whether there are not other points but these three in the papists religion, which make them in their estate to be departers from the faith, and consequently false christians and false Churches? If there be (as he can not deny it) then of what weight is his answer to defend the present constitution of these people and assemblies (for whom he pleadeth) seeing there are divers other things besides these, that do and may cause, that they may not be deemed true Christians or true Churches in that estate.  
Many 
a servetus, Sabellius, Arius, the anabaptists, etc.  heretics heretofore have, and at this day do reject these three aforesaid, are they therefore in their estate to be accounted true Christians or true Churches? So then, his manner of reasoning here for their defence, is, as if the Adulterers, to justify their course of life, should allege thus: We are no 1. Blaspemers, 2. no Persecutors, 3. No Murderers, 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. But the scripture teacheth otherwise, saying: 
b jam. 2.10.11.  Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, is guilty of all. For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now, though thou dost no adultery, yet if thou killest, thou art a transgressor of the Law: and contrariwise. So that what soever sins the Adulterer be far from, yet (as 
c Pro. 6.32.  Solomon saith) He that committeth adultery with a woman, faileth in heart, and destroyeth his own soul. The same is the case of all spiritual Adulterers likewise: who (what so ever sins they be far from) yet in the worship of God, run a 
d Num. 15.39.  whoring after their own inventions, 
e Pro. 5.20.  embracing the bosoms of strange women, & 
f Revel. 17.4.  drinking of their cup of fornications. Thirdly, let him show us sufficient warrant from the scriptures, why (setting these three aside) the other popish hierarchy and abominations received amongst them, can not be judged to make them in such estate, departers from the faith, and therefore false Christians and false Churches, whatsoever truths they should hold beside. If he cannot (as who seethe not, that it can not be done?) then by this also it appeareth, that his answers here is of no force for defence of their estate, but against it, as we have declared before.  

g Num. 16.12. etc.  Corah, Dathan, Abyram, and their partakers, were far from the Abominations of the Heathen, they held also all the points of faith, that Moses and Aaron held, differing only from them, and departing only from the faith, in a matter concerning the Priesthood, whereof also they 
h verse the. 3.  showed their reasons why they were so persuaded: yet will he not deny, we suppose, but that they departed from the faith, and were in this estate neither to be accounted true Israelits, nor their assemblies true Churches, with which communion might be kept. If he should, the scripture itself would witness against him herein, Numb. 16.26. Now compare case with case, and time with time, and the estate of these people and Assemblies of England, willbe found far more grievous, as we have already showed both in the defence of our Second Exception before, and in 
i In the answer to Master Hildersham, and in the 9 Reason's concerning not hearing the Ministers of these assembties.  other Treatises to which yet we have received no answer.  
To conclude this point, if their Abominations in England were far fewer than they are, yet so long as they retain that poisonful leaven of their hierarchy and worship, we must tell them as the Scripture saith, and experience teacheth: That 
“ 2. Kings. 4.39.40.  a little poison bringeth death unto the whole pot of pottage. A 
* 1. Cor. 5.6.  little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And a 
“ Eccle. 10.1.  few dead flies cause the ointment of the Apothecary to stink and putrefy. Although indeed their abominations are not a few, but swarm in abundance amongst them, some whereof we have rehearsed before in the defence of our First Reason, where the Reader may take a view of them.  
Now in the next place, fearing belike that the evidence of the scripture we alleged, could not by these shifts of his be avoided, but that still the reason deducted from thence stood strong against them, as we have showed it doth: therefore he would have us now pass by them, and not apply this scripture to them, 
Nota.  or their mother Church of Rome, but understand it of Martion the heretic, and Tatianus, of whom he saith, that they absolutely condemning marriage and certain meats, might indeed even therein wholly fall from the faith, somewhat like to Baalam, judas, and those Apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for having their consciences convicted and seared with an hot iron: And thus (saith he) are they in no comparison with them of England: Well, But first if his former answer were of any weight, it might be asked, why then the followers of Martion and Tatianus, might not likewise have defended them thus, & said, that their departure from the faith, was but in some points, not wholly from all? Secondly we answer, that if this scripture was verified as he granteth) in Martion and Tatianus, for their condemning of marriage and meats, than we must needs also think it verified in the romish whore, and her apostate children, which are fallen into the very sins, that are here mentioned. Teh Apostle mentioneth Martion and Tatianus, no more than he doth the whorish Babylon, and the children of her Fornication: but comprehendeth here all such who so ever they be, as shall fall into this Apostasy.  
Now moreover, if the 
“ 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.  words of this scripture be duly weighed, & either other scriptures, or the estate of the Romish Harlott and her children compared therewith, it willbe found as lively to describe these, as either Martion or any other that ever were in the world. First when the Apostle sayeth, that this shallbe in the latter times, who seethe not that it doth most directly point at the Romish whore, though we doubt not, but Martion also and Tatianus, which lived twelve hundredth years since, or thereabouts, may also be comprehended therein. Secondly, when it is said, they shall depart from the faith, thereby signifying that once they held the faith, how plain is this of the Romish harlot, which in the 
“ Rom. 1.7.  Apostles time was the beloved spouse of God, and since is fallen into Apostasy, and become the Mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth, as the 
* 2. Thes. 2.3. and Reu. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  scriptures in other places witnesseth. Thirdly, when it is said, they shall give heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils, how fitly agreeth this to the Romish Babylon which (as the scripture else 
“ Reu. 18.2.  where testifieth) is become the habitation of Devils, and the hold of all foul spirits? Fourthly when it is said, they shall speak lies through hypocrisy (not to reckon up the infinite particulars that might be alleged for proof hereof) how fitly doth this describe the Religion and practice of the man of sin (the Romish Antichrist) which the scripture 
* 2. Thes. 2.7.  else where calleth a mystery of iniquity: as pretending to be with and for Christ, and to draw men unto him, when indeed it is opposed against and exalted above the Lord jesus Christ, and all his holy ordinances. Fiftly, when it is said, they shall have their consciences seared with an hot iron, how true is this found upon the throne of the Beast, & his Kingdom, concerning which, the scripture also testifieth in 
“ Reu. 16.10.11.  another place that when the vials of God's wrath shallbe powered out upon them, and they convinced of their impieties and obominations, they shallbe so far from acknowledging and forsaking them, as they shall gnaw their tongues for sorrow, & rather than they will forsak their wickedness, shall 
* Let their railings, slanders, edicts, articles, injunctions, finally their continual oppositions and madness against the truth and people of God, be witnesses of all this.  fight against God and his truth, blaspheming the God of heaven for their pains & for their sores, & not repenting of their works. Lo here a seared conscience in the beasts kingdom. Finally, when the Spirit of God here giveth two particular instances of his apostasy. 1. The forbidding of Marriage, 2. And the commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving. How directly doth 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 marriage, when as the Romish Babylon forbiddeth it to Priests, Friars, Nuns, and such like, and the English her daughter, to fellows of Colleges, and prentices, and both of them, to all men and women in Lent, Aduent, Rogation week, etc. In the other, that is, the forbidding of meats created of God to be received with thanksgiving, when as both of them, command to abstain from flesh, on their saints eves, Emberdayes, Lent, Fridays, and Saturdays, throughout the year.  
Thus than we have showed that this scripture (which he would turn over to Martion and Tatianus) doth most fitly agree unto, and most plainly describe the Romish Apostasy, whether we apply it to their present estate, or compare this and other scriptures together, speaking of the same Apostasy and defection. By this also which hath bone said, it may appear, that as he saith of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be said wholly to fall from the faith somewhat like to Balaam, judas, and those apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for having their consciences convicted and seared with an hot iron: So also it is verified, and may be said of the Romish Babylon and her daughters. Touching which point of their convicted consciences, as also of the Apostate Israelites in particular, compared with them of England, see moreover what is said before in defence of the sixth Reason at the end thereof.  
Now if seeing the evidence of this 
“ 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.  scripture, so full & plain against them (as hath been declared) he would except, that so it is in the Romish Church, but not in theirs of England: First by this means he would overthrow his own answer here, which hath denied it, of the popish forbidding of meats and marriages, and would turn it over from them to Martion and Tatianus: Secondly, this would not hinder but that the consequent of our Proposition and the Assumption also were good, and therefore the Argument strong and of force. Thirdly, the particulars before mentioned, (being found in their Church of England) will testify it also, to be verified of them. lastly, although many of the abominations of the whores cup of Babylon be now cast out of England, (for which also we praise God) yet so long as they retain the hierarchy, 
reve. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Stinted Leyturgie, confusion of people, Canons, Excommunications, etc. derived unto them from that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth, we must needs believe and allege against them the scripture and common proverb which saith? 
Ezek. 16.44.  As is the Mother, So is the Daughter. And hitherto of the defence of this reason.  
Now moreover let it here be observed, how these men, to defend their estate, are glad to run into the Papists Tents, and to take up their worn & rusty weapons, which have been of no force to defend themselves, but have been often & justly turned into their own bowels. Read the 
“ Rheims notations upon 1. Tim. 4.3.  Reams Annotations upon this place (1. Tim. 4.) and see if these men here would not avoid the evidence of this scripture against them, by the very same shift and answer, by which the detestable jesuits there would turn 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. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 7. Reason.  
TO this your defence of your Seventh Reason, I say, Though every where you are very unreasonable, yet no where you seem more unconscionable and wilful then here.  
First, do I say No to the Apostles Yea, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. That they who forbidden Marriage and Meats do fall from the faith. Do I say no? Is this your conscience? Say I not expressly, They do in these points depart from the faith, 
A strange untruth.  but not absolutely and wholly.  
Secondly, doth it follow by my words, as you affirm, That none depart from the faith but those that depart totally, wholly, and absolutely, whereby all the vildest Heretics should be justified, as Arrians, Nestorians, Anabatists, etc. Do I say so? Is this also your conscience? Again do I say, The text doth not reprove all the Papists in their forbidding of Marriage and Meats, but only Martion and Tatianus of old? Do I say any such thing? Nay, say I not expressly the contrary? Are you then a man of conscience? Do you suffer for conscience? Know therefore that this I say, and my words before do import so much. That whosoever do forbid marriage or meats, do departed from the faith. But note: some do more, some less. There are some that do simply and fundamentally, and others in some sort. Men depart from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two ways. First they which do err in such main points as do utterly abolish us from Christ and destroy the Foundation: thus do Arrians, Manichees, servetus, Papists, etc. Secondly, such as holding the Foundation in doctrine sound, do desperately profess and teach some what else, against the manifest light that is in them: so Martion and Tatianus, do Fundamentally and simply fall from the faith, because they simply forbidden those good ordinances of God, Marriage and Meats, even against the light of conscience & nature: together wherewith, a lively saving faith cannot possibly stand. Now the Papists in this do depart from the faith also, but that is only in some sort or in part: because they forbidden these things (not absolutely, but) unto some, & sometimes. They that depart thus from the faith, may be true Christians notwithstanding, yea they are certainly, if they be no worse in any thing else, albeit you deny it here most fond & without all sense. To which end you most unlearnedly and ungodly apply those scriptures, 
Scriptures abused.  A little leaven leaveneth the lump, A few dead flies make the ointment to stink, and a little poison bringeth death. Will you have no taint of evil in a Christian, but it quencheth the life of God in us needs? Is it not possible yourselves might hold some such errors, and yet remain true Christians notwithstanding? Then if Papists were no worse but in those errors only, they might be true Christians notwithstanding. But Martion and Tatianus do wholly depart from the faith, not but that they believed some truths: but in that they 
“ The same did Corah, Da than and Abyram likewise See before in answer to the 2. Exception, the a Reply.  presumptuously quenched the instinct of nature & conscience, as I have said. Here than it appeareth how wicked a slander it is that you say, I run into the Papists tents, and fight with their weapons, & do jump with the Remists annotations on, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. judge now by this that I have said, whether I do or no.  
And note, that I say, that they be either Apostates or departers from the faith, not only who fall totally, as you slander me that I say: but also who fall fundamentally, that is, either the first way or second, as I have afore said. And so do these gross Heretics whom you mention, 1 Arius, servetus, Papists, etc. 2. Martion, Tatianus, judas, Corah, Balaam, the Apostate Israelites, etc. Thus then your questions and demands about the Papists and their errors, I pass by, as more vain, then pertinent. Only note withal, if this reason of yours were good, it maketh Master Cranmer. Ridley, etc. to be departers from the faith, & no true Christians.    

Master johnsons VIII. Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON VIII.  
IF the Apostle accounted them deniers of the faith and worse than infidels (and consequently no true Christians) who (though they held other truths of the Gospel yet) provide not for their household: Then what will he account of them, who (though they profess some truths of the Gospel, yet) are not true worshippers of God, but execute or submit unto a false ministery, worship, and government ecclesiastical: Which to be th' estate of the ministery and people of these assemblies, appeareth as aforesaid.  
But the first is true 1, Tim. 5.8. Therefore, etc.  

H. JACOB 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 household so is it to hold the Hierarchy, etc. But that is to deny the faith, and to be worse than an infidel. Ergo so are we in England.  
Those very answers to the last Reason, do fully and flatly satisfy this also: Either against the Assumption, (namely that it is not meant simply of denying the faith, nor 
* I mean Fundamentally, as in the last Reason before I have showed.  wholly, but in this point only: Or else the proposition, as being meant of such, as neglect their families against the light of their consciences, and the manifest instinct of nature.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 8. Reason.  
FOr answer of our said Eight Reason, he referreth us to those answers of his, to the last Reason, which he saith doth fully and flatly ' satisfy this also, for the proposition and Assumption. But this which he saith, we have in the defence of that Reason, declared to be altogether untrue: Therefore yet we have received no answer, either to that Reason, or this. That thus it standeth we refer the Reader for it unto that which is said in defence of that Reason aforesaid: wishing the Reader moreover to observe, both there and here in his answer to the Reason following, that the power of the truth so prevaileth against them, as they cannot but grant, that they depart from and deny the faith, in their ministery, worship and government ecclesiastical, as appeareth in their Canons, book of Common prayer, Articles, Injunctions, persecutions, etc. All which being mentioned unto them as proofs thereof, in these several reasons: when now they should defend these particulars, if they would maintain their standing, behold they are as mute as a fish therein: and not that only, but in their answer to the next Reason following, grant unto us, that in these things we may and aught to separate from them. Which is directly to yield us the cause: Thus sound they answer us, and dispute for themselves.    

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 8. Reason.  
TO this your Eight Reason and defence thereof, I answer as before: If you take the Apostle to mean, such neglecters of their household as deny the faith, not Fundamentally nor against the instinct of nature, but only against convenient Christian providence, and no otherwise: Then I deny your Assumption. If the Apostle mean of such, as neglect their families against the light of confcience, & nature's instinct, than I deny the Proposition. This I say, because the Apostle may very well mean both these, but in a diverse measure and proportion of sin: but then this concerneth not us, Even so as I have said to your former Reason. Note also, if this were a true Reason, it maketh Master Cranmer, etc. deniers of the faith, and no true Christians also. For maintenance where of, you have here not one poor word at all.  
Touching that you say we cannot deny, but grant, that we depart from and deny the faith in our ministery. I have told you how, in my answer to your 7. Reason, Also see my Replies to your 2. Exception.    

Master johnsons IX. Reason against the former Assumption: with Master JACOBS' Replies to the same. REASON IX.  
THey which teach otherwise and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, are by the rule of the Apostle to be separated from, and therefore cannot in that case by the word of God be deemed true Christians, 1. Tim. 6.3.4, 5.  
But that so it is with the ministers and people of these assembles, in regard of their ministery, worship, and Church constitution, appeareth by the Seaventene points of false doctrine, etc. which are already set down, and by the proofs before alleged out of their own cannons, Articles, Injunctions, etc.  
Therefore the Ministers and people of these assemblies, in regard of 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. JACOB 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 etc. 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 wholly. See my 1. and 2. Reply afore to the third Exception, also the Answer to the two last Reasons of all, the 7. and 8. We grant therefore, so far forth as we hold otherwise then truth, so far separate from us, but not any farther at all: not wholly, or absolutely. And so the Apostle here meaneth. Wherefore briefly: Because you prove us not wholly to deny the truth, nor fundamentally, nor obstinately, perversely, and desperately any part thereof, like those jews Act. 19.8. whom Paul separated from, which he did not from all other jews, Act. 13.14. and 16.3. and 21.23, 24, 26. and 3.1. Therefore you ought not wholly to separate from us, Neither to condemn us wholly as abolished from Christ, no more than Master Cranmer and Ridley were with their Congregations in King Edward's time. And thus our Assumption in the beginning, standeth firm, The doctrine in the book of Articles, is sufficient to make a true Christian.  
The contrary whereof, is such a Paradox, 
Conclusion.  as hath not been heard of till this day: All reformed Churches in Europe do and have always held otherwise. Themselves 
* Mai. Barrow. Mai. Penry. Mai. johnson.  heretofore have acknowledged and professed it. The holy Martyrs that lived in King Edward's days, and died in Queen Mary's days, must be otherwise cut of from Christ, who were true Christians by virtue of this doctrine and the practice thereof, or verily not at all. But now it is wonder, what extreme passion hath driven them to this denial. Surely they see that it convinceth flatly (as indeed it doth,) their peremptory separation: And therefore, rather than they would seem to have erred in so main point: we cannot but think that mere desperateness, hath driven them to it. Nevertheless, all this we leave to the Lord, with the judgement thereof, who hath the hearts of all men in his hand: not only to search the secrets; but also to turn and dispose them, even as it pleaseth him.  

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 9 Reason.  
Unto our ninth Reason aforesaid, he answereth: That it is a Fallacy: separate from such: Ergo separate wholly. But how shows he any fallacy to be in our Reason? He bids us see his answer above to our third Exception, also his answers to the two last Reasons of all. Well we have seen them, and find nothing there but against himself, as there hath been showed. So this Reason then, as the rest also, still stands unanswered, and strong against them. And that we may not doubt, but himself also seethe it to be so, how soever he seemeth to plead to the contrary before: therefore now he granteth it (and so yields us the cause) both in express words, and by not defending the 17. points of false doctrine, wherewith they were charged, neither their own Cannons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. alleged against them. In express words, when he saith, they grant, that so far forth as they hold otherwise then truth, so far we may and aught to separat from them. Lo here what the evidence of the truth (against which they have struggeled so long) hath now at length drawn from them. The truth is mighty, and prevaileth. But he addeth, that we must not separate from them any further, then as before: not wholly or absoluteiy: and so saith he, the Apostle 
“ 1. Tim. 3.3.  here meaneth. Well, but let us here know what this man himself meaneth hereby: If he mean that we must not for their other defection forsake the truths which they hold. We answer that we do it not, as himself knoweth: and in this sense also his meaning should come nothing near the Apostles meaning. Themselves say they have separated from the Papists: yet he neither ean nor will say, that they have forsaken the 
“ As that there is a God: that there, is three persons in the Godhead: that jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world: that God made heaven and earth: that there shallbe a resurrection of the just and unjust.  truths which the papists held, notwithstanding that they have made separation from them. But if he mean, that because of the truths which they profess, therefore we should not separate from them: then First he contradicteth himself, having granted that we must separate from them, so far forth as they hold otherwise then truth. Secondly, he condemneth their own practze in their separation from the Papists, notwithstanding the truths they profess. Thirdly, in this sense also his meaning should come nothing near the Apostles meaning. Thus therefore it is evident, both that there is no fallacy in our reason, but that it is plain and forcible against them: And moreover, that he hath directly in express words yielded us the cause, and acknowledged our separation from their assemblies, ministery, worship, etc. And as he doth this in express words, so also he showeth it in deed, in that he leaveth without all defence (as unlawful and to be separated from) their ministery, Worship, and Gowernement Ecclesiastical, the 17. points of false doctrine objected against them, and their Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. mentioned both here, and more particularly in the First and Second Reasons going before: Which thing we wish the Reader well to observe. And because we are fallen again into mention of the 17. points of false doctrine, to the end that the Reader may yet more see the deceitfulness of his dealing and insufficiency of all his answers here and before: therefore it shall not be irk some to set down here before the Readers, those 17. points of false doctrine aforesaid, specially seeing they are but short. They are these as followeth.  

Points of false doctrine delivered and spread abroad by the Writings, Sermons, and practise of the forward Preachers of the Parish assemblies of England: with answers to the same.  
1 That though the open notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Sacraments, yet neither the: Sacraments, nor the people that join with them, are defiled thereby. Which doctrine is contrary to the truth of God in these scriptures, 1 Cor. 10, 17. Hag. 2.14, 15. 1 Cor. 5.6. and 10.28 2 Cor. 6.15, 18. Gal. 5.9. Mat. 18.8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Exod. 12.43. Levit. 15.4, 5, 6, 7, 31. and 11.24. and 23, 45, 46. and 19.17. Num. 5.2, 3. and 19.21, 22. josua 11.12. Ezra 6.21.22. jer. 3.1.  
2 That the planting or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the word & spirit of God in the mouths of his weakest servants, except they have authority from earthly Princes: Which doctrine is against the Kingly power of Christ, and these scriptures, Mat, 28.18. Acts 3.23. 1 Cor. 1. 27. Psal. 2.6, 9, 10, 12. Esai 9.6, 7. Zach. 4.6. and 6.12.23. Dan. 2.44. and 7.27. and 9.25. Mich. 5.7. Mat. 28.20. 1 Cor. 14.27. with 1 Thes. 4.8. Phil. 2.6, 12. 1 Tim. 6.13, 14.15. Rene. 1.5. and 14.12. and 17.14. & 19 16. and 20.4.  
3 That the true visible Church of Christ is not a separated company of righteous men and women, from the Jdolaters and open wicked of the world, but may consist of all sorts of people good & bad: Which doctrine is contrary to the pattern of Christ's Church, throughout all the scriptures. Gen. 4.26. with 6.2. Exod. 4.22, 23. Levit. 10.10. and 20.24, 25, 26 Psal. 24.3, 4. Ezra 6.21. 2 Chron. 11.13, 16. Nehem. 10.28. Eze. 22.26. with 44.23. Zeph. 3.4. Mat. 3.10, 12. Act. 2.40, 41, 42. and 19.9. Rom. 12.1, 8. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. 1 Pet. 2.9, 10. Reu. 14.9, 12. and 18.4. and 21.27 and 22.14, 15. etc.  
4 That they may maintain this error of their confused order and mixture of all sorts of persons together, they pervert the Parable of the tars, Mat. 13.24. teaching that all are the Church: Which doctrine is against the truth of the scriptures, yea against our saviours own interpretation in the 38. verse, who teacheth, that by the field is meant (not the Church) but the world, in which his Church is milatant. And as therein there is the good seed, the righteous, the Children of the Kingdom: So there are also tars, hypocrites, the children of the wicked, who as they are often espied in this life, by the righteous servants of God, so shall they in that great day be perfectly severed from the godly by the Angels of God, verse 38.43. This their doctrine also is against the heavenly orders mentioned, Matt. 18.8, 9, 15, 16, 17. 1 Corint. 1.26.29. Acts 2.40.41, 47. and 5.26, 27, 28. and 19, 9 and 5.4, 7. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. Levit. 18.29. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 john verse 6.11. Revel. 2. and 3. and 14.9.12 and 18.4. and 20.4.  
5 That the people may tolerate and join with open iniquity in the Church, until by the Magistrate it be redressed: which doctrine is contrary to these riptures, 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. Mat. 28.21. Acts. 2.40. & 3.23. and 4.19. and 9.26. and 19.9. 1 Tim. 5.22. Deu. 5.32.  
6 That the gifts of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a sufficient and lawful calling to the ministery, etc. Which doctrine is both false and anabaptistical, contrary to the scriptures, Heb. 5.4. Rom 12.6, 7, 8. Levit. 22.25. Ezek. 44.8, 9, etc. Num. 1.51. and 3.10, 38 and 16.40. and 18.2 3, 4. Act. 1.20.26. and 14.23. and 13.2.3.  
7 That the Church may yield obedience unto other laws, cannons, and traditions, officers and offices, than God hath prescribed in his Conenant. Which doctrine is contrary to Gen. 49.10. Mal. 6.24. john 10, 4, 5. Ren. 14.4. and 22, 18, 19 Heb. 3, 1, &c:  
8 That the Church may read other men's words upon a book, and offer them up to God as their own prayers and sacrifices in the public Assemblies: Which doctrine is contrary to the scriptures, Esai 29.13, 14. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. Mat. 6.6.9. and 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Ephe. 4.7, 8. 1 Pet. 2.5.  
9 That it is lawful to join with the ministery of dumb and jdol Priests, and to receive the Sacraments at their hands: Which doctrine is contrary to, Mal. 15.14. and 7.19. and 24.24, 25. john. 10.1.5. Num. 16, 5, 9, 24, 26, 39, 40, etc. 1 Tim 6.5.2. john verse 6.11  
10 That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ, to cease preaching, & forsake his flock, at the Commandment of a Lord Bishop: Which doctrine is contrary to, 1 Cor. 9.16. Esay 62.4, 6, 7. jer. 48.10. Zach. 11.17. john 10.11, 12, 13. Acts 4.18, 19, 20, and 5.29. Amos 7.12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Tim. 4.2.  
11 That the Church of Christ hath not always power to bind and loose, to receive in, and to cast out by the Keys of the Kingdom: Which doctrine is contrary to Mat. 18.17, 18. Psal. 149.9. 1 Cor. 5.4, 5.12, Num. 5, 2, 3.  
12 That it is lawful for the people of God to hear notorious false prophets in their ministery: Which doctrine is contrary to Deut. 18.15. Mat. 17.5. and 7.15.2 John verse 10.11. 1 Cor. 10.18. Gala. 1, 8, 9 Revel. 14 9, 10, 11. and 18.4. John 10.96.  
13 That it is the Church and house of God, the body and kingdom of Christ, where he reigneth not by his own Ordinances & Officers, but the highest Ecclesiastical authority is in the hands of strange Lords, and Antichristian Prelates, who also govern by romish Cannons, and not according to the laws of Christ's Testament: Which doctrine and practice is condemned by Luke 19.14, 27. john 15.14. Rom. 6.16. Luke 22.25, 26. 1 Pet. 3.2 Thes. 2 3.4. john 3.35.36. Revel. 9.3. and 14.9.10.11 and 19.14.15.  
14 That there may be a prescript Liturgy and set form of service in the Church, framed by man: which doctrine is contrary to Deut. 5.8. Esai 29.13, 14. Mat. 15.9. and 7.6.7. Gal. 3.15. john 4.24. Rom. 8.26.27. Ephe. 4.7.8.  
15 That an Antichristian Prelate, notwithstanding his dignity (as it is called) spiritual, may be a Civil Magistrate, and obeyed of the people as their lawful governor, Which doctrine is contrary to Rom. 13.1, etc. Mat. 20.25, 26. Mar. 10.42, 43. Luke 22.25, 26. Revel. 14.9, 10, 11. and 17.18.  
16 That men may give the titles of Christ Jesus unto these sons of men, and his mortal enemies, to call them their Arch and Lord Bishops, Reverend Fathers, etc. Which doctrine is contrary to Mat. 23, 8, 9, 10. Esai 42.8. and 48.11. Pro. 17.15. and 24.24. Esai 5.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.17.  
17 That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to be maintained in his ministery, by the goods of wicked and unbelievers, by jewish and Popish tithes and offerings: Which doctrine is contrary to Prou. 27.26, 27. 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Phil. 4.10.18. Gal. 6.6. Rom. 15.27. Heb. 7.12.   
These are the 17 points which were mentioned before in the proof of this reason: which the adversary hath left altogether unanswered, as he hath done also their own Cannons, Articles, and Injunctions: which are to be seen in their printed books. And thus is he driven again & again whether he will or not, to yield us the cause.  
That which he addeth in the next place, of their not wholly denying the truth, nor fundamentally, nor obstinately, perversely, and desperately any part thereof, is answered before in the defence of our second Exception, and of our sixth and seventh Reasons.  
Now, when he next saith, That they are not herein like those jews (Act. 19.9.) whom Paul separated from, which he did not from all other jews, Acts 13.14. and 16, 3: and 21, 23, 24, 26. and 3.1. first we ask, What if they be not in all respects like unto those Jews, are they not therefore to be separated from? So in deed he would conclude in this place, But then let him tell us, if Corah, Dathan and Abiram, the Apostate Jew's under jeroboam, the Corinthians, Papists, &c: might not allege some particular exception, wherein they were not like to those jews, Act. 19 Might not therefore separation be made from these? The scripture teacheth otherwise, Numb. 16.25, 26. 2 Chron. 11.14. 2 Cor. 6.17, Reu. 18.4 Secondly, consider the place itself (Act. 19.9.) & compare it with their estate & practice in England, & see if there be not now as great and just cause to separate from them, as from the other. Are not these now hardened against the truth? Let their writings against it, their imprisonning, banishing, and killing, for it, give evidence. Do they not disobey it? Let their constitution and practise be witness. Speak they not evil of the way of God before the multitude? Let the Sermons of their Ministers in the pulpit, & the speeches of the Prelates in their Courts, bear record: Therefore saith that 
“ Acts 19.9. Acts 2.40.  Scripture (Acts 19) they are to be departed and separated from. Whereunto also may be added in this case that which Peter saith Act. 2 Save yourselves from this froward generation. Thidly were he objecteth That Paul did not separate from all the other jews, as he did from these, Acts 19 and showeth it by Act. 13.14. and 16.3. & 21, 23, 24▪ 26. & 3.1 we answer, that the Apostles had good and just cause so to do. For first the Jews 
* Rom. 9.4. Levit. 20.22, 24, 26. Luk. 1.6.8. etc.  were the people of God, separated from the world, and set in the true waand order of God. Secondly, 
* Luke 24.47. Act. 1.8. and 13.46.  Christ commanded the Apostles, when he sent them to preach his Gospel, throughout the world, that they should first preach it to the jews. thirdly, the jews ministery & ceremonies being the ordinances of God himself, and given in writing by Moses the man of God, 
“ Act. 15.21. and 21.30, 21 22, 23, 24, 25. Heb. 8.5, 13. & 9.1, etc.  were therefore now, when they should cease, to be buried with honour. These things considered, we see the Apostles had just cause so to do, as they did in those places mentioned: 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 the 
* reve. 13.16, 17. and 18 2. 2 The. 2.3, 4, 8  confusion and defection of Antichrist, whose ministery also and worship, were never the ordinances of God, But 
* reve. 17.2, 4 and 18.3. and 9.3. etc.  taken out of the whore's Cup of Babylon, for which likewise God never gave commandment to go unto them, but to 
“ reve. 18.4. with 17.9. 1 Tim. 6, 3, 5.  depart from them, as being daughters of the great Babylon that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth. Again even from those jews, notwithstanding the reasons aforesaid, yet when they put from them the truth, and would not receive it, the Apostles departed and separated themselves, yea and shook off the dust of their feet against them, teaching others to do so likewise, Acts 13.46, 51. and 18.6. & 28, 25, 26, 27, 28. and 20.40. and 19.8, 9  
To that of Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. is answered before. And hitherto of their general Assumption, which was this: That the whole doctrine as it is professed and publicly practised by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian. Which we have showed to be untrue, both by the Exceptions and Reasons aforesaid, which still stand firm against them, as is manifest by this our defence.  
Touching the conclusion:  
And now let the godly Reader (trying all things by the word of truth) judge, whether we or they hold Paradoxes.  
Touching that he saith of the reformed Churches, he is deceived, if he think they allow their present estate and church constitution. Both their public profession and practice witness the contrary: as we have declared at large in 
“ In the answers of Ma. Carthwrights' reasons: of Maist. Hildersams' letter, etc.  other treatises, which yet remain unanswered, whereunto we refer the Reader in this behalf.  
Where he saith, That we ourselves heretofore have acknowledged and professed it, (to wit their general Assumption aforesaid to be true) he is also deceived therein: we have always 
* You may speak it with shame enough  testified the contrary, both by our profession and practice, and were and are therefore cast into prison, appointed to exile, and put to death: besides many other injuries & grievances inflicted upon us for this very cause. In deed we have acknowledged and do acknowledge, that they profess divers excellent truths, but that the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed and practised by law in England, doth make them in that estate true Christians, never any of us (that we know of) did once acknowledge. And therefore till he show us the contrary, we must needs think that he falsely burdeneth us all, and specially such of us, as he hath mentioned here in particular.  
To that which he next addeth of the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days is answered already in the defence of our second Exception and First Reason, whereunto may be added for more evidence of the truth, the particular speeches & testimonies of the holy Martyrs themselves, both then and in former times.  
As of Master Bradford, who 
“ Acts & monuments 2.vo. in his conference with Peter Henth.  speaking of the days before Queen Marie) said, The time was, when the Pope was out of England, but not all popery. And moreover, 
“ In his first speech with D. Harpsfielde, Archdeacon.  That the scripture knoweth not any difference between Bishops and Ministers, which men call Priests. And that the scripture speaking of Bishops, can not be understood of Bishops that minister not, but lord it.  
Also of Master Hooper, who held and 
“ Hooper on the eight commandment.  published, that a Bishop should be Bishop but of one City: and that till the Magistrates bring them to this point, it shallbe as possible to hear a Bishop wade, godly and simply through the scripture in case of Religion, as to drive a Camel through the eye of a needle. And again he saith: The primitive Church had not such Bishops as be now a days. And again, What blindness (saith he) is there befell in the world, that can not see this palpable ill, that our Mother the holy Church had at the beginning, such Bishops, as did preach many godly Sermons in less time than our Bishop's horses be a bridling.  
And John Bale, an exile for the testimony of Jesus, writing upon the Revelation, 
* Bale in his book called The Image of both churches upon Reu. 13.1. and 17.3.  affirmeth moreover, That the names of Blasphemy written upon the Beasts head (Revel. 13. and 17.) are none other than the proud glittering titles, wherewith they garnish their usurped authority, to make it seem glorious to the world, having within them contained the great mystery of iniquity. What other else (saith he also) is Pope, Cardinal, Metropolitan, Primate, Archbishop, Diocean, Archdeacon, Official, chancellor, Commissarie, Deane, Prebend, Parsons, Vicar, and such like, but very names of blasphemy? For offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost, nor yet once mentioned in the scriptures. This john Bale held and published. Then which, what can be more full and evident against them?  
And again writing upon the 14. chapter of the Revelation, 
In Image of both churches upon Reu. 14.9  he hath these words:  
To receive the beasts mark in their foreheads & hands, is both to agree to such decrees, traditions, laws, constitutions, acts, and proclamations, as they under those titles, have made, only for their own covetousness and pomp, and neither for the glory of God, nor yet for the right maintenance of the Christian common wealth: And also to be sworn to the same, to subscribe to it, to give counsel or aid to it, to maintain it by learning, to minister in it, to execute under it, to accuse, punish, and put to death for it, or to think it lawful and godly, with such like.  
And 
“ Ibid. upon Revel. 16.12.  afterward upon the 16. of the Revelation, expounding the drying up of the waters of Euphrates to be this, That the wealthy Pope's possession" and pleasures of the Clergy (their false feats once known) are and" shallbe clearly taken away from them: He saith Moreover, In 
* Mark also by this of what time & estate he speaketh: even of such, when the Gospel was preached, the Monasteries suppressed.  England by the Gospel preaching have many of these waters been dried up in the suppression of the monasteries, priories, covents, and Friars houses, yet are not all things brought unto Christ's clear institution. A cincere Christian-order cannot yet be seen there. And a great cause why. For all is not yet dried up there. The Bishop's reign still in as much vain glorious pomp, and with as many Heathenish observations, as ever they did, As cruelly hearted and as bloody minded are they yet, as ever they were afore." No mischief unsought to hold in the waters. Mark how 
“ He meaneth the Prelates of these Seas.  Winchester," Durham, York, London, and Lyncolne, work (let us also now add Canterbury) with such other pleasantly disposed Euphratynes: But be of good comfort, & pray in the mean time. For the holy Ghost promiseth here, that they shall whither away withal that the heavenly Father hath not planted. All which generation will the Lords breath consume, etc.  
Likewise may be showed by the testimony of others in former times, as of john Wickliff, who 
* Acts & Monumen. 4. edi. 1. vol. pa. 150.  held and affirmed: That Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, officials, Deans, Cannons, were disciples of Antichrist.  
In like manner of William Swinderby, who 
* Ibid. pag. 36.8. b.  said that what Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Prelate or Priest, in manner of living, or teachching, or laws making, contrary to Christ's living & his laws, or any other ground put in ruling of the Church of Christ, but by Christ and his laws, is very Antichrist, adversary to jesus Christ and his Apostles.  
Also Sir John old Castle Lord Cobham who 
“ Ibid. pag. 5621 b. & 563.  held & affirmed, that the Bishops, Priests, Prelates, and Monks, were the body of the great" Antichrist: And that the possessions and Lordships of the Clergy, were the" venom of judas shed into the Church.  
Likewise john 
* Ibid. pag. 639. b:  Cladon burnt in Smithfield, held & professed, that the Archbishops, & Bishops, speaking indifferently, are the seats of the beast Antichrist, when he sitteth in them and reigneth above other people in the dark Calves of errors and heresies. Moreover that the Bishop's licence for a man to preach the word of God, is the true character of the beast, that is, Antichrist.  
Finally William 
“ In his treatises called the obedience of a christian man, and the pracsise of Prelates.  tindal and john 
* In his Preface before his Antythesis between Christ and the Pope.  Frith, held and publissed, That Archb. Lordb. Archdeacon's, Deans, officials, Parsons, Vicars, and the rest of that sort, are the disciples of Antichrist, yea very Antichristes themselves.  
These are the speeches and testimonies of the holy Martyrs in former ages, whereunto diverse other such like might be added. But these may suffice for the matter in hand. And now compare with these things alleged, the public profession & practice of England even as it is by law at this day, and see whether their own proofs be not so many witnisses against themselves. But if it were so, that the reformed Churches, we ourselves, and the Martyrs of former time, had given allowance of their present estate & Church constitution, what would this help them, when all the word of God condemneth them, as we have showed in our Reasons aforesaid & defence thereof. Whereunto (if they will still justify their estate) we require direct answer from point to point, and that from the scriptures, which only can 'stablish the conscience.  
Now furthermore, that the truth itself, and their estate may better appear what it is, as also that they may not turn away or obscure the truth by their subtle shifts and evasions, as their manner is: we will therefore propound unto them a few questions concerning the points now in controversy in this land, desiring their plain and sincere answers, thereunto by the word of God, as they will answer him in his great day.  

The questions are these.  
1 Whether the Lord jesus Christ have by his last Testament given unto and set in his Church sufficient ordinary 1. Offices, with their 2. Callings, 3. Works, and 4. 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 appincted by Christ in his last Testament as aforesaid .. Or whether the present ecclesiastical Offices of Archbishops, Lordbishops, Suffragans, Deans, Prebendaries, Cannons, Petticannos, Gospelers, Pistlers, Virgirers choristers, Organ-players, Priests, Deacons or, half Priests, Archdeacon's, Doctors of divinity, Bachelors of divinity, Chaplyns or House-priestes, Commissaries, officials, Proctors, Apparitors; Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Vagrant or Mercenary preachers, Churchwardens, Sidemen, Clerks, Sextons, and the rest now had in these Cathedral and parishional assemblies be those offices appointed by Christ in his last Testament as is aforesaid, or no.  
3 Whether the Callings and entrance into these Ecclesiastical offices last aforesaid, their Administration, and Maintenance, now had and received in England, be the manner of calling, administration, & maintenance which Christ hath appointed for the offices of his church above named, or no.  
4 Whether every true visible church of Christ be not a company of people called and separated out from the world by the word of God, and joined together in fellowship of the Gospel, by voluntary profession of the faith and obedience of Christ? And whether the present ecclesiastical assemblies of this Land be such: or no.  
5 Whether the Sacraments (being seals of the righteousness which is by faith) may be delivered to any other then to the faithful and their seed, or in any other ministry and manner than is appointed by jesus Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our profession? And whether they be not otherwise administered in the Cathedral and parishional assemblies of England at this day.  
6 Whether their book of Common prayer with the Feasts, Fasts, and Holy days, stinted prayers, and liturgy prescribed therein, and used in these assemblies, be the true worship of God commanded in his word, or the devise or invention of man, for God's worship and service.  
7 Whether all people and Churches without exception be not bound in Religion, only to receive and submit unto that ministery, worship, and order, which Christ as Lord and King, hath given and appointed to his Church? Or whether in Religion, any may receive or join unto, another ministry, worship and order devised by man, for the service of God? And consequently, whether they which join to the present ecclesiastical ministery, worship, and order of these cathedral and parishional assemblies, can be assured by the word of God, that they join unto the former appointed by Christ, and not to the latter devised by man, even the man of sin, for the worship and service of God.   
Unto these questions and the particulars thereof, for the causes aforesaid, we desire their direct answer, with proofs of their answers from the scriptures, according to which word if they speak not as we said before, so we say again, with the 
“ Esa. 8.20.  Prophet Esay: It is because there is no light in them.  
And now to conclude, whereas this man being not able to answer our Reasons (as hath been declared) yet would in the end of his writing, fasten upon us some strange passion, yea and mere desperateness, for separating from them, and answering of them as we have done. We leave it the godly and discrete Reader to judge by that which hath been said on both parts, whether it be not themselves which are taken with a strange passion, and driven there unto by mere desperateness, when as to maintain their estate they will have the scriptures to fall, (as hath been 
* See the answer to our second Exception and 7. Reason, etc.  seen in their answers before,) yea and exalt the Church, and Magistrate above Christ himself, even flesh and blood above God, blessed for ever. But for this and all their unrighteous dealing against the truth and people of God, we leave them to the Lord, who searcheth the hearts, & trieth the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his works. That is, to them that by continuance in well-doing seek glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious: and disobey the truth, and obey unrighteousness, indignation, and wrath, Jer. 17.10. with Rom. 2.6, 7, 8.    

H. JACOB 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 show none. Mark what I say, Every one of your Reasons, I say every one, is a very proper fallacy, and an artificial part of sophistry, as by my several answers to them may appear. Your First Reason is called in the schools Fallacia ab co quod est secandum quid ad simpliciter: proving a thing to be simply, by that which is but after a sort. The Second is the very same. The third Fallacia aequinocationis, A fallacy of Ambiguity. The Fourth is the very same. The Fift is petitio principij, a begging of the question. The Sixth the very same fallacy that was in the First and Second Reasons. The seventh, Eight, and Ninth, have all the Fallacy of Equivocation, and if you will, the same with that, in your First, Second and sixth Reasons, also.  
Further, where you say, that here I grant you the cause, it is very absurd. The Apostle 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. saying, separate from such, hath a two fold sense, Either such as teach otherwise then the truth fundamentally, and then separate wholly: Or not fundamentally, but erring only in points less than the foundation: and these diversely also, Either presumptuously obstinately, and of a desperate conscience: and then if that apeate, separate from such wholly: Or else, erring in simplicity and of oversight, and former prejudice, from such, separate not wholly, but only from the very error or errors, in no wise from their Christian communion and society, seeing these are true Christians.  
Seeing therefore our corruptions of the prelacy, and Ceremonies, be of these latter sort: which thing hitherto, you have not nor cannot overthrow, (and withal you must utterly overthrow Maist. Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs their Christianity likewise): Therefore we in England, by the grace of God, are still true Christians: and you ought so to acknowledge us, as you will answer unto God: All which you may do, and yet touch no part of our Ecclesiastical corruptions at all, to give allowance unto them: And in all this, there is no contradiction with myself, it is but your distempered conceit, that seemeth contrary. Neither is our absolute departure from the Papists, hereby any whit impeached. We have justly forsaken them clean, because by their very profession & doctrine, we cannot esteem them true Christians, neither in case of salvation, while they so remain, but indeed very Antichristes, as the scripture proveth. Which thing also if you say of us, you say falsely: it is our present question, and you do not prove it, nor ever can do.  
As for your. 17. points of false doctrine, which you most falsely lay to our charged, what have I to do with them? I list not to meddle at this present, but with that which we have in hand, namely to justify, that our public book of Articles of Religion (so far forth as that it erreth not fundamentally, 
As it doth not. ) containeth sufficient to make a true Christian: Against the which, hitherto you have brought nothing worth the hearing, as we have seen.  
After, you would prove us to be like those jews 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 infinitely many more are there in this land, that know nothing of this controversy. 2. Secondly Paul was better able to convince them by the scriptures, and did more effectually, and apparently, than you do (or can) our whole Realm. 3. Thirdly how many learned are there in this land, that have many probable and seeming reasons, and allege them, & publish them for the prelacy against you: and are unanswered. And yet will you say they are convicted, and those infinite others depending on them? I say convicted aswell as those jews? What if these speak evil of that which you hold for truth, but they hold to be errors and schism? Are they all, yea all the Land therefore abolished from Christ? Might not all this at least, be said of the whole estate of the jews in Christ's time, and after aswell, yet they ceased not to be Churches? why then are you so partial against us?  
Lastly, you would show Reasons why the Apostles wholly separated not from the jews Synagogues after Christ, Act. 13.14. etc. Which you will in no wise have to serve us. But alas for all your Exceptions against us, you have never a reason but one, and that is petitio principij, That we were never separated from the world, nor set in the way & order of Christ, but in the confusion and defection of Antichrist, whose ministery, etc. were never the ordinances of God, etc. This is but craving the whole question. And I have refuted these quarrels in a short writing (hereafter following) about the comparison of the ministery with Marriage, which yet you have no leisure to answer, this whole three years together, and upward.  
And further you do not show any utter and absolitte separation from the whole Church of the jews a great while after Christ: but the contrary is seen Act. 21.23, 24, 26. though from some one or two synagogues they separated after full experience of their obstinate and malicious resistance of the truth, which we deny not.  
Touching the Conclusion.  
IN the conclusion of my former Reply, to prove your utter separation from us a Paradox: First I alleged all the reformed Churches: For who knoweth not, but they all hold Communion with us as Churches of God? yet you dare either deny this, or utterly pervert it. You tell us of your Answers to Master Cartwright and Master Hildersham that are unanswered. If they by like to this your answer here, verily they do wisest in yielding silence to such frivolus and wandering words.  
Secondly I alleged yourselves to have acknowledged heretofore, That our public doctrine allowed, would and did make many of us true Christians. You too shamefully deny it. And say you are for witnessing against it, imprisoned, banished, etc. Whereto I answer, that if for these things you are troubled, I know none can pity you. And because you say none of you ever acknowledged it, I will therefore repeat your own words.  
Mr. BARROW (in his last answer in writing to Mr. Gifford, entitled, A few observations to the reader of Mr. Giff last Reply: Sect. 4.) saith thus:  
The next calumniations whereby Mr Gifford endeavoureth to bring us into hatred with the whole. Land, is, That we condemn all the persons both men and women of England, which are not of our mind, and pluck them up as tars: wherein me thinks he doth us open wrong, if not against his own conscience, yet against our express writings every where, etc. Have we not commended the faith of the English Martyrs, & deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false offices and great corruptions, in the worship they exercised, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their sincere faith to jesus Christ extended and superabonnded above all their sins seen and unseen. And what now should let, that we should not have the same hope, where the same precious faith in sincerity & simplicity is found? So that they neither neglect to search out the truth, nor despise the truth when they see it, etc.  
Afterwards in the same Section.  
The faithful servants of Christ (denying the whole constitution and government of this Church of England) may justly deny the people whilst they remain in that constitution to be members of a true constituted Church, yet hereby not condemn them with any such peremptory sentence as Master Gifford suggesteth, to cut them of from God's election, 
Nota. From Christ.  or from Christ.  
Mr. PENRIE (in his confession of faith, published in writing a little before his death,) saith thus.  
The truth of doctrine touching the holy Trinity, touching the Natures and Offices of Christ, Justifying faith, Sacraments, Eternal life, and the rest, established by her majesty's Laws, and professed by herself, their Honours, and such as have knowledge in the Assemblies of this land: I acknowledge from my heart to be such, as if I maintained not the unity, and held not the communion, of the same doctrine with them in these points, I could not possibly be saved: For out of the Communion of the true profession, which her Majesty hath established in these and the like truths, there is no hope of salvation left: But join notwithding with the public worship in the assemblies of this Land, I dare not, for the former causes.  
I do moreover willingly confess, That many, both of the Teachers, & also of the Professors within these Parish assemblies, have so embraced this truth of doctrine, established and professed in this Land, as the Lord of his infinite goodness, hath granted them the favour, to show outwardly, many tokens, whereby (in regard of the lords election) I profess before men and Angels, that I judge them to be members of that body whereof the Son of God Christ jesus is the head. Only herein the Lord be merciful unto them, (as to myself in regard of my sins:) That they are not under that outward form of government that Christ hath left, etc.  
And in his examination before Master Fanshaw, lately published by yourselves in print, he confesseth the Churches of England to be the true Churches of Christ.  
And what say you, Master johnson? Have you not affirmed this thing yourself, to me, and to Master Philip's, namely touching your own self, when you were of us, That then you doubted not, but you were a true regenerate Christian. By virtue of what doctrine? By extraordinary revelation? Nay, but by our public doctrine of our Church, when you stood and continued a public Minister of the same. If you believed so of yourself, (and that truly) what letteth but you may believe the like of many Thousands now?  
Further where you say, my applying of the Martyrs, is answered before. Let the Reader judge. You show here, that some of them misliked the hierarchy. But it maketh stronger against you, seeing for all that, they themselves refused not to communicate, and partake with them then, as true Christians: as Hoper, Bale, Bradford, etc.  
After where you say: though the reformed Churches, yourselves, and the Martyrs, have thought otherwise then you now do: yet all this is no sound proof against you. Yes in deed, that now you hold a Paradox, those witnesses are sufficient for that: whereunto may be added, the whole Church's judgement and practise, with all the ancient learned Fathers these 1300. or 1400. years Chrisostom. Epiphanius, Nazianzen. Hyerom. Austen. Ambrose, etc. They all have thought, that under the Prelacy, and human ceremonies, men may be true Christians. Then these witnesses are sufficient, that your denial hereof, is a strange and unusual opinion, that is, a Paradox.  
Finally to try us, you propound a many of questions. But I leave all this superfluous stuff to yourself to be pondered. First let us clear this present question, and your Reasons here about: Till then, we have no leisure to meddle further. The Lord of his mercy open your eyes to see your extremity, whereby you do greatly hinder, not help the truth, which you would seem to suffer for. That you may indeed show yourself as becometh a Christian Pastor, not impossible to err, but no lover of error 
* Not a striue● for victory, but a loves of ●●th.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not regarding your own, but the praise of Christ in all things. AMEN.    
FINIS.   

A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE TRVENES OF A PASTORAL CALLING IN PASTORS MADE BY prelates.  
Against the Reasons and Objections of Master FRANCIS JOHNSON, with others of the separation, commonly called Brownistes.  
1599   

An Argument, showing the trunes of a Pastoral calling in Pastors made by Prelates: Taken from a familiar comparison, gathered out of the confessions of Master johnson and others of the separation aforesaid.  
The Argument of Comparison is this  
AS a couple of ignorant people not contracting, but meaning to marry, and yet thinking that unless a Priest marry them, their marriage is nothing, whereas indeed their public accepting each of other maketh the marriage: Now being married, (though 
“ As themselves hold.  unlawfully) by a Priest, yet their marriage is true and lawful notwithstanding.  
EVen so, a Christian people, meaning to have a sufficient man to their Pastor, yet thinking, that unless a Prelate do make him, he is no Pastor at all, neither can be theirs. Notwithstanding, he being made a Pastor, (though 
“ As they also do acknowledge.  unlawfully) by the Prelate; yet, by their mutual accepting and joining together, he is now verily a Pastor, yea their Pastor, true and lawful.  
H. JACOB.   

Against the said Argument, were brought Seven Reasons by Master johnson and others: which do hereafter follow, together with Master jacobs' Replies to the same.  

REASON. I.  
F. john's.  
FIrst, infidels, idolaters, profane and godless persons, may marry together, with consent, and choice of each other, notwithstanding their profaneness, and their marriage is therein lawful. But it standeth not so with the choice of Ministers in the Church, For 1. profane and godless persons (such as these assemblies consist of) 2. never rightly gathered together according to God's holy ordinance, 3. remaining in subjection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers & courts, consisting of all sorts of people, etc. are not capable of choosing, or joining unto a true Minister in this estate (as infidels may marry in the same estate). There fore the comparison will not hold, neither is such choice of a Minister by such people lawful.  
But these assemblies consist of such people, etc. Ergo, etc.  

H. jacob  
THe strength of this Reason standeth in these last words: But these assemblies consist of such people, 1. profane & godless persons, 2. never rightly gathered together according God's ordinance, 3. remaining in subjection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers & courts: Ergo, etc. These three accusations avail nothing at all.  
Accusation. 1 The first Accusation is from our question, for we speak of a Christian people, but he, of assemblies consisting of profane and godless persons. If he say, our assemblies all & wholly are such: That is false. If he say, some are: Of them we speak not. If he say in all & every one of our assemblies there are some, yea many open profane and godless persons. 1. It is too bold a saying, & 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 think that whole companies of Christians by such commixtures are made unholy, profane, and godless: which is contrary to these scriptures, Mat. 23, 2, 3. Luke 2.21, 22. & 1.6. Act. 21.23, 26. 1 Sam. 2.17. and cap. 1. verse 3.9. Revel. 2.20, 21, and 3.1, 4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1, 2. & 4.11, 16. and 5.4.9.  
Accusation. 2 The second Accusation [that our assemblies were never rightly gathered together at the first according to God's ordinance.] I deny it: especially touching many famous Congregations in the Land, where the gospel was not unknown before the Queen's commaundiment came to urge them to receive this doctrine. And if the manner of receiving it then, in those hard and doubtful times and hazardous beginnings, were not so perfect nor so exact, as should have been, yet we may see by the example of 
“ 2 Chro. 30.17, 18, 19, 20.  Hezechias, and 
* 2 Chro. 33.15, 16, 17.  Manasses, and 
† Zepha. 1.4, 5. and 3.1. jer. 3.6. etc. and 4.1. etc. and 5.1. etc.  josias reformations, That God imputeth it not to such godly and zealous restorers, the pillars and ground of the truth in those days. If you say, the untaught people then suddenly receiving the gospel by commandment, not by hearing, could not believe at the first, though they professed, and therefore at the first were no true Christians nor Churches? I answer, 1. Though many received the Gospel for the commandments sake, yet who can say, That now they all generally wanted all knowledge, and all faith? The word then having been in many places taught, very many books scattered, much conference, daily consultations and disputations used, and the blood of the martyrs having preached so loud, and so lately before. 2. It was not so sudden. There was 
“ From November the 17 till Midsummer following.  more than half a year, for the people to hear, learn, and consider, before the commandment came. So that it can not be counted mere force and compulsion, that at the beginning of our Queen's reign, brought us to the truth? 3 I would know, They condemn not (I hope) all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate, 2 Chro. 34.32, 33. and 33.16. and 15.13. Seeing therefore, the assemblies thus openly, & advisedly, submitted to the proclaimed truth, who seethe not, but they confessed therein their former errors, and professed their present faith, and undertook a new life from that which before they led, though happily not so formally, nor so perfectly as were to have been wished.  
Objection. But they received all together, Papists, Atheists, ignorant men, & all dissolute livers, into one communion and fellowship.  
Answer. Indeed all, who after this advizement and notice taken, submitted to & received this doctrine, these were all received in. And therefore no open professed Papists, Athistes, nor other Heretics. As for ignorant men, it is not possible but many will scape among the rest, in so great and so general reformation of a public state. And so questionless it was in Hezechias, Manasses, and josias reformation. 2. Chron. which we noted before. The notorious, dissolute, & wicked, some were reclaimed, all undertook another profession, & a new appearance of Christianity. And no doubt the like is to be thought of these, as before I observed touching the ignorant men. Now all this was done, not intolerably doubtless, though I grant weakly & corruptly, And very like even to your own receiving into your Church at this time: nay more tolerable and more lawful than yours: who to furnish only one congregation, have received many known bad men, and very ignorant: yea and still retain men full of contention, & bitter strife, 1 Cor. 3.3. In a word this I answer:  
That which disannulleth not a Church gathered and settled, That disannulleth it not in the gathering and beginning.  
But such mixtures do not disannul a Church gathered and settled, as appeareth above in the scriptures quoted against the First Accusation, Mat 23. Luke 2. etc.  
Therefore such mixtures did not disannul our Churches then in their beginning.  
Accusation. 3 The Third Accusation is, [our Assemblies remain in obedience to the false Antichristian officers, etc.] Let this be our general sin: yet there is diversity of sins. All are not of like detestation before God, nor of like consequence against us. I say not that any sins are venial: but I say, All sins by their nature are mortal, yet do they not all alike abolish us from Christ, nor deprive us of the glory of God. Now this sin of outward church orders is not of the most heinous, nor extremest disobedience. There are sins against the 
* 1 Cor. 15.3, 3. 4. Rom. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14.  foundation, and there are sins that stand with the foundation: ibid." wherein men living and dying ignorantly without particular repentance, may be saved. Such were the sins of the jewish church and estate in Christ's time, and after, as 
“ Beza in Acts 15.20.  some think, even till their Temple and City were destroyed, though they did personally hate and persecute Christ. Such also was the sin of the ancient declining Bishops, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrisostom, Leo of Rome, etc. No less was in ours of late Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, etc. in King Edward days: and no greater is now in ours presently, especially touching our Churches. & Ministers too, generally. If you say, we are all convicted now, and sin against our consciences, as they did not in those times: It is utterly false, & a palpable untruth. Whosoever knoweth any thing in our church estate generally, must needs see it, that this point touching the Hyerarchy, is not acknowledged even of ignorance in a thousand to one: many holding (& not of the simplest) this present government to be th'only true & right kind: but all men almost, to be indifferent, & lawful: very few indeed, & scarce to be found, that see it to be merely nought, or as you term it, wicked & intolerable. And in King Edward's time, whosoever considereth, shall find, that the godly learned Protestant's then, were not utterly ignorant of this point of reformation, and yet sinned not against their conscience in bearing with the times, neither were abolished from Christ. And surely touching the jews, they were all generally more convicted then, that jesus was the Christ, than we are now, that the Prelacy is of Antichrist: & yet they remained a church still, because generally indeed, they were not plainly convicted. Thus then this our sin is 
* See the 2. sorts of fundamental sins, in the 2. Reply to your 7. Reason before, pag. 48.  no way fundamental, it destroyeth not faith & Christianity in our whole assemblies: Therefore they remain Christian people still, as I affirmed: not all godless & profane, as he uncharitably speaketh. O beware of rash and hasty judging, even of one brother, Rom. 14.3, 4, 13. how much more of such & so many whole assemblies professing Christ in England? Woe be unto him which curseth, where God curseth not, Num. 23.8. As also indeed that blesseth, where God blesseth not. We desire you not to bless us in our evil, but we warn you, not to curse us in our good: which indeed turneth us not to any furtherance, but to a great hindrance and stumbling block, stopping us from that sincerity which else we should draw nearer unto. Blessed is he that judgeth wisely (that is without affection & partiality) even of him that is despised. Better it is and more Christian like, even to offend in too much compassion and patience (especially towards so many hundredth thousands, by whom we know nought save good in this point) then to offend in too much rigour, and severity, & unjust anger, Mat. 5. ●2. Howbeit this were not indeed to offend, as hath been above showed. And briefly in two words, thus I conclude it farther, that.  
That faith & religion taught in the book of Articles published 1562. maketh the people that believe and obey the same, true Christians: such as so living and dying may be saved.  
But our Church doth so hold that faith,  
Therefore they are true Christians.  
The Proposition only is doubted. I had thought none so desperate as to deny it: but lately I understand, they have denied it. Howbeit for answer, I refer them, partly to that which here hath been said before, and especially to that which is replied to their Answer in the former Treatise: which being well weighed, I doubt not but all indifferent, and Christian minds will acknowledge, our public church assemblies in England to be true Christians.    

REASON. II.  
F. john's.  
SEcondly the Priest doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage without the married first give their consent.  
But the Prelates make Ministers without & before the people's consent.  
Therefore the comparison holdeth not.  

H. jacob  
FIrst it is very vain to make this any matter, viz. the people's consenting either before or after the Prelates ordaining. For whether before or after, it is in nature and value all one: They in their ignorance having respect only to the Prelates act. And if it were so, that the Priest should sometimes marry a couple, the Maid being merely enforced, and denying consent, yet not striving nor resisting: and a while after shall willingly agree and like: Out of question there is now true wedlock between them. Even so the case is betwixt the Church and the Minister. 2. But what will they except here against those Pastors amongst us, that were first chosen by the people, they first professing their consent, and are after instituted & inducted by the Praelat. Many are thus called amongst us: & the most have the people's consent even together at their first inducting: at least wise they have soon after, by the people's submitting & maintaining them even presently. 3. Lastly in a word, where he saith " the Praelats make Ministers without and before the people's consent. We 
“ Beza in Act 14.23. Fenner against Bridges, Pag. 148.  affirm, that they make not the Pastor at all indeed and in truth; but only supposedly. It is the Church's consent that maketh him truly, whether before or after the Bishop, that skilleth not. If any think Imposition of hands to be simply necessary to the being of a Minister: that is also an error, & cannot be proved.    

REASON. III.  
F. john's.  
THirdly the people cannot choose their Minister unless the Prelate either before or after make him Minister.  
But a couple may choose each other whether the Priest will give his consent or no. Therefore, etc.  

H. jacob  
1 WE deny your saying, the peole cannot choose. They can choose, They have power in Christ, as being Christians, though they know not their right therein. The ignorance of this simply, doth not cut us of from Christ, nor from this holy privilege: no more than the blind Papists have lost their right & power of marrying together without a Priest, because they are ignorant of it. 2. Again where he saith, But a couple may choose each other whether the Priest will marry them or no: Let him mark: That we speak of blind Papists that think that the Priest is the whole absolute and necessary marriage maker. If he say, even such have right and power to marry, though they be far from knowing it, and farther from practising; Then let him grant the like in choosing a Minister, to our Christians: for so the comparison importeth, Else if he mean those words of others that be men of knowledge, Then he fighteth with his shadow: he toucheth not our question.    

REASON. FOUR  
F. john's.  
IF any that by the word of God are not capable of marrying together (as brother & sister, etc.) do notwithstanding consent to take each other for man and wife: yet are they not therefore lawful man and wife.  
So if a people and some man that by the word of God cannot choose one another as Pastor and Church in their estate (such as now is in this land) do notwithstanding consent to take each other: yet are they not therefore lawful Pastor and Church.  

H. jacob  
THis is wholly presumed and from the Question also. Like to the first Reason, and hath the same answer as is made to the first accusation there. He reasoneth against people not capable of a Pastor; And we speak of true Christians which are always capable. He doth ill therefore in comparing this action to marriage between brother & sister; who indeed cannot marry. Happily he may likelier compare it to a couple that have lived both of them wanton: Afterwards they marry together, and this marriage if self they use not soberly, nor temperately. Howbeit for all this, I profess these two are truly man and wife notwithstanding: Now even so our Churches and Ministers, etc.    

REASON. V  
F. john's.  
THe Priests joining of the parties doth not make them man and wife at all, but only the parties mutual consent.  
But contrarily, in the present ecclesiastical constitution of England, the Prelates ordination maketh the minister, and not the people's choice at all.  

H. jacob  
THe Second Proposition we here flatly deny. It is answered in our last words against the 2. Reason.    

REASON. VI  
F. john's.  
IF a woman consent to a man that is another woman's 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. jacob  
THis is answered as before in the Fourth Reason. It carrieth some likelihood indeed, and some reason against Pluralities, but nothing any further.    

REASON. VII.  
F. john's.  
IF when a man and woman give consent each to other, 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, he give himself to another & a false ministery, and so commit spiritual whoredom: Then is the former knot broken.  

H. jacob  
THe taking of orders from a prelate, after consent given to a Miniter by a people, is not like adultery in marriage: especially whereboth Pastor and people are simply ignorant of that error. Therefore that disannulleth not, as adultery doth the wedlock. So this Reason is much like to the last before, and the answer not unlike to that of the Fourth Reason likewise. For  
That which at the First maketh not uncapable: That same afterwards doth not dissolve.  
But this error maketh not christians uncapable at the first: as there is showed, and in the Third chiefly:  
Therefore neither can it dissolve afterwards the Covenant between the Pastor and the people.  
This last Treatise, hath remained in their hands, these Three years and more, unanswered.    
FINIS.