AN ANSWER TO MASTER H. JACOB HIS DEFENCE of the Churches and Ministry of England.  
By Francis johnson an exile of JESUS CHRIST.  Though mine Adversary write a Book against me, would I not bear it upon my shoulder, would I not bind it for crowns unto me. job. 31.35.36. 
Printed in the Year of our Lord. 1600.   

The Title and inscription of Mr jacobs' book (because there is often relation unto it hereafter, both in the Preface, and in the Book itself, therefore) I thought good here to insert it at first. Thus it was, word for word, as followeth:  
[A DEFENCE OF THE CHURCHES AND Ministry of England.  
Written in two Treatises, against the Reasons and objections of Mr 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]   

To the Christian Reader, grace and peace from our Lord jesus Christ.  
THere came out of late (good Reader) two books, from one Master Henry jacob, a Priest of the Orders of the Prelates. The first was against his Lord, Mr D. Bilson, now Prelate of Winchester, concerning Christ's sufferings and descending into Hell. The latter against me by name, and others like minded, touching the Church and Ministry of England.  
Now although the Prelates could not well be offended at him, for publishing the former against the doctrine of their Church, senig (
* In K. Edw time, about 50. Years since.  long before him) Mr carlil a learned man had both publicly disputed in Cambridge, and printed a book, against that error of Christ's descension, and that with great approbation of the most godly and learned at that time: Yet belike fearing the worst, and knowing the hatred of the Prelates how deadly it is, he did presently after send forth his other book, in defence of the Churches and Ministry of England. So as whatsoever displeasure his Lords the Prelates conceived against him for the former, there was now some hope that they might sooner be appeased upon view of the latter. Or howsoever it should fall out, yet what like liar way could he take, to make all sure on his side, then by the first book to get the forward Preachers and professors to take his part against the Prelates, and by the other to have both them and the Prelates themselves to stand with him against us?  
Yet I hear some of his own coat give out, that he hath dealt very simply, in publishing so weak and raw a Treatise against us. And true it is in deed, that his Treatise is such. In the publishing whereof, no wisdom hath he showed at all: unless it be in this, that he hath thus let all the world see, that against the errors of the Church of England there is plenty of Scripture to be had and urged, but not a jot to be found for defence of their Worship, Ministry, constitution, etc. For (if you mind it) 
† Yet I deny not but he hath scattered some errors also in that book.  in his book against Bilson, about the question of Christ's sufferings and descending into Hell, you shall see proof after proof readily brought from the word of God. And on the contrary, in his book against us, not only no such proof, but in stead thereof, either his own assertions and comparisons obtruded unto us as oracles: or the Names of Mr Cranmer, Mr Ridley, and other dead men, opposed to the word of the living God: or putting over his cause to the State to be defended, himself being not able to speak one poor word in defence thereof, etc. Such is his latter book, and such are the grounds of it. A very great and strange difference, between two books, set out by one and the same man, the one strait after the other, and both of them in matter of Religion.  
If I had first published these Replies and Answers which passed between us, no doubt but many would have had a prejudice thereof, and all would have thought I had done it purposely to show the weakness of that cause and falsehood of that Ministry, etc. But now when he, a member of that Church, yea a Minister of it, even a Priest of the Prelate's creation, hath first published them: albeit the same thing be done, yet it is both without all prejudice, and pretended by him for defence of the Churches and Ministry of England.  
Be it, that he hath not done it so well, as many would have it: yet it is the best he could. And what if he thought by this means, either to stir up some others more able hereunto. or at least to show his own good will? Doubtless where there is want of ability, a man's good will is to be accepted. And why should any then misinterpret so good a meaning? If any of the Prelates or others of that Church like it not, they may learn by his example though not to lay their hand on their mouth, yet to try if they can plead the cause any better. For worse. I suppose they would be ashamed to do it.  
I had thought in this case I should never have seen any more absurd writing, than Mr Giffard's and Bredwels'. But now to Mr jacob may they well give place. And if any can be found of all the Priests in England more senseless than these, let such for their worthiness (as standard bearers) be Prelates of their chiefest Seas. And as for Mr jacob, seeing he hath done his best, let all men be content to bear with his simplicity, who otherwise might well note his folly, for undertaking ius how the defence of that, which yet in deed he leaveth altogether naked and helpless.  
By the title of his book, it seemeth he thought to carry away the simple Reader, who either could not or would not mind what should follow after it.  
In the book itself, he thinketh his plea to be very good, if he can say for the Ministry and other abominations of their Church, They are errors, but not fundamental: sins against the Second commandment, but not utterly abolishing from Christ, etc. And this is the sum of his whole book. A plea which he counteth unanswerable. Yet in deed no other, but such as openeth a wide door for all manner errors and sins to be received and nourished among them which themselves shall presume not to be fundamental, etc. So that now their Church is ready (when they please) to entertain again the offices of abbots, Monks, Friars, nuns, Cardinals etc. the doctrines and practice of Auricular confession: Prayer in an unknown tongue: Prayer for the dead: Seven Sacraments: Holy water: holy ashes, holy palms, holy bread: Cream, spittle, oil, and salt in Baptism: Consubstantiation: Denial of the cup to the lay people: Denial off wars and Magistracy in Christians: Denial of Marriage in Ministers, etc. For these and many more errors of the Papists, Lutherans, Anabaptists, it is like they hold not to be fundamental, And therefore although their Church receive them, yet is Mr jacobs' defence as sound for them then, as it is now: Neither may any for these or the like separate from their Church, worship, or Ministry, if you will believe him. Yet note, that for proof of this assertion, you must let them take day. For as yet they can show you none.  
And what now, if any of the errors which the Church of England at this day retaineth be fundamental? What will Mr jacob say to that? Then again he is at a flat Non plus, and all his book is not worth a rush, save that it yields us the cause, and grants their Church to be a false Church, and their people to be no true Christians in that estate. For this therefore see what is said in the Treatise hereafter following, Pag. 22. 114. 147. 148.  
What also if D. Bilson should answer Mr jacob. for that point of Christ's descension into Hell, as he answereth us for their Church corruptions, that though it be an error, yet it is not fundamental, yea and that they in K. Edward's days held it, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, etc. Would Mr jacob take this of his word, or think it a sufficient warrant for the holding thereof, or bind others to be likewise minded etc.  
But to let this pass, let Mr jacob mind well the estate and practice of their Church, but in such particulars, as I have named hereafter, Pag. 63. 64. 65. and then let him answer as before God, Are they lawful, or unlawful? Are they of Christ, or Antichrist? Of God or the Devil? Led they to heaven. or hell? May they be found in the Word and Churches of God, or in the Pope's Churches, Canons, Portuis, Pontifical? May they any manner way be approved and communicated withal, or are they not wholly and with detestation to be refused and abhorred?  
For answer hereof I will wait, till Mr jacob reply again. And in the mean time I will now answer what he and his Prefacemaker have already published. Where first I desire the Reader, in both of them, and in Bridges, Bancroft, Bilson, Hooker, Sutcliff, and all such writers of that Church, to mind these three things.  
1. That all their reasoning and persuasions are no other, but such as may lead men, either back again to Popery, or the ready way to Atheism, or at least to receive whatsoever religion the Prince pleaseth, so themselves account it not to be fundamental. Thus are they all blind guides: Thus do they all teach to continue in sin. Thus do they shut up the kingdom of heaven before men, neither entering in themselves, nor suffering them that would enter, to come in.  
2. That they do even set themselves to carp at the truth itself, and at the maintenance and practice thereof. To which end they use they care not what objections, and abuse they care not whom.  
3. That they never do so much as offer to bring proof from the Scripture for their estate and practice. See the particulars afterward rehearsed, Pag. 63. 64. 65. And mind though there be any of them all, that in any book they have written▪ have brought warrant for them from the word of God. Only D. Whitgift made an assay for some of them: but he was so taken down by Mr Cartwright, as he was glad to lay down the bucklers, which since that time neither himself nor any other durst take up. And now Sutcliffe himself can tell them, if Mr Cartwright have the better hand of D. Whitgift, that then the Church of England is no true Church of Christ, and that there is just cause to depart and separate from it. 
Sut. Engl. b. Pag. 228.   
These things noted, I do now come to Mr jacobs' book: and first to the Preface, which his fellow and friend at a need hath prefixed before it. Where I will for more evidence of the truth and stopping of their mouths, first set down his own words (as I do also Mr jacobs' afterward in the book itself) and then make answer unto them. He that made or wrote the Preface, subscribeth his Name thus, D. B. And thus he beginneth it:  

The Publisher to the Christian Reader. Section. 1.  
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 set 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. Afterwards Master johnson defended his said Exceptions and Reasons: And finally, Master jacob Replied again. As by the particulars themselves appeareth.   
The Answer. These two letters, 
Gevev. Scot & Allobrog. Disc. Pag. 7.  D. B. I find to be set for Doctor Bancroft now Prelate of London in a * shameless book of his, not long since sparsed abroad. In which respect, as also considering many as godless things here again published, albeit some might think it were therefore to be ascribed unto him, yet for other causes partly appearing in the book, partly known of the man, I think this Preface was not made by him: but rather by another 
” Daniel Buck  D. B. a Scrivener of London, a man that hath turned his coat and forsaken the truth, as often as 
† Doct. Pern●  D. P. the old turn coat did, if not also oftener. He it was, that by letters desired of me, to answer Mr jacobs' Argument, as here is said: being himself at that time separated from the false worship and Ministry of England, to which vomit he is now again returned, wallowing in that ●●yer from which then he was washed. Then also he could say, himself thought Mr. jacobs' Argument was frivolous and of no weight, and that his desire with some others was to have it answered for the stopping of Mr jacobs' mouth, who thought it unanswerable.  
Hereupon I made answer unto it: and as there was occasion by Mr jacobs' doubled Replies, have answered again and again. I have also, for sundry causes, consulted with others therein: and namely, with Mr Henry Ainsworth Teacher of our Church, my work-fellow to the kingdom of God, approved in Christ: 
At London. 1593.  and Mr Daniel Studley another off our Elders, who hath given up his life for the Name of our Lord jesus Christ: being first * adjudged to death, afterward exiled, etc. And now unto thee, good Christian Reader, I exhibit the whole Treatise (containing beside that which was published before, my answer also to Mr jacobs' second and last Reply) that thou mayest try the matter by the word off God: and as it agreeth therewith, so to receive it, and no further nor otherwise.  

D. B. The publisher to the Reader. Section, 2.  
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: Where unto 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. 167. 168. 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 Mr. Pen●y confessed, see Pag. 168.  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 faifest 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 sweere 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 affirm: 
‡ Which appeareth, generally by denying the Assumption of Mr. jacobs', & particularly in these Pages, 29. 139. 140 141.  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.   
The Answer. All that the publisher hath published here is either some foolish conceits of his own, or some frivolous cavils and malicious calumniations against the truth and us that profess it. His conceits, of his own knowledge and our ignorance: of his own strength & others weakness: of reclaiming and satisfying many by publishing this discourse: of the force and plainness of Mr. jacobs' Replies etc. I omit, according to the rule which saith, 
* Prov. 26.4.  Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest thou also be like him. But his cavils and calumniations, against the truth and witnesses thereof (being also objected by Mr jacob in his Replies) I have answered in the Treatise following, according to the counsel of the same Wisdom which saith, 
† Pro. 26.5.  Answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own eyes. The Answer therefore to that which here he objecteth, of our assertions and sentences, of our former and present acknowledgement of the Church of England her profession, doctrines, members, Assemblies, etc. see it in the Treatise following, Pag. 7. 16. 20. 22. 33. 60. 63. 73. 82. 86. 94. 103. 106. 116. 120. 147. 158. 162. 170. 177. 188. 196. 200. etc.  
And here note withal, 

1. That in all these things we are still of the same mind, as heretofore Mr Barrow, Mr Penry, myself, and the rest of us have been. So far are we from crossing, denying, or any way altering our former judgement and confession: as he falsely pretendeth. For which see: Pag. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181.  
2. That we do not hate, contemn, and despise their Church which he calleth the Mother that bore us etc. but inasmuch as we have been members thereof heretofore (in which respect she was then in deed our Mother) but now do see her to stand in adulterous estate: we do therefore plead with her: that she may take away her fornications out of her sight and her adulteries from between her breasts: And we go out of her: that we may not partake in her sins: and that we receive not of her plagues. Both which things we do: at the commandment of God and by warrant of his word: wherein he hath straightly charged all his people, thus for to walk. Hos. 2.2. Rev. 18, 4.  
3. That even of the Church of Rome it may in some respect be said: The doctrines and profession of that Church are sufficient to salvation: viz. if the truths they hold be considered alone and apart from their errors and corruptions/ and these other also not imputed unto them. For confirmation whereof/ see in the Treatise following/ Pag. 47. But now then I ask/ Are they of England therefore in a grievous schism/ in so peremptory condemning/ and separating from such Christians and Churches? Let him answer in his next.  
4. That this D. B. himself hath heretofore held and witnessed, that the Church of England standeth in Antichristian estate: worshippeth God in vain: putteth from her the truth and ordinance of Christ: is in her constitution a daughter of Babylon the Mother of whoredoms etc. and therefore if now he deny it (as he hath begun) is both run headlong into an intolerable sin and extremity/ without all warrant of God's word/ and beside giveth just occasion to be called a fearful Apostate/ in so wholly falling (and that advisedly/ for advantage sake/ as it seemeth plainly to appear) from so notable a truth which before he embraced and acknowledged. Advisedly (I say) as this Preface and his daily practice declareth. For advantage sake/ because he hath done it in love of himself/ seeking his own things (not that which is Christ's): that he might have praise of men and account in the world/ that he might be released from imprisonment (where sometimes he hath been a witness of Christ in bands) that he might enjoy the favour of his Friends: that he might without fear and disturbance of the Prelates or their Officers 
† Rev. 13. 1●.  buy and sell/ that is, keep his shop/ follow his trade/ make profit and advantage thereby for himself, etc. This by his course of dealing appeareth to be his case. But both him and all others that either refuse or forsake the truth/ we leave unto God who trieth the hearts and searcheth the reins/ and will give every man according to his works.  
5. That the word of God being on our side/ for our profession and practice (as in the Discourse following is showed): we neither do nor need regard this man's or any other their tales/ clamours/ abuses/ threats/ reproaches/ slanders etc. The mischief of their tongues/ God will bring upon their own heads/ if they repent not. To him we commit it.    

D. B. his Preface to the Reader. Section. 3.  
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 & embrace them, notwithstnding 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 & doth altogether deceive them, viz. To have an eye to the corruptions in the Ministry, worship, & government of the Churches of England; But never to look unto the nature & force of them, whether simply of their own nature, they overthrew faith & Christianity, or whether they be held of obstinacy & a convicted conscience, or not. Therefore I pray you mark & examine the errors which they reckon up, (& 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 to many already.  more as they are. Thus they may see how they have all this while been deceived, & 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 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 alike. Me thinks then, that they should afford that favour to others, which they would have others afford unto them: namely, That as they would be accounted true Christians, through their faith in Christ, notwithstanding their errors (which they must acknowledge 
* Ps. 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 & 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 & corruptions which they bear with among themselves, & lay them & the errors with us together, & they shall see their equality.  
Some of you, hold it utterly & 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 & Festival days, etc. And that these are the inventions of Antichrist, etc. And others of you, hold these things altogether lawful, & have & 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, 
† Rev. 14.  which whosoever receiveth, shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, & shallbe tormented in Hell fire for ever? And will not your stomachs 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, & bend your wits & 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 fee then by your own practise all errors are not alike: Objection. But yet, will some say, are not all the scriptures & commandments of God fundamental, & to be obeyed alike? etc. Let such consider of this scripture 1 Cor. 3.12.15. amongst many other: which plainly proveth, Answer. that many errors (so they be not of obstinacy) may be built by a Christian upon the foundation Christ jesus, & yet be a true Christian still: For which see further Master jacobs' answer in pag. 192. 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, & 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 ministry, worship, etc. which is now held in England: But say you, the Martyrs saw ne 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.   
The Answer. This second note of his, is as foolish, as frivolous, as contumelions, as the former. See it here, in his changing of the question between us: in his lessening of their corruptions: in his mismatching of things unequal: in his abusing our difference of judgement, and reviling off us: in his perverting the Scriptures, and example of the Martyrs, etc.  
The Question between us, is not as he pretendeth, but thus: First concerning them, Whether the good doctrines of the Church of England being joined together with their Antichristian errors and corruptions, do make their Assemblies and people in that estate to be true Churches and Christians. Then concerning us, Whether notwithstanding the good doctrines professed in their Church, we may and aught to separate from their Antichristian Ministry, worship, confusion etc. That thus the question standeth between us, themselves cannot deny: though they seek to alter and turn from it here and every where. Therefore do we also desire thee (good Reader) to mind it well and not to be carried away (with the view of their good doctrines alone) from the question and matter in hand: but alway to have an especial regard thereunto.  
Notwithstanding if the question were as here he pretendeth, perthen both his own and all Mr jacobs' defence of the Church of England is even thus also quite overthrown. For now it appeareth that both of them do understand their Argument following, as if it were thus propounded:  
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, 
Mr jacobs' Argument: as it is now understood by themselves.  notwithstanding the multitude of errors and corruptions retained among them.  
But the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed, and practised by Law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian and in state of salvation. viz. such a one as in simplicity of heart believeth and embraceth it): And the public Assemblies of England are in their estate companies so gathered together (that is, they do in simplicity of heart so believe and embrace).  
Therefore it is sufficient to make the public Assemblies of England true Churches, notwithstanding the multitude of their errors and corruptions.  
The Argument then being thus propounded, as by this note of his it must needs be, mark (I pray you) what followeth hereupon. 1. That as it hath been propounded hitherto, it concludeth not the Question, but is lame both in the Proposition and Assumption: as I have noted more particularly hereafter. Pag. 4. 10. 12. 13. 93. 97. 99 106.  
2. That in their estate we must mind, not their good doctrines alone, but their errors and corruptions withal. Of which there is never a word in all their Argument. See it, Pag. 3: 4. 63. 171. 172.  
3. That the falsehood both of the Proposition and Assumption is now so manifest, as the very propounding of them thus, is sufficient to refute them. But for this also see further, Pag. 5. 11. 12. 13. Now to speak here but of the latter branch of the Assumption only, let them tell us, though themselves think their Assemblies and members thereof, do in simplicity of heart believe and practise the good doctrines of their Church. Nay, will they say that the Prelates (the chief officers and pillars of their Church) do so embrace them? Not to speak of the many thousands of their Church, who do not so much as know the doctrines of truth retained and 〈◊〉 them. So far are they from professing and practising them in sincerity. And yet are they aswell as the best, members of their Church: partakers of their Sacraments: Ministers, Governors, copartners, of their Worship, Assemblies, proceedings &c.  
4. Finally, mind that the Argument and Replies following speak of the profession and practice of all their Assemblies and members thereof, as they stand according to Law. Pag. 3.6. But here he speaketh only of such among them, as do in simplicity of heart believe and embrace their good doctrines: and therefore neither of all their Assemblies, nor of all the members of them. See then here how insufficiently they have reasoned, and how deceitfully they have dealt all this while. Besides, the question being of a visible Church, he speaketh only of such as may belong to the invisible. Which is not to the point in controversy. For the profession and practice according to Law (spoken of in the Argument) may be known and discerned of men: the simplicity of the heart (here spoken of) God only kooweth. Thus with winding in and out, they have lost both the question: and themselves too (I fear) if they return not in time and with simplicity of heart unto the Lord.  
The nature and force of their corruptions (derived from Antichrist the deadly enemy of jesus Christ) is purposely handled in the discourse following, in the 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. and 9 Reasons. The Apostle saith, that even 
* 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3.  the forbidding of Meats and Marriage, is a departing from the faith. Mr Beza speaking particularly of the Church of England, and but of four or five off their corruptions, viz, plurality of benefices, licences of Nonresidency, licences to marry, and to eat flesh, saith that 
‡ Bez. Epist. 8  the Antichristian Church hath not any thing more intolerable, yea that the retaining of these is not a corruption of Christianity, but a manifest defection from Christ. Now if four or five of their corruptions: yea if two of them, be a manifest departing from the faith of Christ: what may we think of their whole Hierarchy and multitude of Antichristian abominations retained among them beside?  
Yet this man's conscience is so feared, as he feareth not to say though they were thrice as many as they are/ yet they are not to the purpose for which they are urged, that is: to convince the Antichristian constitution of their Church, and to warrant separation therefrom. Which is as much as if he should say, more plainly, Let the apostles say of it what they will: and let Christ himself command us never so straightly to separate from such, and to touch no unclean thing at all: (1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. 2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17.) Yet it is to no purpose, if D. B. and Mr jacob with their consorts agree otherwise.  
The anabaptistical perfection then, whereof he dreameth, he may well apply to himself and his fellows: who will be perfect and holy in their way: if their own faucyes persuade them so: albeit they stand in never so many known errors: and those also of Antichrist: yea and peremptorily condemn all such as partake not in their sins: but separate from their Antichristian worship and Ministry/ as Christ hath commanded.  
The way and constitution of our Church, is according to the Testament of Christ. Weakly in deed and with much imperfection do we walk therein by reason of sin that doth so compass and cleave fast unto us. Neither was there ever in the world any Churches or Christians: whose case was not such. Nor can we ever look for other upon the earth. Even the Prophets and Apostles have thus acknowledged of themselves. Esa 64.6, 9 Psal. 19.12.13. and 103.10. job. 9.30.31. Hab. 3.1. Rom. 7.14. etc. 1 Cor. 13.9.12. Heb. 12 1. jam. 3.2. 1 Pet. 4.17.18. 1 joh. 1.8.9.10. and 2.1.2. But should we therefore be persuaded to abide in known errors: or to justify such Churches as stand in the way and constitution of Antichrist? Common sense might teach to reason otherwise, and to discern between things that differ so much, as these do, one from another.  
For our difference of judgement in some things, if it were as he saith, yet it would nothing avail them. The 
* Act. 11. & 15. and 21. Chap. Rom. 14. ch. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. chap. Phil. 3.15.16  Christians in the Primitive Churches differed in judgement among themselves in diverse weighty things, some concerning judaisme: some concerning Paganism: etc. And since that time: 
“ See the Acts and Mounuents &c.  the Martyrs in Queen mary's days and former ages did in sundry things (and those of great moment, and concerning antichrist's religion) differ in judgement one from another. Should these therefore have approved and taken part with the jewish, Heathenish, or Popish Churches in their other errors: wherein they did jointly see and witness the truth against them? Or will he say: there was therefore no equity in their dealing: because they did it not? Or that they were so wholly given and bend their wits and minds so much, to look into the estate of other men and other Churches, and to apply the Scriptures to them: as they seldom or never looked into their own estate, or applied the Scriptures to themselves? Yet thus absurdly and unconscionably doth this man reason against us. Off which more hereafter.  
Now for the particulars here mentioned: the first which is of swearing by a book: is an impudent untruth: so far as ever I knew or heard of any among us. Not only some but all of us hold it simply unlawful to swear by a book. It is 
* Deut. 6.13.  the Name of the Lord only, by which all men ought to swear. Thus we do all profess and practise. In deed about the ceremony of laying the hand upon the book (thereby to signify that we do take the oath) there hath been question some thinking that it might be so done, as 
† Gen. 24.2.3.9.  Abraham's servant (when he took an oath) put his hand under his masters thigh, and persware unto him only by the Lord God of heaven and earth: or as Abraham did himself lift up his hand to the Lord, when he swore or vowed unto him as we read: Gen. 14.22. Others thinking that because it hath been superstitiously abused: and still may nourish in the ignorant the error of swearing by the book: that therefore it should not be done. 1. Thes 5.22. And notwithstanding this difference yet all of us (for the reasons last alleged) think it better to be left then retained still, and some other ceremony free from such pollution and danger (as the lifting up of the hand to heaven: or such like) to be used instead thereof.  
For probates of wills, taking of administration, suing &c. some it may be think: that the things themselves being in their nature merely Civil: and the ordering of them being put over to the Doctors and Professors of the Civil Law: they might thus far be admitted. And this so much the rather: because if all the Popish Hierarchy and Canons were quite abolished out of the Land (as they ought to be) Yet an order for these things notwithstanding were still to be had, and such as are skilful in the Civil Law might be employed therein: aswell as any other of the Common wealth: being by the Prince and Magistrae●s appointed thereunto. Others thinking/ that inasmuch as these causes/ Courts/ and Officers are now in their estate committed to the Prelates (whose functions are merely Antichristian) that therefore they should not be admitted at all. Yet here again/ all of us agree in this/ that the whole Hierarchy with whatsoever belongeth thereto, is wholly to be abandoned and refused, and no spiritual communion to be had therewith at all.  
For shutting up of shops on Holy days and Festival days &c. (as he doth Popishly term them): What if some think/ that our bodies/ goods/ and lands: being subject in the Lord (as they ought) to the Magistrates, that therefore they may at their appointment then shift by their shops, as they do on the Queen's day or such like solemnities? And others think, that forasmuch as their Holidays both are popish days and popishly used for their divine worship that therefore they should not shut up their shops on these days more than any other. Yet all agree in this, that these days (though the Prince command it never so straily) are no more to be set apart or used for public worship, than any other of the sir weekdays: Also, that they need not leave their work any more on those days, than any other whatsoever.  
These are the particulars he nameth. If he could have mentioned any other of greater moment, you may be sure they should not have been omitted. Let him know then, that we ●o and aught to account it among the mercies of God towards us that our difference in judgement is but such: specially considering, that there is so great a mostery of iniquity in the religion of Antichrist, throughout all the parts thereof, as (iff it were possible) the very elect should be deceived: that we are as it were but newly and as per weakly come out of that spiritual Babylon: that the particulars here objected were never publicly debated and disenssed among us: that as the Primitive Churches, so ours have been exercised not only with many other questions and controversyes but with sundry perverse, hypocritical, contentious, and fantastical spirits which have much troubled us and caused the truth to be evil spoken of: they creeping in at first under a show of Holones, and so for a time continuing, until God by one means or other discovered them, and in his time cast them out from among us: finally that than the best on earth know here but in part, 
1 Cor. 13.9.12.  and therefore no marvel, if discerning but according to the measure we have received, and this measure bring diverse in every one, our judgements many times and in sundry things differ, until God reveal more and further. Besides, that even by this means, we might learn to bear one with another: and if any will yet be contentious, that they might know we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.  
The use then that we are to make of such difference of judgement, is not that we should therefore abide in known errors ourselves or approve known evil in others, or join with any false worship and Ministry in the service of God, or refuse any truth revealed unto us (wherein we do all agree in one): but that being delivered out of the power of darkness, which is in the Kingdom of Satan and Antichrist, we should walk together as children of the light/ holding forth the truth whereunto we are come, jointly and faithfully, against all adversaries thereof, and waiting with patience till God reveal further for the more uniting of our minds wherein any shall yet differ one from another. And this doth the Scripture teach and warrant unto us, Phil. 3.15.16. Rom. 14.5.6.  
But now if any erring in their judgement, do not so rest in peace, but will needs proceed further to spread their difference among the brethren, to urge and pursue the practice thereof, to disquiet the rest that are contrary minded, to refuse communion with the Church unless they would join or consent unto them therein: then are such being first convinced and remaining obstinate, to be further proceeded withal by the Church, as the case and their carriage shall require. And that so, as if any be found but to be contentious, they are even therefore to be reproved, and (if they cease not) to be cast out and removed from the Church: For which see, 1 Cor. 11.16. Gal. 5.12. Math. 18.17. Rom. 2.8. jam. 3. 13-18. Thus we are persuaded, and thus we walk and practise.  
Now let the Reader judge, how frivolous this his objection is: seeing there may be sundry things wherein the brethren of the same Church may differ in judgement among themselves, and yet notwithstanding walk together in the same faith/ testimony/ and fellowship, wherein God hath united their minds: none of them being contentious, to disquiet the Church or the members thereof: and all being ready to receive the truth, which God by his word shall further make known, whatsoever it be. And this I dare boldly say, that whosoever shall not thus hold and walk, they shall not only condemn the Apostles, and Primitive Church's/ together with the Martyrs (whose examples I alleged before): but shall find by experience that neither any Churches, neither so much as two or three men, shall ever be able to keep fellowship any while together among themselves. Note also, that when such please themselves most in their contentions and confusions: thinking they do God service therein/ even than they do most displease him, who is the God not of confusion/ but of peace/ as we see in all the Churches of the Saints. 1 Cor. 14.33.  
This I thought needful to write (being thus occasioned) concerning this point. I could also put him in mind of the manifold and unreconcilable difference of judgement which is in their Church and the members thereof, between the Prelates, Reformists, neuter and Ambodexters/ with the like. But I will not stand upon it. Mind but here what Mr jacob professeth openly in the Treatise following, 
Pag. 69.  viz. that the things which the State of their Church holdeth to be Christ's own, he holdeth to be Antichrists. Then which what can be more contrary? Will they now therefore afford that favour to the Papists▪ Anabaptists/ and other Antichristians/ which they would should be afforded to themselves, namely: That as they would be accounted true Christians/ through their faith in Christ/ notwithstanding their errors (which they must acknowledge are infinite many/ even in their Church-constitution/ so they should account of the aforesaid Antichrists and others in the like case? Or will he now say/ that even common sense and humanity would require them to grant this? When he is at leisure to write such an other Preface in defence of Mr jacob and himself/ as he hath done this in defence of their Church's/ then it will be time enough to impress this thing a little better in their minds. In the mean time/ this may suffice to show how senseless and unreasonable their reasoning and dealing is.  
By the marks of the Beast (spoken of Reu. 14.) we understand: the defection and constitutions of the man of sin/ spoken of 2 Thes. 2. 3-12. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. And that for these causes: 1. Because these Scriptures speak of one and the same estate and apostasy of Antichrist. 2. Because the Beasts marks are in 
“ Rev. 14.9.12.  this place of the Revelation directly opposed to the commandments of God and faith of jesus. So that as God's commandments for his people/ so the ordinances of Antichrist also/ for his/ be as signs and marks/ by which such as receive or refuse them/ maywell be discerned and known. Exod. 13.7.9.10.12.16. and Deut. 11.18. with Rev. 14.9.12. 3. Because the Apostle to Timothy nameth in particular the forbidding of meats and Marriage (which are part of antichrist's constitutions) as undoubted marks of that departure from the faith. 1. Tim. 4.1.3. 4. Because the many particulars concerning the apostasy of the Man of sin/ mentioned in the Epistle to the Thessalonians/ are such as are both opposed to the ordinance of Christ, and evident marks of the defection and body of Antichrist. 2. Thes. 2. 3-12. touching which/ and other Scriptures (viz. 1. joh. 4.1.3. and 2 joh. ver. 7.9.10. Dan. 7.8.25. Rev. 13.11.) describing also the marks of the Beast, Antichrist: I have written in 
* A treatise of the Min. of the Char. of Engl. Pag. 7. 12. 26. etc.  another Treatise more purposely: which may there be seen.  
Here I will only annex the testimony of one of the Martyrs a good while since/ when Antichrist as yet was but a little discovered: in respect as since that time he hath been. One of the Articles against john Claydon, who was burned at London in Smithfield: in the year 1415 was this, That the bishops licence for a man to preach the word of God, is the true character of the Beast, that is Antichrist. Where mark/ that albeit a man preach the word of God/ yet he saith the Bishop's licence so to do/ is the Beasts mark. Act. and Monum. edit. 5. Pag. 588. b.  
Thus much I thought to write here also concerning this point. Yet if D. B. or Mr jacob for him (who do both of them receive and carry daily the Beasts marks in their foreheads and hands, and therefore may well have sure knowledge thereof) can show them any better from the word of God, I shall willingly hear it. And seeing that here he wisheth we knew the marks of the Beast a little better/ we do also entreat him (if his leisure and ability will serve) to make them a little better known unto us.  
But I doubt, it will now be found in him and the rest of them at this day: as Mr Ridley (that faithful Martyr) found and complained in his time: saying, I fear me (nay it is certain) the World that wanteth the light of the Spirit of God (for the world is not able to receive him/ saith john) neither doth nor shall know the Beast, nor his marks, though he rage's cruelly and live never so beastly, and though his marked men be in number like the sand of the sea. Act. and Mon. 5. edit. Pag. 1618. b.  
To conclude this matter then/ may I not well return their own speech upon themselves and say, Surely they are (for the most part) so wholly given, and bend their wits and minds so much: to look into the estate of other men and other Churches: and to apply the Scriptures to them: as they seldom or never look into their own estate, or apply the Scriptures to themselves. But let them look unto it, it will be their decay in the end.  
That all errors are alike is a fancy of his own. We did never imagine it. We know and profess otherwise. To give but one instance, The jews, the Arrians, the Papists, the Mungrell-protestants, the Lutherans, the Anabaptists etc. do all of them at this day err very greatly concerning the Person or Office of jesus Christ, who is 
“ 1 Cor. 3.11.  the only foundation of the Church. Yet we know, their errors are not all alike. Some are greater, some lesser: some in one point, some in another. But this we say, that all their errors are such, as every faithful Christian ought to eschew them, and to witness the contrary truth against them, unto death, as they will answer to God at that day.  
His objection likewise of all the commandments of God to be obeyed alike etc. is of his own coining. I do not think that ever he heard it of any of us, or that he did ever see it in any of our writings. If he did, he may show it. We know/ that Christ speaking of the duties of the first Table: saith: This is first and the great commandment. Mat. 22.39. And that therefore the du●●es of the second table must alway give place to the first/ as to the greater (Math. 10.37.39. Luk. 14.26. Act. 20.24.) Except, when the mercy commanded in the second/ is to be preferred before the ceremonies required in the first, and such like. Hos. 6.6. with Mat. 12. 1-7. Luk. 13.14.17. We acknowledge also there is difference in the commandments of the first Table, when they are compared together one with another. And in the commandments likewise of the Second. And consequently therefore in the duties required in both: for our obedience. These things are so well known, as they may learn them of very children.  
Note withal, that we are bound to keep not only the greatest of the commandments of God, but even the very lest (notwithstanding any persuasion/ prohibition/ or persecution to the contrary) because they are all from one and the same God: with commandment to obey them all and every one: and that under pain of damnation. Therefore also Christ said/ The Second is like to the first and great commandment/ Math. 22.39. Now if any in this sense do say that all the Scriptures and commandments of God are fundamental and to be obeyed alike, it may well be understood according to that saying of our Lord jesus before alleged, Mat. 22.38.39.40. Otherwise there is difference to be put (as is aforesaid) in the duties both of the two Tables themselves/ and of the several commandments of each of them.  
His inserting of these two words/ the Scriptures and fundamental (when he saith, that all the Scriptures and commandments of God are fundamental and to be obeyed alike) I will not now further stand upon. It seemeth he did it for some evasion: Which I doubt not but his next Reply (if he be not already at a Non plus) will make more manifest. Till than/ let this suffice which hath been said.  
The place of (1 Cor. 3.12.15.) both he and Mr jacob do misunderstand and misalledge. The apostle speaketh not there/ of any false doctrine or errors built upon the foundation/ but of the enticing speech of man's wisdom and vain eloquence off words. By which it came to pass/ that although they taught nothing but the truth and so built upon the foundation jesus Christ/ yet they did it unworthily/ and not as became the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. That this is the true and plain meaning of the Apostles speech/ appeareth thus:  

1 Cor. 2. & 3 chap.  1. First/ by comparing together the second and third chapters of this Epistle: Where all may see/ that he speaketh not a word of any error or untruth that was taught, but of the simplicity (on the one hand) and of the ostentation of speech and human wisdom (on the other) which was used by the Teachers of Corinth in their building upon the foundation/ that is/ in their teaching of the truth of jesus Christ.  
2. Secondly/ for that the very term 
* 1 Cor. 3.10.  here used by the Apostle/ concerneth directly the manner of teaching or building upon the foundation/ not the matter taught or built upon it. His words are these: Let every man take heed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he buildeth upon it. The word which he useth here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how, for the manner: not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what, for the matter.  
3. Thirdly/ because for the matter taught/ the Apostle doth else where give another rule concerning all teachers of errors and false doctrine (though they should be Angels from heaven) viz. to give them no countenance at all/ neither to have any communion with them/ but to separate from them/ and hold them accursed. 1 Tim. 6 3.4.5. Gal. 1.8.9. Rom. 16.17.18: 2 Ioh ver. 10.11. Rev. 22.18.19. Note also/ that of the teachers spoken of to the Corinthians/ the Apostle saith themselves shallbe saved: 
1 Cor. 3.15.  albeit their work (of affected eloquence) do burn and vanish away as smoke: Whereas contrarily of the teachers of erroneous doctrine he saith, They have not God: neither serve the Lord jesus: but are accursed. For proof whereof/ see the Scriptures here alleged before.  
4. Finally/ because the Apostle writing else where to the same purpose and to the same Church of Corinth/ doth himself plainly declare that this is his meaning: As namely in 1. Cor. 1.12.13.17.19.20.21. & 2 Cor. 2.17. & 4.2. & 11.3.4.5▪ 6 For which cause it may well be thought/ that the Spirit of God in this place did in great wisdom and of purpose compare their enticing speech and vain eloquence/ to wood: hay: and stubble: which are combustible and cannot abide the trial of fire: that whereas they did much glory in this course/ they might even by this resemblance now see and consider the vanity thereof/ and how unworthy it was to be suited with the foundation/ which is jesus Christ. As on the contrary/ he resembleth the teaching of the Gospel in simplicity and plain evidence of the Spirit/ to gold and silver/ which will abide the fire/ and to precious stones which are of great value: to teach them by this comparison/ that albeit such manner of teaching seemed base in outward sh●●● and were of small account with men/ yet it is in deed precious/ such as will endure the trial/ and is accepted with God/ as being the right handling of the word/ and suitable with the foundation/ jesus Christ.  
Thus much I thought to write here/ for the clearing of the true sense and meaning of this Scripture. Which by reason of misunderstanding/ is perverted not only by the Papists to maintain their feigned Purgatory: but by many Protestants also/ partly to uphold such errors and doctrines as they hold against the word of God/ partly to defend their estate/ notwithstanding that such errors and false doctrines be retained among them. Now by this which hath been said/ the Reader may see/ both how ignorantly this Scripture is misapplied by Mr jacob and his Scribe: and that being disappointed hereof/ they have not so much as the appearance of any one Scripture to allege in defence of their Church-estate. But it comes well to pass (as 
* Beza in 1 Cor. 3.10.  one saith of Purgatory-fyer) that their Church constitution is built of stubble wood and hay/ so as the flame of God being now kindled again/ there is no marvel that in our memory it is for the most part already set on fire.  
For Mr jacobs' answer in Pag. 192: As also for the exceptions he bringeth here/ of errors simply fundamental etc. of the Martyrs: of the Church of England's conviction: obstinacy etc. For these (I say) because they are all borrowed from Mr jacobs' Replies following (whither himself referreth us) I have there purposely handled them/ and therefore will I not here stand upon them/ but thither refer the Reader for them. As namely/ for M jacobs' Reply in Pag. 192. to the answer thereof in Pag. 203. etc.  
For the exception of errors simply fundamental etc. to Pag. 22. 51. 114. 144-147. etc. For, that of the Martyrs/ to Pag. 8. 29. 40. 41. 44. 46. 54. 67. 79. 162. 182. For the Church off England their conviction/ obstinacy/ etc. to Pag. 42. 53. 78. 103. 108. 126. 127. 130. 131. 132. 140. 161. 174. 175. 203. etc. Finally, for these and all such like/ to the whole Treatise following/ where Mr jacob (this man's Rabbi) both speaketh himself/ and is answered again. Yet before we proceed unto it/ let us see what the third note is/ which he would further have here to be observed.  

D. B. His Preface to the Reader. Section 4.  
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 amiss here to set down, that thereby the Reader (and themselves, upon better consideration off 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 whither 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. Lev. 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. 5●. 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 bethel nor 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 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, that ye be not partakers in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. etc., Rev. 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 them, 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/ and 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 diverse grievous faults, both in doctrine and practice, 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.   
The Answer. May it not fitly be said and applied to D. B. in this case/ which Christ hath spoken concerning all such: How sayest thou to thy brother/ Suffer me to cast a mote out of thine eye/ and behold/ a beam is in thine own eye. Hypocrite/ first cast the beam out of thine own eye/ and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye. Mat. 7.4.5. Even the very last thing/ yea and all the show from Scripture that he brought for defence off their Church-estate/ what is it else/ but the wresting and misapplying of that Scripture to the Corinthians (viz. 1. Cor. 3.12.15.) as before may be seen in his Second note? And now again for those Scriptures which here in his Third note he setteth down either as alleged by us/ or noted by himself out of the Evangelists for defence of their estate: what other thing doth he in answer of the one/ or allegation of the other/ but only pervert and misapply them/ against the true sense and purpose of the Spirit of God therein? Yet ●o: so impudent is this Baal●e become/ as having so great a beam in his own eye/ he will yet pretend as if he saw a mote in another's eye, and think he hath said enough in defence of himself and his Church's estate/ if he can but pretend that others misapply the Scriptures against them. But as Solomon saith: Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness/ then he that abuseth his lips and is a fool. Prove●. 19.1. Therefore will I here both show the uprightness of our walking/ and withal convince the foolish abuse of his lips.  
First then note/ that there are three things specially for which we allege these and many other Scriptures which he concealeth. Namely/ 1. That in the constitution of every true visible Church/ even from the beginning of the world/ this hath alway been one special thing to be observed/ that it was separated from the world and abominations thereof. Neither otherwise could there ever be any true visible Church upon the earth. And yet with the Church of England it is not thus/ in their estate.  
2. That the Church of England now standing in confusion with the world/ and subjection to antichrist's Ministry/ worship etc. we therefore (as all other the people of God) are bound to separate and departed from it/ because otherwise we could not but partake in her sins/ and so be subject also to receive of her plagues.  
3. That being thus separated from them/ we are bound to join to the true Church of Christ in the communion of his Gospel/ to keep all his ordinances/ whatsoever he hath in his word prescribed for his Church/ notwithstanding any persecution or exception of Man to the contrary.  
These three things are so evidently and undeniably taught in these and the like Scriptures throughout the book of God/ as it is strange and lamentable that any having them thus applied/ should yet be so piteously blind as not to see it/ or so impudently bold as to deny it, For other the like Scriptures therefore/ teaching the same things/ see these also/ Gen. 9.27. & 12.1.4.7. & 19. 12-16. et 35.2.3. Exod. 4.22.23. & 8.25.26.27. & 10.8.9.24.25.26. & 19.5.6. & 20.4.5.6. Numb. 16.26. Deut. 7.3.5.6.11. Lev. 18.30. Ezra. 9.14. Psal. 110.3. & 119.21.113.128. Esa. 2.2.3. & 8. 12-18. & 9.16. & 44.5. jer. 4.18 & 15.19. & 18.12.15. & 50.4.5.8. Ezech. 16.44. & 22.26. Micah. 2.10 Zach. 2.7. & 8.21.22.23. Mal. 1.6.7.8.12.13.14. ct 2.8.9.13. & 3.16.17.18. Mat. 28.20. joh. 7.17. & 10.1 5. Act. 2.41.47. & 5.29. & 9.26.27.28. & 17.4.7.34. & 28.24. Rom. 16.17.18. 1 Cor. 5.6.7. Phil. 1.5.27.28. & 3.2. Col. 2.8.22.23. 1 Thes. 5.22. & 2 Thes. 3. 3-12. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5.13.14. & 2 Tim. 3.1.2.3.13.14.15. 2 joh. ver. 9.10.11. Jude, ver. 3. Rev. 14.9.12. & 17.14. & 19 9 & 20.4.6. and 21.7.8.27. and 22. 10-19. The words of these and the like Scriptures/ I need not here set down. The godly Reader will search them (I doubt not) after the example of the Be●eans/ so much commended by the Spirit of God/ Act. 17.11.  
Next I answer/ that the Apostles do themselves so allege and apply the Scriptures to the matters which they handle/ as we after their example do in this. For proof hereof/ see but these places following, and mind them well, 1 Cor. 6.16. and 9.9.10. and 10. 7-18 and 14.21. Rom. 9.25.26.27, 28.29. and 10.18. Heb. 2, 13.14. and 3.7. etc. and 12.26 29. and 13.2.5.6. jam. 2.8.9.10.21.22.23. and 4.5.6. and 5.16.17.18. 1 Pet. 1.16. and 2. to and 3.20.21. 2 Pet. 2. ch. joh. 19.36. 1 joh. 3.12.15. Jude, ver. 5.6.7.11.14.15. Rev. 11.8. Now compare herewith the places in the old Testament from whence these are borrowed/ and you shall find that diverse differences might be noted between the one and the other. Shall we therefore say/ that they are wrested or misapplied by the Apostles? God forbidden. To give an instance or two. The Apostle Paul allegeth that against fornication/ which by Moses was first spoken of lawful marriage/ 1 Cor. 6.16. compared with Gen. 2.24. And in the same Epistle/ albeit the Corinthians which were of the Church there/ did not worship God by the Idols of Corinth/ but did only eat at the feasts in the Temple/ which were after the sacrifices done: yet the Apostle allegeth against them the example of the Israelites, who both made a golden calf/ and by it worshipped the Lord. 1 Cor. 8. and 10. chap. with Exod. 32.5.6. And the Apostle james/ speaking but of one particular breach of the Law/ viz, the accepting of men's persons/ allegeth and applieth against it, the sum of the whole Second Table. jam. 2.8.9.10 with Let. 19.18. And Jude/ against Apostates/ schismatics/ disbounders of themselves/ railers/ murmurers/ malicious/ covetous/ presumptuous/ lascivious/ hypocritical/ unstable/ discontended/ and such like persons/ allegeth the Prophecies/ Scriptures/ examples/ which were before/ of them in enoch's time/ of the unbelieving jews/ the Sodomites/ evil Angels/ Cain/ Balaam/ Corah/ etc. jud. Epist. with. Gen. 3.1. and 4. 3-16. and 19. 1-25. Numb. 14. and 16. and 22. chap. etc. Now in these/ as in the rest and many other so alleged in the Scriptures/ may diverse differences be observed. Yet are they all notwithstanding/ fit and pertinent for that whereunto they apply them. Neither can any be ignorant/ but that there will be difference either of time/ place/ cause/ sext/ persons/ things/ manner/ or such like circumstance/ in any allegations/ and yet they be pertinent nevertheless.  
It is not material then/ though some differences might be noted between the case of England/ and theirs of whom those Scriptures speak: seeing notwithstanding they do fitly prove that/ for which they are alleged. Let the Reader also mind here/ an old Popish shift/ whereby they labour to turn away the evidence of any Scripture that is urged against their corruptions/ viz, by noting some difference between their case and such as the Scriptures alleged speak of. This you may see every where in their Rhemish notes on the New Testament/ and in all the rest of their books and defence of their Church and religion.  
But now further/ to make the abuse of his lips yet the more manifest, mark that the very Scriptures here mentioned by himself/ speak not only/ of the whole body and power of Heathen and Antichristian religion (as he pretendeth) but of every particular ordinance and unclean thing belonging thereunto. For thus they speak expressly. Towch no unclean thing: Keep all mine ordinances and all my judgements: Be ye clean: Partake not in her sins, etc. By all which is most plainly forbidden all manner of partaking not of the whole only/ but of every parcel of Antichrists or any other false worship whatsoever.  
As to the second difference which he noteth here/ of their wilfulness: rebellion: obstinacy: partaking with the lawful and good things used among them etc. it is handled and answered in the Treatise following. Pag. 42. 43. 88 108. 130. 132 161. 170. 171. 175. 180.  
The particulars which he citeth out of the Evangelists touching the jews/ are the speeches and testimony of reproof/ given unto them by Christ/ when now he threatened to take away from them his kingdom/ because of those sins and other the like among them. Mat. 21.43. This man himself knoweth/ we never doubted but true Churches might fall into error/ and the members thereof walk corruptly (in which respect they are subject to be reproved) And yet notwithstanding the Church constitution and functions be lawful and joined withal/ until they refuse the voice of Christ and will not be reclaimed (Rev. 2. and 3. Math. 21. and. 23. Act. 2. and 13. and 17. and. 28. chap.) Whereunto when once they come/ then are all taught to separate and save themselves from such a froward generation. Act. 2.40. and 13.46.47. & 19.9. Esa. 8. 12.-16.  
Now if we may separate from such as have been true Churches/ when they so fall into sin and persist as is aforesaid/ notwithstanding that otherwise they profess many Doctrines of truth: how much more may and ought we to separate from all false Churches which stand in the apostasy of Antichrist/ that Man of sin/ howsoever they profess some truth withal? 2 Thes. 2. 3-12. with Rev. 18.4. Ezech. 16.44. But of the difference both of the estate and dealing with true Churches and false compared together/ as also of the weakness and falsehood of this manner of reasoning which here he useth/ I have other where spoken sufficiently/ both in this Treatise following to which he referreth us (Pag. 92. 161. 195.) and in another already published viz.: A Treatise of the Ministry of England: Pag. 45. 61 62.  
Note withal/ that none of the Evangelists/ neither any other Scriptures do show/ that Christ or the Prophets did at any time communicate with the jews in any evil/ but alway reproved them. Whereas it is not possible/ that any should communicate with the Church of England (though it be in their best things/ even of the Ministry of the Word/ Sacraments/ Prayer/ etc.) but they must needs partake in evil: As namely/ with the Hierarchy/ liturgy/ confusion/ and other sins of Antichrist/ that son of perdition. Let him show the contrary in any one thing among them/ if he can. And of this also see more hereafter/ Pag. 170. 171. 180.  
Finally/ let him tell us if he have said any thing here/ which they in K. Henry the eight his days might not have alleged/ when the Pope's supremacy with much of his religion beside/ was cast out of the Land/ and yet they oppugned the truth in many things/ and became drunken with the blood of the Martyrs notwithstanding.  

D. B. his Preface to the Reader. Section. 5.  
Objection. But unto the examples of these Churches, me thinks I hear already, that common answer and last refuge of theirs: which is this. 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 practice: 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 Abimelech, and by 
† 2 King. 24.18.  Seruiah the chief Priest, & Zephaniah the Second: which make against themselves:) For there was never but one high Priest, as they confess 
* Answer to Mr Hild. Pag. 50.  (Ergo not two as here were) the rest were indeed inferior to him: And yet amongst those, there was a chief also, who were called, sometimes Second Priests, or Priests of the Second order. 2. King. 23.4. and sometimes chief Priests, Math. 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 Heathirish Romen, 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 somewhat else: & themselves 
‡ Mr Barrow & Mr Gremewood, in divers Letters and Treatises.  have understood it heretofore, of Moses doctrine.   
The Answer. Do not they err that imagine evil? And doth not a deceiver speak lies? Prov. 14.22.25. What then may we think of him that counteth it a small thing to lie against Man, if he do not also open his mouth against heaven and give the lie to the holy Ghost himself? See both, in this man here.  
Against us (and I fear against his own conscience) he forgeth a lie/ when he saith, we do wholly depend on their outward constitution etc. For he knoweth/ we object against them beside and separate from them, for much false doctrine publicly taught and maintained among them: and for their wretched persecution of the truth and Martyrs of jesus. (Therefore do we not wholly depend on their outward constitution: From which (it is to be noted, that) he severeth their public doctrine, as himself showeth in the next Section: and so therefore here we speak accordingly.) And that he knoweth these things/ appeareth both by this Treatise first published by himself, where we have declared it in diverse particulars (Pag. 66. 108. 157. 158 159. 160.) and in that himself hath seen and allegeth in this very Section/ another treatise, written in answer of Mr A. H. where more instances are given concerning this matter: As may be seen in that book. Pag. 10. 11. 12. 13. 22. 23. 37. 90. 91.  
To the holy Ghost he giveth the lie/ yea and maketh Christ our Lord a sinner, in that which here he speaketh first of the constitution of the jewish Churches. For the Scripture teacheth that the constitution of that Church was a true one/ and that Christ did himself/ communicate therein with them. Yet this man besides that he saith afterward, that it is very likely the offices and outward constitution thereof were wholly altered from the right institution: Even here at first he saith peremptorily, that it was as greatly altered and corrupted, as is the constitution of the Churches of England. Which how shamefully false it is/ may appear even by this/ that in those very times the estate of the jews Church yet was such as they were a people separated from the world/ having the true Ministry/ ordinances/ worship/ and administration/ which God by Moses had commanded: As these Scriptures do plainly testify/ Luk. 1.6.8 9.10 11. & 2.22.23.24.27.46. Mat. 8.4. joh. 1.19. & 4.22. & 5.1. & 11.55.2. Tim. 1.3.5. Yea they would not at any hand admit either of confusion of people or of any other Ministry than God had ordained: As may be seen/ for the first/ in Act. 21.28 29. and for the latter, in job. 1. 19-25. Mat. 21.25.26. How shameless then is it to say as here he doth, that their constitution was as greatly altered and corrupted as that of the Churches of England, which to this day stand confused of all sorts of people (aswell the profanest as the best among them) and have no other Ministry or liturgy, but such as they have received from Antichrist the man of sin, and from Babylon that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth? Rev. 17.5.  
And further, if the jewish Church had been thus corrupted (as he feareth not to affirm) how could Christ have communicated with them as he did, but he must needs have sinned and that highly against the Law of God: viz. if he had (as it is now in England) joined to such a Church as were unseparated from the World: or had partaken with a false Ministry: or had sent others to a strange Priesthood and Service: or had approved by word or deed any other ordinances than those which God had commanded etc. This Scribe than must either approve the Church-constitution of England by the word of God: or else confess that it and the jewish Churches are in this point nothing alike, or (if neither of these) that then jesus Christ was a sinner: Of whom the truth itself and work of our redemption testify/ that he knew no sin at all, but was like to us in all things/ sin excepted. 2 Cor. 5.21. Heb. 4.15. & 7.26. This man than doth thus also both blaspheme the Son of God/ and make the holy Ghost a liar.  
But there were (he saith) two high Priests at once, whereas by the Law of God there should be but one. 1. If it were so, albeit thus they offended in the number yet still there was that office and function of Priesthood which God had ordained/ not a new one of man's devise as is the whole Hierarchy of England/ from the highest Archbishop to the lowest Parish Priest. And so there is no comparison between these two.  
2. This was the personal sin of the men/ not the constitution of that Church/ neither of the Offices wherein they were. See it in another example: judas an Apostle of Christ/ yet betrayeth him. Doth it therefore follow/ that his office of Ministry wherein he was set by Christ himself/ was unlawful? Nay/ that was the sin of the Man not of the Office wherein he was. What is this then to the question in hand/ when as the Ministry of England is charged to be strange/ unlawful/ false/ in the very offices and functions thereof? Yea and this man himself doth here by the whole course of his speech grant as much.  
3. Is there any thing here said for the Priests and constitution of the Church of England/ which the most popish Priests/ Prelates/ Monks/ etc. may not aswell allege for theirs? Is their Ministry or constitution therefore such as man be joined withal?  
4. See how strangely these men forget and contradict themselves. 
T. G. first Reply. Pag. 83 84.  Mr Cartwright writing against D. Whitgift saith/ If the whole practice of the Church under the Law be looked upon, it shall not be found that any other ecclesiastical Ministry was appointed then those orders of hy Priests and Levites etc. which were appointed by the Law of God. And further, that as it was not lawful to bring in any strange doctrine, so was it not lawful to teach the true do doctrine, under the Name of any other function than was instituted by God. Yet this man with an whore's forehead shameth not to persuade, that the offices and outward constitution of that Church were wholly altered from the right institution. Thus the truth of God is with them become Yea and Nay/ so as they may seem to say any thing for defence of their Church's estate.  
5. And from whence proveth he that which here he speaketh of two hy Priests at once etc. Doth he show it from the word of God? No. But he saith/ the Histories make mention of it. So then from the Scriptures he can not bring proof for that he saith. For indeed by them we find (even in the corruptest times) but one at once to be by Priest: Albeit that of old also there were two which were chief over all the rest, the one being principal/ the other Second. See for that of one hy Priest in such times/ these Scriptures, Mat. 26.57.62.63.65. Mar. 14.53.60.61.63. Luk. 22.50.54. joh. 11.49. & 18.13.24. Act. 4.6. & 7.1. & 23.2. Heb. 5.1. & 8.3.4.5. And for the other point/ these, 2 King. 25.18. 1 Chron. 24.2.3. 2 Sam. 8.17. with Numb. 3.32. & 4.16.18. Yea this is so clear and certain/ as for any thing written in the Scripture thereahout, this man is driven himself (when he looketh thither) to confess and confirm it too: As here may be seen in Scriptures which himself hath noted down.  
6. Why also doth he not name the Histories that mention these things, together with the Persons/ time/ place/ and such like circumstances as might give light to the point in hand? Is it because he would walk in the dark/ and hide the truth as much as he can? Or is it for that he seethe/ if these particulars were mentioned/ there might yet more be answered concerning this matter?  
7. Finally/ what manner dealing is this/ when he knoweth that I have other were written of this very point (yea and here allegeth both the 
♣ Answer to Mr H. Pa. 50  book and page) yet not to answer any one of all the particulars: which there I have noted out of the Scripture/ touching this question? To that Treatise therefore (till it be answered) ● may and do refer him in this behalf.  
Next where he saith, If the chief offices were so corrupted and altered through covetousness, it is not likely that the inferior offices remained sound etc. And, It is very likely that the offices, & outward constitution were wholly altered from the right institution etc. First I wish the Reader to mind his manner of reasoning. A little before/ he said he doubted not plainly to take away that which we object of their outward constitution. Yet behold the issue of his first and chiefest proof is all come to this, It is not otherwise likely: It is very likely, etc. Thus his plain demonstration (if it fitted his turn/ yet) is no other but a mere likelihood and presumption: And that also gathered from other writers/ not from the Scriptures. Is not this then (think you) as plain a taking away of our objection, as it is a sound defence of their Church-constitution? Neither barrel/ better herring.  
But what now, if by the Scriptures it be not only likely/ but indeed certain/ that it was otherwise with the jews, than here he saith concerning their offices and outward constitution? How hath he then plainly taken away our objection/ as he pretended? Let him search therefore/ and he shall find that they were so far from admitting any strange functions among them/ as they 
* john. 1. 19-23.  urged john the Baptist to show warrant for his Ministry from the word of God: And beside, by their silence to Christ's question about john's baptism/ do plainly testify that 
‡ Mat. 21.25 26.  themselves judged no Ministry lawful/ but that which is from heaven: that is/ such only as is of God, not of Men. If here now we would use his manner of reasoning/ how great likelihoods might we justly allege from these Scriptures/ to the contrary of that he saith.  
But to put the matter out of all doubt/ the Scripture witnesseth of Zachary/ john Baptists father/ that he being then one of the Priests/ executed the Priest's office, and walked in in all the commandments & ordinances of the Lord without reproof. Luk. 1.5.6.8.9. Which how could it possibly have been/ if the offices and constitution of that Church had been wholly altered: as this man here pretendeth? Note also/ that all the Priests then/ were of the tribe of Levi/ of the posterity of Aaron/ consecrated to their functions/ sitting in that seat which God by Moses had appointed for the Ministry and regiment of that Church. joh. 1.19. Act. 4.6 Heb. 5.1.4. Mat. 23.2. with Deut. 33.4.8.10.  
Finally/ Christ himself giveth testimony to the lawfulness of their Ministry and constitution/ when he said to the cleansed Leper, Go show thyself to the Priest, and offer for thy cleansing as Moses hath commanded. Luk. 5.14. By which is most plain/ that they had at that time both the true Ministry and ordinances which God by Moses had appointed. How false then must it needs be, that this man saith their offices and outward constitution we●e wholly altered from the right institution? But who is so bold, a● blind Bayard?  
Of their true offices/ imported by sitting in Moses chair, I have 
* A treatise of the Man▪ of England. Pag. 54. 55.  else where spoken/ and proved it by diverse reasons and testimonies out of the word of God: To which D. B. can find no answer, but yet is loath to yield to the truth. Moses (he saith) was a Magistrate. What then? Therefore Moses chair must be understood of somewhat else. But why so? Doth he not know, that Moses in that his government of Israel, even by the commandment of God/ appointed Aaron and his sons to the Priest's office, for the burning of incense before the Lord/ etc. Whereupon also when Corah and his company did afterward murmur/ and presumed to take the Priest's Office upon them/ it is said they rose up and gathered themselves together not only against Aaron (to whom it belonged) but against Moses also/ who from God had appointed him and his sons thereunto. Lev. 8. & 9 chap. with Numb. 16. & 17. & 18. chap.  
Note withal/ that Moses a little before his death blessing the tribes of Israel, when he had the heads of them assembled together, spoke thus of Levi (turning his speech unto God), Let thy Thummim and thine urim be with thine Holy one etc. They shall teach jacob thy judgements and Israel thy Law: they shall put incense before thy face and the  offering upon thine altar etc. Deut. 33.4.5.8.9.10.11. With which Scripture and speech of Moses/ if we compare that of Nehemiah/ where he speaketh of 
♣ Neh. 9.3.4.5. etc.  the Levites stair or hy seat, and their standing upon it when they taught the Law etc. And that of Christ where he said, 
* Mat. 23.2.3.  The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair, observe therefore whatsoever they speak etc. And that of john/ where he saith: 
‡ joh. 1.19.24.  the Pharisees which were sent to john Baptist about his Ministry were Priests & Levites: Iff (I say) we consider and compare these Scriptures together/ how plain is it and undeniable that Christ's speech of sitting in Moses chair etc. doth necessarily imply the true offices and functions which God by Moses ordained for the teaching and guiding of Israel in his worship and service? Thus also may Moses doctrine which they taught in those offices/ be fitly understood and comprised in the same speech. And what variety then is there betweme this exposition/ and that which understandeth it of Moses doctrine/ as he saith some of ourselves have done heretofore?  
Finally how ignorant and frivolous is it/ that here he pretendeth against this, viz. that Moses was, no Priest, as they were, but a Magistrate: Whenas all the Scriptures aforesaid do reach that God by Moses appointed them to this function and service? And that so/ as Moses himself though he were not a Priest ordained by solemn rite/ yet by the appointment off God did anoint not only the Tabernacle and all that was therein/ but Aaron also and his sons/ consecrating them to the Priest's office, and offering all the sacrifices appertaining thereunto: Which afterward belonged only to the Priests for to do. Lev. 8. & 9 chap. & Psal. 99.6. with Heb. 5.4.  
But perhaps there is a pad in the straw/ more lurking in his speech then all men are aware of. For what if by these words (Moses was no Priest, but a Magistrate, and therefore Moses chair must be understand of some what else) he insinuate that it is meant of the Magistrates authority and seeing Christ inferreth upon the sitting in Moses chair/ All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, that all people therefore are bound to keep whatsoever the Magistrates do command them? Will not his words here bear and import thus much? Yea may not his understanding it, of some what else) joined with the Magistrates authority, seem directly to imply it? and that so, as what they command/ he thinketh it is to be observed, be it lawful or unlawful? Which if it be his meaning/ hath he not here then covertly sown most detestable doctrine/ both shamefully helping Christ himself, and wickedly crossing the whole Scripture and practice of the faithful in all ages? For proof whereof see but these and the like testimonies. Exod. 1.17. 1 Sam. 22.17. Dan. 3. 14-28. & 6.12.13. Mat. 22.21. Act. 4.18.19. and 5.28.29. & 17.6.7. Heb. 11. chap. Reu. 2.10.13. & 12.11.17. & 13.7.15. & 14.7.12.13. & 20.4.  

D. B. his Preface to the Reader. Section. 6.  
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, & Commin, are of lesser force than the other weightier matters of the la. 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, & still retain their fundamental errors before 
* Section. 3  named: Whether should their outward constitution make them a true Church, yea or 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, remaineth 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.   
The Answer. That which Christ said to the Scribes and Pharisees/ Wo be to you blind guides which say, Whosoever sweareth by the Temple, it is nothing: but whosoever sweareth by the gold off the Temple, 
Mat. 23.16.17.  he offendeth. Ye fools and blind, whether is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the gold, etc. May it not in this case also fitly be applied to this Scribe? Specially/ seeing the Church in the constitution thereof (if we sever it from the doctrine, as here he doth) may in diverse respects be compared with the Temple/ and the doctrine of truth taught and upheld in the Church, with the gold of the Temple: As both by these Scriptures doth plainly appear (2 Cor. 6.16.17. with. 1 Tim. 3.15. 1 Cor. 14.5.6.19.23.24.25.33. 2 Thes. 2.4.4. Rev. 11.1.2.) And by this also, that God hath made the promise of his presence and blessing to his Church (as to the Temple wherein he will dwell) it being so constituted, and walking/ as he hath commanded. Lev. 26.11.12. with 2 Cor. 6.16.17.18. Esa. 52.11.12. Ezech. 37.26.27.28. & 48.35. Mat. 28.20. Yea and this man himself did 
* Section 3.  here a little before allege, that by gold and silver (spoken of, 1 Cor. 3.12.) the Apostle meaneth true doctrine. Which if it were so there/ then by his own exposition may that saying of Christ to the Pharisees/ well be applied to him in this case.  
Secondly I ask/ Doth not the constitution (be it true or false) alway include the whole body of the Church, whereas the false Doctrine is often found but in some members thereof? This may be seen in the Churches of Israel/ Corinth, Galatia/ Pergamus/ etc. In which respect also the false and corrupt constitution may be of greater weight and more danger/ then the false and corrupt Doctrine: inasmuch as the wounding and infecting of the whole body is far worse than of some parts only: and because the parts so infected, if they cannot otherwise beholden/ may be cut of/ and yet the body preserved: Not contrarily. For the better explaining whereof/ let him resolve me which of these propositions is the truer, viz. Where there is in a Church false doctrine, there is a false Church: Or this, Where there is a false constitution there is a false Church. And contrarily.  
Thirdly I ask/ Is not the Hierarchy and Church constitution of Antichrist/ the most detestable anarchy of Satan that ever was? And doth not Satan far more commonly and readily part with his false doctrine/ then with it/ when he must needs part with the one, 
2 Thes. 2.9.  and yet can retain the other? He is subtle and of long experience/ he can mind and knoweth full well that so long as he holdeth his own constitution of a Church/ he can quickly (upon any opportunity) bring in his doctrine again/ even with a trice. For why? He hath both the people ready for the receiving of it/ being yet still in the confusion and bondage of Antichrist: and his own Ministry also to be employed in the publishing and serving thereof: their Offices/ Callings/ Ministrations/ Maintenance/ being all ready at hand and fit for the purpose. Whereas on the contrary/ when the false constitution is abolished/ then false doctrine wanteth both he wonted place of receipt, and her nimble wings by which she should spread and fly abroad. And here I could allege for proof hereof/ the prefer Ministry and estate of the Church of England, which being of Antichrist Satan's graundchild/ and he now having spied his time/ and found some opportunity/ beginneth apace by this means to bring in again such doctrines of his/ as had for a time been suppressed: As namely/ Free-will, Auricular Confession, Christ's soul to descend into Hell: The Church of Rome to be a true Church, etc. Witness the Books and public Sermons of Bilson: Bancroft: Hooker: Androes: Harsenet: Barret: and other the Priests and Prelates of that Church/ the Merchants of these and the like wares off the Beast/ in Court/ City/ Country/ University/ and where not?  
The same thing you may mind also thus/ So long as the house standeth still/ and is furnished with servants and Ministers/ it is ready for the implements and furniture (though removed for a time) to be brought in again/ and soon to be set up in their wonted place. And if you would see an example of these things yet in memory/ look but at the Church's estate in K. Edwards and Q. mary's days compared together. The popish constitution of the Church being not abolished in King Edward's time/ how soon was the Pope's doctrine/ yea and his supremacy/ in Queen mary's days spread and acknowledged throughout the Land? Yet the same doctrines of truth were in K. Edward's time published and received/ which now are in England. And very like also that it was then with more zeal and love of the truth/ them now it is: specially considering the general coldness of men/ and the cruel persecution of the truth/ to which this age since is come.  
Mind further/ that the Offices/ houses, and maintenance of the Friars and Nuns being before (in the time of K. Henry the eight) quite taken away/ they were not able in all Q. mary's reigns to rear them up again. No, albeit they judged them lawful and necessary aswell as the other points of Popery/ and did also very earnestly desire and labour to have them re-established. So great a matter it is to have a thing abolished in the whole constitution thereof: Even as when an house is razed and pulled down to the very foundation.  
And here/ upon this occasion let me also ask, Whether if the Callings and Live of the Prelates and Priests/ together with the Idol Temples/ and confusion of all manner people in the body of the Church/ now had in England/ were so dealt with/ as the abbots/ Monks/ Abbeys and Nunneries then were: there would not fewer jesuits and seminaries come into the Land: Popery less increase: treason against her Majesty be less attempted: and finally/ all the means and hope for the full replanting of Antithrists religion again in that Church/ be utterly removed and taken away?  
Let this Scribe then go and persuade such as himself/ that the outward constitution of the Church is but as the tithing of Mint: anise, and Commin, etc. Whosoever have their 〈◊〉 exercised to discern good and evil/ will plainly see/ that notwithstanding any thing he pretendeth/ yet it is and aught to be accounted among the weighty matters of the Law of God. Yea, that it is of far other importance and consequence, than most men think or will yet be persuaded: albeit even experience (the Mistress of fools) might in all this time and trial have taught them sufficient/ if enough were enough for men/ In cases of Religion.  
Now for his Reason here/ any may see by that which hath been said that it is very frivolous and of no weight at all. The Proposition (or first part) hath nothing for the ground of it, but that which is in question, and neither is alway true nor can be yielded unto for very great and weighty causes here before declared. Unto which add these also: 1. That many errors in doctrine are and may be far less/ then the errors of the outward constitution/ when they are truly compared together. 2. That the true outward constitution of the Church alway implieth both a separation of the people from the World/ and the joining of them together in the fellowship of the Gospel/ and both these to be voluntary. Which particulars being considered with the former/ will teach him not barely to set down/ but duly to prove the Proposition in his next Reply.  
The Assumption (or second part of the Reason) is in some fence true, in some sense false: and in both, against himself and their Church's estate. When Churches are set in the constitution and way of Christ/ if afterward they fall into some error of doctrine/ they are notwithstanding for the former to be reputed true Churches, until being admonished they refuse to hear the voice of Christ and to yield to the truth. Thus the Assumption is true/ and of us confessed, by the example of the Churches of the jews, etc. But when their case cometh to be such, as they will rather abide in error then obey the truth and voice of Christ/ this so wilful persisting simply overthroweth such a company from being a true Church in such estate. And thus the Assumption is false/ and so proved to be/ by the example of the said Churches. And both ways it is against him and their Church: as will yet further appear by that which is now to be spoken of his question wherein he would be resolved.  
He asketh, What if a company of Arrians, Anabaptists, or Papists should be gathered and established in a true outward constitution, and still retain their fundamental errors before named: Whether then their outward constitution should make them a true Church, Yea or no. I answer/ 1. Not only false constitution/ but false doctrine also retained, make a false Church. If it were so then/ that they could have a true constitution as he supposeth/ yet by reason of their false doctrine they should be a false Church.  
2 I ask also of him/ Whether these companies of whom he speaketh/ were true Churches when they fell into those errors (as were the Churches of Galatia/ when the errors about Circumcision and the Law crept in among them): Or whether they were Heretics, sectaries or the like (such as were Hymeneus, Philetus, Alexander, the Apostates of Rome, etc.) falling from the true faith and Churches of God, when they came to be gathered and established as he fancieth. If they were of the former sort, than they are to be esteemed and admonished as true Churches, till by despising the voice of Christ/ the Kingdom of God be taken from among them Gal. 1.2. with. 5.2.4. Mat. 21.33.43. 1 Cor. 1.2. with 15.12. Rev 2. & 3. chap. If of the latter than are they no true Churches at all but false and detestable Synagogues of Satan whatsoever truth in constitution or otherwise they shall pretend. Rev. 2.9, Act. 20.30. Col. 2.8.23. 2 Thes. 2.3.7. 1 Tim. 1.19.20. & 6.20.21. and 2 Tim. 2.17.18. and 3.5.6.13. and. 4.14. Heb. 10.38.39. 2 Pet. 2.1.2.3. In the. ver. 18.19. Rev. 13.11. & 17. & 18, chap.  
3. In a true constitution must alway be minded, a calling by the word of God: a separation from the world: a joining together in the fellowship of the Gospel, and that by a voluntary profession thereof, and submission thereunto. Now these things considered/ how is it possible that the Arrians, Anabaptists, or Papists retaining their errors, should yet be gathered and established in a true outward constitution? Can the light of truth have communion with the darkness of falsehood? Or can Christ in his constitution, agree with Belial in the errors of Arians, Anabaptists/ Papists, etc. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.  
4. Finally, if he will not hear our answer nor the Scriptures testimony/ let him ye● hear Mr jewel (a Prelate of their Church) resolve his question, in this manner, 
* jewels Reply to Harding. Pag 99  Without Christ the Church is no Church, neither hath any right or claim without his promise, no● any promise without his word. Now this D. B. affirmeth himself/ that these of whom he speaketh are without Christ: For he saith, 
† Before in Sect. 3.  their errors do of their own nature clean abolish from Christ. Therefore by his own assertion, and Mr jewels laid together, they can be n●●eue Church/ whatsoever faith or constitution they should pretend: neither have they an● right in such estate to his blessing: Which yet is promised to them that are in the true wa● and constitution of Christ. Mat. 28.20. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Lev. 26.11.12.  
Thus then appeareth, that he doth both ignorantly fever the doctrine wholly from the Church's constitution: and that yet when they are considered apart (as some times and ● some respects they may be) each of them, that is/ both the doctrine and constitution/ according as they are true or false, avail directly to the overthrowing, or making of the Church to be likewise true or false/ so as hath been declared before. (His crafty putting of faulty here, for fal● will nothing help him/ but bewrayeth his corrupt dealing the more. Else let him show in his next, if he can whether ever there were true Church/ that stood in false constitution.) Neither is the objection of the jewish constitution answered at all/ but remaineth of force against them still. And that so much the more/ as the Churches of England remain both in fal● constitution and in false doctrine: for both which they are under the wrath of God/ and all ●ound to separate from them. And whosoever will not so do/ it remaineth a grievous sin upon their heads: for which they must answer to God in that day/ when he will cast the Beast and false Prophet/ with all such as have been seduced by them/ into utter destruction/ to have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone/ which is the second death. 2 Thes, ●. 10.11.12 Rev. 14.9.10.11. & 17.1.2. & 19.20.21. & 21.8.  

D. B. his Preface to the Reader. Section. 7.  
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, which we hope God will in time abolish): 
judg. 2.3.  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 10.23.  dieversitie in opinions and judgements which by the corruption of our nature we remain in, in this tabernacle, as hath 
‡ Lev. 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, & themselves the comfort, even the salvation of their souls through Christ.  
D. B.   
The Answer. Now at length D. B. yieldeth the cause himself. So great is the truth/ and so greatly it prevaileth against every oppugner thereof. To omit that he confesseth/ they cannot justify their corruptions (and yet they can abide in them): he saith also, they must needs acknowledge that they have many corruptions remaining, which were left by that man of sin, & which are as thorns unto their sides. Blessed be God/ which maketh the enemies themselves bring glory and testimony to his truth. They are so convinced/ as he saith plainly they must needs acknowledge it. Now therefore let him name them in his next: or confess those to be of them which I have noted hereafter/ Pag. 63. etc. Till then, I will only infer this hereupon that seeing they are such as himself here granteth them to be/ viz, corruptions of the Man of sin/ and thorns to their sides, even therefore are all bound to separate from them as being condemned by the word of God. For hath not the Lord commanded all his people, wholly to leave the Man of sin with all his corruptions/ not to partake in any of his sins/ not to rest in any of his unrighteousness, neither to touch any unclean thing at all? 2 Thes. 2. 3-12. with Rev. 18.4.5.6. Isa. 52.11. 2 Cor. 6.17. Yea in that very 
* judg. 2.3.  Scripture which is here quoted by himself/ the Angel of the Lord joineth with thorn to their sides, destruction by there Gods/ that is/ by their worship and religion.  
But they hope God will in time abolish them. And so do we have too. Yet we must remember that the Scripture saith, this abolition of them shallbe, by the Spirit of the Lords mouth a I 〈◊〉 of his Gospel in the testimony of his servants. 2 Thes. 2 8. Rev. 12.11. & 14.6.7.8.12. It is not then the yielding unto them/ but the witnessing against them/ by which we can hope it faith for the abolishment of them. Neither do we doubt, but they being thus discovered, God will also stir up the hearts of Kings and Rulers of the earth (as already in part he hath begun) to hate that whore of Babylon with her abominations, and to make her desolate and naked. (Rev 17 16.) Yet too, before they come to do this, they have given their power and authority to the Beast, and have also fought but not prevailed, against the Lamb jesus Christ and them that are on his side/ his called, and chosen, and faithful witnesses. Rev. 17.13.14.  
Therefore dare not we run into their extremities, to allow either by word or deed the corruptions of Antichrist that Man of sin/ to receive in our forehead or hand the print of his Navy or mark of his ordinances, to pursue to death the witnesses of Christ, or any way to approve thereof etc. But we wait the appointed time of the Lord/ for the full abolition and redress of all these impieties. And in the meadows/ through the grace of Christ we witness against them: Yet being both thankful to God for any truth they hold/ and sorry also that with it they join the abominations of the Man of sin/ and do so set a wall between the Lord and themselves. 2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 17.5. Ezech. 43.8.  
Where he saith they hold most excellent truths and doctrines of salvation, as sound as any Church upon the face of the earth: albeit by this it might seem they have very ill neighbours/ and for so large comparison due proof also may well be desired: yet for the present I will but ask how this speech of his agreeth with the testimony of others among them (men of far riper judgement and better discerning) who have testified of their estate/ and published that 
* Demonstration: in the Preface to the Reader.  Albeit many nations which have renounced the whore of Rome are heinously sinful against the glorious Majesty of jesus Christ, yet there is none in the world so far out of square as is England▪ in retaining the Popish Hierarchy first coined in the mystery of iniquity, and that filthy sink of the Canon Law which was first invented and patched together for the confirmation and increasing of the Kingdom of Antichrist. Also, that with them 
“ Mr gilby's book. Pa. 29  many religions are mixed together, off Christ and Antichrist, of God and the Devil. That 
† Letter to Mr Hooker. Pag. 4  under the show of inveighing against Puritans, the chiefest points of Popish blasphemy, are many times and in many places, by diverse me● not obscurely broached, both in Sermons and in Writing. That 
♣ 2 Ad non. to Parliam. Pag, 6.  although some truth be taught by some Preachers, yet no Preacher may without great danger of the Laws utter all the truth comprised in the book of God. 
* Ibid.  That their own Injunctions. Articles, Canons etc. may not be broken or offended against, but with more danger then to offend against the Bible: That 
‡ Ibid.  the Bible must have no further scope, then by these it is assigned. That 
* Demonstr. in the Prefa, to the Gover  they give leave to a man to be any thing saving a sound Christian. That 
† Admon. to Parliam. Pag 21.  their public Baptism is f●ll of childish and superstitious toys. That 
“ Mr Gib●yes book. Pag. 2.  they eat not the Lords supper, but play a pageant of their own, to blind the people and keep them still in superstition, to make the silly souls believe that they have an English Mass: and so put no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and Antichrist, betwixt God and the Devil.  
Thus do the best of them profess and testify of their estate. Shall we then think (as D.B. would persuade) that there is not any Church upon the face of the earth, which doth more sound retain the truth and doctrine of salvation? God forbidden. Or doth he mean/ as Mr Hooker (a rare conceited man of the Prelate's crew) speaketh of the Church of Rome/ 
♣ hooker's Ecclesiast. Policy. Book 3. Pag. 130.  that it doth still constantly persist in main parts of the Christian truth and is of the family of jesus Christ: Yea 
* Ibid. Book 5. Pag. 188.  that it is do unto her to be held and reputed a part of the house of God, and a limb of the visible Church of Christ. If such be D. B. his meaning here/ for their Church/ yet this doth but verify the Proverb which saith/ As is the Mother, so is the daughter. Ezech. 16.44.  
But no matter/ so long as he can with an hard forehead pretend, that their errors do not simply overthrow the truth, neither are held of obstinacy, but are also for the most part off great controversy and disputation among the learned. Yet mark that he saith, for the most part. Of them all belike he will not speak it. Or if he should/ might he not likewise plead for the holding or entertaining again of Auricular Confession/ Seven Sacraments/ Setting up off candles Reservation of the Sacrament/ Denying of the Cup to the common people/ Images in Temples for ornament or remembrance/ Monks/ friars/ nuns, etc. Or will not the Lutherans (when they are driven to a strait) thus allege for themselves? Yea doth not 
* P. Ma●t. Loc. come. Epist. ad Pereg. Lond. Pag. 1128. etc.  〈◊〉 (against whom Peter Martyr did therefore write very sharply) thus plead for the very Anabaptists? And will not Hooker (think you) pretend as much for his Romish Bethal? Or doth he it not in deed/ when he saith even of Transubstantiation, 
‡ Ho●k. Ecclesiast. pol. book. 5. Pag. 1●6.  that it is a thing which no way can either further or hinder us, howsoever it stand? And 
“ Ibid. Pag. 186.  that the very thing which separateth utterly, and cut●eth of clean from the visible Curch of Christ, is plain apostasy, direct deny all, utter rejection of the WHOLE Christian faith, as far as the Son is professedly different from infidelity. Now compare with this also/ Mr jacobs' Replies following/ Pag. 57 101. 105. 109. 141. 156. 192. And see if their plea for the Church of England be not off the the very same stamp with Mr hooker's for the Church of Rome.  
Thus what by the Prelates and their Proctors on the one hand/ and these Pharisaical daubing Reformists on the other/ their case is come to be such/ as all may justly fear lest the end of that Church will be/ to look back not only in part/ but even wholly to the Romish Egypt and Sodom, and to wallow again in the same mire/ from which they would seem a● this time to h●●●e ●en washed. For it is just with God, to make such eat the fruit of there own way, and to fill them with their own devises. Prov. 1.31. And what other thing do the books/ pretences/ practise/ and declining of all sorts both Ministers and people among them portend? Yet Lord/ thou God of power, and Father of mercy, work better things for them and among them/ if it be thy will.  
To that which D. B. pretendeth next of keeping communion with them in things lawful (it being likewise objected by Mr jacob) I have answered in the Treatise ensuing, Pag. 88 170. 171. 180. Here only I ask, First what one lawful thing they have, that we have not? Secondly/ in what one thing which he counteth lawful/ we can have communion with them in that estate, and not sin against God by partaking withal in the apostasy of the man of sin? Of all other things it is most like he will say/ that we might hear many comfortable truths taught by their Preachers/ and many good prayers conceived by them. Yet such is their case/ as we can not do this neither/ but we must needs partake with the Ministry of Antichrist: all their Preachers (even the best) being Priests and Deacons/ so made by the Prelates. Of which see more in the latter Treatise following, Pag. 188. etc. Not to speak here any further of it: or of their Book-worship/ taken out of the Pope's mass-book, according to which they administer the Sacraments/ marry/ bury/ pray, etc. or of the compulsion of all manner people/ even the most wicked/ to be members of their Church: or of their Church discipline, being in the hands of the Prelates/ and by the Canon Law: or finally/ of the several offices/ entrance/ ministration/ maintenance/ of their whole Hierarchy. To none of which can any join or submit/ in any part of God's worship/ but they must needs partake in evil/ even in the sins of Babylon/ and of Antichrist that son of perdition. Such is their constitution/ and such is the standing of all that continue therein.  
Of his last pretence, touching diversity of judgement, by reason whereof he would persuade to keep communion with them/ I have spoken 
* In the Answer to Section. 3.  here a little before. To which now I will add this only/ that his collection hereupon, viz. that we should therefore keep communion with the Ministry/ and confusion of Antichrist (for of what else speaketh he/ if he speak to the point in question) is most absurd and ungodly. And will not Hooker (think you) for his Christian Papists/ and some such as Hadrianus for the Anabaptists/ persuade likewise? And what then are we the nearer? Or what will these men do in the end hereof? jer. 5.31.  
This then is not rightly to use that diversity of judgement, whereunto in many things all Churches and Christians in deed are continually subject here on earth/ but ignorantly to abuse it. But hereunto (it may be) 
‡ Da. Buck.  this man was driven/ either by weakness of judgement in himself, or by eagerness of contention and malice against us: of whom he hath sometimes been/ but now for his revolting from the truth and so persisting/ is (according to the 
* 1 Cor. 5.4.5.11.12.13. 1 Tim. 1.19.20. Mat. 18.17.18.20.  Scriptures/ and ordinance of Christ) cast out from among us/ and delivered unto Satan/ for the destruction of the flesh/ that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. Which mercy the Lord Almighty vouchsafe him in Christ/ from whom he hath declined unto Antichrist. And this is all the harm I wish unto him or any such, even their repentance and salvation in Christ jesus.  
Hitherto of the Preface prefixed to Mr jacobs' book. Which I have answered, somewhat largely/ from point to point/ rather for the satisfying of others/ then for any weight I judged to be in it myself.  
Now it is time that I return to Mr jacob himself/ and deal with him in particular: by whom I am spoken unto and challenged by Name/ almost in every page of his book: As if he had forgotten the old Proverb which saith, Let not him boast himself that girdeth his harness/ as he that putteth it off. Here then seeing that this discourse came first from him to the view of the world, and that also without my answer to his last Reply, let the Reader call to mind that which is written/ He that is first in his own cause, is just: then cometh his neighbour, and maketh inquiry of him. Prov. 18.17. So as he now having told his own tale/ first/ and seeming to some (no doubt) to be just therein/ it is needful that I therefore come in the next place/ and make inquiry of him.  
Which I do in the Treatise following: submitting it now to the judgement of others/ to be examined of all by the word of God. 
1 Cor. 2. 12-16. 1 Thes. 5.21.  By it therefore do thou (Christian Reader) try all things therein/ and keep that which is good. Have no prejudice (I pray thee) either of Mr jacob or myself: but hear us both speak/ and than consider what is spoken on either side/ from point to point. And the Lord give thee understanding in all things.  
There is but one way/ of truth/ to life eternal. And that is in no other but the Lord jesus Christ, 
joh. 14.6.  who hath said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, If therefore the Churches of England (as now they stand) be in that good and old way prescribed by Christ/ wherein the Primitive Churches were planted by the Apostles/ then doubtless then are in the way of truth/ that leadeth unto life. (Yet this hath not Mr jacob showed in all his discourse.) jer. 6.16. But now on the contrary/ if the Churches of England in their estate/ have in the joins off the Church of Rome and with it departed from that ancient and good way of Christ/ and do even unto this day stand in the apostasy of Antichrist/ and that in their public/ Ministry/ worship/ ordinances/ confusion of people etc. then can they not so standing/ be assured by the word of God/ that they are in the way of truth which leadeth unto life/ but in the by-ways of error which carry headlong to death and perdition. 2 Thes. 2.3.10.12. 1 Tim. 4.1.3 Rev. 13.11. & 17.1.2. & 22.18.19. with Exod 20.4.5. For which cause/ all the people of God are bound to separate from them/ and not to partake in any of their sins/ least they receive also of their plagues. Rev. 18.4.  
And if it be well minded/ Mr jacob himself (howsoever he pretend otherwise/ yet in deed) yieldeth thus much/ when he is driven to confess that their constitution is such 
* Pag. 37. 61 69. 70. 84. 154.  as they stand in error: and that of Antichrist: against the Second commandment: in vain worship: departing from and denying the faith, in their Ministry, etc. But for these and all the rest/ thou mayest see/ and I pray thee (good Reader) well to mind the Arguments/ Replies/ and Answers following. From the reading whereof I will not not now any longer hold thee.  
The God of peace tread Satan under thy feet/ and by his word and Spirit lead thee into the way of truth/ to the conservation of thy soul unto life eternal. And if thou reapest any fruit of my labours/ give praise unto God/ and pray for me/ the weakest of his servants/ and unworthiest of the witnesses of jesus. The grace of our Lord jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Amen.  
Thine in Christ, Fran: johnson,   

AN ANSWER TO M. H. JACOBS' ARGUMENTS AND REPLIES concerning the Churches and Ministry of ENGLAND.  

Chap. 1. Of the Title of Master jacobs' Book, which is thus. A DEFENCE of the Churches and ministery of ENGLAND.  
FRAN. JOHNSON his Answer. THe defence of the Churches and Ministry of England were an enterprise worth the taking in hand, if Master jacob effected in deed what the Title of his Book pretendeth in show. But he that readeth his book and mindeth it well, shall find him promise mountains and perform molehills. Let the sequel show it.  
Now I would that Master jacob should speak himself (without stammering) what Churches and what ministery of ENGLAND he defendeth. All, or some only? It is a point needful to be known and mentioned. All may see, it would give great light for deciding the controversy between us. And who would not think, he should readily declaer it? Yet he flies from it every where. Therefore that he may not alway so do, but may be drawn to answer directly unto it, (as also for the Readers better help, and more clearing of the truth) I will particularly and as plainly as I can describe how the Churches and ministery of England are to be considered: And then expect his answer. If I be mistaken, or if master jacob and such as live in that Church (who therefore have better occasion to know it) can do it more fully and plainly, I shall willingly hear it. In the mean time, this is my judgement: First for the Churches, to consider them as followeth.  
1 In respect of the Convocation-house, which consisteth of the Prelates, and some other of the Priests, assembled together with them. And so they have but one Church in the Land: And that when there is a Parliament, or like occasion. I take it also that out of this Church the Prince, the Nobles, and people are excluded. Save that when they have determined their matters, they have for some of them the consent of the Parliament.  
2 According to the number of their Archbishops: and so they have two Metropolitan Churches, under which all the rest are subject and comprised.  
3 According to the number of their Arch and Lord Bishops: and so there are about 26. Churches, comprehending all within their several Dioceses. Hither also I refer the Cathedral Churches.  
4 According to the ecclesiastical Courts of the Archbs. Lordbs. Chancellors, Archdeacon's, Commissaries, and Officials (under which all the other Ministers and people stand subject) and so according to the number of those Courts, there may be some 200. Churches, or thereabout.  
5 According to the number of the Parish assemblies (of which all stand members:) and so there are many thousand Churches in the Land. Hitherto of the Churches.  
The Ministry may be considered two ways: Either more generally, as they are all Priests or Deacons; or more particularly, as they are superior or inferior.  
Superior, as Archbishops, Lordbishops, Suffragans, Deans, Archdeacon's, and the rest of that sort.  
Inferior, as Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Stipendiary Preachers, Household chaplains, and the like.  
Then in all these consider four things, 1. their office, 2. their entrance, 3. their Administration, 4. their maintenance. This for the ministery.  
Now let M. jacob tell us in his next, 1. whether he defend all these Churches and ministery of England, or but some of them.  
2. If not all but some only, which then they are that he defendeth, and which he leaveth as utterly unlawful without all defence.  
3. For those he defendeth, let him show in what place and pages of his book we may find the defence of them. For whether it be that I perceive it not, or that he doth it not, of this I am sure for myself, that I cannot find in all his book so much as any one of them defended. As others find, let them speak. And to put all out of doubt, let M. jacob show it.  
Lastly (if he will be entreated) let him tell the cause why his book, being entitled A defence of the Churches & ministery of England, came not out Cum privilegio. Yea why it was printed beyond sea, and not in England. It is a shrewd token (considering the title) that his Defence even at home among his neighbours is accounted very weak and simple.  
For the name Brownists, by which we are reproached in the forefront of his book, note these things. 1. That in like manner long since by the Priests and Pharisees were the Apostles and Primitive Churches termed 
* Act. 24.5.  a sect of Nazarites: and at this day by the Papists are the Professors of the Gospel called Calvinists, Zwinglians, Huguenotes, and the like. 2. M. Browne (from whose name this byword was first taken up) is a member and Minister of M. jacobs' Church, not of ours: yet holding (as we hear) in his judgement the truth we profess, but for his practice standing in the apostasy and false worship wherein they are. So than not we, but M. jacob and such like may fitly be called Brownists, inasmuch as in their judgement they hold the things we stand for to be good, yet in their practice (like Browne) are other men, walking with the Church of England in her evil way. 3. For ourselves, we acknowledge (with the disciples in the Primitive Churches and the faithful in all ages since) that we are 
‡ Act. 11.26.  Christians, striving now for our time and estate against the remainder of the abominations of Antichrist, to keep the commandments of God and faith of jesus. Therefore doth it not trouble us, that by M. jacob or any other we are thus reviled for the name of Christ.  
It is enough for us, that the 
† 1 Pet. 4.14.  spirit and truth of God, which on their part is evil spoken of, is on our part glorified. But yet let him and all such take heed unto it in time. Now I proceed to his main and maimed Argument. Which is as followeth.   

Chap. 2. M. JACOBS' ARGUMENT (as it is now propounded and printed) by which he would prove the Churches of England to be the true Churches of God.  

Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian & 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 for the addition of these words in Pag. 6.  and our public Assemblies are therein gathered together.)  
Therefore it is sufficient to make the public Assemblies true Churches.  
H. jacob.   
Fr. johnson. THe answer of this Argument followeth. But first I will proposid another, proving (by better reason) that the Church-assemblies of England are in their constitution so far from being true Churches of God, as they stand in Antichristian estate, and are therefore subject to wrath.  
The ARGUMENT is this: 
 Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular man stand in Antichristian estate, and in that respect to be subject to wrath; That is sufficient to make a company so gathered together likewise to stand: though they profess withal in their constitution many doctrines of truth otherwise profitable to salvation.  
But the Hierarchy, Liturgy, and confusion ecclesiastical, as they are publicly 
‡ Their Ecclesiastical constitution, Courts, Injunctions, practice, canon Law, Books of articles, of common prayer, of ordering Priests and consecrating Archbishops etc.  professed & practised by law in England, are sufficient to make a 
† As for example, the Prelates, the Priessts, etc.  particular man stand in Antichristian estate, and in that respect to be subject to wrath: And the Church-assemblies in England are in ‡ their estate companies so gathered together.  
Therefore are these also sufficient to make the Church-assemblies of England likewise to stand: though they profess withal in their constitution many doctrines of truth otherwise profitable to salvation.  
This Argument I propound, as being more sound then M. jacobs', both for matter and manner. Let others judge. Now I come to examine his. Where first it is needful so to set it down, as it was heretofore propounded by himself. And that was thus, as followeth.   

Chap. 3. M. JACOBS' ARGUMENT, as it was first propounded and answered.  

Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian & in state of salvation; That is sufficient to make a company so gathered together, to be a true Church.  
But the whole doctrine, 
‡ Book of Articles published Anno 1562.  as it is professed and publicly practised by law in England, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian.  
Therefore it is sufficient to make the public assemblies true Churches.  
H. jacob.   
Fr. johnson his Answer. TO omit the Proposition, until it better appear by the 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 his Reply. THe Aunswerer 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 his 2. Answer. IN the former answer, I omitted the Proposition, not because of the certainty of it (as the Replier dreameth) but till we might see by his defence of the Assumption how to take it, as than I noted. Now therefore (having seen in his reply the 
* This I wrote when I had seen Mr. jacobs' first Rep●e hereafter following. which now he hath seconded with another of like sort. Whether it be not so as here I say let the indifferent Reader upon trial judge.  unlearned 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): I give him to understand, that the whole Argument is lame and faulty in every part.  
The Proposition is not absolutely true, as now (by his defence of the Assumption) it appeareth he understandeth it. The Assumption is not only false, as was proved in the 
* My first answer was the 3. Exceptions and 9 Reasons, which here do follow.  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 inferreth 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 to do them good (by the blessing of God) we will more particularly lay open the weakness of this Reply.  
And first, where he saith the Proposition is most certain, and yet in his defence of the Assumption, declareth that he so taketh it, as whatsoever amongst them, be jointly together held, and joined with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or true Church, yet notwithstanding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or commixtures: we answer that in this sense, the Proposition neither is nor can be absolutely true. For who knoweth not, that 
‡ Gal. 5.2.4.  such things may be joined with Christ, as do abolish from him? And again, 
† 2 cor. 6.14.15.16.17.  that Christ & Antichrist cannot accord together? Either therefore the Proposition is not general, but admitteth limitation, and then is not the Argument good: Or if it be general, without any limitation (so as whatsoever be added to or commingled with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or Church, yet it hindereth nothing at all) then is it not alway true: as may appear by the former exceptions and many more that might be alleged.  
Next touching the Assumption, besides that it is same, it is also untrue as hath been proved. Some balm in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, save only to manifest 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 his 2. Reply. Before I examine this your answer, I will desire you and all others, to note that all your Ecceptions 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 & Churches in King Edward's time, & namely Master Cranmer, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, etc. were all limbs of Antichrist, and no true Chaistians.  
3. That every soul in England, is convicted in conscience, that the Praelancie 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 and 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.  
And now I come to the particular examination of your former answer. 
 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 Assumption, and 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 law) gathered together in this profession & power? Fie forshame these are senseless cavillations. But because what in me lieth, I would not have you any more to stumble at a straw, 
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, ●●a●unt.  I have to satisfy you withal, 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 whatsoever is held together with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or true Church: Yet notwithstanding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or commixtures. O strange dealing: in all my writing I have no such word, no syllable, 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, without all shame, in the view of the world, do Father on me this foul untruth, & most senseless error, in your first entrance.  
Further, whereas it seemeth you reprove my Proposition, 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 M. 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 inscirpo quaeris, this is to find a knot in a rush. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Proposition.  

The Assumption examined by the Exceptions & Reason's 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 no true Christian. Which (O Lord) who would not tremble to think on? Even that which this man above two years ago 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.  
Fr. johnson his 3. Answer. WHat M. jacob? Doth your mouth so run over, as you could not but even at first speak untruth and forge deceit? When your beginning is so bad, it is an ill token the end will not be very good. You would here father upon me three things, which I never imagined, as they are by you collected. Therefore to clear the truth and s●op your mouth, I will declare what my mind is and hath been concerning them.  
For the first, your words are, That every person in England, holding your public faith, is no true Christian. Touching this point, I mind the estate of your people two ways: The one concerning their several persons considered a part from the constitution of your Church; the other concerning their estate and standing in that constitution. Concerning the former of these, (that is, considering them apart from the constitution) I acknowledge that in divers of them there appeareth such knowledge and faith of the gospel with the fruits thereof, as they may well be thought, in regard of God's election in Christ, to be heirs of salvation, and in that respect to be true Christians: God pardoning unto them their standing under Antichrist, which they do not see or mind. But withal, I fear lest many more heretofore were partakers of this grace, then be now since your Antichristian estate and the unlawfulness to abide therein hath been discovered. Concerning the latter, (that is, in respect of their estate and standing in that constitution of your Church) I am persuaded whosoever so stand holding your public faith and multitude of Antichristian abominations withal, they cannot by the word of God be judged true Christians, as touching their outward estate in that church of yours: but stand all subject to wrath, God imputing this their sin unto them. And that all therefore who will be assured of God's mercy and salvation, aught with speed to go out of your Church, it still remaining in Antichristian estate.  
To make this matter more plain, take out of Israel an example in Abiiah the son of jeroboam. If you consider him, as standing with the rest in that apostasy and Church-constitution of Israel, he is subject to like condemnation with them in that estate. But if you consider him apart from it, as there is found in him some goodness towards the Lord God of Israel, he may be counted a true Israelite finding mercy at the Lords hands. 1 King. 14.1.5.13. By this you may see what my mind in this first point is and alway hath been. And if you do mark, wheresoever I speak of the members of your Church to be under wrath, in Antichristian estate, no true Christians, or jointly together no true Churches, or the like: I speak it still with this caution, in respect of such estate or constitution as they stand in under Antichrist. To which end you may every where in my answers mind these and the like clauses, In that estate, In that constitution, In respect of the ministery and constitution of the Church, Being subject to Antichrist, Being so considered, Being Antichristian, and other of like sort.  
For the second your words are, That all the Christians and Churches in King Edward's time, and namely M. Cranmer. M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, etc. were all limbs of Antichrist and no true Christians. Now as touching this matter, although you may easily see what my mind is by that I have said concerning the other going before: yet for this in particular, know also that I am thus minded, viz. That all the christians and churches in King Edward's time, and namely M. Cranmer, M. Ridley, etc. stood as touching the outward constitution of that church in Antichristian estate: Yet considering the mercy of God unto them, and their faithfulness in those things which in that time of ignorance were revealed, inasmuch as afterward they loved not their lives unto death, but in many weighty points resisted unto blood striving against Antichrist, I hold them in this respect true Christians, and now to be at rest with the Lord.  
And tell me yourself M. jacob, whether you judge not thus of Arnoldus de villa nova, johannes de rupe scissa, john Wicleff, john Hus, Jerome of prague, Savanarola, Dominicus, Silvester, Thorpe, Swinderby, Bilney, etc. the faithful witnesses of Christ in their several ages, and therefore in this respect true Christians: whereas yet notwithstanding as touching their ministery and Church-constitution wherein they were, they stood in Antichristian estate, some of them being Friars, some popish Priests, some saying Mass, some communicating in it, etc. until the day they were martyred and put to death.  
For the third, your words are, That every soul in England, is convicted in conscience, that the Prelacy is unlawful & untolerable. Touching this likewise, I never did nor can affirm as you have set down. Only this I know and affirm, for the general state of the Land, that a greater light is risen unto them in these days, but they love darkness more than light: Also, that many times and sundry ways hath been showed and convinced unto them, that the Prelacy, Priesthood, liturgy etc. are Antichristian, and therefore unlawful and untolerable: Finally, that the 
* Witness their Acts in Parliament against us. Their present estate, practice, etc.  universal face of the Realm hath refused the truth by us professed, and retaineth still the Antichristian abominations aforesaid. For which I fear their judgement will be the heavier. joh. 3.19 and 15.22. Act. 13.45.46.  
This is that which I have been and am persuaded touching these particulars. The latter branch of the first of these, is our main question, and the ground of all our reasoning: which I have proved by many arguments both from the word of God and your own men's writings. Unto which M. jacob you have not given one word of sound answer in all your book, but continually fly from the point in question: as knowing (I fear) in yourself, that there can be no just defence of your Church's estate in this behalf. And touching all three, yourself could not but know that my judgement therein was as I have declared: you and I have so often had speech together thereabout. Yet behold to make the truth of God and my defence thereof more odious to the world, and so to prejudice your Readers judgement, you have here at first unjustly and falsely fathered upon me these three assertions, being not able to show them in my words or writings any where. Remember you not, how the enemies of God's grace dealt of old with the Apostles, 
Rom. 3.8.  blaming them (unjustly) as if they had taught, we should do evil that good might come thereof. Or mind you, how the Papists, Anabaptists, and the like do at this day charge us (though falsely) that we make God the author of sin, whiles we maintain against them the truth touching Predestination, free-will etc. In like manner deal you with me. 
See Mat. 26 60.61. with joh. 2 19.21. Act. 6.13.14.  And thus at first you become a false witness, both in perverting the sense of my words, and in altering, diminishing, and adding unto them. Every of which you know is to bear false testimony, not only against me, but in this case even against the truth itself.  
That all men take notice both of these positions, and of our dealing therein, I also am content and desirous. My answers (I confess) are somewhat long, partly because I would make the truth manifest even to the most simple, partly for that I would more fully discover your manifold shifts and leave you no statting hole any where. In your replies (which may well be pinned up in a narrow room, seeing they have nothing of weight in them) I desire more sound and upright dealing, together with demonstration of your cause from the Scripture. That I have cause thus to desire, these three points following (which I wish the Reader to observe in your Replies) will testify.  
First that you being to prove your cause and Argument, 
Three things to be noted by the Reader in Mr jacobs' Replies.  never proceed (though you be still called upon) to make due proof thereof, but put over all proof unto me: and busy yourself in answering (after your fashion) the Exceptions and Reasons I brought against your Argument.  
Secondly, that in answering my Reasons and Exceptions (finding them all to heavy) you never directly refute them as they were propounded: but some times leave most weighty points in them wholly unaunswered; sometimes labour to wash your hands of the matter, and to turn over the plea from yourself that have undertaken it, to the state of your Church on whom you leave it; sometimes transform them into other shapes framed by yourself, and so answer not me, but fight with your own shadow: and thus every foot yield the cause by necessary consequence.  
Thirdly that in steed of God's word (which is very rare with you in all this dispute) you press us with the authority of Man: never going about to approve your Church-estate by the Scriptures (which only must end this controversy) but alway leading us to the view and errors of the Martyrs. For let it be minded, whether every of your Replies have not this for their foundation and undersong, M. Cranmer M. Ridley, etc. as if for our faith and worship of God, we should turn from the living God to dead men, 
Esa. 8.20.  from the law and testimony of the Lord, to the opinions and aberrations of man.. I might beside wish the Reader to mind the unsavoury salt of your raising and reproachful speeches scattered throughout your book: but I omit it.  
And now I come to the particular examination of this Reply of yours.  
You say, He that hath but half an eye, may see the meaning of the words of your Proposition etc. Well Mr. jacob: than yourself having two eyes might easily see, I omitted the Proposition, not for the darkness or doubtfulness of the words, but because it yet appeared not how yourself understood them: whether so, as you make the Proposition general, admitting no exception: or particular and to be restrained. And why do you not yet tell us how you take it? Are you afraid to say either the one or the other? either that it is general, or that it is particular?  
If you make it general admitting no limitation, then is your Proposition false, 
Page. 5.  as I showed in my last answer, which you cannot gainsay. If it be particular, then is your Syllogism a mere Sophism, your Argument of no moment, neither in any Mood or Figure. How think you Mr. jacob? Is not your reason very sound and Clerklike? But you perhaps with two eyes see not so much as others may with half an eye.  
Touching the Assumption (to follow your words in order) I showed that whereas in the Proposition you spoke of a company so gathered together, you should for your purpose have assumed that your Assemblies be companies so gathered. And tell me, ought you not so to have done, seeing you make but one Syllogism? If you ought, is it wrangling to show what is wanting in your Reason? If you ought not, why have you now made an addition to your Assumption which was not before? Is it because I should not stumble at a straw? or is it not because the Argument is unsound without it, though you note the contrary in the margin? If it be sound without this, why do you not so prove it? If it be not, why do you not confess it? Nay, why are you both so conceited in yourself, and so desirous to blind your Reader, as when the fault is showed you, yet you will not only not accknowledg it, but lay the blame upon him that would draw you to see it? This in deed is not to stumble at a straw, but wilfully to fall down, when you might be helped up. Now although you be unworthy of any further help: Yet because I I would have you see it, I will once again labour to make it plain unto you, if I can beat it into your head.  
You make but one Syllogism, and in it you conclude your public Assemblies to be true Churches. Now you know (I suppose) that always in a good Argument, whatsoever is in the Conclusion, must needs be in one of the premises before. But in yours it is not so. Your conclusion is of your public assemblies, and yet you never spoke of them before in either of the premises. Can you by this perceive how extremely faulty and unsound your Argument is.  
But you think to help yourself by saying, you meant so much. Sure you are near driven M. jacob. For what wrangler could not so help out any matter? Yet here you stay not. Even your words (you say) imply as much. And do they indeed? Tell me then, whether here you include and defend all the public Assemblies of the Land as they now stand, or but some of them? whether those, that have dumb Ministers, aswell as those that have Preachers? whether those that have non residents, aswell as those, that have their Incumbents? whether the Cathedral Churches aswell as the Parishes? For all these are by Law Churches among you: the Cathedral, the Parishional, those that have non residents, or humbe dogs, with four Sermons a year, Pluralities, etc.  
Then tell me, whether all these Assemblies of yours be companies by Law gathered together in that profession & practice, whereof you speak? Besides, where the words in your Proposition were of companies so gathered together etc. and you in your addition to the Assumption have in steed thereof, companies gathered together in the doctrines etc. why are you so unconstant and fearful in your words? why do you not keep the same terms? why made you not the addition, as was showed you it ought to have been? Did you think, that then I would and might the more call upon you for proof thereof? That belike was the matter. For in deed I do and must needs so much the more call for it. And how will you ever prove it, that your Assemblies are companies so gathered together, that is, by a free voluntary profession of the truths among you (
* Act. 2.41. & 11.24. Psal. 110.3. Esa. 44.5. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. and 9.13. Zach. 8.21 23. 1 Thes. 1.6.  such as is in true CHRIstians, and in the manner of gathering every true Church): when as you are by Law compelled so to profess, or rather to submit to that profession? Yea and by compulsion of Law are gathered not only in and unto those truths, but in and to Antichristian errors, which cannot stand therewithal? I pray you M. jacob justify by the Scriptures such profession to be that which is in true Christians, and such gathering to be that which is in true Churches.  
Next, where you charge me with strange dealing for saying, your writing declared that you so took the Proposition as whatsoever 
‡ These words (among them) Mr. jacob leaveth out.  among you be jointly together held & joined with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or true Church, yet notwithstanding you are so to be reputed as if there were no such additions or commixtures: First, speak plainly whether you do so take your Proposition, or not. Whatsoever you answer, it will be against yourself and manifest the weakness of your Argument, as I have declared a little before. Secondly, why wrote you not all my words, but left out some of them? was it because you thought that would have cleared me of strange dealing, and left it upon your own head? Thirdly, where you say, in all your writing you have no such word, no syllable, no letter, sounding to that sense: Lift up your ears Mr jacob, and tell me how these words of yours do sound in your hearing, 
† M jacobs' 1. Reply to the 1. Reason following.  Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist are joined together among us, which things yet we think to be Christ's own. Again, The 
‡ His 1. Reply to the 4. Reason f●llowing.  outward manner of calling to the Ministry and some outward ceremonies used by Mahomet and the Pope, do not destroy faith & true Christianity. And yet more plainly, when you say, 
* His 1. Reply to the 7. Reason following  The Papists forbidding of marriage and meats, if they had done no worse, doth not make them departers from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy and ceremonies simply: Neither do these things make us the Protestants to be such. These and many more you have in your first Reply, besides an hundred the like in the second, not only sounding to that sense, but directly and necessarily implying it. And whereas you have sometimes the contrary (as I noted 
* His 1. Reply to the 4 Reason following.  else where:) that doth but so much the more show your inconstancy and contradiction of yourself. Shall I therefore now turn upon you your own words and say, O strange dealing: without all shame, in the view of the world, to father on me this foul untruth etc.  
Yet I am glad M. jacob, the truth prevaileth so much with you, nill ye will ye, as you are driven to confess, that this assertion is a foul untruth and senseless error. For hereupon it followeth, first that your Proposition is not general, and therefore your whole Argument faulty and to no purpose at all for the question in hand: secondly, that of necessity there should be some clause annexed to your Proposition touching the Antichristian abominations among you, if you would have your Reason good for the estate of your Churches. But you account such addition would be idle and vain. I easily believe, you are so minded. But why (I pray you) think you so? Is it because you did not at first mind it, or because now you see it would discover to every man the vanity of your Reason? Howsoever, it must be expressed. And if yourself either know not how to do it, or be unwilling, I will show it. Mark now therefore.  

How Mr jacobs' Argument should be propounded.  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 of Christ, though they retain withal in their constitution the Hierarchy, liturgy, and confusion of Antichrist.  
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: And the public Assemblies of England are in their estate companies so gathered together.  
Therefore it is also sufficient to make the public Assemblies of England true Churches of Christ, though they retain withal in their constitution the Hierarchy, liturgy, and confusion of Antichrist.  
Or thus rather:  
If the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed and practised by Law in England, be sufficient to make a particular man standing member of that Church which retaineth the Hierarchy, liturgy, and confusion of Antichrist, yet notwithstanding to be a true Christian and in state of salvation as touching his estate and standing in that Church: then is it also sufficient to make a company so gathered together, and consequently the Church of England to be a true Church of Christ as touching the estate and constitution thereof.  

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

But the former (say I) is false.  
Therefore also the latter.   
Thus M. jacob, should your Argument be framed in right form of reasoning, for the estate of your Church, and for the question between us. Which now being done, who is so simple as cannot plainly see the falsehood of both the Propositions in the former, and of the Assumption in the latter, and consequently the vanity of your Reason every way. If you still hold otherwise, then must we still call upon you for proof. Bare saying will not serve, we look for due proof. Mind further, that (now as your case standeth) you are to approve the estate of your Church and the members thereof, not only as they retain the abominations of Antichrist, but as they withstand also the contrary truth and way of Christ, which hath been a long time made known and offered unto them. Otherwise he that hath but half an eye may see you defend not the present estate of the Churches of England, as the title of your book pretendeth.  
In that you say, wheresoever there are any things added destroying faith there whatsoever else seemeth sufficient, in deed is not sufficient to make a true Christian: you are again mistaken. There may be in the constitution of a Church, things added destroying faith, and yet so much truth be held and taught as to some particular men (considered apart from the constitution) is sufficient to make them true Christians and in state of salvation, the other being not imputed unto them by the Lord. Thus I doubt not hath 
* Thus have I spoken to you Mr jacob many times: Yet see how you have now dealt with me contrary to your knowledge.  God saved some in the most popish Churches, and many more in yours, from time to time. Yet notwithstanding this doth not justify the estate either of their or of your Church, neither doth it warrant any to abide therein. But it argueth partly the riches of God's mercy, partly the greatness of his power, who as at first he brought light out of darkness, so in the worst times and even in the dark kingdom of Antichrist saveth them that are his. But of this, besides that already spoken, there will be occasion to speak more 
‡ In the handling of the second Exception and 7. Reason following.  hereafter.  
Your bad dealing about the first & rest of the general points above named I have declared before. In deed yourself may tremble to think thereon, as on your Antichristian estate also in that Church: You I say, M. jacob, who cannot be ignorant of both these things: howsoever you have advisedly, if not also wilfully now written otherwise. Mind therefore if you have not here took heaven and earth to record against yourself: and whether this be not desperate madness, yea or no. But let us proceed to your Replies upon the Exceptions and Reasons heretofore alleged against your Assumption. And let the Reader mind without partiality (as before God) which of us have the truth: and accordingly let him walk in all good conscience before God and men.   

Chap. 4. The first Exception against the Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. johnson. FIrst consider the 19 Article of that doctrine and Book, which by yourself is alleged for your defence, and see by it if your profession and practise be not contrary one to an other: Yea see if it be not manifest even by it, that you have not a true visible Church of Christ.  
The words of the Article are these. 
 
Artic. 19  The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, 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 your own words and doctrine: Now if you cannot prove your Assemblies to be such, you may see your own witnesses (even your own doctrine and book) give verdict against you. If you can prove them to be such: where and what are your proofs, touching the particulars, mentioned in this your own description of a visible Church?  
H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Excep. THis your 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, you reject not, but our practice (say you) 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 and confess, that our public practice, is agreeable to our profession in that book? Nay (say you) 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, and very Clerklike: As if my Tenant should deny me rend for my house and 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 la, for that which I thus possess, saith, 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, & 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 accknowledg 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, and Sacraments ministered according to all things that of necessity are requisite. Where we● plainly insinuate, that many errors may be added, and 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.  
Fr. Io. his Answer to M. jacobs' 1. Reply upon the 1. Excep. HOw fit or unfit the description is, I neither did, nor do examine. Only because it is your own profession, and your practice is contrary unto it, I did from hence take the first Exception, requiring of you to prove your Assemblies to be such, or else to know that your own doctrine, is a witness against yourselves. Now in your Reply, have you according to the particulars of that description, justified your Church assemblies? Nothing less. Let this therefore be first observed. But what then have you done?  
First pretending as if you repeated our exception, and your own description, you leave out divers particulars, of special moment, there expressed. As first, where the visible Church is described to be a congregation of faithful men, you leave out these words (of faithful men) belike knowing that your 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 of the Sacraments to be duly ministered, you/ leave out this word (duly): because it crosseth your women's Baptism, private Communion, receiving of the most profane and their seed among you, etc. Lastly, where in the description it is required, both for preaching the pure word and due administration of the Sacraments, that they be done according to Christ's ordinance: you leave out these words (according to Christ's ordinance): belike because this clause quite overthroweth both your Antichristian Prelacy, from which all the inferior Ministers among you receive power and authority to preach and minister the Sacraments; and your priesthood and Deaconry, wherein you all administer; and your stinted imposed prayers, exhortations, crosses in the forehead, questions to 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.  
Thus having left out such particulars as were of special moment against you, yet you demand wherein your paactize is contrary to your 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, your Church-assemblies, are not congregations of faithful men, but a confusion of all manner of people though never so wicked and profane. The 
‡ D. W●i●g book pag, 176. and 178  Prelates and Formalists affirm, that your Church is full of Atheists, Papists, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whoremongers, and such like. The 
* Sermon on Rom. 12 pag. 65. and 66. Demonstration: in the preface.  forward Preachers likewise, that in your Church are swarms of Atheists, Idolaters, Papists, erroneous and heretical Sectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murderers, thieves, Adulterers, Liars, etc. Finally, that a man may be any thing among you saving a sound Christian. These things being so, as both your estate and writings bear witness: judge yourselves, whether your 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 with you are allowed besides the word of God, the Apocrypha books: and in steed of preaching the word, the reading of Homilies: as may appear in that 
‡ Book of Articles published Anno 1502.  book of Articles alleged by yourself. 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 you, it is done by virtue of a false office and calling, never appointed by Christ. And the Ministers that preach it, do in your constitution alway stand subject to be silenced, suspended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when you are made Priests, you promise, and (when you enter upon a benefice) you swear, Canonical obedience. Neither are you suffered any further to preach the word, and truth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Iniunetions, Aduerticements and Caveates, in that behalf provided. If any preach the word of God any further, they are subject to be silemced, banished and put to death. That these things accord with the ordinance of Christ, or with your own description of a visible Church, I suppose yourself will not for shame affirm it.  
Lastly in your 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; 3. A lawful administration, according to the Testament of Christ: In all which your practice is contrary to the ordinance of Christ, and your own description aforesaid. Your Ministers all of them are either Prelates, Priests, or Deacons (which among you is a step to the Priesthood): none of which Christ hath ordained in his Testament for the work of his ministery. Your people are not separated from the world, 
See john 15.19. & 17.14 1●.  but stand in confusion with it, and in subjection to the Antichristian Prelates and Prelacy: and therefore cannot be deemed a true Church of God and 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. 
1 job. 4 ●. 5 Act 2 40. and 19 9 Rev. 18.4. and 14.9.  Finally your administration is according to the inventions and precepts of men, with s●inted prayers, exhortations, Epistles and Gospels: and besides these, in Baptism, crossing on the forehead, and 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 your book of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the Mass book, full of abominations, as 
* Admonition to the Parliament.  yourselves have confessed heretofore.  
These things we have been forced thus to mention at large, both because you twice demand (as if you knew not yourselves) wherein your practice is contrary to that description aforesaid: and because you blush not to affirm, that all the Christian world seethe and confesseth your practice to be agreeable to your profession in that book. Whereas the contrary is most true. Touching which, what yourselves have heretofore written to the contrary, See in the Admonitions to the Parliament, Replies of T. C. against D. Whitgist, Demonstration of Discipline, etc. And what the reformed Churches profess to the contrary, see in the French, Belgic, and Helvetian Churches, in the Harmony of confessions, Senct. 10.11.  
Thus also appeareth what just cause we had, to put you to prove your assemblies, to be such, as yourselves describe visible Churches to be. Which seeing you have not yet done, and seeing your practice is contrary to your profession, as now (at your request) we have showed in the particulars aforesaid: If you still be minded as before, we do also still ask, where and what are your proofs, touching the particulars mentioned in your own description of a visible Church?  
Your similitude of a Landlord and Tenant, is against yourselves: so worthy and Clerklike is your 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 and bring forth their evidence? Let the judges give sentence.  
If you deny your claim to be such, show your evidence from the Apostles writings: Let us from thence see your evidence for the offices of Archbs, Lord bs, Archdeacon's, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, etc. For your entrance into these offices; according to your Canons, and book of ordering Priests, etc. For your administration by your scinted imposed liturgy, and by your Popish Canons, Officers, proceed, etc. For your maintenance by Tithes, Chrisomes, Offerings, etc. For your confused communion of all sorts of people, though never so wicked, in the body of your Church, etc. Let us (I say) see evidence for these, from the Apostles writings, if you deny your claim to be such, as we have noted. Otherwise if you speak not according to this word, 
‡ Esay. 8. ●●.  it is because there is no light in you, neither any right to that you challenged.  
Where you say, we held part of your possession with you heretofore: If you mean, that we with you 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 
“ Rev 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Act. 2.40.  at his commandment to forsake that way of Antichrist, and to come out of that spiritual Babylon, to the salvation of our souls. Which mercy we wish also to you, that being saved from that froward generation, you may become the sons and daughters of the Lord almighty.  
Touching your Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Ministration, &c: Enough is said before. Only where you say, you see not yourselves wherein you fail, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things necessary, It is too impudent untruth, as your 
‡ Admonition to the Parliament. T. C. his replies in defence thereof. Demonstration of discipline. Defence of Ecclesiastical discipline, etc.  former writings do and will always testify to your face, which we will not stand here to relate. That shall suffice which we have touched before: which till it be answered, the Exception hath both reason and weight in it, whatsoever you 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 practice is contrary to our profession. First, our Article requireth a visible Church to be an assembly of faithful men: But our ossemblies (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 than 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, and reading of Homilies, and other errors are allowed in our practice: Yea surely and 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 and title, both of our profession and practice, must needs be out of the pure word. They knew that every visible Church might and 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 e●de 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 intier, because there concur divers corruptions withal: as ●●inted 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 shall be refuted. If nay, than 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 fond abused your pen and tongue.  
Yet vyill you still demand how our practice agreeth with our profession in that 19 Article? Still I annswer you with that similitude of a foolish and importunate Tenant against his Landlord. If I have held possession, and my ancestors before me 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 la 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 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 your words.  
And Lastly where you say, it is an impudent untruth, that I say we see not, that anything 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 all your allegations. None of all these do gtaunt 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?  
Fr. Io. his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 2. Reply upon the 1. Excep. I Have often heard such things, M. jacob. Yet they are but words of wind. And now belike you tell us here aforehand, what we are to look for in this and the rest of your Replies following, even much ado to no purpose. First where your Article describeth a visible Church to be a Congregation of faithful men: you say, yours are so. I did and do deny it. Now therefore must you prove it, who made the first Argument, and still continue to reply. If you know not this, you know little or nothing either of the rules or of the use of sound reasoning. Let any that have knowledge, judge. Secondly, whereas you would I should prove the contrary (although in putting this over to me you manifest your own ignorance and weakness, yet) know that both 
“ Mr. Barrows Refutation of M. Giff●rd. The Discovery. The Conferences published etc.  others of us and 
† In the answers to M. A. H. to M. T. C. to M. W. Smith, and to yourself.  myself have done it sundry times; and taken away the objections drawn from the corruptions in the jewish or any other Churches. Unto which who is there of you that ever gave us sound answer? Thirdly, I take the whole Land to witness against you, that it is most false which here you are not ashamed with such boldness to affirm, viz. that your Church-assemblies are Congregations of faithful men. But by this may all men see you make no conscience what you affirm or deny, so you may seem to say somewhat. Fourthly, your own men of all sorts confess it to be as I have said and showed in my former answer. Unto which I might add an hundred more testimonies of theirs, if the case were not as clear as the Sun at noon day.  
But you say, I deprave their meanings utterly. Why so, I pray you? Because they say not, that all your Assemblies are such, nor your whole Assemblies, though they grant very many such to be among you: that is, many of your Church to be Atheists, Papists, Drunkards, Whoremongers, Thiefs, Murderers, Witches, etc. Alas M. jacob, it pitieth me to see your extreme folly and evil conscience. Your folly, that see not how both they and you give the cause in this grant: and thereby also testify that I do not at all deprave their meanings. Is it possible, that your Church-assemblies should be full of such known ungodly persons, and yet be Congregations of faithful men? It never entered into my thought, much less did I ever say it, that your whole Assemblies are such. I know and willingly accknowledg many of your Church not to be so: for which I praise God. (Always I except your public worship and Idolatry, wherein all, even the best among you, are enwrapped.) This I said, that your Assemblies are not congregations of faithful men, but a confusion of all manner of people, though never so wicked. And this you see do your own men testify.  
Add hereunto, that both they and yourself grant your Assemblies herein ought to be reform. If they be already Congregations of faithful men, what reformation would you have in this behalf? But if their estate herein be such, as they ought to be reform: why are you so shameless and foolish, thus to speak as you do in all this matter? Besides your folly, you bewray an evil conscience, in as much as you deny that thing, the light whereof doth so shine in your conscience, as even whiles you would shift it of, you are constrained to acknowledge it whether you will or not.  
Where you speak of your own men, that they deny not your Assemblies to be companies of faithful men, or utterly to be separated from: it is to no purpose at all save against yourself. For first, though they speak it not in these very syllables, yet the thing itself necessarily followeth upon their words. It is without question that the heathen Poets did themselves worship Idols: yet notwithstanding sometimes they so spoke in their writings, as Paul doth 
* Act. 17.28.29.  from thence conclude that not Idols but the true God only is to be worshipped. Had it now been of weight, for any of them to have alleged against the Apostle, that theit Poets did not deny Idols to be worshipped? Yet you think it sufficient, to withstand the truth with any such pretence. Let this once spoken, serve for answer to all your reproaches wherewith you burden me many times for the collections which I deduce necessarily from your own and other men's writings. Secondly, you are to know that it is not material against me, whatsoever your men do grant or deny. But against you it is, who abide in the same ministery and of the same Church with them. For that which you speak of the Church of the jews both ancient and in the time of Christ, referring us to another place hereafter in this book for proof of your comparison, look you there also for answer thereunto. And hitherto of the first point of your Article and profession differing from your practice and constitution.  
For the second, if you profess to preach the pure word of God (as this Article requireth) and yet again both in profession and practice (as here you acknowledge) preach the impure and lying writings of Men, such as be the Apocrypha books and your Homilies: what is or can be more contrary? If your Article mean otherwise (as you pretend) it is full of deceit. Neither shall any ever know what your profession is, if your Articles do thus cross one another, and your practice also agree with the worst.  
But to clear this point, I answer furthermore: 1. that it is a point of necessity requisite, that God's word only be taught. For which see these Scriptures, Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Psal. 119.113. Prov. 30.5.6. Esa. 8.20. and 59.21. jer. 23: 16.28. joh. 5.39. Col. 3.16. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. and 2 Tim. 3.16.17. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 22.18.19. Thus by your own exposition of this Article, the Assumption of your main Argument falleth, and your Churches remain in false constitution: which is the question between us. 
See the third Exception following, In the answer to Mr, jacobs' 2. Reply.  2. The Apocrypha books maintained in the Church (which you say is both your profession and practice) overthroweth the truth of Christian religion, and bringeth in judaisme, Popery, Atheism, and what not? 3. Even in the Church of Rome where these books also are received, yet withal the pure word is so preached among them by Law, as no doubt to some is sufficient co salvation. For proof whereof see the Rheims Testament, in their note upon 1 Tim. 2.5. Yet this hindereth not but that their Church maintaineth false doctrine (as in that place also may be seen) and standeth in false constitution. Neither therefore can this help you. It resteth then that you show, the pure word only to be preached among you by Law, and that also according to Christ's ordinance. which yet you do not, neither can do. And therefore it is yourself that say nothing: but that you both profess & practise errors.  
Now it is well, the truth so shineth in your heart, as you confess your Churches fail from the pure word in sundry lesser points. Yet I pray you reckon up these points in particular, that by the word of God it may be seen whether they be lesser or greater than you would bear us in hand. Then tell us, in whose power it is in your Church, to redress them. Also, why they are not redressed, seeing you know them, and have 
‡ Rev. 2.16.17. & 3.3. Mat. 18.15.16.17.20. 1 Cor. 5.4.5 Lev. 4.13. 2 Cor. 10.4.5.6.  rules given by Christ for such cases, if your Churches be his? Lastly, why you for (your part) abide in known errors, and keep not the truth and commandments of Christ?  
As touching that you say, though they be errors, yet they are not fundamental, neither do in their own nature abolish from Christ: the fit place of handling this point followeth in the second Exception and seventh Reason, to which places I refer it. Yet in the mean time, because here we are treating of the Apocrypha books, tell me whether in retaining them, you retain not such errors as yourself account fundamental etc. For example, the book of Tobit teacheth that 
† Tob. 12.12.15.  Angels do present and bring to memory our prayers before the Lord. Now this honour (you know) is peculiar to Christ, who 
“ 1 Tim. 2.5.  only is the Mediator of Intercession. That Apocrypha doctrine therefore is blasphemous, and an error (in your sense as I take it) fundamental. Add hereunto that 
* 2 Mach. 12.43.44.45.  offering up of a sin offering to God for the dead, to make reconciliation for them thereby, spoken of in the book of Maccabees: And according to your second sense of fundamental, that 
‡ 2 Machab. 14.41.42.  commending of wilful murder, taught in the same book of Maccabees. Not to speak of the Magic in the 
“ job. 6.6.  book of To bit, for healing any that is troubled with a Devil or evil spirit, by a perfume made of a fishes heart and liver. These sweet doctrines with other the like do those books afford. But it skills not, so long as with a bold face notwithstanding you can bear it out and say still, your errors are not fundamental, etc. Is this your conscience, Mr. jacob? Will you thus still plead for Baal?  
But to proceed, in the third place you speak of those words, (according to Christ's ordinance. Where first mark, that these words in your Article are to be referred to all the particulars going before. So as to maintain your Argument, you must prove your Assemblies to be so gathered, the pure word so preached, anh the Sacraments so administered among you, as Christ hath ordained. Thus might you more persuade us, and defend yourselves better, in one half sheet of paper, then in a thousand such frivolous pamphlets as you sparse abroad, to no purpose at all, except it be to lay open your own nakedness so much the more.  
Whereas I alleged, that when and where the word is preached among you, it is done by virtue of a false office and calling, never appointed by Christ: this you say is false too. Often have I heard you say so, but never could I hear you prove it. To help you therefore, I will show you the way how to do it, if any such thing could be. And that is thus: first, sincerely (as before God) to reckon up all the offices of Ministry which your Church by Law enjoyeth; and then to note the Scriptures which teach that Christ ordained those offices in his Church: secondly, to show the manner of entrance into your several offices prescribed by Law; and then, to name the places of Scripture where such calling is appointed by Christ. This you see is a plain and ready way (touching these two points) to 'stablish the conscience and to confound your adversaries, not with show of words, but with substance of matter. I hope it will do you some pleasure Mr. jacob, that I have showed you so good a way. All the thanks I ask for it is, that you would walk uprightly in it.  
Now if you list not take the pains, or find the way all to hard, for your Archbs, Lordbs, Archdeacon's, Parsons, Vicars, Stipendaries, and the rest of your Priests and Deacons: yet at least for yourself show it in defence of your own office and calling, first when you were made Priest and Deacon by the Prelates; and then when you became an House-Priest in the country, and since a Mercenary-Priest in the city. Now (I hear) your Lords the Prelates have commanded you silence, and you as an obedient child of such reverend Fathers do readily submit to their Antichristian authority. Yet let this be no excuse to put of the clearing of the former matter: but seeing you have so much the more leisure, do it the more sound and speedily. Doubtless it would give great light in this case.  
Next you say, your ordinary Preachers are true Pastors, as touching the substance of Pastoral calling: but whom mean you by ordinary Preachers etc. Your Prelates (I remember) are by Law your Ordinaries. Do you mean it of them? your treatise shows it not. Tell us then who they be of whom you speak: 1. whether all or some only of your Preachers: 2. whether you have any extraordinary Preachers that have some other office: 3. what you judge, of those that are not in the number of the ordinary Preachers you speak of, whether they also be true Pastors: 4. what you account (according to the Scripture) the substance of the Pastoral calling, whereof you speak. All these points you see must be cleared, afore we can understand what you speak, or whereof you affirm. So mystical, or rather in deed so fearful and deceitful is your manner of speech.  
Touching the question, what is substantial in the Ministry (if you put it over to me to declare, as your manner is) I have already showed my judgement and reasons in 
† A treatise of the Minist. of the Churches of Engl. p. 83. 84. 85.  another treatise. Which you may either refute, or approve your Ministry according to those particulars, or (if you can do neither of these) yield to the truth against which you have so long struggled in vain. In vain, I say: for proof whereof mark what followeth next in your Reply.  
Yourself confess that even the Preachers for whom you plead, have a wrong ordination from the Prelacy. Thus your own mouth (M. jacob) is witness against yourself, that all your labour is in vain. Shall I yet make it more plain unto you? Mark then. Your main defence is from 
‡ See before, pag 3. and 6.  the doctrine of your Church, as it is publicly professed and practised by Law. Now your Law admitteth no other ordination, but that of the Prelacy. And this yourself here confess is wrong. In what case now your Ministry standeth, let others judge. And take you heed, you please not yourself any longer in such unrighteousness. The 
“ 2 The. 2.12  end thereof is fearful. But besides this estate of your Ministry, you confess here also for the body of your Church, that you have a confusion of people: that is (in deed, though you speak it not in word) a spiritual Babylon. For Babel, is in English, confusion. Thus both for Ministry and people, you give the cause, having wearied yourself in the defence of Babylon all in vain. Which is and will be the fruit of your and all other men's labours in this case. So the 
* jer. 51.58.64.  Scripture hath foretold.  
Your other writing, 
‡ See the next treatise following at the end of this.  touching the comparing of the condition of a Ministry with Marriage, long since delivered, was also long since answered. Unto which I have not yet received any Reply: not so much as words, which is the most I look for from you at any time.  
Where next you grant, it is Christ's ordinance, to have a true Pastor, to a faithful people: hold you there, M. jacob, and you overthrow at once all your Churches and Ministry. For you neither have proved, neither ever will, that so you have. Begging of the question (though you use it never so often) is nothing but words, not any proof at all.  
After this you come to that clause of your Article, which requireth due administration of the Sacraments according to Christ's ordinance. First mind, that diverse other particulars were related (wherein you fail) besides those you have here mentioned. See them in my 
‡ Before. Pag 15. 16. 17.  former answer. Now if the corruptions of the jews 
* Mal. 1.6.7.8.12.13. Amos. 4.4.5. Esa. 1.12.13.  polluted the table of the Lord and made their oblations to be in vain; yea, if the abuses in Corinth about the Sacrament made that 
‡ 1 Cor. 11.20.  it was not the eating of the Lords supper: what then shall be thought of the heinous abominations of Antichrist retained among you in the Sacraments? Your distinction of simply abolishing is but leaven of your own, borrowed from your Prelates, and by them from the Papists. We plainly affirm that your abuses and corruptions are such, as the Sacraments among you are not duly administered according to Christ's ordinance; and that it cannot be showed by the word of God that they seal up God's covenant of grace to your Church and the members thereof in that estate. Now see that (according to your promise) you refute this. And prove that notwithstanding all your corruptions mentioned, yet Christ acknowledgeth your Sacraments for his: also, that the good things and ordinances of Christ wanting among you, are not of necessity requisite. In the mean time know, that none can partake in the administration of your Sacraments, but they must needs withal partake in your sins before rehearsed. Which the Lord hath most straightly forbidden: Rev. 18.4. and 14.9.10.11. Exod. 20.4.5. Psal. 119.21. Mal. 1.7.8.13.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. Amos. 4.4.5. and 5.5. Ephes. 5.11.  
The particulars of your Article, you say, you omitted for brevities sake. Let others believe you that will: for mine own part, I neither do nor can believe it. You have here taken pains to write an whole book, and in it a multitude of words to no purpose. Is it likely then, that for brevity sake you would omit the most special points of the Article, which may be written in a line or two at the most? Nay M. jacob, these clauses (of faithful men; duly; according to Christ's ordinance) are so full and pregnant against you, as you thouht it no wisdom to mention them at all: but rather in silence to bury them under some general term, or (as yourself speak) to comprehend them in a general clause. This in deed was the best way to darken the truth and help yourself, if any way you could. But any that mind your manner of dealing may easily see, that if these clauses had made but a tenth part so much for you, as they are fully against you: than you would have been so far from omitting them, as we should have had them noted down in greater letters than the rest.  
For your Article itself, if the meaning of it were to comprehend those points in your general clause: why then did it so particularly mention them beside? Were the framers of your Article so ignorant or careless (think you) as in a brief description of such a weighty matter, they would commit so many vain and needles tantologies? Nay rather they judged all these particulars absolutely needful: specially, that Christ's ordinance be had and observed, and that also in all things of necessity requisite. How say you, is not this the meaning of the Article? How fond then and how unconscionably have you abused not only your pen and tongue, but even your Church and book of Articles, whereon you seem for to rely? How just cause also have I then still to demand, where and what your proofs be, touching the particulars of your own description of a visible Church?  
Your parable of a Landlord and a Tenant, besides that it is popish and against yourselves (as hath been showed) it is also false. You have not had possession time out of mind, as you pretend. It is but yesterday since this your Samaritane and misceline religion began, viz; since King Henry the eight. Now also Christ the King and Lord of his Church doth by his servants lay claim to his own right, and disclaimeth your false worship and ministery. So your own saying is against yourself, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, No time doth prejudice the King. If you plead your right by any more ancient date, as from Christ and his Apostles, the evidence may soon be showed from their writings. If you do it not, all men of wisdom will not only condemn your folly, who take upon you the defence of so bad a cause, but will also perceive the impiety of your Church's estate, for which no warrant can be showed from Apostolic writ.  
For our going out from among you, when before we had held part of possession with you, I brought warrant from the word of God: which you touch not at all.  
That it lieth upon you, yea and that yourself have taken it upon you, to approve your Hierarchy, liturgy, confusion of people etc. appeareth not only by the title of your book, which is called A defence of the Churches and Ministry of England: but by reason also that you began the first Argument and continue to reply. Whereupon you are bound to prove what is denied or in this case put unto you to be proved. We then in answer to your Argument noting the falsehood of your Hierarchy, worship, etc. it is your part now to approve them by the word of God, or to convince that they abolish not your constitution from being Christ's. If you cannot do this, confess it, and give glory to God. That your case is thus, hath been often showed by us, both in other writings and in these answers to yourself. And of this point there will be occasion afterward to speak again.  
Touching the impudent untruth wherewith you were charged, first you said, yourselves see not wherein you fail, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things necessary. I alleged your own men, as witnesses to convince you therein, The Admonition, T. C. his replies, the Demonstration, etc. Now you answer that none of all these do grant any thing to be wanting with you 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. By which bold assertion of yours, you both prove and persist in the impudent untruth laid to your charge. For hearken now, and you shall hear themselves testify thus much.  
The first Admonition in the Preface sayeth thus, In a few words to speak what we mean, Either must we have a right Ministry of God, 
Admonition to the Parliam. first and second.  and a right government of his Church according to the Scriptures set up (both which we lack) or else there can be no right Religion, nor yet for contempt thereof can God's plagues be from us any while differred. And again in the treatise itself are these words, We in England are not yet come to the outward face of a Church agreeable to God's word. Or as it is written in the margin of diverse of those books, we are scarce come to the outward face of a Church etc. Take which of these you please: the best is bad enough.  
Touching the ministery in particular, the same book and men say thus, We have an Antichristian Hierarchy and a popish ordering of Ministers strange from the word of God and the use of all well reformed Churches in the world. And further, Although some truth be taught by some Preachers, yet no Preacher may without danger of the Laws, utter all the truth comprised in the book of God.  
Then touching the Sacraments, thus they writ, The Sacraments are wickedly mangled and profaned. Also, In the primitive Churches they administered the Sacrament simply as they received it from the Lord, we sinfully mixed with man's inventions and devises. Yea they charge the Prelates, that they do superstitiously and wickedly institute a new Sacrament (which is proper to Christ only) marking the child in the forehead with a Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ.  
And of your book of common prayer, according to which your Sacraments and other divine service is administered, thus also they writ, we must needs say that this book is an unperfit book, culled and picked out of the Popish dunghill the Mass book, full of all abominations.  
To conclude withal, thus they testify concerning these things controverted between them and the Prelates, Neither is the controversy betwixt them and us as they would bear the world in hand, for a cap a tippet or a surplus, but for greater matters concerning a true Ministry and Regiment of the Church according to the word. Which things once established, the other melt away of themselves. Being (once established) say they. Therefore yet they did not account they had them. And whereof speak they? All may see, of a true Ministry and Regiment of the Church.  
Now speak yourself, Mr. jacob. Do not these men testify to your face, that you have avouched a bold and impudent untruth, wilfully striving against the clear light? Yet I have cited but a few, and those only out of the Admonitions to the Parliament. Out of which and the rest of their writings I might allege a thousand more, to convince you herein. But that would be too tedious. And these (I doubt not) will clear the point, and suffice any that are indifferent and godly minded. For your self, I say no more but wish you had not verified the Orators saying, He that once passeth the bounds of modesty, becomes impudent out of measure. Hitherto of the first Exception.   

Chap. 5. The second Exception against Mr. jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fran. johnson. SEcondly, tell us whether you hold and 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 you do, then show us how your practice agreeth with this profession.  
H. jacob his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. TO this second Exception That Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King, I answer: The Book of Articles, our Ministers now, and Congregations generally, do hold and profess the same (our practice 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 & 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 Messias Christ jesus, of justification, of Sanctification, of the Resurrection etc. Wherein standeth the 
† 1 Cor. 3.12.13.  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 and counted Christ's own also, although particularly devised and appointed by the Church, whom Christ hath authorized thereunto, even as it shall be 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 diverse 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 practice 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 fundamental.  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. 1●.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. Io. his Answer to M. jacobs' 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. IN this Exception we demanded first, if you held jesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinance only and in no other; then, how your practice agreeth with this profession. One would have thought it had been needful (if you could) to have cleared this point by the Scriptures, and from thence to have proved your Ministry, worship, Church government, etc. (which are called in question) to be no other than the Lord jesus Christ, that Prophet, Priest and King of his Church hath in his Testament given and appointed thereunto. But this you have not done. And let the Reader note it. But what then do you say?  
First you tell us, That touching this point, your profession and practise now is so as before time it was with M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and their Congregations. But what of this? Can the persons or age of these whom you name, 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 champion of Christ) and others also of the Martyrs in former times, say and hear Mass, even to their dying day, 
See their histories in the Acts and Monuments  not seeing the abominations thereof? And did not diverse of them acknowledge, some the Pope's calling and Supremacy, some 7 Sacraments, some Purgatory, some Auricular confession, & such like grievous errors? And yet notwithstanding died constantly for the truths they saw, some for one, and some for another, as God made manifest unto them. But may we now therefore 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 you bear us in hand.  
Furthermore tell us, if M. Latimer and others did not forsake the Prelacy and functions they had before time received? And Master Ridley at his death repent that he had been so earnest for the remnants of Popery in his time retained? Besides, who knoweth not that when M. 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 Ministry now pleaded for? And not that only, but were 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 unto death in the truth 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 whatsoever truth God revealeth unto us by his word? And that otherwise those holy Martyrs shall 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 
“ Psal. 119.105.128. Gal. 1.8.9. & 6.16. Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18.19.20.  his word to be the light of our feet, and rule of our lives and religion: What mean you to lead us from it, to the aberrations of any men whatsoever? Should not 
‡ Esa. 8.19.  all people inquire at God, or would you have us go from the living to the dead? From God and his word, to men and their errors? This doubtless is that whereunto you would bring us, and whereby you misled your favourites: as will yet further appear by that which followeth. For what say you next?  
Secondly, you tell us, and 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 you) are written; The second touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward government and ceremonies: These (you say) are not written, but arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Thus (you say) you hold and practise, and think no Scripture is against it.  
For answer hereof, First we ask what Scripture you have for it?  
Secondly, we allege against it, these Scriptures, and the like. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5. etc. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. etc. & 6. chap. & 14.23. & 15. chap. & 19.9. & 20.7.17.28. Rom. 12.6.7.8. Ephe. 4.11.12. 1 Thes. 5.12.13.14. Phil. 1.1.5. Heb. 3.1.2.3. & 13.17. jam. 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1.2.3.4. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. & ●. & 11. & 12. & 14. Chap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6.1.6. 2 Thes. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18.15.16.17. & 28.18.19.20.  
Thirdly let it be observed, that yourself here grant and cannot deny, but all the outward government and ceremonies of your 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 to at all.  
Fourthly, see how near you are driven that are glad to run back into the Papists tents, where yet you know there is no succour. Before you pleaded possession time out of mind: now you 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 you should plead to be true Christians, and yet thus openly take part with Antichrist? What shall we say to these things? Surely God is just and will verify his word, That they which receive not the love of the truth, 
2 Thes. 2.10.11.12.  that they may be saved, he will send them strong delusion, to believe lies, that they may be damned.  
Fifthly, you make the ordinances touching outward government and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither written at all. This is very strange divinity: And thus I show it. It is an ordinance not only concerning the inward, but also the outward government of the Church, that Christ is Lord and King thereof: Is it 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 excommunication 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, shall with you be no matters of faith at all.  
Yet here you 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, not written nor certain etc. Whereupon it followeth, that it is not certain nor taught in the Scriptures, but arbitrary at the Churches and Magistrates pleasure: Whether Christ, or the Pope of Rome, or Canterbury, be head and Archbishop of the Church of God? 2. Whether Iewes only of the Tribe of Levi, may now minister the holy things of God in his Church? 3. Whether Christ hath given any gifts, and set any Offices in his Church for the Ministry and guidance thereof: 4. Whether prayer must be in a known or unknown tongue: 5. Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and honoured: 6. Whether the Church may excomunitate: 7. Whether the Popes or any other Prelate's excommunication be to be regarded: 8. Whether there be two, or three, or seven Sacraments: 9 Whether the Passeover, Circumcision and other Ceremonies and Sacrifices of the Law, be now to be used: 10. Whether the Heathenish sacrifices and worship be to be joined withal: 11. Whether cream, oil, salt, spittle, crossing and conjuring, may be used in Baptism: 12. Whether the bread only and not the cup, is to be given to the lay people (as you call them) 13. Whether holy water, holy ashes, holy palms and such like, be of the holy things of the Church: 14. Whether the jewish and the Popish Vestments, 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 your Divinity, these and infinite such like, are unwritten and uncertain, but left only to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrate.  
Yea if it please you, the Princes and civil Magistrates may themselves be the public Ministers of the word, Sacraments, and Censures of the Church: 2. Any that will may without a calling take upon him to be a publque Officer in the Church: 3. Women may baptize, or administer the Lords supper: 4. The jewish, Romish, or Heathenish Priesthood may be retained: 5. Auricular confession may be used: 6. The Keys of the kingdom of heaven may be appropriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Prelate of Canterbury, or any other whomsoever: 7. The Prelates and their Officials excommunications do bind in heaven: 8. The Apocryphal books and Decretal epistles are Canonical scriptures: 9 The Pope's Portuis and the English book of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawful worship of God: 10. The Prelates and Priests are the true and lawful Ministers of God: 11. Orders, Penance, Extreme unction, Matrimony, etc. are the Sacraments of the Church: 12. Surplus, Cope, Cap., Tippet, Rotchet, etc. are ornaments of the Ministry. 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 (you say) Christ hath left no ordinances written, certain, not perpetual, but left them at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Is not this strange Divinity?  
Yet you stay not here neither, but as men that have bend their tongues like bows for lies, you fear not to add further, that when the Church and Magistrate appointeth any ordinances (whether these or any other) touching the outward government and ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them Christ's own, 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 you and your Assemblies thus holding, professing and practising (as here yourself affirm) cannot in this estate by the word of God, be deemed true Christians and Churches?  
Sixtly, you do yet further seek shifts and would colour the matter, by pretending That the things which concern outward government and ceremonies, are not of the foundation simply. But this will help you 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, nor certain, nor perpetual (as here by you is affirmed) it will follow that neither the whole foundation is written, certain, or perpetual, neither the Apostles were faithful and skilful master builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this word (simply) added, as if you granted they were of the foundation, though not simply.  
Secondly we 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: or rather more, inasmuch as 
* Heb. 3.2.3.  Christ the Son is worthy of more glory and honour then Moses the servant.  
Thirdly we ask, what fundamental points Moses and Aaron with the rest of the jews joining with them held, that 
‡ Num. 16. chap.  Corach, Dathan, Abiram, and their companions held not: differing from them and erring only touching the Priesthood and Ministry, which concerned the outward orders and government of the Church. Was therefore Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their company in that estate the true Israel 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, 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 serve to convince your untrue assertions in this place. To that of Master Cranmer, Ridley, etc. is answered before.  
For conclusion I add concerning this point, That all such assemblies and people, as hold profess and practise (as doth the Church of England) these abominations following: can not by the word of God, be esteemed in such estate truly to hold Christ, their Prophet, Priest & King: viz. 1. The confusion of all sorts of people (though never so wicked) and their seed in the body of the Church: 2. The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then jesus Christ: also of Archdeacon's, Priests, half Priests, Parsons, Vicars, etc. 3. The entrance into the Ministry by another way, and other Lords, than jesus Christ: 4. The executing of it under these strange Lords, and leaving it at their pleasure: 5. The preaching of the word, administration of the Sacraments, and governing of the Church, by virtue of the offices and callings aforesaid, and according to the Popish Canons and constitutions: 6. The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their officials: 7. The confounding of Civil and Ecclesiastical offices and authority in the Ministers of the Church: 8. The forbidding of Marriage at certain seasons: 9 The imposing and using of stinted devised liturgies: The English Portuis, taken out of the Pope's Latin one, 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, Persicles, Respondes, etc. 10. Appointing holy days to all Saints and Angels, to the Virgin Mary, john Baptist, Mark, Luke, and twelve Apostles severally: 11. together with Fasts on the Evens and on Ember days, Fridays, saturdays, and Lent: 12. Prescribing the Ministers to pray over the dead, over the Corn and Grass at some season of the year, and over Women at their Churching or purification: 13. Enjoining them to marry with the King, which they make a sacramental sign: 14. And to baptize with the sign of the Cross; with Godfathers and Godmothers; with questions demanded of the infant that cannot speak nor understand: 15. Giving power to Women to baptize: 16. And ordaining that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they received their maker; and with change of the words of 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, bamnishmen, and such like. The Assemblies and people (I say) which hold profess and practise (as doth this Church of England) the abominations aforesaid (concerning the outward order and government of the Church) whatsoever truths they hold beside, yet can they not by the word of God be deemed truly to hold the Lord jesus, their Prophet, Priest & 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. And this is all the question between us.  
7. Lastly, let the godly and indifferent Reader judge, whether it will not follow upon your answer in this place: First, that the Scriptures are not sufficient for the building up and guidance of the Church here on earth. Which is contrary to 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1 Cor, 4.6. Rev. 22.18.19.  
Secondly, that the man of God can not by the Scriptures be made absolute and fully furnished to every good work. Which is contrary to 2 Tim. 3.17. 1 Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Psal. 119.105.113.  
Thirdly, that 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. Which is contrary to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1.2.3. Esay. 33.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. Rom. 12.3.4.5.6.7.8. Mat. 28.20. 1 Tim. 6.13.14.15.  
Finally, that the 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. (Which is contrary to 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. Psa. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Rev. 9.1.2.3. & 14.9: 11.)  
O shameless impiety. This doubtless is that strange passion and mere desperatenes, wherewith you do hereafter unjustly charge us: which we will not here prosecute as it deserveth: but exhort you only to take heed lest that woe come upon you 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. Wo unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight. Esay. 5.20.21.  
H. jacob his 2 Reply to the 2. Excep. 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 out Prophet, Priest and King, & if we profess to obey him in his ordinances & in no other. I answered we do constantly profess so, & as we profess so we practise. But to make our profession and practice in this point more manifest, I noted how our state 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 and 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-governement, 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 and Prophet nevertheless. Whosoever doth urge upon our Churches further, or on my words; doth slander and cavil, and maliciously deprave them and nothing else.  
Secondly, note in my explication, that I justify not this opinion of our state, 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, Tailor, 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 and 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, & 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 and 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 than were 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 other 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 & in the supremacy, which might nevertheless stand with Christ crucified, And so they might be and 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. 29.  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 Ministry, and never repent him of it. Philpot never misliked his Archdeaconry: Yea when he refused bloody Bonner, yet 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 32. 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 jew outward orders of the very foundation, without which they could not be saved. Thirdly you ask how Corah &c. differing from Moses and Aaron only about the Priesthood and Ministry, were separated from, and damned. I annswer, 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 Exception pa. 29. That I and others of my mind, go about to justify these matters of order in controversy, by Cranmer, Ridleys' 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. Auns. to your first Reason.  another place.  
Then in your first answer, Pag 30. How vainly do you ask us for Scriptures to prove these 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 & 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, write 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  answered in the first point of my explication noted before pag 35. To your sixth in pag 32. we answered before in the Second point of my explication pag 35.  
Your seventh in pag 34. is also against the state of our Church, and not against me.  
Fr: Io. his Answer to M. jacobs' 2. Reply to the 2. Excep. Pity not me, but pity yourself (Mr. jacob) and your Church's estate. Yourself, who are miserably weak, and yet foolishly wilful: as all may see by this Reply. Your Church's estate, which is such, as by the word of God cannot be approved to have Christ your Prophet, Priest, and King  
Therefore still you tell us, your Church holdeth Christ to have left written what is needful for your inward and mere spiritual belief and obedience: but that for the outward Church-order, he hath not so done, but left it arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated again at the liking of the Church and Magistrate. As if Christ had abolished the 
* Exod. 20.4.5.6.  second commandment, which directly concerneth the outward worship and order of the Church, as the 
‡ Exod. 20.3.  first doth our inward and spiritual belief. Or as if the Scripture did not every where teach that 
“ Col. 2. 3.5.8.19-23. Esa. 33.22. Heb. 3.1.2.3. 2 Ioh ver. 9 Epist. to Timoth. Tit. Cor. etc.  he hath fully furnished the Church, not only for inward faith; but also for outward order and obedience. Either therefore you must approve the outward order and worship of your Church to be ordained by Christ in his word: or else you have not him for your Prophet, Priest, and King, in that estate. Choose which you will.  
The liberty you speak of, is nothing else but a cloak of licentiousness, or in deed mere Antichristian slavery, howsoever you account it liberty. That the word of God forbiddeth it, I have showed both here and in my 
* Pag. 30  former answer, against which you can say nothing. Now therefore when this will not serve the turn, you begin to comment and make notes upon your own explication, that is, to seek new shifts and evasions. Which yet are to no purpose at all, except against yourself and your Church.  
For the first, you say it is foul wrong to your Churches and to your words, to say, That they mean no outward orders at all be matters of faith or constant in the Scriptures. If it be any wrong, it is done by yourself. Are not these your own words, touching your Church's opinion in your 
‡ Pag. 28.  former Reply, 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 etc. the second touching outward orders in the Church, which are truly accounted Christ's own, though particularly devised by the Church: such we hold all outward government and ceremonies, because they be not simply of the foundation, neither written, nor certain, nor perpetual etc. How say you to these words, All outward government and ceremonies? Are they not your own? And is it not your Church's opinion, by your own saying? Have I then gathered or written otherwise, than yourself affirm your Church holdeth? If I have, then lay your words and mine together, and let them speak for both. If not, let the Reader judge whether you have not done me foul wrong, and (if there be any to your CHVR●ch) whether yourself have not committed it. Quit yourself of it, as well as you can.  
Besides, you forget yourself wondrously, and speak things contradictory. For now speaking of your Church's opinion and your own words, you say, 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. Yet before you told us your Church holdeth all outward government, ceremonies, orders to be unwritten, uncertain, not perpetual, but arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated again at the liking of the Church and Magistrate. Either there fore to preach, to pray, to administer Sacraments etc. are not outward, neither concerning the government, ceremonies, nor orders of the Church: or else without question you 
‡ Mendatem oportet esse memo●em.  forget yourself strangely, and speak daggers, which run into your own bowels.  
But to take that which now the evidence of the truth hath wrung from you: seeing to preach, to pray, to administer Sacraments, though external, yet are perpetual necessary and unchangeable by the Scriptures, you must either from the Scriptures show that you have these according to Christ's ordinance, or else yield that your practice is contrary to the professing of Christ for your Prophet Priest and King, to be obeyed in his own ordinance only and no other: And consequently that the Assumption of your main Reason is false. Which is to yield the cause.  
And mind withal, that 
* Eph. 4.11. and 6.18. Rom. 12.7.8. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. c. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5.17.8.6.13.14. Mat. 2●. 19.20. 1 Pet. 5. 14. Heb. 3.1.2.3  Christ's ordinance is not only for these things to be done, but for the offices wherein, and the manner whereby they are to be performed. If you will not believe me nor the Scriptures alleged, yet hear your own men what they teach in this point. Mr. Cartwright saith, 
“ T. C. first, Rep. pag. 83  God hath not only ordained that the word should be preached, but hath ordained also in what order and by whom it should be preached. And again speaking of the jews Church he saith, as it was not lawful to bring in any strange doctrine: so was it not lawful to teach the true doctrine under the name of any other function than was instituted by God.  
The Admonitions, Counterpoison, Demonstration, and many other your writings affirm the same both for preaching and Sacraments and other points of the outward order and government of the Church. And now I remember myself, yourself have confessed it 
‡ Pag. 19  before in plain terms, when you grant it is Christ's ordinance to have a true Pastor to a faithful people: and would have us believe that it is false to say, you preach in strange functions, or have not the Sacraments duly ministered, etc. I hope therefore in your next we shall have proof, not that you have Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments (which we know the Papists also and Anabaptists have) but that you have them in those offices, and after that manner, which Christ hath ordained.  
Now where you say, your express words and Churches meaning is that Any reasonable kind of Church government, rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures: And yet still Christ to be your only and absolute King & Prophet nevertheless. For answer hereof, besides that already brought, I will say no more to this Popish assertion but only infer hereupon as followeth:  
But the Church-governement, rites, and orders which Christ in his Ttestament hath ordained unchangeably, are a reasonable kind of Church-governement, rites, and orders:  
Therefore these so unchangeably ordained by Christ, yet (by your own express words and your Church's meaning) are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures. And yet (forsooth) Christ is still your only and absolute King and Prophet nevertheless. Let us now see Mr. jacob, what answer you will make hereunto, without slandering, cavilling, and malicious depraving.  
The second note in your explication is, that you say, you justify not the aforesaid opinion of your State. But how then do your book and the title of it agree? Nay how do yourself and that title agree, when you will not defend that which is the very point of the controversy between your Churches and us? Was there ever a more absurd defence heard of? But now leaving your Church in the briars, yet speak for yourself. How do you Mr. jacob hold Christ your Prophet Priest and King, when seeing your Church to err in so many and so weighty points, and that so as you can not justify: yet you have not all this time admonished them, and by due order either brought them to repentance, or left them as obstinate in sin and wilfully disobeying the voice of Christ?  
Where you say, that thus to believe and practise (as your Church doth) simply, destroyeth no man's salvation in Christ: you take that for granted, which you should prove. Besides that the Papists, Anabaptists, and others may say as much for other outward things among them. Yea no doubt but jeroboam himself and his Priests and people said likewise, that for jerusalem to be the place, and the sons of Aaron the Priests and such like, these were outward things, and not to observe them or to believe otherwise then judah did concerning them, simply, destroyed no man's salvation in Christ. Was this therefore a sound defence of their apostasy? Or might any under such pretence have continued and joined with them therein?  
Of your second general point, and so of Mr. Cranmer Ridley, etc. I have spoken before. But now because you bid me speak out what difference I put between your Churches and the Martyrs, as also between you and myself holding these things of late with you: hearken, and I will tell you again. First for the Martyrs in former times, mark these differences.  

Differences between the Martyrs and Church of Engl.  1. Greater light of the truth is now come into the world, than was in those days: but you love darkness rather than light. For still you walk in darkness. joh. 3.19. Ephes. 5.11.  
2. They witnessed against the abominations of Antichrist (then called in question) to the loss of their liberty and lives: Your Church doth not so against the remnants of Popery (now controverted) but do either openly defend them, or fearfully submit unto them.  
3. They consisted not of swarms of Atheists, adulterers, drunkards and all sorts of people good and bad, even known wicked ones, mixed together in one body: as your Church doth.  
4. Such of them as were Ministers were degraded from their Antichristian functions: so are not yours.  
5. They died not members of antichrist's Church, nor for any error they held, but for the truth: You still remain members of Antichistian Churches, both withstanding the truth and maintaining errors.  
6. They were and died members of a true visible Church (viz that persecuted Church in Queen Mary's days) which was separated from the rest of the Land as from the world, and joined together in fellowship of the Gospel by voluntary submission thereunto: though in that time of ignorance they had their wants and errors. You continue members of a false constituted Church, unseparated from the world, yielding subjection to Antichristian enormities, against the ordinances of jesus Christ.  
7. They refused not the truth offered, neither resisted those that did justly reprove their errors: but your Church doth both, as appeareth by your continual practice, and by the books and Acts of Parliament made openly and with authority against us for witnessing the truth.  
8. Your Prelates, Priests, and people (that is, your Churches) in your estate, are no Martyrs, but children of them which killed the Martyrs, and do at this day fill up the measure of your forefathers, persecuting to death such as have the testimony of jesus. This did not the Martyrs.  
Are not you then the men that white the tombs of the Martyrs which were in former times: and yet yourselves imprison, banish, and kill the witnesses of jesus that are among you at this day? Take heed you hearden not your hearts, but tremble at your fearful estate, and please not yourselves in unrighteousness (by the error of any) neither bless yourselves still in iniquity. Hitherto of the difference between the Martyrs and your Churches.  
Now for myself, I confess (as I did 
* Pag. 8.  before of the Martyrs) that whiles I was Minister and member of your Church in that constitution, I stood in Antichristian estate. Yet doubt I not, but even then, being of the elect of God, I was partaker through faith of the mercy of God in Christ to salvation. And this I hope is the case of diverse among you. But for myself, I have now the more assurance, in that God hath both drawn me out of that Antichristian estate, giving me to see and to forsake it, and hath planted me in his true Church and household giving me to receive his truth in much affliction with joy of the holy Ghost. 1 Thes. 1.6.  
But as for you in your estate, besides that yet you are not members of any true visible Church, you do moreover abide in gross confusion, false Ministry, Antichristian worship, and other abominations, by the word of God already discovered. Now whiles you thus remain, you cannot in that estate approve yourselves to have the promise of salvation, whereof by the word of God you can be assured, until you depart out 
† Rev. 18.4.5 Act. 2.40.47. Micah. 2.10. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Ephe. 2.12.19.  of that Babylon, and save yourselves from that froward generation: being also by the Lord added to his true Church. Which mercy I hope God daily doth and will vouchsafe many among you, belonging to his election.  
Thus you see, how notwithstanding any thing we either do or can acknowledge touching the Martyrs or ourselves heretofore, yet still we affirm and prove your estate to be Antichristian. So far are we from granting your Assumption, as here you fancy with yourself.  
Your vain questions, Whether your whole assemblies; all and every of your assemblies? err of wilfulness and of a convicted conscience? whether we know the heart and conscience of men, etc. How fond and frivolous are they? All of you err by your own grant. Whether any of you do it with a convicted conscience, let God judge who knoweth the heart. Yourself it seemeth deny not this to be the case of some among you. Howsoever, seeing you confess that you err, why do you and the rest being so persuaded still abide in error? Is it because you 
† joh. 3.19.  love darkness more than light? Or because 
‡ Act. 28.26 27.  when you see, yet you wink with your eyes, lest you should convert to the Lord, and be healed? If you would not leave such as you imagine see it not: how will you ever know whether they that refuse, do see it, or not? And why have you not all this time made it known to them, and done what lieth in you to draw them from error? Or having done it, and finding them obstinate in evil, yea persecutors of the truth revealed: why have you not (after the 
‡ Act. 2.40.41. & 13.45.46.51. & 18.6. and 19.9. & 28.24. etc.  example of the Apostles) separated from such and taught others to do the like? Above all, why plead you for their estate to be good, warrantable, in the way of salvation, notwithstanding their errors and abominations? Is not this to daub with untempered mortar? Is it not to prophesy peace to the wicked, and to promise them life? to sow pillows under their elbows, and to strengthen their hands in evil, that they should not return from their wicked way? jer. 23.16.17. Ezech. 13. Chap. Mal. 2.17.  
Where you say, if we knew some convicted in conscience, yet it serveth not our turn, unless all be so convicted: sure you mind not what you speak. Did Christ ever give such a rule to his Church? Or should there ever be Church separated from the world, if this course were kept? Besides, what mean you by all being convicted? Whether all in a house, or all in a town, or all in a kingdom, or all in the world? Whether all of echser, men and women; of all ages, young and old; of all estates, hy and low, rich and poor, bond and free, etc. What also by being convicted? Whether when sufficient is showed to convince men, though they see it not? or when they see it, yet acknowledge it not? or when they see and acknowledge it, yet notwithstanding persist in their former estate? or if unto all these they add the persecuting also of such as do convince them?  
Now when you have showed, how yourself understand, and how we are to walk in these, according to the Scriptures, from point to point: then apply hereunto your example of Christ here alleged, and see if you do not abuse it. Mind withal, that if you say, Christ knew this as he was God, you speak nothing to the question, which is how men must walk toward men. If you say, he knew it as he was man, then must you prove, 1. that these jews were convicted in conscience that he was the Christ, and yet denied and blasphemed him: 2. that Christ knew this as he was man: 3. that still he joined in spiritual communion with them thus convicted: 4. that the estate of your Ministers and people is such as theirs was then, as touching a true ministery and constitution of the Church: 5. that the same rules and proceeding is to be used toward your Church and members thereof (afore they can be separated from) that was to be used toward that Church and People at that time.  
Mind also, that the Apostles preaching to the jews, though they knew not who were convicted in conscience, who not: yet 
* Act. 2. et 13. et 17. et 18. et 19 chap  upon their refusal of the truth offered, did separate from all where they were. And so Christ before had required them to do. Mat. 10.14.  
Finally mind, that men's consciences are blind, ignorant, corrupt, and the heart of man deceitful and wicked above all things. Who can know it, but the Lord only which searcheth the heart and trieth the reins, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his works? jer. 17.9.10.  
It is erroneous therefore (to hold as you do) that we may not separate, till we know all to be convicted in their conscience. If this were to be done, than neither separation from any people, neither any true Churches should ever be upon the earth: because such conviction can never be either known of men, or had in the world. It doth and must suffice us, that the truth on the one hand, and the errors on the other be made known and convicted, that is, be laid open and proved from the word of God, by the testimony of his servants: and that we see men by words or works refuse the truth and embrace error, and so judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life.  
Thus for your Churches (M. jacob) it sufficeth us, that in your Hierarchy, liturgy, and confusion of people, they be proved the daughters of Babylon that mother of whoredoms. Out of which God hath 
† Rev. 18.4. & 17.5. we Ezec. 16.44.  charged all his people (without exception or delay) presently for to departed. If you or any other will not obey this commandment of God, but will still partake in the sins of your worship and Ministry: what is it to us? We must follow Christ, 
* Heb. 5.9.  who is made author of salvation to such only as obey him. Neither may we 
† jer. 15.19.  return unto you, but we must wait till God bring you to us, and make you partakers of the same grace in Christ.  
Of your third general point (here idly mentioned and absurdly gathered) I have spoken before. Pag. 8.  
Next instead of answering, you fall a marveling: because I say, Mr. Hus and other of the holy Martyrs did hear and say Mass to their dying day, and some of them also acknowledge the Pope's supremacy. But why do you not also marvel, that I said diverse of them acknowledged, some the Pope's calling, some 7 Sacraments, some Purgatory, some Auricular confession, and such like grievous errors? For these I joined with the other, and of them you speak not a word. Belike you think they may stand with the Gospel well enough: and if your Church had retained or now should resume them again, you would judge of them as of the other corruptions remaining among you.  
Yet mind withal, 1. that thus you make a way for more popish enormities to be maintained and to prevail apace in your Church, as 
“ How say you to those Popish doctrines now spreading among you, of Christ's soul descending into Hel. of free-will etc.  beginneth already very fast. 2. And that you can no better nor otherwise defend your present Church-estate, than you could, if it also retained seven Sacraments, Purgatory, Auricular confession, etc. Let the Reader observe this. And beware you in time, lest a woe come upon you for such halting and pleading for Baal.  
Now for your marveling at me for saying thus of Mr. Hus and other the Martyrs: I ask you, Saith not the book of Acts and Monuments the same? yea, say not the Martyrs thus much of themselves? Why do you not then marvel also at them? For these particulars it were needles to go through all the history of the Martyrs: specially seeing they are so plainly noted in their stories, and every where among you the books are in your hands. Yet because Mr. Hus is here spoken of by name, and you are not far from rasing him out of the number of the Martyrs: I will first note some particulars concerning him, and then clear him and the rest from your rash condemnation.  
In the history of the Martyrs before mentioned, we find that john Hus unto his death held, 1. 
† Act. and Monu. edit. 5. pag. 561.  seven Sacraments; 2. 
‡ Ibid. pag. 581. a. 584. b  the Pope's office, and the authority of the Church of Rome; 3. 
“ Ibid. p. 566 b. et 574.  Auricular confession to Priests, and was himself (a little before his death) confessed and absolved by a Monk; 4. 
* Ibid. p. 577 a. et 581. a.  said Mass himself; 5. 
† Ibid. p. 546  held that the substance of the bread was altered into the body of Christ, and that Christ's body which was borne of the virgin Mary, is really and totally in the Sacrament of the Altar; with other the like popish opinions. Now you (Mr. jacob) stick not upon some of these to infer, that then surely neither Hus nor any of the rest that so held and did, were holy Martyrs. Your reason is, because therein are found errors plainly fundamental which of themselves abolish from Christ. Among which no doubt but you reckon the Mass and transubstantiation specially.  
Thus have you clean put out Master Hus and other the servants of Christ (faithful in that which they saw) from being any longer in the Catalogue of the Martyrs, or accounted true Christians. May I not then justly return upon yourself your own saying, Is this you that white the tombs of the Martyrs, and yet in fine condemn them for no true Christians, for no holy Martyrs?  
But you say, the book of Acts and Monuments whither I send you, affirmeth, not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort. Let the book itself speak for us both. In the end of john Hus his story, thus it saith, 
* Act and Mon. edi●. 5. p. 581. ●  He neither denied their popish transubstantion; neither spoke against the authority of the Church of Rome, if it were well governed; nor yet the 7. Sacraments; and also said Mass himself; and almost in all their popish opinions was a Papist with them. Thus hath that book, word for word. What say you now unto it? What think you of these particulars? and of that conclusion, that not only in these but almost in all their opinions He was a Papist with them?  
Again in the same book, Hierom of prague (another Martyr) speaking of john Hus saith, 
‡ Ibid. pag. 584. b.  he never maintained any doctrine against the Church of Rome, but only spoke against their naughty life. To which purpose may be minded also, that the Hussites in Bohemia (so called to this day for following john Hus) are for trausubstantiation and most of the popish errors and worship, as gross as the Papists themselves.  
And (to give an instance of our own countrymen) the same history speaking of Thomas Bilney who was burnt at Norwich, hath thus, 
* Ibid. pa. 921. b.  As touching the Mass and Sacrament of the Altar, as he never varied from himself, so he never differed therein from the most grossest Catholics. Mark these words, he differed not therein from the most grossest. How now will this and your speech agree, who blush not to say, that the book of Acts and Monuments affirmeth not that they held these errors in the largest and grossest sort?  
Besides this bold untruth of yours, let the Reader mind, how plainly you insinuate, that if your Church had the Mass and the Pope's supremacy, so it were not in the largest and grossest sort, you could defend their case aswell then as you do now, by bearing the world in hand, that these things might stand with Christ crucified, etc. Let the Reader mind and remember it. I say no more.  
It remaineth that now I clear M. Hus and the rest of the Martyrs from your rash censure. You judge, if any of them held any errors that be fundamental, they are no holy Martyrs, but abolished from Christ. This I deny. And you to prove it, should from the Scriptures have showed first, what it is to be fundamental or of the foundation: then, that whosoever holdeth such error is abolished from Christ. But you have done neither. I know that here and every where you give us your bare word, and obtrude unto us your own fancies. But your words are no Oracles, nor your fancies rules for any to follow. Handle these things therefore more sound in your next. And what you speak, speak it from the word of God. In the mean time for better clearing of the truth and Martyrs, I will show you my mind: being ready notwithstanding to hear any that can show better from the word of God. And so I pray you take this and all my writings.  
First, the word foundation is used in the scripture, and therefore is of us to be considered diverse ways. One is, in respect of God and his election; 
Of the foundation, and fundamental points.  or of his Church and people called and sanctified in Christ. 2. Tim. 2.19. Psal. 87. Pro. 10.25. Another is, in respect of the only ground of all true faith and Churches, which is jesus Christ; or of the first principles and special heads of Christian religion. Mat. 16.15.16.17.18. 1 Cor. 3.11. Esa. 26.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. with Heb. 6.1.2. A third is, in respect of the Apostles and Prophet's doctrine concerning Christ; or of our receiving it and building thereupon. Ephes. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. 1 Cor. 3. 10-15. 1 Pet. 2.7.8. Luk. 6.48.49.  
Now which way soever you take it, there is no question but the Martyrs, although they erred (through ignorance of that time) in some weighty points of Christ's Religion (which you call fundamental) yet were notwithstanding holy Martyrs. For touching the first of the exceptions aforesaid, God's foundation remained sure and sealed unto them; so as the Lord knew them to be his, and they also were sanctified both to witness unto death the truth then called in question, and to departed from the contrary iniquity. Touching the second and third, they both believed in jesus Christ, as it pleased God to reveal him in their age by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles; and they built firmly thereupon (not stumbling at the word and disobeying it, as is the manner of most now a days, but) obeying and holding it forth unto death. So as when the storms and floods of persecution beat upon them, they were not shaken from the truth they testified, but remained constant to the end: even when the politic Statutes of Princes; the subtle arguments of the learned; the earnest persuasion of their friends; the great loss of their goods, liberty, estimation in the world; finally the most cruel usage and tyranny of the Adversaries; as it were so many waves and tempests, strongly assailed to drive them a contrary course. Thus were they faithful to God, and loved not their lives unto death as their Martyrdom proclaimeth to all the world: howsoever you could be content it seemeth (for any the more advantage to yourselves) to lay their honour in the dust.  
Secondly in this question we are to discern, between the errors themselves, and between the persons that hold them. The errors may in their nature be fundamental (as you speak:) and yet the persons erring therein (of ignorance, not striving against the light revealed, but indevoring to walk faithfully in the truth they see) may through God's mercy in Christ be saved. For example, some of the Corinthians that denied 
* 1 Cor. 15.12  the resurrection of the body, and some of the Galatians that erred about 
“ Gal. 4.9.10.21. & 5.2.3.10. and 6.12.13.15.  Circumcision & the Law, although the errors were in their own nature fundamental (as you will not dame,) yet might they that died in them, before Paul's epistles came to those Churches thereabout, be saved of God: As we 
* 1 Cor. 11.30.31.32.  read that some were dead and chastised of God about their abuse of the Sacrament, yet not condemned with the world.  
Likewise of Abijah the son of jeroboam that made Israel to sin, the 
‡ 1 King. 14.1.13.  Scripture recordeth that God showed him mercy, because in him was found some goodness toward the Lord God of Israel. Where mark those words, some goodness. By which appeareth, that although he were as the rest in that general apostasy of Israel (which yourself account fundamental) yet having some goodness in him towards the Lord, he found mercy at his hands.  
Furthermore at this day, concerning the errors of the Lutherans about consubstantiation and the person of Christ; of the Anabaptists about Christ's humanity, and denying Baptism to the seed of the faithful; of the Papists about transubstantiation, the Pope's supremacy, etc. I suppose that you will grant both that these errors be fundamental (as touching the nature of the errors themselves) and that yet notwithstanding God saveth some Lutherans, Anabaptists, Papists, erring in the points aforesaid.  
If you deny it, let us have a sound answer to that profession of the Papists touching Christ's Mediation, which by themselves is mentioned in their Annotations upon the new Testament: where they profess that they hold 
* Rhem●● Annot. upon 1 Tim. 2.5.  Christ by nature to be truly both God and man, to be that one eternal Priest and Redeemer, which by his sacrifice and death upon the cross hath reconciled us to God and paid his blood as a full and sufficient ransom for all our sins, himself without need of any redemption, never subject to possibility of sinning: again, to be the singular Advocate and Patron of mankind, that by himself alone and by his own merits procureth all grace and mercy to mankind in the sight of his Father, none making any intercession for him, nor giving any grace of force to his prayers but he to all: none ask or obtaining either grace in this life, or glory in the next, but by him. This do even the Papists profess: which you are well to mind. Now though with it they hold diverse fundamental errors (as in that and other their writings may be seen) by which the multitude of them is turned out of the way of truth and salvation: yet doubt I not but by this faith God hath saved some of them (and more at the first creeping in of that Church's apostasy, than since) who in simplicity so believe as is here set down, never hearing of the other opinions to be errors, nor withstanding any truth revealed unto them. Now of the Lutherans and Anabaptists I hope so much the better, as they hold more truths and fewer errors than the Papists.  
But to let those alone, what say you to such of the Fathers of the Greek Church, as held free-will, an error which 
‡ D. Whi●. book pa. 83.  yourselves teach and have published to be fundamental and of itself damnable? Or rather what say you to the Israelites in Egypt, who though they were 
* Exod. 4.22.23.  God's church, yet sinned in points (by your own account) fundamental, even with 
‡ Ezech. 20.6.7.9.  the Idols of Egypt? Will you say, they were all condemned?  
Either therefore we must discern between the errors themselves, what they are in their own nature, being so considered; and between the persons holding them of ignorance and weakness, what mercy God may show them in Christ: or else you will condemn all of every Church wheresoever any fundamental errors have crept in, being through ignorance generally received: and so enwrap the Martyrs in like condemnation with their persecutors. To give instance but of john Hus, it cannot be denied but he and they who martyred him, agreed both in one touching the Mass, transubstantiation etc. Yet was Hus a faithful witness of Christ in the truth he saw, and his adversaries vassals of Antichrist that son of perdition.  
This (I trust) will suffice for the present to clear the Martyrs of that unjust condemnation which you insinuate against them. Now upon this occasion note also, that not only some who err in fundamental points, may be saved, as is proved already: but 
‡ 1 Cor. 6.9.10.  some who err not in any fundamental point (as you take it) yet shall perish notwithstanding. But of this see more hereafter in the handling of the 7. Reason following.  
Further where I said, that when Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, etc. died Martyrs for the truth of Christ, they neither had themselves nor joined in communion with such as had the Prelacy and ministery now pleaded for: You insult greatly, as if I spoke known falsehoods. But stay a while Master jacob: and see if it be not yourself that make no conscience of untruths. First, why 
‡ Pag. 36.  left you out those words of mine, when they died? Did you perceive that these words make the case plain, and witness the truth with me against your assertion? Or know you not that all the Martyrs then, were first excommunicate out of that Church, and (if they were Ministers) degraded also from their ministery, afore they were put to death? Must it not needs then be true which I said, that when they died, they neither had nor joined in communion with such as had the Prelacy and Ministry now pleaded for? Yea, say not the Martyrs themselves and the book of Acts and Monuments as much? To name but one, Laurence Saunders, when the Bishop of London had disgraded him, said unto him, 
‡ Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1301. ●.  I thank God, I am none of your Church. And this was the case of them all, being likewise dealt with, as that book witnesseth.  
Your Exception, that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley stood upon their right to their Bishoprics, is of no weight against that I said. It is not unknown, that men do often stand against the unjust dealing of their adversaries, in such things as notwithstanding they are willing enough to leave. Whether it were so or not with them, God knoweth. Of this I am sure, that where I spoke of their not having, you do in your Reply in steed thereof speak of renouncing. And so you change my speech: Which is not good (though it be your usual) dealing. But yet by this appeareth that you can prove no untruth in my speech, howsoever you pretend and would gladly do it. For if you could, what needed you so alter and pervert the sense of my words? And for myself, if I had meant that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley had renounced (as you pretend) I could have joined them with others in the sentence going before where I spoke of Mr. Latimers' forsaking his Prelacy: which yourself do here confess to be true. Besides, I spoke of the time when they died Martyrs, you of the time before that.  
But now what will you say to Mr. Ridley, who (as the 
* Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1604. a.  story witnesseth) at his degradation being bid to put on the surplus, refused to do it: and when they did put it upon him with 
“ This was, because he had been a popish priest  all the trinkets appertaining to the Mass, did vehemently inv●y against the Romish Bishop and all that foolish apparel, calling him Antichrist, and the apparel foolish and abominable, yea to fond for a vice in a play? This giveth more evidence of renouncing, then of approving those things which before time he had liked to much. Yet I deny not, but even then he might be ignorant of the unlawfulness of the Prelacy, as since that time God hath revealed it by his word: and by that means (it may be) did like and stand for it more, than otherwise he either aught or would have done.  
But you say, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelate's ordination, they never renounced it, though they died Maryrs. If this were true and of weight, you might by the same reason as well plead for the Romish Priests at this day as for your own. You know that very many of the Martyrs were popish Priests. And if there were no other proof, even their degradation from that Priesthood doth testify it. You might also thus plead for retaining and allowing of Monks and Friars, because some of them have died Martyrs, and yet not renounced their callings and functions. This I alleged 
‡ In the answer to your 1. Reply to the 1 Reason following.  heretofore: but you cannot yet find any leisure to answer it.  
Yet now for that you speak here, what will you say to 
† Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 934. a.  such as being degraded of their ministery received from the Prelates, thanked God that they were delivered from the malignant Church of Antichrist. Did they not by this and such like speech and carriage, noted in their stories, declare how willingly they left both that Church, Ministry, worship, and whatsoever belonged thereto? Although through ignorance of the time they saw not some things, wherein since their days God hath given a greater light.  
To end this point then, howsoever it be for their renouncing, certain it is (as their stories show) that such of them as had receved ministery from the Prelates, were before their death not only excommunicate (as were the rest of the Martyrs) but degraded also from the functions and ministery they had received. So as it cannot but be, as I said, that when they died Martyrs they neither had nor joined with the Prelacy and Ministry now pleaded for. See the 
* Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 895. b. 934. a. 1361. b. 1385. a. 1604. a.  story in the degrading of Richard Bayfield, Henry Forest, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Tailor, Mr. Ridley, etc. Thus the bold untruth wherewith you charge me falsely, is returned justly upon your own head.  
Next after this which was in the beginning of my defence (as yourself have noted) you come to the sixth point of my answer, passing by the other things which come between. Is this to reply sound? Is this your worthy Confutation which your followers judge unanswerable? What (I pray) may be the cause why you snatch thus here a piece and there a piece, and prosecute not my answer in order from point to point, as I gave it? Is it because I handle things disorderly, or pass by any thing in your Reply unaunswered? If I do, show it. But in deed, is it not because you are not able to reply against my answer, as it is given: and therefore are glad to lay hold, sometimes of one thing, sometimes of another, as you think you can best deal with; that so you may trouble the Reader, and seem to say some thing, when in deed you say nothing at all? Let the Reader but well mind this Reply of yours, and then judge if ever he saw any thing more raw, frivolous, confused, absurd. Yet such as it is, let us see now what you say to that point of my answer whereof you speak next.  
First you tell us, that where you said before, the outward orders of the Church be not of the foundation simply, you meant, not at all of the very foundation. I see your meaning now Mr. jacob, which before I neither did nor could. Sure you had need make a Commentary upon your Reply, if you expound your words every where, as you do here. But now that you have told us your meaning, will you stand unto it? Do you indeed by not simply mean not at all? Then mark what strange assertions lurk in your writing, which before we could not perceive. In one place you say 
* Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 7. Reason following. , The Papists forbidding of marriage and meats, if they had done no worse, doth not make them departers from the faith: that is, not totally or (as you have it in the Margin) not fundamentally, not simply: And then you add, No more could their Hierarchy and ceremonies simply. Now by your own exposition, your meaning is, that none of these make them departers from the faith at all. For by not simply, you say you mean not at all. Thus you teach most shameful false doctrine, and make the holy Ghost a liar, who even 
“ 1 Tim. 4.1.3.  for these things saith, they do departed from the faith. Again you say, 
‡ Your 1. Reply to the 1. Reason following.  The doctrine, Canons, Articles, Injunctions, and practise of your Church do not join together Christ and Antichrist simply: that is, not at all, by this your new coined meaning. And yet in the same place you confess, they join together Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. It is false then, that they join not Christ and Antichrist at all, as by this interpretation must be your meaning. And even here a little before, you said 
† Pag. 35.  to believe & practise as your Church doth, for your Church-governement rites and orders, simply destroyeth no man's salvation in Christ: that is, by this exposition, not at all. But your Church so believeth and practiseth these things, as is derogatory both to the office of Christ, the faithfulness of the Apostles, and the perfection of the Scriptures; and such as do not so believe and practise, but witness the truth against them, they imprison, banish, kill, and thus become guilty of innocent blood. Yet you are bold to bless yourself, your whole Church, and greatest persecutors, in all these mischiefs: affirming that thus to believe and practise, destroyeth not at all any man's salvation in Christ. For when you say, not simply, you will have us understand your meaning to be not at all. Yea you take it ill, because I will not see this to be your meaning. But now I doubt you will be more grieved, because I see it so well. Yet it were better Mr. jacob, if in time you were grieved at yourself, for using such ungodly elusions to turn away the truth. See you not what pesriferous doctrine your Reply by this means yields every where? Marvel not at it. It is just with God to make your own pen the publisher of your own folly and impiety, seeing you will needs plead for Antichrist against the clear light.  
But let us come to examine the point itself. You say, the outward orders of the Church are not at all of the very foundation. What say you then to that which is written Heb. 6.1.2. Doth not the Apostle, speaking there 
† Heb. 6.1.2  of his laying the foundation, mention in particular, the doctrine of Baptisms; and laying on of hands; besides repentance from dead works, and consequently from men's traditions in God's worship? How say you? Do not these concern the outward orders of the Church? And doth not the Apostle reckon them with the rest there named in his laying of the foundation? I could also put you in mind, how it concerneth the Church's outward government, whether the Pope be head of the church or Christ only: whether Circumcision be now to be observed, or not, etc. But these and the like I have mentioned before, and you I suppose will answer them at leisure.  
Now where you quote some Scriptures in the margin, 
See also for this, in the Preface: Section, 3.  it is to general for your purpose. You must prove your assertion by them. Which yet you do not. When you go about it, say if there be not of the foundation, not only the particulars in 
* 1 Cor. 15 2.3.4. Rom. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14.  these Scriptures expressed, but many other also here comprised, though not named in particular. As for example, 1. that there is a God, and but one; 2. that there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost; 3. that the Son, not the Father or holy Ghost, took unto him our flesh; 4. that the true God alone must be worshipped, and that only according to his word, and no otherwise; 5. that Christ as head and King of his Church hath given offices and ordinances for the work of the ministery, which are to continue to the end of the world; 6. that he is to be obeyed therein upon pain of damnation, and no other to be received; 7. that we must not only profess in word but practice indeed the commandments of Christ, whatsoever persecution follow thereon, etc. Tell us (I say) whether these and the like, which other places of the word lead us unto, be not both of the foundation, and comprised in the Scriptures quoted by yourself? How idly then and absurdly do you cite them here?  
To give an instance, doth not the Apostle from the death of Christ (mentioned in these Scriptures) deduce in other places the necessity of our dying from the ordinances of the world, from the traditions of men, from voluntary religion, finally from all dead works whatsoever, which he reckoneth up as a fundamental point in that place to the Hebrews before alleged? Yea doth 
† Col. 2.8.18.19.20. etc.  he not from hence prove, that we cannot hold Christ the head, and increase with the increasing of God, if we will together with him retain the traditions and precepts of men for the service of God? And are then no outward Church-orders of the foundation at all? We will look for your proof and answer hereof in your next.  
In the second place I propounded two questions, upon comparing together Moses and Christ. You answer not one word to the latter. And in the former, you keep not my words (which is a thing to common with you) knowing belike that the weakness of your answer would then the more readily have been seen. My question was, 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? Your answer is, Neither were the jew outward orders of the very foundation, without which they could not be saved. But speak out man, were they of the foundation at all, or not? And when you have told us this, then know for your learning (besides that already spoken touching the foundation) that the outward orders, that is, the outward ordinances, ceremonies, and government, which God prescribed to the jews, were unto them so of the foundation and necessary to be observed, as 
‡ Deut. 27.26.  curse and death was threatened to all that broke them. Yea, severe punishment even unto death was executed upon the transgressors of such things as seemed but small: Levit. 10.1.2. 1 Sam. 6.19. and 2 Sam. 6.6.7. 2 Chron. 26.16.19. Now these things are written for our instruction, to admonish us upon whom the ends of the world are come. If yet notwithstanding you and your Church will presume otherwise, be it at your peril. Our souls shall not enter into your secret.  
The third question here was about Corah and his complices. Wherein in you deal as with the former, not keeping mine own words. It may be you thought by this means to hide the vanity of your answer. Howsoever, all the answer you give to the several branches of it, is only this, that they were separated from and damned, not that the matter was fundamental, but that the manner was rebellious, with consciences a thousand times convicted, and so done with an high hand against God himself. But how prove you this which you say? And why answer you not to the several points of the question, in order as they were propounded? It may be you will do this in your next. Then in the mean time know that even the matter wherein they sinned was fundamental, if we consider it thus: Their sin was, that not being Priests they would offer incense to God. Now the Priehstood and offering up of incense led them as it were by the hand to the Priesthood and Intercession of Christ. Either therefore, you must deny Christ's Priesthood and Intercession to be of the foundation, or else you must grant they sinned in a matter in this respect fundamental, that is, being thus considered. Yet it was (you see) touching the Priesthood and Minjsterie, which concern the outward orders and government of the Church. Thus all your defence falleth to the ground.  
Touching the manner also, Corah and his complices had pretence for themselves aswell as your Prelates and Priests now have. Read and mind well what great reasons they pretend, Numb. 16. 
Num. 16.2.3  And see if you can show any greater, yea or any the like for yourselves. Then speak, whether that considered, it be not as hard for you to affirm them so convicted in conscience, as for us to affirm it of you in England. And now that I mind it, let me ask of you (Mr. jacob) in this case, as you 
† Pag. 36.  erewhile did of me in your own. Did their whole assemblies sin thus? all and every of their 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. etc. How like you now your own manner of reasoning? Is it not very proper think you, and to great purpose?  
But perhaps you will say, the Scripture speaks as much as you do concerning them. If it do, why show you not the places? Why prove you it not from thence? Nay then, what say you Mr. jacob, to the little children which perished in that condemnation, as the 
* Num. 16.27.32.  Scripture there witnesseth? Will you say that they in that action were so rebellious (as you speak of) with consciences a thousand times convicted? Or will you now confess your Reply to be of no weight at all, save against yourself?  
To which end I wish both yourself and the Reader to note (for a conclusion) that here you grant, even for outward orders of the Church, when men see the truth in their consciences and yet stand against it, the estate of such to be damnable. It is high time then for you M. jacob and for D. B. who made the preface to your book, and for all such whose consciences are convicted of the antichristianity of your Prelates and the rest of your abominations (as diverse times in this book yourself accknowledge:) it is high time, I say, for you and all such to be warned by Corahs' destruction. And we now have as good warrant (by your own grant) to separate from you and all such, as the Israelites had from Corah and his company. Except peradventure you think the ministery and ordinances of Christ to be of less moment than those of Moses, or Christ the Son to be worthy less honour than Moses the servant. But see more yet hereof in the 6. Reason following.  
After this you turn back to somewhat handled in the entrance of this Exception. Thus you run in and out, a man cannot tell where to have you. For the point you speak of I leave it to the Reader to judge, comparing your writing and mine together, whether I have not justly charged you, for going about to justify your estate by the example of Cranmer, Ridley, etc. Now I am glad to see you acknowledge the matters controverted between us to be your errors. For by this it followeth, that you see the contrary truth, which discovereth these to be errors. And then yourself (I trust) will not deny but that you are bound utterly to forsake these, and to walk in the truth revealed unto you: unless you had rather err with Antichrist to destruction, then follow Christ to salvation.  
But you trust it is sound, to justify by the example of the Martyrs, that these corruptions abolish not you from Christ, as theirs did not them. Nay Mr. jacob, it is very unsound for you or any the like to reason thus. For besides the many differences between you and the Martyrs already declared: tell me yourself, if the Hussites (so called) should at this day reason after this manner, viz. Although we retain the Mass, transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, Auricular confession, and such like, yet these corruptions abolish us not from Christ, any more than they did john Hus and the other Martyrs that held and used them: If (I say) they should now reason thus for themselves, would not yourself say, their reason were unsound?  
But further, if the Martyrs you speak of had seen these things to be errors, and continued in them, pursued those that reproved them, and against the known truth sought to have daubed up their erroneous building, as you Mr. jacob and the like among you do at this day: we could not then have so esteemed them as now we do. This therefore will help you nothing at all. We have better hope in this respect of such in England, as to this day have not discerned the Antichristian abominations among you, then of you and the like struggling Pharisees: for whom we fear it will be harder in the day of judgement, then for them.  
At length you come to look at my several answers. To look at them, I say. For finding them all to heavy to lift, you leave them as you found them, that is, firm and strong against your Church's estate. For the first, you would in it deceive the Reader, thus. In your former Reply to this Exception, you said, 
* Pag. 28.  you held Christ's ordinances to be of two sorts, written or unwritten, the first necessary, the second arbitrary, etc. and that you thought no Scripture was against this, but rather for it. In my answer hereunto, first I asked, 
‡ Pag. 30.  what Scripture you had for this: that is, for this opinion of yours touching Christ's ordinances. Now so, besides that you bring no Scripture for it, you would make the Reader believe, that I asked for Scriptures, to approve those orders which you expressly called errors. But who seethe not that I demanded Scripture, for that opinion of your Church, against which you were persuaded there was not any? And how then will those two stand together, unless you would have us think you are so sottish, as to believe there is no Scriptures against errors?  
The like folly and evil dealing you show again in your Reply to the second. When you said, you thought no Scripture was against your foresaid opinion of Christ's ordinances, but rather for it: was it not meet, that of so many as are against it, I should at least mention some? Now it had been your part either to have renounced that false opinion, with acknowledgement that the Scripture is against it, or else to have answered the Scriptures by me alleged. But I easily believe they load you, and are to heavy for you to bear or withstand.  
I● your Reply to the third, let all men judge if you deal not exceeding unconscionably. Are not these your own words which you use in your first Reply to this Exception, 
‡ Before, in pag. 28.  This we generally profess and practise; We hold Christ's ordinances to be of two sorts; Such we hold all outward government and ceremonies to be; Thus we hold, and thus we practise, etc. When you do so often say, We profess, We hold, We practise, Will not the Reader understand yourself to be one with the rest that do so hold, profess, and practise? Again when you say (Thus we practise) is it your meaning that the State doth practise thus, but not yourself? How is it then, that you preach by virtue of your Priesthood received from the Prelates? that you are silent at their pleasure? that you appear before them at their Courts and appointment? that you administer and receive the Sacraments with them according to their book, etc.  
Or if your meaning be in these words (thus we practise) to include yourself with the rest, why should we not also take you to be included in the other when you say, thus we hold, thus we profess, etc. Would you have us think, that in these things your judgement is one, and your practtses another? Fie of such halting. Howsoever you blind the eyes of men, be sure God is not mocked. He seethe and will bring upon you that wretched hypocrisy, if you still persist.  
Further it is to be minded, that now you disclaim your Church's opinion touching Christ's ordinances, and consequently touching his Prophecy, Priesthood, Kingdom, as he is there received. Why can you not then endure, that we should do likewise? Or how is it that you have pleaded for it all this time, and now leave it without help when it needeth most? But by this is evident that your Church's estate is a 
‡ Mat. 12.25  Kingdom divided against itself, and therefore ruinous, not like long to endure. The state holdeth one thing, you another, a third sort agrees with neither. Babylon 
† Rev. 16.19.  the great city, when it is ready to fall, shall be divided in three parts. To conclude, by this opinion and practise you make your state to stand in such case as jeroboams was, who altered but the outward ordinances of the Church, as taking them to be things arbitrary at the pleasure of man. Some of them (I doubt not) will think you do them foul injury. And if any be done unto you, it is done by yourself. I say no more.  
In the fourth likewise, who is it of your own Church that will not think you offer yet more injury both to the State and yourself? To the State, in that you make them maintainers of Popish shifts. To yourself, in that thus you bewray you are at a Non plus, and yet yield not to the truth. Did not yourself in your first Reply use these as good and sound reasons? And now they are convinced to be Popish, have not a word to speak in defence of them, but put us over to the State for an answer? Babel is sore wounded, when all her best Physicians do thus give her over.  
For the fift, you refer us to the first point of your explication before. Which is answered.  
For the sixth, you refer us to the second. Which also is answered. Neither is there any thing of weight in either of the places whither you send us, for answer of the particulars here contained. Let others mind (if you will not) what I said in the fifth and sixth answer before, and see if your explications have any thing against them to any purpose.  
The seventh you confess to be against the state of your Church. This I wish the Reader to mark. And then having minded what I answered in the 
* pag. 34  seventh place, let him consider how woeful the estate of your Church is. But now M. jacob, why defend you not your Church, seeing this is against the very state of it, by your own confession? Is not your book called, A defence of the Churches and Ministry of England? Why do you not then perform what the title of your book doth promise? A worthy Champion sure you are to defend a Church, that leave it thus in extreme misery without any succour at all. At first you seemed as if you would strike all down afore you, in defence of your Churches and ministery. Now lo, you can be content to leave them on the plain field to shift for themselves, so yourself may have hope to scape by running away. Before you told us of the defence of your Churches, Now you think it enough to say, It is against the state of our Church, and not against me.  
Yet tell us Mr. jacob, are you not a member of that Church? And is not that than which is against the state of your Church, also against you? Otherwise it must needs be, that your Church hath a strange estate, or that you are a strange member thereof. Can the hand or eye say, I am not of the body? Or, that which is against the state of the body, yet is not against me? Yet such is your answer, as senseless, as absurd. Besides that thus whiles you think to pull your own neck out of the collar, you plunge both yourself and your Church deeper in.  
And note withal: Howsoever you and such like disagree from the state of your Church in any thing, yet in this you can all agree well enough, to conspire against Christ and against his Church. But so it hath been of old. Manasseh 
* Esa. 9.20 21.  and Ephraim (though they were each against other) were both against judah. The pharisees and Sadducees (though adversaries one to another, yet) 
‡ Mat. 2●. 15.23 Act. 5.17  handed together both of them against the Lord jesus.  
Hitherto of the seven particulars I objected. Which all of them remain untaken away. And thus far of the second exception and your Replies against it. In which I have stayed the longer, because the discussing hereof will more plainly and without all question end the controversy between us.   

Chap. 6. The third Exception against Mr. jacobs' Assumption aforseid.  
Fr. johnson. Thirdly, show by Scripture, how the 36. Article of your doctrine and book alleged, agreeth with the Gospel of Christ and true Christianity. The words of the Article are these as followeth:  
The Book of consecration 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.  
Also how it agreeth with the Gospel and true Christianity, That the Apocrypha books and Homilies are enjoined to be read in the Church by the Ministers diligently and distinctly. As may be seen in Art. 6 and 35. of that doctrine and book aforesaid.  
H. 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, 
Fr. Io.  therefore a Swann is black. 
* Note, that Mr. jacob hath added this, since he received answer to the former. It was not in the copy before. Such also are almost all his notes in the Margin, and some alteration in his Replies, specially in his first Reply to the seventh Reason following, Let the Reader observe this dealing.  My Brother hath an eye of glass, or he hath a wooden leg, therefore my brother is no true man.  
Fr. joh. his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 1. Reply to the 3. Excep. WHat the third Exception is, you see. Have you now (as was before required of you) showed these things by the Scriptures? Not at all. First then mark, that although we call never so much for proof and evidence from the Scripture, yet you never bring it, but labour to put it off with other shifts and devices: As if our consciences were to be built upon your fancies, and not upon the written word of God.  
But what do you say to our demand? First you tell us, these things do not utterly destroy true Christianity. Next, you grant notwithstanding, that they agree with it as black doth with white, that is, they are clean contrary unto it: For this your similitudes do import.  
Where you allege, That these things destroy not true Christianity, we answer, that even that Hierarchy, worship, constitution, and government, which you profess and practise (as appeareth by those and other your Articles and Injunctions in our former answer alleged, to which yet we have received no answer) being directly Antichristian, do utterly destroy true Christianity, so as the people and Churches so professing and practising, can not 
* Nota.  in that estate by the word of God be judged true Christians, or the true constituted Churches of Christ.  
Your similitudes, are not against us but against yourselves, in as much as comparing the doctrines of the Gospel which you profess, with the whiteness of an Aethiopians teeth; and your Antichristian ministery, worship, Courts, and confusion of people, with the blackness of an Aethiopians body: this and such like similitudes do fitly declare your estate. And the approving of your Churches black constitution by some white doctrines of the Gospel professed among you, is as if you should reason thus, An Aethiopian is white of his teeth, therefore he is a white man: A black Raven is white of her bill: therefore a black Raven is a white bi●d.  
Now when you had received this answer, and saw these comparisons turned upon yourself, than you devised another, being not able to maintain the former. And this last you have published in your printed book as if it had been in your written copy which I answered: where it was not at all. The abuse is great not to me only, but to the Reader: inasmuch as these things were by you so published, as if your last comparison neither were nor could be answered. Let the Reader note this manner of dealing for such as it is.  
The similitude now added to the rest, is this: My brother hath an eye of glass, or he hath a wooden leg, therefore my brother is no true man. I answer, that after your wonted manner you take for granted that which you should prove: viz, that your Church in that constitution is as a man with an eye of glass or wooden leg. This I deny to be your case. Prove it so to be, if you can. The Scripture describeth the false Church in their constitution (specially touching the ministery) not under the similitude of men with wooden legs, or the like: but under the similitude of 
‡ Rev. 9.7.8.9.10. & 13.11. & 19.20  Locusts, whose form is like unto horses prepared to battle, with crowns on their head like gold, with faces of men, hear of women, teeth of Lions, habergions of iron, wings like charets, tails of scorpions, and stings in them to hurt withal.  
Now I would know of you Mr. jacob, whether these be men with wooden legs, or monsters with men's faces. In like manner, whether the Churches which in their constitution (chief of ministery) do resemble these, be like to men with some defects, or to beasts with some resemblance of men. Either therefore must you prove the constitution of your Church to be a true one, as the man you speak on is (which all may see you cannot do) or this comparison fitteth not your turn. We must mind and believe what the Scripture teacheth, not what you would bear us in hand without any proof.  
But it may be you would be understood of the man of sin, spoken of 2 Thes. 2. or of the whorish woman, mentioned in the Revelation. 
2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 17.1.  If that be your meaning, it is against yourself, and so apply it. If you mean otherwise, it fitteth not your case, as I showed before. And thus the comparison applied to your estate, is wooden, that is, absurd; and glassy, that is, brittle, such as will not bide a blow.  
H. jacob his 2. Reply to the 3. Excep. YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of consecrating Bishops and Priests, and the 6. and 35. Article of apocrypha and Homilies, do not agree with the Gospel.  
What then? Ergo, our Church's profession and practice differ. Most false: For our Churches do profess, that these things do agree with the 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 Antichrists, 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 also 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.  
Fr. johnson his answer to Mr. jacobs' 2. Reply to the 3. Exception. YEt suffer me, that I may speak, and when I have spoken, mock on. You say, your Churches profess that the consecrating of Bishops and Priests, & the 6. & 35. Articles of Apocrypha books and Homilies, do agree with the Gospel well enough: and that your practice is thereafter. Mark now what followeth hereupon. The Apocrypha books (to speak first of them) have 
* judith 9.2.3.4. compared with Gen. 49.5.6.7. Ester Apocrypha 12.5. with Ester Canonical 6.3. & Est. Apocr. 15.9.10. with Ester Canon. 5.2. Ecclesiasticus 46.20. with Esa. 57.2. Eccles. 12.7.  contradiction to the Scriptures, 
‡ Tob. 6.6.7.8. & 8.2.3. with 3.7.8.  magik, 
“ 1 Tob. 12.12.15. compared with 1 Tim. 2.5.  blasphemy, 
† Esdras. 14.21.22.23. etc. 2 Mach. 2. 4-8. Tobit. 5.11.12.13. with 12.15. 1 Machab. 6.4.8.9.16. with 2 Machab. 1. 13-16. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29.  fables, 
♣ 2 Machab. 12.44.45. & 14.41.42. Ecclesiastic. 46.20. & 48.10.  errors, etc. Therefore your Church (by your own confession) professeth all these to agree with the Gospel well enough, & practiseth thereafter. A very Christian profession and practice in deed, well beseeming the daughters of Babylon that mother of all abomination.  
The like may be said of your blasphemies in the book according to which you consecrate Prelates and ordain Priests: receiving other Lordbishops & Priests (in office of Ministry) besides jesus Christ, to whom this 
* 1 Cor. 12.5. Eph. 4.5.11.12. Heb. 7.23.24. 1 Pet. 5.4.  honour doth only belong. And not that only, but ordaining your Priests with further blasphemy, when the Prelates say to every of you kneeling at their feet to be ordained, Receive the holy ghosts whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: & whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.  
These things being so (to omit many other that might be alleged out of those and the rest of your books) how can we but think, as we do, of the estate of your Church? Would you have us believe, that Magik, lies, blasphemy, contradiction to the Scriptures agree with the Gospel well enough? or that they destroy not true Christianity? I mean, so as I expressed in my former answer: that is, so as the people and Churches thus professing and practising, cannot by the word of God be judged in that estate true Christians or true constituted Churches of Christ. And more yet, when withal there be found many abominations directly Antichristian, yea and blasphemous as I have noted of your Hierarchy, worship, etc. Will you make Christ and Antichrist accord together? It 
* 2 Cor. 6.14.  cannot be. If you will not receive it, then prove by God's word either that these things are not directly Antichristian, nor blasphemous; or that being so, yet they do not utterly destroy true Christianity, so as before is declared. For Master Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer etc. is answered already. Pag. 8. & 40.  
The gross absurdity of your comparison of a man with a wooden leg & the like, referred to your estate, I have showed in the end of my former answer. Against which if you can say any thing, let us have it in your next Reply. And remember withal, that the body of your Church besides the shameful confusion it standeth in, hath a number of monstrous and deformed heads, on whose foreheads are written 
† Rev. 17.8. with 14.11  names of blasphemy (viz: your Archbishops, Lordbishops, Priests &c.) Which by the confession of the best among you were never borne in Zion, but in Babylon, by descent the sons of Anak and Nimrod, mighty hunter's ●f God's people, as their estate and practice in all ages even unto this day doth testify.  
These and other abominations heretofore mentioned, you would still conceal, and in steed thereof take for granted, that your Church in her constitution is as a body which hath the life & being of a man, not of a beast. Now this you know we deny, and you should prove. But that you let alone as being all to hard. And I perceive already that rather than you will do it, you will leave your wooden leg to shift for itself, as you have left your Aethiopians teeth and swans bill.  
Let the Reader judge, whether of us it is, that goeth about to refute only with words, with bare Yea & Nay, and no more. And hitherto of the three Excepttons gathered out of your own doctrine, against the A●sumption of your main Argument. Now follow some other Reasons brought against the same, with your Replies and my Answers thereunto.   

Chap. 7. The first Reason against Mr. jacobs' former Assumption.  
Fr. johnson. 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 whole doctrine as it is publicly professed and practised by law in England. As may be seen, 1. By the Book alleged comparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest. 2. By your profession, to be seen likewise in your other books of Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Advertisements: etc. 3. By your practice, as witnesseth your Ministry, Leitourgy, and Church-governement, even to this day.  
Therefore, etc.  
H. jacob his 1. Reply to the first Reason. THis your first Reason is thus: That which joineth Christ and Antichrist together, cannot make a true Christian: But that doth our Book, etc. Ergo.  
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. 28.35  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 M. Cranmer etc. 
* Namely, the Idolaters in these 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 
‡ Pag. 28.35.  second Exception. Therefore to apply those Scriptures in this unto us, is your great sin even against the third Commandment, uwhich is your common custom, as all do see and pity, viz. To take the name of God in vain, by mifusing his word.  
Fr. johson his answer to Mr. jacobs' 1. Reply to the 1. Reason. YOur answer is first concerning the Proposition, then concerning the Assumption. For the Proposition you say, the speech is unproper that Christ & Antichrist is among you joined together. Then you take upon you to expound our meaning to be thus, Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. To this we answer, First, that the speech is fit and proper: Secondly, that it is meet that we (not you) expound our own meaning: Which together with the propriety of the speech, will now appear in that which followeth.  
Concerning the Assumption, first you say, the things among you which we charge to be of Antichrist, you think to be Christ's own: for proof whereof, you refer us to your Reply to the Second exception before, whither also we refer yourself and the Reader for answer again. Then forgetting yourself you grant that in deed they be orders of Anticrist: yet that they are but as the blackness of the swans bill to the rest of the body. So by you own confession they are of Antichrist, and therefore not Christ's own, as 
† Pag. 28.  before you said and laboured to prove. Thus at once you both contradict yourself, and overthrow that which you answered before to the Second exception.  
This were sufficient to manifest your deceitful and evil dealing. But that it may more fully appear, specially seeing you 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 them (for it were infinite to number them all). By which the Reader may better see and judge both of the sleightness of your answer, and of the black constitution of your Church.  
Sorry we are that we should thus trouble the Reader, or ourselves: specially considering that already we have mentioned divers of them. But seeing we are here constrained unto it by your sly and colourable answer, therefore can we not but do it, for the clearer manifestation of the truth, and better discovering of your deceit. In which respects we entreat the Reader to take in good part, and duly to weigh the rehearsal following.  


Antichristian abominations yet retained in England.  
1. The confusion of all sorts of people in the body of the Church, even the most profane and their seed, being members thereof.  
2. The retaining and using in their public worship the Apocrypha books, which have in them much error, untruth, blasphemy, Magic, & contradiction to the Canonical Scriptures.  
3. Their stinted prayers and Liturgy, taken out of the Mass Book: with the same order of Psalms, Lessons, Collects, Pater nosters, Epistles, Gospels, Versicles, Respondes etc.  
4. The forbidding of Marriage, in Lent, Advent, Ember days, Rogation week etc. Which the Apostle calleth a Doctrine of devils. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.  
5. Forbidding of meats, as of flesh to be eaten in Lent, Ember days, Saints Evens, fridays and saturdays throughout the year. Another doctrine of devils noted in the scripture aforesaid. 1 Tim. 4.1.3.  
6. The oath ex officio in the Ecclesiastical courts, making men swear to accuse themselves.  
7. Their Pontifical, or book of consecrating Bishops and of ordaining Priests and Deacons, taken out of the Pope's Pontifical. 
Antichrist corruptions yet had in the Church of England.   
8. Their intolerable abuse of the word of God therein.  
9 Their making and being made Priests, with blasphemy, the Prelates saying to every one of them, whom they make Priests, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven etc. And they that are made Priests, then humbly kneeling upon their knees at the Prelate's feet.  
10. Their confounding of civil and Ecclesiastical offices and authority in Ecclesiastical persons.  
11. The offices & callings of Archbishops.  
12. Lordbishops.  
13. Suffragans.  
14. Priests.  
15. Half Priests, or Deacons, as they call them.  
16. Subdeacons'.  
17. Archdeacon's.  
18. Parsons.  
19 Vicars.  
20. Curates.  
21. Vagrant and Mercenary Preachers.  
22. Churchwardens.  
23. chancellors to the Prelates.  
24. Deans.  
25. Subdeanes.  
26. Prebendaries.  
27. Canons and Peticanons.  
28. Chanters and Virgerers.  
29. Epistlers and Gosplers.  
30. choristers, men and boys.  
31. Organ-players and blowers.  
32. Clerks and Sertous.  
33. chaplains and Housepriests  
34. Doctors of Divinity.  
35. Bachelors of Divinity.  
36. Doctors of the Arches.  
37. Proctors in the Prelate's courts.  
38. Commissaries.  
39 Officials.  
40. Registers.  
41. Summoners, with the rest of that Antichristian and viperous generation.  
42. Their Ministration of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-governement, by virtue of the officer aforesaid.  
43. The titles of Primate, Metropolitan, Lords grace, Lordship etc. ascribed to the Prelates.  
44. The inferior Prelates swearing obedience to the Metropolitan Seas of Canterbury and York.  
45. The inferior Ministers, when they enter into the ministery, promising obedience to the Prelates their Ordinaries: and when they are inducted to Benefices, confirming it with their oath of Canonical obedience.  
46. The presentation of the Priests and Deacons to the Prelate by the Archdeacon, when they are made Ministers.  
47. Their receiving of Orders at the hands of the Prelates or their Suffragans.  
48. The Prelate's Confirmation or Bishoping of children, to assure them of God's favour, by a sign of man's devising. Which is to malt a new Sacrament.  
49. The Cross in Baptism: of like nature.  
50. The hallowed Font.  
51. Questions at Baptism to the infants, that can neither speak nor understand.  
52. Godfathers & Godmothers. Their promising that the child doth believe, forsake the Devil and all his works, etc.  
53. women's baptizing of children. Which maintaineth that heresy That the Children are damned, which die unbaptised.  
54. Their houssing of the sick, & ministering the Communion to one alone.  
55. Their giving it for two pence, to all comers.  
56. Their ministering of it, not with the words of Christ's institution, but with other taken out of the Pope's Portuis.  
57 The receiving of it kneeling: Which teacheth still to make it an Idol, and nourisheth that popish heresy of worshipping it, receiving their maker etc.  
58. The King in marriage, making it a Sacramental sign, & marriage an Ecclesiastical action: thereby nourishing the Popish heresy, that Matrimony is a Sacrament.  
59 Their Churching or purifying of women. Which savoureth of judaisme.  
60. The standing at the Gospel reading. The putting of the cap, and making a leg when the word (jesus) is read.  
61. Their Saints, Angels, and Apostles days. With their fasts and prescript service.  
62. The Gang-week, praying then over the corn and grass, etc.  
63. Their praying over the dead, at burial. So nourishing the Popish error of prayer for the dead.  
64. Burial, and the solemnisation of marriage, etc. made part of the Ministers duty.  
65. Their absolving the dead, dying excommunicate, before they can have (as they call it) Christian-buriall.  
66. The ring of peals at burials.  
67. Beadmen at burials, and hired Mourners in mourning apparel.  
68 The hanging of Churches and heerses with black (to help forward their popish show off mourning) at burials.  
69. The Idol Temples, retained & used for the worship of God.  
70. The popish vestments: as Rotchet, Square-cappe, Tippet, Surplus in Parish-Churches, and Cope in Cathedral.  
71. The visitations of their Lordbishops and Archdeacon's.  
72. The Court of Faculties. From w●eace are had dispensations, Licences, Tolerations, etc.  
73 Dispensations to eat flesh at their times forbidden. Which dispensations also have this clause [sana conscientia, that is, with a safe conscience]: plainly showing, that they make it a matter of conscience.  
74. Dispensations likewise to marty in their times forbidden.  
75. Licences from the Prelates to marry in places exempt. By means of which dispensations and Licences is maintained that wicked practice, that many are married without their Parent's knowledge or consent. Yea many often stolen from their friends, and so married.  
76. Dispensations for boys and ignorant fools to have Benefices, and charge of souls.  
77. Dispensations for Nonresidents.  
78. And plurality of benefices: As the having of two, three, four, or more: even tot quot, as many as a man will have and can get.  
79. Patronages of, and presentations to Benefices, with buying and selling of advowsons.  
80. Their justitutions, Inductions, Prories, etc.  
81. The Prelates, chancellors, Commissaries, Officials courts, etc.  
82. Their power to excommunicate alone, and likewise to absolve.  
83. Their Penance in a white sheet.  
84. Their commutation of Penance, and absolving one man for another.  
85. Their Suspensions, Deprivations, Degradations. etc.  
86. The Prelates Lordly dominion, revenues, and retinue.  
87. The Priest's maintenance by Tithes, Chrismes, Offerings. etc.  
88 The Pope's accursed Canon Law.  
89. And the Prelates like Articles, Canons, Injunctions, etc. from time to time newly devised and published for the Laws & ruling of their Church, according unto them.  
90. The Churchwardens oath, to present to the Prelates and their Courts, all the offences faults and defaults committed in their Parishes against the foresaid Articles, etc.  
91. Finally, the imprisoning, banishing, and killing of such as renounce or witness against these abominations aforesaid, and the rest yet retained among them.    
Thus being constrained, we have reckoned up diverse Antichristian enormities, still remaining in your Church. Now let the Reader judge of your answer, how fond it is: and of your estate, whether it be not more like the black Raven with a white bill, than the white Swan with a black; and liker 
† Rev. 9.7. & 13. ●●.  a beast with a man's face, than a man with a wooden leg. By this also appeareth, that the speech is not unproper (as you except) but pertinent and proper, fitly declaring your estate, when I said you join Christ and Antichrist together. And therefore your answer here is frivolous and of no weight.  
Next, you come to the proof of the Proposition, which was confirmed by these scriptures. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. with Ezek. 43.8. & 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. The Proposition which I proved by these Scriptures, was this: That which joineth Christ and Antichrist together, can not make a true Christian. Now let all men 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 say you to them? Forsooth that they are wholly mismatched. And why so? Because the joining there forbidden, is unto such Idolatry, as can nor stand by any means with Christian faith and breaketh most directly the First commandment: whereas your transgression is but against the Second, and may stand with true faith, as was in Cranmer, etc. First, this answer of yours concerneth the Assumption, whereas those scriptures were the proof of the Proposition. But to let this pass, let us consider the answer itself: These Scriptures (say you) forbidden joining to such Idolatry, as cannot 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, you cannot deny, but as we judge of your way and estate, so it is a transgression against the Second commandment. Now Samuel saith, 
● Sam. 15.23.  Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and transgression is wickedness & Idolatry. See then what advantage you get by your 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. Whereunto also may be added, that your case now, is nothing so as theirs was then: both for that they suffered to death for the truth they saw; and because the things now controverted, were not then so called in question and convinced by the scriptures, as now they have been: neither were then by them so resisted and persecuted as they are by you now adays, even to hands, banishment, and death itself. Otherwise we might justify the callings and estate of the Monks & Friars, and of the most Popish Priests and Prelates, and the having of communion with them in that estate, because divers such have been Martyrs, and laid down their lives for the truth they faw, who yet never doubted of the lawfulness of their callings and estate in this behalf.  
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 commuandment 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 the scriptures alleged, and the whole course of the word of God, condemyne 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. Are they not strong and weighty against joining together righteousness & unrighieousnes, light & darkness, Christ & Beliall, 
† 2 Cor. 6.14. etc.  whether it be in the breach of the First or Second commandment? Sayeth not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth & walketh: and therefore requireth of them, that they be his people; that they be his sons and daughters; that they be separated from the world; that they touch no unclean thing, whether it be of Antichrist, or of the Heathen or whomsoever breaking the law of God?  
And touching the place of Ezekiel, who seethe not, 
Ezec. 43.8.  that he speaketh directly of the breach of the Second commandment, for 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 as the Prophet saith, It is abominations in the sight of God, and they that do so worship him, put a wall between God and 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 you and your complices Master jacob like this, so may you hold on in pleading for it, and practising of it.  
The third place is out of 2 King. 17. where it is most plain, that the scripture speaketh of the breach of the Second commandment. For there we read that the Samaritans worshipped the 
* 2 King. 17 28.32.41.  same God, and after the same 
† vers. 26.27 29.33.34.40.  manner that the Israelites of the Ten Tribes did, that were carried from thence: That is, they worshipped the true God, but not as he had commanded, but by having Images of sundry sorts, by which they thought God was represented, as 
† 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. judg. 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 Ezekiel may appear, how false it is, that you say further, They did not so much as profess the written la 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 thou of whom he speaketh, 
* Ezech. 43.8.  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 
“ Ezra. 4.2.  the Lord God of the jews, offering unto him  offerings and meat offerings, and peace offerings? Or how came it, they still used Circumcision, and waited 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 should come which is called Christ, 
joh. 4.25.  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 by his written word. But so it was not with the Samaritans or Ten tribes fallen from judah: as is evident by the scriptures and reasons before alleged. To that which you speak of your profession and practice, referring us to your answer to the Second Exception going before, I have there answered it.  
Only this I add here, That seeing it cannot in truth be denied but the public constitution of your Assemblies, and estate of your Ministers and people therein, is a most impious transgression of the Second commandment, which the Lord himself calleth 
“ Numb. 15.39 Revel. 11.8. & 17.1.2.3.4.5.  spiritual whoredom against him, yea grievous iniquity and hatred of him, threatening also to 
‡ Exod. 20.5.  visit it upon the Fathers and children so remaining, to the Third and Fourth generation: Therefore by it are the truths you profess, made frustrate unto you in this estate. Neither will it help you to pretend that it is your error in judgement. For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured? And further seeing your public profession and practise is (at the best) a joining of Christ & Antichrist together, as hath been showed, therefore can you not by the word of God be deemed in this estate to be true Christians or true constituted Churches: And the Scriptures applied to prove this consequent, are fitly alleged.  
False therefore it is, that you say we sinned against the Third commandment, in the application of the Scriptures aforesaid. That is your own common custom and lamentable sin, to break this commandment by taking God's name in vain, not only in falsifying and perverting the Scriptures for your turn, but in your administration also of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-government, by virtue of such offices & callings as Christ never appointed, but were first devised and are retained by Antichrist. Hitherto of your answer concerning the proof of the Proposition.  
To the proof of the Assumption, you 
† Let the Reader therefore mind in Mr jacob this his sound and Scholarlike dealing.  answer not a word: 
Fr. Io.  which yet most of all required answer, if you would in deed soundly defend your estate, as you pretend. That your profession and practice joineth Christ & Antichrist together, I showed by your Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Advertisements, etc. & by your present Ministry, Worship, & Church-governement according thereunto. If it be not so, why bring you not warrant for these from the Testament of Christ, and so take away the proof of the Assumption? If it be so (as by your silence you grant, and we are sure by the Scriptures the contrary cannot be showed) then the Assumption standeth firm: and consequently in this constitution you cannot be accounted true Christians, nor your Assemblies (so gathered) true constituted Churches.  
H. jacob his 2. Reply unto the 1. Reason. IN this your defence of your first Reason, you would first of all fasten on me a contradiction, for granting, 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 
* See Pag. 28. 35.  I spoke in the person of our whole Church and state, and showed what they held: And here I speak as I thought myself. This is a silly contradiction.  
Then you say, Pag. 62. I dazzle the people's eyes, in saying some outward orders and ceremonies are from Antichrist as if they were but few and of small moment. Therefore you are content to 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. 57 62.  noted, there is not life and death joined together, but living things and dead things are, and yet the man alive and a true man.  
Then you will justify your applying the 
‡ 2 Cor, 6.14. etc. Eze. 43.8. 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41  Scriptures which I said were mismatched and were meant against the Idolatry of the First commandment, not against the Idolatry of the Second only, and meerlye, 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 of fullness. But their immediate purpose is against the Heathenish Idolatry breaking the First commandment. So that they forbid the breach of the Second commandment, consequently and proportionately, 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 Idolatry: 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: 
1 Sam. 15.  Your second Scripture here applied, is of saul, a presumptuous and wilful offender: if you make our whole Churches so, your sin is the greater.  
(3) Thirdly, if you mean, any of antichrist's 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, cannot. 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 in Pag. 67. 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 in Pag. 67. 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. 67. That both the breach of the first commandment, and of the Second also, is forbidden: I have told you before, Pag. 69. 70. how it is true, and how not: Nothing at all to serve your turn. 
2 Cor. 6.14.  That which you say, Pag. 67. touching your first Scripture, 2 Cor. 6.14. etc. in that sense and manner as I said, it is true, and not otherwise.  
That which of your Second Scripture (Ezek. 43.8.) Pag. Ibid. you say, 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. 
Ezec. 43. 8●  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 jerusalem, and the Temple, and worship of God again: 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 jew 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, & 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 Israel 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. 67. 2 Kings 17.33.34.40.41. of the Samaritans Idolatry, wherein because you are large, 
2 King. 17.  I will defer to explain it till your sixth Reason following: where is a proper place for it.  
lastly, in pag. 68 you aggravate the breach of the Second Commandment: as being spiritual whoredom, etc. But I would have you to know: Things may be mismatched to cruelly, aswell as too gently. There is a sin both ways, when things are not called by their proper and right names. It is true in some sense, every breach of the Second commandment, is spiritual whoredom, as every wanton word, every light gesture & countenance, every immodest thought in a Woman, is Adultery: yet who so shall angerly & continually so call a Woman whore, harlot, or band, that but thinketh, or looketh, or speaketh too vainly, shall do her great wrong, & incur the just danger of la. Neither can she, nor ought she, in such case, be divorced, as an Adulteress ought. And thus it appeareth true still, that you sin against the Third Commandment in misapplying of Scriptures.  
In the end in pag. 69. 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 & 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 charity. As for the rest, that I should justify our corruption, it is no part of my mind, neither belongs it to our present cause so to do.  
Fr. Io. his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 2. Reply to the 1. Reason. IN deed you are the people that have skill, and wisdom must die with you. Yet let us a little examine this your wise handling of the matter. Being taken here with manifest contradiction, you say, you spoke the one in the person of your whole Church and State, the other in your own. If it were so, yet thus you yield both that there is contradiction in your speech, and that in stead of defending your Church you are driven yourself to contradict it. And who can give the cause more cunningly? Even yourself (Mr jacob) are drawn now at length to confess you do the same thing we do, that is, contradict the assertion of your Church touching Christ's ordinances.  
Now albeit this were enough to show the simplicity and weakness of your defence, yet still I urge the contradiction to be yours. And I prove it, because in the 
† Pag. 28.  first place your words are, we hold, we practise, etc. and in the “ latter, we think, we showed, etc. For who will otherwise judge, 
* Pag. 61.  but this word (We) includeth yourself for one among the rest? Again, when in the first place you say [thus we practise], and in the latter [we showed before], and both these are true of yourself, who could exclude you from being one of the number in both the places?  
Further, it is here to be noted, how plainly you affirm these two things again, 1. That your Church-corruptions are from Antichrist: 2. That yet your Church holds them to be Christ's own. A most silly, absurd, and godless defence of a Church, as ever was seen.  
That it is tedious unto you to have your corruptions reckoned up, it is no marvel. Yet if they be so odious, as it grieve you to hear them but named: why doth it not more affect you to practise them, to partake in and with them, and so to increase your sins and judgement before the Lord? Heretofore when you preached against them, and sued to the Parliament to have them removed, it was a pleasure to you and all the Reformists, to name them, to print them, to make your pulpits ring of them and every where to cry out against them as most filthy and abominable. Then if any reckoned up 
“ Admon to the Parl. Miles Monopodius. The R●gisur etc.  above an hundred of them together, one after another, they were nothing tedious, but very welcome. Now to mention or hear but some of them, is altogether irksome. A very great and strange alteration: yet in deed not to be marveled at, if it be well minded. For than you seemed to seek and stand for the truth, now you resist and strive against it: than you would profess Christ against the Prelates, now you do hand yourselves with them against him.  
And yet behold, in all these evils you bless yourselves and them to●. For what else is this that you say, these multitude of Antichristian abominations abolish us not from Christ? Is it not as if you said, 
‡ Deut 29.19.  We shall have peace though we walk according to the stubbornness of our hearts? Alas Mr jacob▪ that you should come to this height of impiety, thus to bless and please yourselves in the unrighteousness of Antichrist, that some of perdition: than which, what greater judgement could have come upon you? 2 Thes. 2, 12. This is not to break and teach to break one of the least commandments, but many of the greatest. Mat. 5.19.  
Now unlike are you and such other false Prophets of the Beast, which say, these are to few, to sleight, of to small moment etc. How unlike (I say) are you to the Prophets of God and Martyrs of jesus, who did alway cry out and witness against the least Idolatry they saw among the people? They did not sow pillows under their elbows, as you do: but denounced the judgements of God against them, and refused to partake in their iniquity. So do not you. But this belike is your following of Christ, this is your obedience of faith, even to plead for Antichrist and to do the works of darkness and abomination, and yet to say with your hypocritical forefathers, Is not the Lord among us? No evil can come unto us. Micah. 30 11.  
Yet you would have us bele●●, that you go not about to dazzle the people's eyes etc. Yes Mr. jacob, you do it and proceed in it daily from evil to worse. But flatter yourselves and them, touching the constitution of your Church, as long as you will, with your lying words, of Christ, of faith, 
jerem. 7.4.  etc. like as the jews amidst all their impieties still vaunted of the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord etc. yet this remaineth upon your heads notwithstanding, that these abominations of Antichrist retained among you, do of themselves and of their own nature abolish your Assemblies from being the Churches of Christ, or holding his faith in that constitution and practice. This I have proved 
† Pag. 3.16.60.63. etc.  before: wherein if you rest not, you may reply again. Or if you desire more evidence, see these Scriptures, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. 2 Thes. 2-12. Col. 2.8.20.21.22.23. Psal. 119.21. Ephes. 5.11. 1 joh. 4.3. and 2 joh. ver. 9.10.11. Rev. 13.11. and 14.9.10.11. and 17. 1-6. and 18. and 19 chap. and 22.18: 19  
And for man's record, see Mr Beza who is as plain, as plain may be. In an epistle written in the year, 1566. to Mr Grindall then Bishop of Lord ●●, concerning the present estate of the Church of England, thus he saith: If those things be true, 
Bez. Epist. 8.  which I think have not likely hood of truth, viz, that the Metropolitans retain in use those most filthy abuses, than which the Church of Antichrist hath not any thing more intolerable, namely pluralities of benefices, licences of nonresidency, licences to marry and eat flesh, and other the like: this were certainly, which I speak with horror, not a corruption of Christianity, but a manifest defection from Christ: and therefore they not to be condemned, but praised rather, which should oppose themselves to such endeavours. These are his words. Where note, 1. That the things are most true and rise among you, which he thought were not so much as likely. 2. That he speaketh but of four or five of your corruptions, and yet saith they are a manifest apostasy and departure from Christ, yea such as he affirmeth he speaketh not without horror.  
How miserable then is the estate of your Church, which hath not only these four or five, but even an huge mass and endless multitude beside? And how fearful is the case of you all, who will yet notwithstanding still abide in that Church, and therefore cannot but partake in her sins, 
Rev. 13.4.  and be subject to her plagues? Most of all, what an heavy Woe hangeth over your head (Mr jacob) who fear not yet so boldly to affirm, that these some, these 91. are to few and to sleight, and of to small moment, of themselves & of their own nature to abolish you from Christ? Is not this to strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life? Is it not to say unto him, Thou art righteous: every one that doth evil, is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them? Yea is it not to please your selves in unrighteousness to condemnation? Ezech. 13.22. Mal. 2.17. 2 Thes. 2.12.  
Then also why prove you not that which you say? You hear beside the Scriptures before alleged, that Mr Beza speaking but of four or five of your abominations, saith they are a manifest defection from Christ. Now I suppose you will not deny, but manifest defection from Christ doth of itself and of it own nature abolish from Christ. Besides if it be true of four or five of your corruptions, how much more of your 91. yea of your hundreds? Specially when to the retaining of them you have now a long time added persecution against the truth for the maintenance of them.  
Or what will you answer to yourself (Mr jacob) who have here confessed them to be 
* Pag. 37.  errors, and 
† Pag. ●1. 69  orders of Antichrist, 
‡ Pa. 70.71.  sins against the Second commandment, etc. Every sin (you know) doth of itself and of it own nature make subject to the curse. Deut. 27.26. Psal. 119.21. Rom. 6.23. So if there were no other thing, yet even by your own confession, the curse of God hangeth over your heads. And how woeful then is your estate? Mind withal, that when yourself can not deny but your corruptions are of Antichrist, and it is certain that antichrist's Church even through the corruptions of their constitution is abolished from being Christ's, you had need clear this point well, or else you leave your Church in a miserable taking even in this behalf. Help it now, if you can. Your stolen objection and abuse of Mr Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs, is answered before, Pag. 8. 40. 41.  
That the speech is both true and proper when I say, you join Christ and Antichrist together, I need not further prove, seeing yourself can not deny but all the abominations of Antichrist before rehearsed, with many more, 
Pag. 63. etc.  are still retained in your Church. And tell me Mr jacob, May not I aswell say, you have not Christ but some truths of Christ, as you say, you have not Antichrist but some corruptions of Antichrist? Or if I say so, will you then grant that the speech is proper?  
Your comparison of a white Swan with a black bill, I perceive you can not defend. Therefore you leave it, and betake yourself to another of a maimed man with a wooden leg: Which yet fitteth not your estate neither, as may be seen before, Pag. 59 61. You must put the case of a deformed boast, with the likeness of a man's face, woman's hear, lions teeth, 
Rev. 9. 7-2.  horses body, etc. And then may all see plainly, that although this have the likeness of some parts of a man, yet it is not therefore a true man, but a monstrous beast notwithstanding. Yea although you join your dead wooden leg to the foresaid living parts thereof, yet still it is no other but as it was, even a very beast. That it liveth, will nothing help you: for beasts have their life, aswell as men have theirs. And you will not deny (I suppose) but Antichrist the man of sin hath now lived and ●aged, as a fierce and cruel beast, by the space of many hundred years, 
2 Thes. 2.3. Rev. 13.11.  one after another. If your comparison then be meant of this beastly man (as to pleasure you withal, I will not deny but it may very well) yet still your wooden leg will help it to go for no other but as it is, a man of sin and a monstrous beast.  
Next, you come to the Scriptures by which I proved the Proposition, and pretend as if you would make a direct answer, and yet in deed do nothing less. Answer me therefore in your next, Whether do those Scriptures prove the Proposition, or not? If they do, why do you not grant it? If they do not, why do you not say so, and show it? And tell we, why you handle them, as if they had been brought to prove the Assumption: and yet in deed leave untouched that which was brought for the proof thereof? Such ignorant and double dealing, ill beseemeth a man professing so deep skill and sincerity, as you do. Yet lest you please yourself therein any longer, I will note the folly and falsehood of your answer in the particulars.  
1. To the first, you say, you never denied it to be true after a sort. Now that which there I said was this, 
‡ Pag. 66.  that these Scriptures forbidden joining to Antichristian Idolatry, and that false worship which breaketh the second commandment. And such even 
† Pag. 70.  here you grant your Church corruptions to be. So by your own confession, these Scriptures forbidden to join unto them. Expound your (after a sort) as you please: and alter my words after your manner, as you think good. All will not help. Sure I am you do thus give the cause. For those Scriptures forbidden not to join to the true worship and Churches of God.  
And all your minesing speeches, when you say they forbidden the breach of the Second commandment, but not principally, directly, of purpose etc. what are they but so many testimonies of your miserable halting and deceitful dealing? For if it were as you say, were it not enough to make you detest those sins, and never to partake with them any more? Hath not God to the Second commandment annexed this severe threatening, 
‡ Exod. 20.5  I a●ielours God, will visit this iniquity etc. Doubtless God foresaw how the breach of this commandment would be finally regarded and lessened among men professing the true God: and therefore here annexed the threatening after the Second, not after the First going before.  
And tell me further, if you could not th●● plead for the popish Orders, confession to Priests, extreme Unction, prayer in an unknown tongue, Purgatory etc. To end this point then, I say again (as I have showed 
† pag. 67. 68  already) that the immediate purpose of 
“ Ezec. 43.8. 2 King. 17.32. etc.  two of these places is a-against the false worship which breaketh the Second commandment, proving such worship and worshippers to be rejected of God: And the reasons used in the 
* 2 Cor. 6.14. etc.  third Scripture, are aswell against the breach of the Second, as the First, convincing every such estate (against whether commandment soever it be) to be in that case as cannot stand and accord with Christ and his Church. The Scripture itself, and the arguments deduced from thence in my former answer, are so evident as I need not bring any further proof, unless you brought other manner Reply against them, than yet you do.  
2. For the second, you bid me make much of it. Therefore to pleasure you I mean so to do. To begin withal, here you say directly, you never thought other but that your Church corruptions are against the Second commandment. And did you never think other in deed? How is it then that you plead for your Churches retaining and practising of them, yea holding of them to be Christ's own: that is, holding the transgressions of the Second commandment to be Christ's ordinances?  
More specially for your own part, how is it that you were made Deacon or Priest of the Prelates? Or being made in ignorance (as many be) that yet knowing these things since, you will still execute those offices under them, And submit to their Injunctions, Canons, Articles, etc. Yea even to this day partake with all the Antichistian filth and corruption of your Church, which you know to be against the Law of God? Have you for gotten or do you not regard the 
‡ E●o. 20.5.  heavy sentence angered to the Second commandment? Or is it only against some, and not against all the transgressions thereof? Or will it take hold of others, and shall you stay free?  
Howsoever yourself seem careless what you say or do, yet let others mind their fearful estate in that Church, which retaineth such a multitude of Antichristian corruptions (here granted by yourself to be) against the Second commandment: the breach whereof God hath threatened to punish most severely.  
And let it be observed, that you who have taken upon you the defence of your Churches and Ministry, yet cannot deny that to be your estate. Behold then to what issue your Defence is come in the end. And now that you see how much I have made of this point at your request: forget not to thank me for it in your next Reply.  
The Scripture here alleged, you would turn away from yourselves by saying, it is of Saul a presumptuous offender; 
1 Sam. 15.23  But that Scripture is not for Saul only, but for 
“ 1 Cor. 10.11 Rom. 15.4.  others likewise. And how will you show that Saul was a more presumptuous and wilful offender, than yourself and your Church, Nay how will you show that his sin was merely of presumption and wilfulness? The Scripture mentioneth two other cause● alleged by himself, 
‡ 1 Sam. 15.15  an intent to sacrifice to the Lord; and 
† vers. 24.  fear of the people 〈◊〉 and your Church can hardly yield like reasons for your selves. ●et if you could they 〈◊〉 not s●●nd before God, as this Scripture witnesseth.  
Your clause, of making your whole Churches so, importeth that you take the case of some (the 〈◊〉 not of all) among you to be as saul's was. Then take you heed Mr. jacob, and the rest of like judgement and practice as you ●re. What I think of your whole Churches as touching their constitution, I have often showed before.  
3. For the third, I mean it of the Antichristian abominations remaining among you, and the like. Neither could you be ignorant hereof, seeing I had a little 
♣ Pag. 63.64.65.  before reckoned up so many of them in particular. But you would not seem to know it, because you can not prove the contrary against it. For proof of my assertion I allege these Scriptures Exod. 20. 〈◊〉 compared with 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. Col. 2.8. Revel. 1●. ●0. 10.11. with ver. 4. & ver. 12. & Revel. 17. 1-6. with Hos. 2.2. & Prou. 6.27, 28.32. & 7.22.23.27. & 9. 13-18. 2 Thes. 23-12. 2 joh. vers. 9.10.11.  
Your inwrapping of Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, etc. I have unfolded before. Pag. 8.41. Of all the reasons and differences which I named concerning you and them, you pick out but one or two, and the rest you pass by. Now of them which you except against, the first is, that they suffered to death for the truth they saw. Which my words you have altered thus that they for seek all the corruptions they saw. But beside the alteration your answer also is to be noted. I alleged: hat the Martyrs suffered to death for the truth they saw: you answer, this belongeth to many thousands in England, no less then to them. Can you now justify either your dealing or your answer? Or can you show seem hundreds of your Church in stead of your many thousands?  
For mine own part, if you had thousands of such, I wish they were many millions. But I fear that the contrary of your speech is to true: viz, that there are many thousands in England so far from suffering death for the truth they see (like those Martyrs) as they will not 〈◊〉 imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods or the like, for that truth which they do not only see, but which themselves have heretofore professed, preached, sued for to the Parliament etc. So far are they from for ●al●ing all the corruption they see (that I may use your own words). Yea who can think otherwise by their estate and practice, but if a Que●● Mary came again which God for did) the 〈◊〉 of the Land would 〈◊〉 as the Prince believeth and be ready to receive again the points of Popery now rejected, as it was heretofore after King Edward's decease?  
Mark, that I speak of the face of the Land generally, not of ever it particular person therein. Of diverse among you I have better hope, as I have showed before. pag. 7. Yet for your general state (as the question is) who can say but you are ready to receive any religion, or any thing in religion, to go forward or backward, even as pleaseth the Prince, and best fitteth your turn, for avoiding of trouble, and enjoying your ease, wealth, safety, etc. And where then be the many thousands you speak of? Or may we think this is to forsake corruption and hold forth the truth, as the Martyrs did? Nay Mr. jacob, it is far from it. And this you may note as a great difference between your estate and the Martyrs, and join it to the other mentioned before. pag. 40.41.  
Now where you say, there are infinite of your Church that know not so much of the corruptions, as those learned men did, which yet are not ignorant of redemption by Christ etc. How show you this to be true? Although if it be, it is no great commendation to your Church, considering what means of further knowledge God hath vouchsafed since that tyme. But of this point I will not stand so much. I answer, that to make your comparison hold, you must compare with those learned men, the learned among you; and with the unlearned then, the unlearned of yours now. So shall yourself and others see how untrue your speech is. Although I doubt not but even many of the unlearned among you who have knowledge of redemption by Christ, know also more of the corruptions aforesaid, than those learned men did. touching that you speak of myself, I have answered before. Pag. 41.  
The second thing you except against concerning the Martyrs, is that I said, the things now controverted were not then so called in question and convinced against them by the Scriptures, as now they have been against you. So I said. Now speak you, were they, or not? If they were, show it. If not, yield it. But you would have me to mean this, touching some few among you, and not of all. If it were but so, yet then the thing is done more since, then in those days.  
But in deed the calling in question and conviction of these things, hath not been only to some few, as you would persuade. The Admonitions have been to the whole Parliament, which are as the body of the whole Land, and gathered from all the quarters thereof. Your preaching likewise against those corruptions hath gone throughout the whole Realm. So have your books written and printed against them. Finally, our testimony by word, writing, imprisomnent, exile, death, is known throughout the Land. Why then would you have me speak this of some few, that here and there might be picked out?  
And whereas you cannot deny but the case of some among you for these things is such as damnatory sentence may be threatened against them: take you heed Mr. jacob that God being it not upon your head for one, if you proceed in those sins still as hitherto you have done. And let your disciple D. B. that Apostate take heed of it for another: and likewise all the rest whomsoever you mean to be of those some you speak of.  
It is the word of God that doth and must judge both now and in the great day. 
joh. 12.48. Psal. 149.9. 2 Chron. 19.6. 1 Cor. 5.3.4.12.13.  The judgement that is done according unto it (by whomsoever it be) is not man's but the Lords. Your hearts and consciences, I leave them to the Lord. It is your constitution and practice I speak of, and of the sundry means of knowledge and conviction in these things vouchsafed to you, which the Martyrs in former times had not. This you knew (I doubt not) though you would not see it, because you know not how to answer it.  
And thus the two differences between you and the Martyrs excepted against, do both of them stand firm against you. But why say you nothing at all to the other differences which in the same places I noted aswell as these? Can you not bring so much as colour of exception against them? Why then do you not yield unto them? Or will you that we take your silence for a consent?  
Also, why answer you not that objection when I said 
‡ Pag. 67.  you might thus justify the callings and estate of the Monks, Friars, etc. and the having of spiritual communion with them: because diverse such have been Martyrs, giving their lives for the truth they saw, who never doubted of the lawfulness of their callngs and estate? Do you therefore hold their offices and functions to be lawful? Or will you deny, that this hath been the case of such? If you do, than I allege for proof, Eckhardus a Dominican friar; Thomas Rhedonensis a Carmelite friar; Henry Voes, john Esch, William Neel, Doctor Cacalla, Augustine friars; joannes Mollius a grey friar; Jerome Savonarola, Dominicus, Silvester, etc. All of them being Friars and Monks, yet Martyrs of jesus, faithfully witnessing the truth which they saw even unto death. Act. & Monum. 5. edit. Pag. 387. 613. 672. 799. 829. 850. 854.  
4. For the fourth point, it is so very plain and pregnant as you can say nothing against it, but refer us to that you have said before: which I have showed to be nothing at all to the purpose. So it remaineth firm against you. And so also do the reasons mentioned, 2 Cor. 6.14. etc. Against which you neither have said nor can say any thing to serve your turn. Say but yourself (and speak plainly) whether that general clause [Towch no unclean thing] include not both your and all other abominations of Antichrist breaking the second commandment?  
One of yourselves 
“ Trial of Subscription: Pag. 7.  alleging this scripture but against the ceremonies retained in your Church, reasoneth thus from it, and amnexeth that note in the Margin which I have here set down withal: 
† 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17. This forbiddeth the whole corruption in religion of heathen or Antichrist, although principally their false doctrine.  What communion (saith he) hath the light of the word, with the darkness of man's inventions? What concord hath Christ our Saviour, with Belial, the Antichrist of Rome? And where greement hath the Temple of God (which is ourselves) with Idols of human traditions? Wherefore 
♣ Rev. 18.2.3.4.  come out of Babylon (that is, the confusion, or confused worship and government of Rome) and towch no unclean thing. These are his words. Now tell me, I pray you, is this Scripture and reason strong against your ceremonies? And is it not much more against your confusion, Liturgy, Hierarchy etc. which are merely the inventions of man, even of Antichrist, that man of sin? Or will you be like the Papists also in this, to limit the bounds of the Scripture, that it may be applied no further, nor otherwise, but as pleaseth you?  
That the place of Ezechiel is directly of the breach of the Second commandment, 
Ezec. 43.8.  is as clear as the Sun at noon day. Beside the reasons which I alleged before, those so many clauses (My thres holds & theirs; My posts and theirs; Me and them; Mine holy Name with their abominations) these, I say, so many concurring in this one verse, make it without all question, that he speaketh directly of joining their inventions with God's ordinances in the worship of the true God. Which is the direct breach of the Second, not of the First, commandment.  
The First is directly touching Gods inward worship, as to have, love, trust, fear him only as God, etc. The Second is directly of outward worship: For Images and bowing down to them (
“ Exo. 20.4.5  there mentioned) are outward things. If this distinction be not observed, the first and second commandment will be confounded: as the Papists (whom you follow) would have it. But if it be observed, it confoundeth both you and them (M. jacob) and all your vain pretences.  
By this also it is evident, that the Idolatry of Ahas, Manasses, Amon etc. whereof you speak, was directly against the Second commandment. Ahaz (to give an instance in one of the grossest) is said to have 
* 2 Chron. 28 23.  sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus: because he 
† 2 King. 16. 10-15.  made an altar like the altar of Damascus: though yet notwithstanding he offered thereon to the true God, both such offerings and at such seasons, as the Lord had appointed. His sin then was against the Second commandment directly, in that he made and used another altar than God had prescribed.  
But your ignorance of the Scripture-phrase deceiveth you. For when you read that Ahaz, Manasses, or others sacrificed to the Gods of the Nations, you understand that they worshipped some other than the true God against the First commandment▪ whereas the Scripture meaneth they worshipped the true God after the … o as those nations served their Idols, and so broke the Second commandment. You may see it in that example of Ahaz before: and most plainly in Deut. 12.30.31.32. And likewise if Naaman worshipping God, had bowed down before the Idol in Rimmons' Temple, but in heart honoured the God of Israel, he had broken the Second, not the First commandment: and might be said to have worshipped the Idol Rimmon. 2 King. 5.17.18.  
The reason of all these is because God accounteth them to be served, whose ordinances are observed: and himself not to be had as God, when his true worship is not had. Now so must we esteem things, and so the Scripture speaketh (not as men judge, but) as God esteemeth. Mind this well Mr. jacob, for your worship of Antichrist.  
But of these things more hereafter, when we come to speak of the third Scripture (2 King. 17.) in the sixth Reason following, 
2 King. 17.  whither you refer us for it: though there the Reader shall find you answer not the several Scriptures here alleged for proof of it. In the mean time let this be noted, that here again you grant your Church corruptions are against the Second commandment. Therefore may none that fear God and will be assured to escape his wrath, bow down unto them. Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 5.9.10. and 6.10.11. and 28.15.16. etc. Psal. 106.29.  
Next, where I speak of your breach of the second commandment, as being spiritual whoredom: you except against it, as if I mismatched things otherwise then they are in deed. But how can that be, seeing the Scriptures 
‡ Pag. 68  there alleged prove that which I said? Or will you say your case is not spiritual whoredom, which God in that commandment hath straitly forbidden and severely threatened to punish?  
This then being so, it is yourself Mr jacob, that mismatch things otherwise then in deed they are. For your case is not as you would pretend by your similitude, like a wanton word, a light gesture or countenance, or an immodest thought of a woman. But I will tell you what it is like: Even as when a woman unfaithful to her husband, is found to commit filthiness with other men, after whom she goeth a whoring. Now such a one (whatsoever smooth speech, countenance, or excuse she pretend, yet) is in deed an whore, and for this cause to be divorced.  
That your case is such, your going a whoring after Antichrist (whose ordinances, Hierarchy, worship, confusion etc. are retained among you) testifies to your faces. Fitly therefore do we apply the Scriptures against you: and yourselves it is that sin against the Third commandment in misapplying of them, as I showed sufficiently in my former answer, against which you can say nothing.  
To the proof of the Assumption you yield now at length. Neither can I otherwise think of your answer, seeing I have proved my speech to be proper, and the Scriptures fitly alleged: and, you refuse to justify your own Articles and estate. Yet lest you should again cavil and delude the Reader, I ask you, Have I not concluded the question in a Syllogism? Why then do you not answer directly to some part of it? Have I not proved the Proposition by Scripture, and the Assumption by your own Writings and practice? The Conclusion than must needs be true, unless one of the Propositions could be disproved: which you are so far from, as you never go about to do it.  
The marginal note than is no scoff, but a just reproof of your ignorance: which in deed deserveth much more. But I spare you: and leave it to others to judge, whether you do any thing else in all you say, but wind in and out, to hide the truth and blind the Reader, if you could. The Scriptures which I alleged for proof of the Proposition, you handle as if I had brought them for proof of the Assumption. Who is it now (think you) that is in a dream? Again, your own Books, profession, and practise, by which I proved the Assumption, you towch not at all. Nay you say plainly, it is no part of your mind to justify them. Whether it be for that you see, they can not possibly be justified, or because you want skill in yourself or charity towards your Church for the doing of it, let others inquire. Sure I am that thus you give the cause. For this belongs directly unto it, as all may see that have any understanding, and yourself (I suppose) will not deny, when you have called your wits a little better together.   

Chap. 8. The second Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. Io. 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. with Esay. 29.13.)  
But the doctrine publicly professed and practised by law in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man. (This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Articles of the book alleged, and by their other books of Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Common prayer, their Holy days, Fasting days, Censures, Hierarchy etc. All which are the precepts of men and 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 57 2. Also, note 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.  
FR. Io. his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 1. Reply to the 2. Reason. THe Reason is as you see it propounded before. N●w what proposition do you deny? Not any at all. What defence then bring you of your book of Common prayer and the particulars therein; of your books of Articles and Injunctions; of your Prelacy and other Ministry received from then according to your popish Pontifical; of your Canons and Excommunications etc. Surely none neither. What then do you answer? Not a word, but that you refer us to your answer before in the last Exception: whither 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 your worship, Prelacy, Ministry, and Church government called into question. Is not this then a worthy and Clerck like answer? Have you not (may we think) good proof for your present estate and Church-constitution, which thus leave it altogether without defence, even when it most needeth, and as it were, beggeth your help and succour, if you could afford it any. Yet now having no answer to any part of the Argument, you bid 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 you say maketh for you and against us most notably.  
1 But first tell us, if 
‡ As that of Lev. 10.1.2.3. Num. 16 1. etc. Esa. 1.11.12.13.14.15. Zeph 1.12. 1 Cor. 11.19.  many 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 you condemn at once all the Martyrs heretofore, who usually alleged this 
† Mat. 15.9  very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church, as as yourself cannot be ignorant. Yet in your 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 you say, This Scripture is verified of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated, tell up, whether you mean that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vain traditions, or no. If you think they did, that very Chapter showeth the contrary besides that the whole Scriptures testify, that Christ was altogether free from sin, 
Mat. 15.2.  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 you, who do all of you join and commmunicate with the fa●se worship of your Assemblies?  
3 Thirdly I answer, that your note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand. For first, who knoweth not, that ●e the jewish Church; the doctrine publicly professed and 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. & 2.21.22.23.24.25.27.36.37.38.39.41.46. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. joh. 10.34.  Zachary and Elizabeth, simeon, Anna, Mary, joseph, 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 your assemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this scripture maketh nothing for you, but against you most notably.  
Now whereas in the margin, you wish the Reader to mark an open contrariety, comparing this and the sixth Reason together: we do also refer it to the Reader to judge, whether there be not even an harmony with this, and a direct confirmation of it.  
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, page 57 You ask what proposition I do deny? I answer, I distinguish your assumption 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. 57 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, aftet mens 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. 82.) 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 Chistian and conscionable Disputer. Thus you have answer enough to this in the answer to your last Exception, though you would not see it.  

* Pag. 82.  Further I noted Secondly, 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 condemneth the jew corrupt traditions, but he meant not there by 〈…〉 their Church▪ Therefore all this is not against our purpose, but notably for us is before observed.  
1. Concerning your First answer in Pag. 83. 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. 83.  you say That this helpeth us not except we say that Christ communicateed 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 jew then.  
3. In your Third answer 
“ pag. 83. 84  You deny that those jewish traditions of washing, 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 traditions 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 la. 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 la never the less, and a number of the jews simply used them, and 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. 84. 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. 82. 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.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 2. Reply to the. 2. Reason. Whhatsoever you brought against the last Exception before, is there answered. Pag. 58. 59 60. 61. Your wooden leg will not make your Reply go for currant, neither can your glassy eye see how to take 〈◊〉 my answer. The vanity of this comparison of yours applied to your estate, I have already discovered. And for Mr Cranmer, Ridley, etc. I have answered before. Pag. 40. 41. 59 60. Divers of the differences there noted may likewise serve for 
* Yet if it be still with Geneva, as you say: the thing as of very ill note. If it be not so, note M. jacob.  Geneva. Besides that the constitution of that Church is in the way of Christ: whereas yours is in the apostasy of Antichrist. And so there is no comparing of your estate and theirs together: although in some things it may be they walk corruptly, and you in other with some show of piety.  
Your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (M. jacob) would aswell help the jews to have confuted the Prophet Esay and our Saviour Christ, as it doth you. For I pray you, did the doctrine and Law of their Church appoint all God's worship by men's precepts, or yet the chiefest part of it? Or had it been of weight, if they had thus answered Christ and his Prophets, as you do here? Shall I now say, you play the ignorant Sophister, yea and the false Sophister too.  
And where you say next, Your Preaching, Sacraments, Prayers etc. are not appointed by men's precepts, Is not this also a manifest untruth? Let your Offices of Ministry by virtue of which these are administered; your Prelates silencing of you at their pleasure; your Injunctions, Canons, Articles, Common prayer book, according to which you are appointed and bound to administer all your holy things: Let these (I say) speak indifferently between us. Yea let your own men speak, and they will testify against you. In the second Admonition to the Parliament they affirm, 
† 2 Admon. pag. 6.  That although some truth be taught by some Preachers, yet no Preachers may without great danger of the Laws utter all the truth comprised in the book of God. It is so circunscribed and wrapped within the compass of Statutes, Penalties, Injunctions, Articles, Canons, etc. Also, that these may not be offended against, but with more danger then to offend against the Bible. Yea, that the Bible must have no further scope, then by these it is assigned.  
Add hereunto your Book of common prayer, by which you are enjoined how to administer your Sacraments, what to pray when to exhort etc. Which likewise you may not break, but with more danger then to offend against the Bible: as in the Admonition aforesaid is testified. Mind also, that your Church is enjoined in the service of God publicly to read the Apocrypha books which have errors, fables, magik, blasphemy etc. and to leave altogether unread some parts of the Canonical Scripture as being (you say) least edifying, & might best be spared: as the book of Canticles and other parts of the Old Testament; And in the New also, part of the first Chapter of Matthew, and of the 3. of Luke, and almost the whole Book of the Revelation: Of which the Spirit of God saith expressly, Blessed is he that readeth, 
Rev. 1.3.  and they that hear the words of this Prophecy etc. For proof hereof, see the Calendar and Rubric in your book of Common Prayer, for the order of reading the Scripture in your Church throughout the year.  
Speak now yourself Mr. jacob, Is it not clear, that your Preaching, Sacraments, Prayer etc. are appointed by men's precepts? Unless you will say, Your Injunctions, Canons, Articles, Statutes, Common prayer book etc. be not the precepts of men. As it may be you will not stick much at it, if you can colour the matter with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or like deceit. So Christian a Disputer and conscionable you are.  
Again, Is the Papists whole worship or the chiefest part of it otherwise by the precepts of men, than yours is? It may be you will take pepper in the nose, that I ask you this. For I perceive your little patience is already much moved. You shall not therefore hear it of me, because I would not put you out of all quiet. I will but tell you what your own men say of it, at whose hands I doubt not but you will take it better. Thus than they say, speaking of your estate: 
* 2 Admon. pag. 7.  He that could not abide strange fire in the old Law but burnt them that used it, what will he do to us in the new Law that erect a new and strange course or word to rule his Church by? What did the Pope but so? He did suffer God's word to have a course as far as it pleaseth him, so that he might have the whole authority above it.  
What now Mr jacob? How will you answer your own men? Or will you be so good to the Papists your grandsires, as a little to help them at a dead lift with your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? So may they plead for their worship against this Scripture (Mat. 15.9.) opposed unto them by the Martyrs, as you do for yours. Specially, seeing your Book of common prayer was taken out of their Portuis; and your Book of consecrating Bishops and Priests, out of their Pontifical. So that if theirs, than yours also must needs be according to the precepts of men, yea of Antichrist that man of sin. Thus you have answer enough to this, if you have eye enough to see it.  
In your Second note, because this Scripture was spoken to them that were of a visible Church etc. you say, 
Mat. 15.9.  Therefore it affirmeth nothing against you. This is a very strange consequence. Have not your selves alleged it against the Papists? and would you admit of such an answer? I showed heretofore, that the things verified sometimes of the members of a true Church, may fitly be alleged against a false Church. and yet not justify them in such estate to be a true one. See the Scriptures 
† Pag. 83.  there quoted, which by the Martyrs and others are often so alleged against the Papists. Unto which you can say nothing.  
Besides also, the jews being a true Church, and yet their worship unto many of them by their traditions proving to be in vain: it followeth more strongly against the false Church and her abominations, which are far more and of another nature than those in jewry. Thus should you apply it to yourselves.  
lastly mind that now you are driven to say, you never denied but this Scripture condemneth your corruptions. So by your own confession, your worship of God is in vain. No part of it is free from your corruptions. Let such then join with you therein as have pleasure in vain worship. 2 Thes. 2.12. with Exod. 20.5. Christ never communicated in any such, but rebuked it and all them that worshipped God in such manner, even this Scripture being witness. Therefore it maketh notably against you and for us, as is before observed.  
1. In your Reply to the first point of my Answer next following, you can not say a word against it. Yet will you not yield. Still you would have me grant that which I deny, and you should prove: viz, That in your estate you are a true Church etc. The contrary whereof I have proved 
‡ Pag. 3. 12. 16. 22. 33. 59 60. 61. 63. etc.  before. Therefore is it not yet in question.  
2. To the second you yield with shame enough: though your folly be so great, as you see it not. For first, you neither do nor can answer (but against yourselves) to that which I asked concerning Christ and his Apostles, whether they communicated in those traditions of the jeewes, or not. If by your silence you consent that they did not (as in deed the truth is) then by their example are we also bond not to partake in yours. If you say they did, than you both blaspheme Christ, making him a sinner, and give the holy Ghost the lie, who in 
† Mat. 15.2.13.14.  this very Chapter testifies the contrary. Thus whatsoever you shall answer, it maketh against you exceedingly. And because you answer not, it importeth that you yield. So also doth that most plainly, which here you speak for yourself.  
You say you seek not to justify your partaking in your traditions etc. Yes Mr jacob, you seek it, but you are ashamed to profess it. Else why condemn you us for not partaking therein? I know you will say (as is in the Preface of your book) that your mind is, we should partake with you in your lawful things, not in your traditions. But for shame leave this folly. None can join with any of your Churches or ministery, but they must needs partake with your Antichristian traditions. Show the contrary in any Minister or Church of the Land, and we yield. Otherwise, what do you but yield?  
The renouncing you speak of, is in word, not in work. You renounce evil with your lips, but approve it in your deeds. And thus is verified upon you that which Christ out of the Prophet spoke in the 
† Mat. 15.8.  place aforesaid, This people draweth near unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with the lips, but their heart is far from me.  
And where you speak of such as do in simplicity partake of your traditions, to be true Christians nevertheless, Albeit in your constitution they can not by the word of God so be counted, 
Pag. 3. 7. 16. 33. 63. etc.  as hath been proved: yet I pray tell us, what then you think of those that partake with your traditions, not of simplicity, but as yourself do: that is, knowing them to be against the Second Commandment; of Antichrist; vain worship; never but nought etc.  
3. In the third point of my answer, I noted two differences between your case and the jews: the first touching the Law itself, the second touching the observation of it. For the Law, I showed that the ordinance of God given by Moses (even the written word) being the Law of that Church, it did not appoint but forbidden those traditions: Yours contrarily. For the observation, I showed that the traditions were not generally observed of all the members of that Church, as yours be. Both these I proved by the Scripture, Luk. 1. 5-10. & 2.21. etc. Mat. 5.17. & 8.4. & 15.2. joh. 10.34. Where mark in john those words of Christ to the jews [In your Law] speaking of the written word. Now unto this so plain evidence you answer nothing at all to the purpose.  
For the former, you seem at first to yield, that these traditions were not commanded by the Law of that Church? But yet being so generally received, and they rebuked who used them not, you count it to be as good. Which I deny. Then you would prove these to be the Law of that Church, because they are called 
† Mar. 7.5.  the Traditions of the Elders. But even by this appeareth, that they were not the Law of that Church, but a Tradition received from hand to hand from their forefathers. Which therefore bond not any, neither were observed by all, as it is with you. Neither was their case then, as the jews is now with their Thalmud; or as the Turks with their Alcoran; neither as the Papists or yours with the Canon Law. If it had been such, then could they not have been a true Church. And to understand this to be the ordinance of their present Governors (as to serve your turn you could be content) is altogether without ground. It is both against the common use of the word Tradition here urged, and against the true meaning of the word Elders in this place: 
Mat. 5 21.27.33.  which plainly appeareth by another word used in Mat. 5. in such sense as this is here, and in stead thereof, signifying Them of old time, or the like.  
For the latter, that is the observation, you would prove out of 
* Mar. 7.3.  Mark, that they were generally received. If you mean, they were received of very many, but not of all, you speak nothing against that which I said. If you mean they were received of all among them (as the words seem to sound) than you misunderstand and misalledge that Scripture. I will show it by a like speech used also by Mark in another place, where he saith, all the country of judea and they of jerusalem came out to john, 
† Mar. 1.5.  and were all baptized of him etc. Now by the word All in this place he meaneth only a great many, and not every one, as the word might seem to import. For that all were not baptized of him, is evident both by 
“ Mat. 21.32 Luk. 7.30.  other Scriptures; and by this reason, that if all judea and jerusalem had been baptised of him, than had they all confessed their sins and become disciples. Which all men know was far otherwise. Likewise in this place, although he say All the jew, because they were many, yet even in the 
‡ Mar. 7.2.  next verse going before he saith the Disciples (who also were jews) observed them not, and therefore the Pharisees complained.  
Thus you see they were not received of all the jews: as heretofore I showed not only in the Disciples, but in diverse other by name. 
Pag. 84.  Of whom you cannot deny but it is true. They were the personal sins of some, not the public established Law, neither generally received and practised in that Church, as I noted yours to be in your Assemblies, that is of all the members thereof. Neither is there any comparison between yours and theirs: as (besides that which I have showed before) may appear even by the water-pots here mentioned by yourself. Of the lawful or unlawful use whereof I need not stand to speak, it being evident that they were no way so unlawful, or of such nature, as your corruptions are. Let this than which hath been said suffice to show how true and pertinent my answers be.  
That there is no contrariety between any thing spoken here and in the sixth Reason following, the Reader may see. And that it is yourself who do evil, and defend it too, there need no other witness, but the title and contents of your book, together with your estate. Concerning the thing which here you object, I have proved already, that 
* Mat. 15.9  this and 
‡ See before Pag. 83.  other Scriptures being spoken of vain worshippers in the true Church, have been and may be alleged much more against all vain worship in the false Church: whether it be yours, or the Papists, or any other whatsoever. And say yourself, if the Martyrs have not both been persuaded that the jews were a true Church, and yet alleged this Scripture against the Papists, as against a false Church. Are these contrary, I pray you, that they need be reconciled? Then do you reconcile them, for the Martyrs. For sure I see no need of it.   

Chap. 9 The third Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fran. johnson. IF the whose 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 Antichrists, 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 withal submit to Circumcision, he saith, they were abolished from Christ, Christ would profit them nothing.  
H. jacob his first 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 you 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 la. Now the Churches of Galatia generally were not such, but held the saving faith sound doubtless, though many amngest them were tainred 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 grossest 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 disgraceth, it destroyeth not the Church, like as hath been said of the Galatians.  
Fr. Io. his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 3. Reason. YOur first answer is, that you deny the Assumption. Which in plain terms is as much, as if you 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 was showed before. But for the more evidence of the truth, I will set this down in a Syllogism, thus:  
If a Galatian submitting 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. And yet the former you deny, that is the Assumption. Therefore you give the lie to the holy Ghost, who affirmeth it.  
Next you answer, that the Galatians were then true Christians, and their Assemblies, Churches, Gal 1.2. Therefore (say you) this Reason is nought. But you may not thus run away with the matter and deceive yourself and your 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 submitting 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: You say, Yea. Now whether of you two it is meet we believe, let all men judge.  
But what is it then (will you say) that the Apostle termeth the assemblies of the Galatians true Churches? Gal. 1.2. You show the reason yourself, the light of the truth is so clear and manifest: There were but some of the Galatians that were infected with this error of Circumcision. True in deed, and of such only is the supposition made in the case aforesaid.  
But the Churches of Galatia generally were not such, but held the saving faith sound: This also is most true: they being set in the way and order of Christ. And therefore although there sprang up some heretics and schismatics among them (which is the 
† 1 Cor. 11.19. Act. 20.30.  lot and trial of the Church of God in all ages) yet was there not cause to break Communion with those Assemblies, but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Christ, and to 
‡ Gal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7.11.13.  cut off and cast out such troublesome leaven from among 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 2. Reply to the 3. Reason. TO this your Defence of your Third Reason, I answer. First it is too impudent a cavillation “ That you charge me to 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 equivocation  holding Circumcision, cannot be a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the Hierarchye 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 Hierarchye 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 Hierarchye, though in deed it were never but nought.  
thirdly and lastly, you have no where cleared Master Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the rest of those holy Martyrs, from being abolished from Christ, if the hierarchy be simply worse than Circumcision, so held as those Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2.3.4.5.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 3. Reason. IS it of simplicity, or of impudence, or of both (Mr jacob) that thus you do write? Your simplicity is more than duncical, to say you denied not my Assumption, but one of your own. For with whom I pray you, do you dispute? With yourself, or with me? Your impudence is to shameful, not only to give the holy Ghost the lie, but when it is showed you, yet not to acknowledge it.  
Therefore to hide it (if possibly you could) you say when you denied the Assumption, you meant not mine, but one of your own made briefer &c. Yet even thus appeareth, that you can not say otherwise but to deny my Assumption (which I proved by Scripture) were to give the holy Ghost the lie. Now that you did it before, your own words here again will testify against you. For you say, Your Assumption made briefer, containeth the effect of mine. Then in denying your own, it must needs be that you denied mine in deed and effect, and so now by your own confession it is true (as I said) that you gave the lie to the holy Ghost, who by Paul affirmeth it. Gal. 5.2.4.  
Simple Sir Priest, Had you no more wit nor better defence, then to answer thus as he that hath but half an eye may see you do nothing else but impudently cavil? Is this the Christian and conscionable disputing you speak of? Or is it the deep and Clerklike skill in argumentation which every where you will bear us in hand is locked up in the chest of your breast? Content yourself (Mr jacob) to keep hereafter within your line, and strive no longer against the truth, but for it.  
Secondly you say, to cease needles strife you deny the Proposition. But if your former denial of the Assumption was good, why do you not stand to it? If it were evil, why do you not confess it? If your mind be in deed to cease needles strife, then show it in deed, not in word only. The Proposition (which now upon better advisement you choose to deny) I have proved before. Against it you except, 
Pag. 90.  that although a Galatian holding Circumcision cannot be a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the Hierarchy etc. may. But you should say thus Mr jacob, if you answer me, He that submitteth to a false Ministry, worship, and government of the Church devised by Antichrist the man of sin, etc. is a true Christian in that estate. For these were the words I used in my Argument and proof thereof. But you delight to answer your own words and Arguments, not mine. Yet why prove you not then from the Scripture that which you say touching antichrist's Hierarchy etc. Will you have us believe it on your bare word?  
Mind also that now you confess, the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed and practised by Law in England, is not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian that should with all submit to Circumcision, which once was Gods own ordinance. Had I not cause then (think you) to deny the Assumption of your main Argument? Yea and to put you in mind of the defects and lameness both of your Proposition and Assumption▪  
And where you say, the Galatians could not be true Christians, because they held justification by the works and ceremonies of the Law, like the Papists who by their ceremonial and moral works do hold the same, and so do err Fundamentally: Whereas your Churches and State (you say) hold not the Hierarchy so, but only as an indifferent thing in itself. 1. First what say you to the 
† Damianus a Goes, de fide, Religione, et moribus Aethiopion. Pag. 63. etc.  Ethiopian Churches which together with the Gospel hold and use at this day the ceremonies of the Law, Circumcision, etc. only as things indifferent: and therefore condemn not the Churches which use them not at all? Are they in this constitution by the word of God now to be judged true Christians and true Churches? Or may not any separate from people so walking, to keep the faith of jesus without such commixtion? By your marginal note, it seemeth you are so minded. Let us have your reasons and proof in your next Reply.  
2. Or how will you prove for your Churches that it is as you say, viz, that you hold as a thing indifferent your Hierarchy etc. Do you not see that such as hold and walk otherwise, are imprisoned, banished, condemned, killed among you? Is this to hold things as indifferent? What then (I pray you) may be your holding of the other points of Religion among you which you count not indifferent?  
3. And what say you to your forbidding of Meats and Marriage at certain times: which the Apostle calleth Doctrines of Devils? Doth your Church hold them as things indifferent? Or will not this prove a blasphemous opinion, even in your own judgement?  
4. Mind withal how the Dispensations given by your Prelates for eating of flesh in times forbidden, run still among you as they did and do among the Papists, with this clause, fana conscientia, that is, with a safe conscience; and your Excommunications with this clause Ad salutem anio●e, that is, for the salvation of the soul. Doth not this show that your Churches hold not these things as you pretend, but agree with the Papists therein? Or hold you matters of conscience and salvation for things indifferent?  
5. Likewise for your Ministry, and book of common prayer etc. hold you them as matters indifferent, or as necessary for the service of God and salvation of your souls?  
6. And what say you to the blasphemy, magik, errors, lies, in the Apocrypha books retained among you for the service of God? Count you them also for indifferent things?  
6. Finally, touching the Popish opinion of works (whereof you speak) know you not how they hold that their works merit not for the work sake, but for Christ's, being died with his blood? Yet (notwithstanding this colour) the point being well considered, it doth highly dishonour Christ and derogate from his office of sole Mediation. In like manner the Hierarchy etc. that is, the government, worship, confusion, and Ministry of Antichrist retained among you (whatsoever you pretend for them, yet) being duly weighed, do as touching your Church constitution, abolish the government and Mediation of Christ: except you could prove him to be Mediator of another Testament than his own. Behold what your Indifferent opinion will prove, when it comes to be thoroughly scanned. As you like it, you may hold it still.  
To end this point, let the Reader note (and not forget it) how yourself do here in plain terms confess, that your Hierarchy (that is, your Church's government, Ministry, etc.) was never but nought. This suits ill with the title of your book, and gives small encouragement for any to serve God by such Ministry, worship, etc.  
For Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer etc. 
Pag. 40.41.  I have cleared them before from your hasty censure. Now only let the Reader observed how this is alway the foot of your song, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer etc. As if their errors were better warrant for you, than God's word for us.   

CHAP. 10. The fourth Reason against M. jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. johnson. THe doctrines of faith contained in that Book alleged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, should also still execute or join unto the Ministry 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 Ministry 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 Ministry and antichrist's Ministry are both bad alike. But the good doctrines of our book of Articles cannot save a man that joineth also to Mahomet's Ministry.  
Ergo, the good doctrines of that book cannot save a man that joineth also to antichrist's Ministry: 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 antichrist's assemblies, that is in the Turkish or Popish Churches: Then 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, and 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.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 4. Reason. Here (Mr jacob) the light of the truth doth so dazzle your eyes, as you freely confess you cannot deny any whit of the Reason. And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad. But why so? There is (you say) an Equivocation in it, and therefore you will distinguish. I answer, There is no equivocation at all in the words: they are all plain, to him that hath a single eye and will understand the truth. Therefore your distinction here is idle and frivolous.  
Yet let us see between what things you do distinguish: It is 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, Antichristian, and 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 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 Ministry 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, Canons, proceed, etc. All which in the Church of England are taken out of 
* Rev. 17.4.5. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.7.8.9.10.11.12.  that golden cup of abominations, wherewith 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 you will needs be otherwise minded, then prove the particulars aforesaid, by the Testament of Christ.  
And mark here that you grant, the doctrine of faith contained in your book of Articles cannot make him a true Christian, who holding them doth withal receive and join unto the public worship performed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies. This you say you grant as most true. Whereupon it followeth (even by your own confession) 1. That such things may be joined with the doctrines of faith received among you, as in such estate you cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches; Neither the truths which you hold, be available unto you. 2. That therefore the Proposition of your first and main Argument, is not general, but admittet limitation: and so your greatest defence is of no weight, as is showed † before. 3. That your answer to the Second Exception is of no force, howsoever here and every where you refer us to it. 
Pag 5.  For which also we refer the Reader, to what is said in that place, in defence of that Exception: And for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. unto that which is said concerning it in defence of the First Reason. Pag. 67.  
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 Turkish, ot 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 unchristian 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. 6.  
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.  
FR. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 4 Reason. Sophistical distinctions (all men know) are the wonted refuges of bad causes. That yours is such, I showed before. Now as it was, so you leave it still, even idle and frivolous. It was between the whole function and exercise of public worship performed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies; and between the outward calling to the Ministry and ceremonies among them. The first thing I brought against it was this, Who knoweth not that these latter are of the very same nature with the former? Now this you pass by, like a smooth Priest, as if you saw it not. And that which followeth after, you say is the first of my answer. Look again, and see if you speak truth: and leave this dealing.  
Yet what say you now to that which I asked next, whether the one were not aswell as the other false Antichristian and accursed? Your answer is, they are not aswell, that is not as much. But is not this mere Sophistry? Is not antichrist's forbidding of Meats and Marriage aswell Antichristian and accursed, as his Mass, Supremacy, justification by works etc. Yet in the 
“ Mr jacobs' Replies to the 7. Reason.  seventh Reason following you say, they are not as much. Doth not he that stealeth but one horse, steal aswell horseflesh, as he that stealeth five of six, though he steal not as much? When you say in the sixth Reason 
† Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 6. Reason.  The Samaritans accounted the Idols of the Heathen to be Gods aswell as the God of Israel, do you mean that they counted them as much? Or if Mr jacob be deemed a learned man aswell as Mr Cartwright, shall we think it as much? By your leave, I deny it. Aswell (properly taken) respects the quality of a thing; as much the quantity. Yet so, you confound them as all one. Thus travelling with a distinction, you have brought forth confusion.  

Pag. 95. 96. 97.  Further where your words and mine were before [of the rest of their worship and service] now you change them into these [their inward impiety and false faith against Christ]. Belike you see your cause to be very bad, when you will not keep either my words or your own, but change them every foot as you do. But now if after all this chopping and changing I grant all this which you say, what are you the nearer? Be it (as you say) that the one of these is more accursed and devilish than the other (as all sins are not equal but one more grievous than another): yet even this maketh against you, and thus you give the cause. For now you can not deny but they are both of them accursed and devilish, though the one more, the other less. Can you then as you stand in that constitution which is accursed and devilish yet be reputed for true Christians and true Churches? If the Papists for to justify their outward constitution, should thus allege, That the Turks inward impiety or whole public worship were more accursed and devilish than that outward constitution of theirs, would this any whit help them? Nay, should they not thus yield their own case to be accursed and devilish, though the other to be more? Behold then how well you defend your Church, and how cunningly you yield the cause.  
Where in the next place I asked, if God in his word hath given any commandment more for the latter (mentioned before) then for the other: 
Pag. 96.  At this you are as mute as a fish: you have not a word to speak for yourself. Now seeing God's word approveth neither but condemneth both, seeing also both of them are of Antichrist that son of perdition, is it not evident that they are of the same nature, and that the one aswell as the other is false, Antichristian, and accursed before God? It skilleth not then for the question in hand, whether of them be more or less. They that have the least of God's curse, will find it heavy enough: howsoever you flatter yourself and speak peace to others, when there is no peace.  
To the second point by which I showed your distinction to be idle and frivolous, you answer not a word neither. Unless it be that you yield to it, in those words, where you confess you retain & use some of their outward orders in your Assemblies. For if you mean it of the particulars 
† Pag. 96.  there mentioned, than you yield unto it (except you had showed by the word of God, that having communion with Antichrist in those things, yet you are notwithstanding to be judged in this constitution true Christians and true Churches: which hitherto you have not done, neither ever will). If you mean it not of them, than you keep not the point: and besides you must prove the contrary to that I have said. Which you never go about.  
For the note I gave, you grant it is most true, that such things may be joined with the doctrines of faith received among you, as will utterly destroy it, or (to keep the words of my answer, which you love not to do) that in such estate you can not be deemed true Christians or true Churches; neither the truths which you hold, be available unto you. Thus all the defence you bring of your Church proves to be quite nothing in the end. For hereby is evident (as heretofore I noted) that your Proposition is not general; that both it and the Assumption are lame and unperfect; and so your whole Argument faulty, and nothing else but mere Sophistry. Your unchristian and false charge rests upon your own head: as is proved already in the handling of your Proposition. For which see, Pag. 11. 12. 13.  
Lastly your reference is nothing else but a refuge whither still you fly to hide yourself, when you can no longer stand in defence of your Church. What you answered to the first Reason, is there taken away. Now to shut up all, you sing again the Cuckoos note, your old under song, Mr Crammer, Ridley, etc. touching whom I have showed before, 
Pag 40. 41.  how they may he counted true Christians, and yet your estate be Antichristian nevertheless.   

Chap. 11. The Fift Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fran. johnson. AS the golden vessels taken out of the Lords house, had and 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 Leu. 23.) but they still remained Babylonish people and banquets notwithstanding.  
So the truths of the Gospel (vessels as it were of the Lords house) holden and received in the spiritual 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. But they still remain the people, Ministry, & constitution of Babylon notwithstanding. See the proofs hereof in Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared with Prov. 9.17.18. & Rev. 17.4.5. & 18.4. with 14.8.9.10.11.  
H. jacob his 1. Reply to the 5. Reason. YOur Reason is this: The material vessels of jerurusalem, 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 (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared with Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 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.  
FR. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 5. Reason. MY Reason is a comparison between the Chaldean and the Romish Babylon, also between the vessels of the Lords house and the true doctrines of the Gospel. Now this you say first is an absurd comparison. So belike (if your grave judgement might go for good payment) the manifold allusions which (in describing the spiritual Babylon) the Spirit of God ♣ maketh to the material Babylon of the Chaldeans are to be accounted absurd allusions and comparisons. As also the often alluding and likening together the * holy things of the Law with the holy things of the Gospel, and the † transgressions then with the transgressions now (which are so often used in the Scripture) are in your account absurd allusions & similitudes. ♣ Rev. 17. & 18. & 19 chap. compared with jerem. 50. & 51. chap. Esay. 13. & 14. & 21. & 47. chap. * Esay. 66.20.21. Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. & 10.2.3.4. Col. 2.11.12. Heb. 13.15.16. 1 Pet. 3.20.21. Rev. 15.3. & 21.10. & c. † 2 Tim. 3.8.9. 1 Cor. 10.6. & c. Heb. 12.16.17. Jude, vers. 11. Rev. 2.14.20. & 20.8.9.  
Secondly, you say the Proposition is most false. But in deed it is most true, and most plainly taught in the fift of Daniel, Vers. 1.2.3.4. & Lev. 23. chap. As was alleged before when I first propounded the reason, whereunto yet you have given no answer. So sound you defend your cause.  
Thirdly you say, These scriptures (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. with Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 18.4. & 14.8.9.10.11.) are idly and vainly applied. But how do you show this? Very profoundly sure. You bid us see the answer to the allegations in the First Reason: And this is all the proof you bring. Well: we have seen your answer to the allegations there, and find, First, that the Scriptures here alleged, are not so much as once mentioned there: Secondly, that your answer to those which are there, is most frivoulous and of no weight, but against yourself, as there is declared. Pag. 67. 68  
lastly, in your propounding the Reason here, otherwise than I did myself (which is a thing very common, but nothing commendable in you) it seemeth, that being not able to answer any part thereof, as I had set it down, yet you thought to help yourself by this exception, that the material vessels of jerusalem were not of like power and virtue to sanctify the Heathen Babylonians, as the true doctrines received among the Spiritual Babylonians, are to sanctify them. But you shall find (if you 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, That the setting of men's posts and thresholds, (how much more of Babylon's enormities) by his Posts and Thresholds, that is, by his truths and ordinances, is so far from sanctifying, as it defileth his holy name, yea is abomination in his sight, and setteth a brickwall between him and them that do it? Ezech. 43.8. And saith not the Scripture again, that the true doctrines in the false Church are among them as stolen waters and hid bread, which though they be sweet and pleasant, yet there also the mouth is 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. Prov. 9.17.18. & 20.17.  
To conclude this point, hath not an Angel from heaven proclaimed with a loud voice, that 
‡ Rev. 18.1.2.3.4.11. etc. & 17.1.2.3.4.5. & 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 & Merchants that will not departed out of her, shall receive of her plagues and damnation, and drink of the wine of God's wrath, and be tormented in fire and brimstone, before the holy Angels and before the Lamb for evermore? Lo here your fearful estate, which you notwithstanding 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 vessels 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 Sophistry 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 in deed) Say I not well, that this is an absurd Comparison? Yes Master johnson, it is a most 
† To match those outvard vessels, (of no sanctity of themselves) with our inward doctrines of salvation.  impious, absurd, and senseless comparison, and void of common Reason: And it inwrappeth wrappeth Master Cranmer, Master Ridley, etc. within the same injurious, you irreligious consequence likewise.  
All that you have of allusions, and alluding, between the Typical 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, 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, Prov 9.17. etc. Rev. 18.1. etc. As for Ezech. 43.8. I answered it before 
† Pag. 71.  in your First Reason.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 5. Reason. HAve you said any thing here first (Mr jacob) but denied the Conclusion? If you have, show it. If not, confess your own childish vanity and open beggary, etc. For which the name of Sophistry is to good, though otherwise it be bad enough, and the cognisance of all your Replies. Now that this you say is but the denial of the Conclusion, thus I show, That which I conclude touching your Churches is this, that they are not constitute according to the ordinance of Christ but according to the apostasy of Antichrist, that is, that your Churches in their estate are spiritual Babylon. This (I say) is that which I have concluded heretofore, and still do throughout my Reasons, Exceptions, Answers: and now of purpose have I set it down at the beginning of this treatise. 
Pag. 3.  Your denying of this then, what is it else but the denial of the Conclusion?  
But this now being proved, you are driven (nill ye, will ye) plainly to grant that in deed my Reason will follow. Well Mr jacob, though it were long first, yet thus you yield now at length. Better late thrive, than never. Abide but by this, and I trow you will not now any longer stand member or Minister of your Assemblies in that estate, neither condemn us any more for separating from them.  
Next, howsoever it were for the question between us, yet the Proposition of the Comparison cannot but be true, which in your first Reply you said was most false, and now you would pass by, because you can say nothing against it. Yet mind Mr jacob, that in denying it you did there again give the lie to the holy Ghost, whose doctrine it is, in these Scriptures, Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. Levit. 23. chap. Prov. 9.17.18.  
By all this than you may see, it is your own dealing that is most impious, absurd, senseless etc. thus to strive (as you have done) against so clear a truth, and every where in your Replies to fight against God and his word. Which even here again you cease not to do, whiles you call such allusions and comparisons as the Scripture useth between the typical and spiritual Babylon, mere delusions and vain cavils. How I matched together on the one hand, the vessels of the Lords Temple and the truths of the Gospel; on the other, The Chaldean and spiritual Babylon, may be seen in my former answer. Which may suffice for any thing you say here, both your marginal note, and all the rest.  
I could tell you further (if it needed) that Babel in English is confusion: And that such is the estate of your Church, even a confusion of all sorts of people good and bad. Besides that your tongues are divided and your language confounded (as it was in 
* Gen. 11.9.  Babel of old) whiles the Prelates, the Reformists, yourself and the like (as Neuters between both) speak some one thing, some another, touching your Hierarchy, worship, Canons, etc. some 
† The Prel. & Formal.  that they are of God and to be kept and obeyed for conscience sake; some 
‡ The Sekers of Reform.  that they are of Antichrist, and to be removed and witnessed against unto death, though every hair of the head were a life; some 
♣ Mr jacob & the like.  that they are neither of God, neither of Antichrist, simply, fundamentally, indifferently, etc. And thus as men confounded in yourselves (by the just judgement of God) your tongues are divided, you know not yourselves what to make and account of these things, or one of another.  
I could also put you in mind, that as the Chaldean Babylon was, so the spiritual Babylon is, notorious for false worship towards God, and for persecution of his people, keeping them in thraldom and captivity. 
See M. Iacob● Repl. before,  And that now the estate of your Church is such (viz, worshipping God after a false manner never prescribed by himself, kept in subjection to your Antichristian Prelates, and persecuting the people of God by prisonment, exile, death, etc.) it is so evident, as when you are called upon to show warrant for these among you, your usual answer is no other but after this sort: 
* Pag. 37.  Let the State which maintaineth these things, answer for them; 
† Pag. 70.  For my part, I never thought other but our Church corruptions are against the Second commandment; 
“ Pag. 72.  It is no part of my mind to justify them; 
♣ Pag. 84.  Our doctrine appointeth God's worship by men's precepts after a sort; 
‡ Pag. 92.  Our Hierarchy was never but nought; 
* Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 6. Reason following.  I never intended, much less professed to justify our whole Ministry, estate, and manner of worship; 
† His Replies to the 7. & 8 Reasons.  We depart from and deny the faith in our Ministry etc. but not totally, simply, fundamentally; 
‡ His 2. Reply to the 9 Reason.  I list not to meddle with them, I have no leisure etc.  
Now then Mr jacob, say I not well that your Churches in this estate are spiritual Babylon? And have I not made a fit comparison between it and the Chaldean Babylon of old, between the doctrines of truth in the one and the holy vessels in the other? If the comparison be good, strive no more against it, but yield to the truth, as you have begun. If it be evil, convince it by Scripture whence I borrowed it, as the testimonies I alleged declare. Until you do this (which will not be in haste) know that the Scriptures here cited are fitly applied to the purpose in hand. If you see it not; fear lest you be miserably and desperately blinded. And take heed you do not still run on wilfully to destruction. Remember what is written in Esa. 6.9.10. Mat. 13.14.15. joh. 12. 37-43. Act. 28.25.26.27.  
touching the place of Ezech. 43.8. I have answered in the handling of the first Reason. Pag. 80.  
For Mr Cranmer, Mr Ridley, etc. I have also answered, Pag. 40. 41. You that do so often tell us of them, if you had but so much as how of any Scripture for your estate, is it like you would be silent therein? Nay sure you would not spare much more to tell us of that again and again. And so let the Reader mind it.   

Chap. 12. The sixth Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. Io. THe Samaritans (those counterfeit children of Abraham Isaak and jacob) did publicly profess that most excellent doctrine of the Messias 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 one, 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 appeareth, 1. That although the Samaritans professed this saving truth, yet (being false worshippers of God) they could not truly challenged unto themselves in such estate, the benefit thereof. 2. That the jews and they which held their faith, being then the true Church and people of God, to whom his Oracles were committed, and to whom his covenants and service did appertain, Christ therefore accounted the jews (and not the Samaritans) to be the true worshippers of God and heirs of salvation. john. 4.22. compared with ver. 20.25.29. and with 2 King. 17.24. etc.  
In like manner, the people of these Ecclesiastical assemblies standing subject to a counterfeit Ministry and worship, (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 be 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 (but only to his true Church and worshippers) his service and holy things of his word, prayer, Sacraments, Censures, etc.  
H. jacob his 1. Reply to the 6. Reason. THis your sixth Reason is, The Samaritans (believing that Messias 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 Messias should come, and Balaam did know it, Nomb. 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 King. 17. Which wholly destroyed the truth in them, though they did retain some memorial amongst them of Messias to come. 
Pag. 62  Wherefore here take the Second Answer to the First Reason before. But I will help you with an Objection, surely one fit than all these.  
The Israelites under jeroboam at Dan and bethel served not Pagan Idols, Objection. 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.  
To this we answer also, what additions of devices, Answer. 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 
‡ My meaning was, the Levites were not of Aaron's line, but the Priests only.  Aaron's line the only Priests & 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.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 6. Reason. THis Reason (as the rest) you neither propound as we did, nor make answer directly and sound to any part thereof. Now that the nakedness of your answer, and light of the truth may better appear, we will propound the Reason more plainly in a Syllogism, thus.  
The people and assemblies, whose Ecclesiastical constitution is such as to them in that estate the Covenantes, 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 truths they profess beside.  
But such is the Ecclesiastical constitution of the people and assemblies of England, as unto them in that estate the Covenauntes, holy things, and 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 covenaunts, 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 by Christ's speech concerning them in such estate, joh. 4. & 2 King. 17. whereunto you answer nothing to any purpose, save that what you say, is against yourself. For where you grant, That the Samaritans, and Balaam knew and believed the Messias should come, yea and that the Devils know & 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 do appertain?  
And where next you say, The Samaritans believed not in the Messias, it will be heard for you to prove it, seeing you take belief in Christ so, as it is had in the spiritual Babylon and her daguhters; and seeing also the Samaritans professed and believed, not only that the Messias should come, but even he which is called Christ, and that when he came he would declare unto them all things. In so much as when jesus was come, and 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. john 4.25.26.29.30.39.  
Thirdly where you say, The Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel, which wholly destroyed the truth in them: By this again it is evident, even in your 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 Proposition of your principal and main Argument is not general, but of necessity admitteth limitation. So then your main defence falleth to the ground. Of which see further Pag. 5. etc.  
Moreover, in that you say, The Samaritans joined Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel (2 King. 17.) If you mean, that they worshipped the Idols themselves, 
● 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 you affirmed in your answer to the First Reason: then I take it, that here again you are deceived. The scripture sayeth they worshipped and sacrificed to the Lord God of Israel. So as their sin was against the Second commandment, in that worshipping the true God, 
See before, Pag. 67. 68  they did it in, and by those Images, as also by other devices of their own and traditions of their predecessors.  
That this was their case (besides that it appeareth in the chapter alleged) it is most plainly testified, 1. First by themselves, in the book of Ezra, where they speak to the jews of the captivity, that builded the Temple, saying: 
* Ezra. 4.1.2  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 Ashur, which brought us up hither. 2. Secondly, by the speech that was between Christ and the woman of Samaria, joh. 4. where it is manifest, 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. 3. Lastly, by your own confession, when 
‡ Pag. 105.  you say the Israelites under jeroboam at Dan and Bethel, served not Pagan Idols but the true God after their own devices. For the Samaritans (as the 
† 2 King. 17.28.32.33.  Scripture testifieth) worshipped the same God, and after the same manner that the Nations did which were carried from thence. Now the nations thence carried, were the ten Tribes of Israel that fell away from judah to jeroboam. Who likewise 
♣ 1 King. 12.27.28.29.30.31. with 2 King. 17.32.33.40.41.  feared the Lord and served their Images, that is, God in and by their Images: As now also the Samaritans did that were come in their stead. Hitherto of your answer which seemeth to concern the Proposition of the latter Syllogism.  
The Assumption was showed by this, that your Assemblies being commingled together of all sorts of people, you have also for your worship of God, a counterfeit Ministry and service, devised by man: This you do rightly understand (as we mean it) of your Hierarchy and other abominations before rehearsed. 
Pag. 63. etc.  Which deceitfully here again you would smother up under the name of ceremonies. Touching which sleight of yours, sufficient is said before in the handling of the First Reason.  
But what say you now concerning the Assumption or proof of it? Do you deny it? Not so. What then do you say for your counterfeit Hierarchy, worship, etc. Not a word but this, That your 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 it any just defence of your Ministry, worship, or estate, that yet you see them not to 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 Papists plead likewise for their Ministry, worship, and estate: as also the Usurers, extortioners, and persecutors, for themselves and their wickedness? And by this reason, God should not have sent Lions among the Samaritans, 
2 King. 17.26.  because yet they knew not the manner of worshipping the God of Israel, 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 of those Israelites aforesaid the Lord himself testifieth 
“ Hos. 4.6.  that they were destroyed for lack of knowledge. So then your people's ignorance (which you plead) can be no sufficient defence for your estate. Or if it could, yet it seemeth they of Israel might aswell have alleged it 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 yourself, remaineth still unaunswered.  
Where you say, Aaron's Line were the only Priests and Levites, you are also mistaken therein. In deed Aaron's Line only was the Priests, but the Levites were generally of the Tribe of Levi, though not of Aaron's line.  
But to let this pass: We would know a sufficient reason, why the true worship and Ministry appointed by Christ in his Testament, should not be aswell known unto you in these days, as in the defection of Israel? You say, They could not but know that jerusalem was the only place, & Aaron's line the only Priests. Well then: Have not you the Scriptures as much as they had? Or hath not 
♣ Heb. 3.1.2.3.4.5.6.  Christ the son been as faithful in the house of God, and as plainly set down his will for his true worship and Ministry 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 & 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 Ministry, worship, and order appointed by Christ to his Church now, as they did then (if not more open and grievous) not only for the causes aforesaid, but because you have also 
† Witness the Pontifical, Porruis, Canons, and Constitution of the popish & your assemblies, compared together.  received and still retain a false Ministry, worship, and confusion of the Man of sin, that son of perdition, and capital enemy of the Lord jesus Christ? And yet moreover lest you should be behind them in any thing, and not every way far exceed them, do also 
‡ Witness your prisons gallows Statutes & c  persecute unto bands, exile, and death, such as bear witness to the truth of Christ, against your abominations.  
By this then is manifest, that you have neither justified your estate in respect of the Apostate Israelites, nor answered the Objection 
“ pag. 105.  here framed by yourself against your present constitution. So that it also still remaineth upon you as a testimony against your present estate. We indeed neither did nor needed propound it, as a several Reason among those we set down, because it is of like nature with those which we have already mentioned in the Second and sixth Reasons here before alleged. Pag. 82. and 104.  
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. 106.  are no true Christians] is proved by the example of the Samaritans, and that I answer nothing against it.  
First I say there you sophisticate 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 Hierarchy and external ceremonies as Cranmer etc. Then I say and a vouch 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, & First and Second Reasons.  
Secondly where you say, the Samaritans prove it, & I say nothing against it. Mark you. First I said, the Samaritans might know by hearsay, and yet not faithfully believe [in] the Messias. 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 Idols themselves, nor sacrificed to them, etc. This is proved apparently false in the Text. 2 kings. 17.29, 30, 31. Every nation made their Gods and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their Cities wherein they dwelled. 
2 King. 17.  For the men of Babel made Succoth-Benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergall and the men of Hamath made Ashima. And the Auims made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharuims burnt their children in the fire to Adramdech & 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 
† pag. 71.  have truly and well declared before, against your First Reason. Your proofs, 
‡ pag. 107.  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 &c. was their counterfeit hypocrisy and false brag, yea their devilish conspiracy against the worship of the jew 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, something of the jew God, but very much and (as by the Chapter seemeth) most of the Heathens Gods.  

Pag. 107.  2. Secondly, where you say out of john. 4. That it is manifest, there was no contention between the jews and the Samaritans, whether only the true God was to be worshipped. There appeareth † no word of any such thing. 
A bold assertion.  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 Israelites under jeroboam served not Pagan Idols 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, 
Pag. 105.  whereunto I set mine answer, that the Idolatry under jeroboam seemeth far grosser anb filthier than the worst is with us, which I make manifest by the scripture, not only 1. King. 12.28. 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 allege 2 Chron. 11.15. where jeroboam is said to appoint Priests, for the high places, for Devils, and for the Calves that he had 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 Israelites, as they of jerusalem afterwards, were Idolaters much alike 2 King. 17.19. But we read of the jew under Ahas 2 Chro. 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 the Israelites did, 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. 
Pag. 109.  Surely it appeareth more gross and worse than the Israelites before them. And therefore you are greatly deceived both here and in the defence of your First Reason before: 
Pag. 67.68.  where you expressly maintain these Samaritans to hold no Heathenish Idolatry but only to cleave to the God of Israel in an outward devised corrupt worship. They acknowledged him I grant, but him only I deny, as hath been proved.  

Pag. 68  Further you affirm in your defence of your First Reason, 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. 
Ezek. 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 la for their rule, seeing professedly they left this rule, and did constantly worship Calves, and sacrificed at Dan and Bethel. Thirdly, Ezechiell 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 scene in Ahab, Ahaziah, Ahas, Manasses, and Amon, as is before noted. 
Pag. 71.110  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, have not their consciences convicted in the Hierarchy and ceremonies, you say" If this were so, is it any just defence of your Ministry, worship, 
Pag. 107.  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, and 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, and 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 Hyerarchy and ceremonies. So that here you avouch openly, 
Pag. 5.  that third general point which I observed in my very beginning above, 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 Ministry 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 & simple ever since or at last 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, & 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. 108.  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 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, & yet be true Christians, as you acknowledge that yourself then was? meipso teste.  
That which you add 
* pag. ibid.  of persecuting unto bands exile and death, to prove our utter abolishing from Christ generally: It is a toy. First if you were merely innocent, yet this could not make us worse than the jews in Chrstes time: who for all that they persecuted, yet were they not wholly fallen from God. Secondly you suffer indeed more than you need, 
H. ●a.  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 
† 
M. johnson his contrariety proved between his 2. Reason & his 6. reason.  
Fr. Io. Not proved, but pretended. See my Answer here following.   here in this your 6. Reason you be not directly contraty to yourself, as I hue observed in your 2. Reason: Pag. 85. For you say here, Pag. 104. 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. 82. you say: They that teach for doctrine men's precepts, as 
‡ Mat. 15.9.  there Christ saith the jews than did, those in particular are no true Christians, nor their assemblies true Churches. Therefore you infer, (or else you pretend it) that those particular jew were not then true worshippers, nor their Assembles true Churches: which is a flat contradiction, Or else what is. But if you mean not this of the jew, 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.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to M. jacobs' 2. Reply to the 6. Reason. MAny such things (Mr jacob) I have often heard: Yet God forbidden, that I should justify you or your estate. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Therefore dare I not either justify your Churches wicked estate and persecution, 
Prov. 17.15.  or condemn the righteous servants of God which witness the truth against you. But you Mr jacob have done both, in this Reply of yours: the abomination whereof will further appear in the discussing of the particulars hereafter.  
Words in deed you have enough, as thinking belike that at least you have some show on your side: but they are all to no purpose, save against yourselves. I will now examine them from point to point.  
First for the Reason itself, the Proposition of the first Syllogism being so clear as you can with no colour deny it, you come therefore to the latter. Where you pretend first to set it down, and then to answer it. Yet in deed you do neither. Thus first you set it down; They that worship God after a false manner, are no true Christians. But put on your spectacles, or (if you please) your eye of glass, and try again if you can read any better. He that hath but the half eye you speak of sometimes, may see I propounded it thus, 
Pag. 106.  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. This you see is the latter Proposition; Why then did you not thus propound it? Why do you still transform my words and Arguments into others of your own? Is it because you can find no answer to them, as I have propounded them? Or because men should see in deed that to be in yourself, which you do vainly object unto me, viz, That you do sophisticate, and can do nothing else in argumentation?  
touching your answer to the Proposition, If you had kept my words, what needed (I pray you) this vain distinction of yours? Specially where there is no ambiguity at all? Was there ever any professing to worship the true God in Christ that did worship him after a false manner totally, that is, in all the particulars of their worship? Look to the Ethiopian Churches, to the Papists, to any other false worshippers of God professing Christ: and see if their case be such. Do they not hold and preach much truth? Do they not baytize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost? etc. If you say, where the constitution of a Church establisheth a false worship of God never prescribed by himself, there though they seem to have some good things, yet by reason of such constitution and practise their whole worship is false before God totally: then say I also your case is such, and therefore so of us to be esteemed. Thus if there be any thing in your pretended distinction, it is against yourself.  
But you have another clause in it, of worshipping God after a false manner fundamentally. This you say you do not in the Hierarchy and external ceremonies: and therefore you avouch confidently that such may be true Christians, and that the contrary hereof is no less than blasphemy etc. 1. First Mr jacob this is but your bare affirmation, without any warrant produced from the Scripture. 2. Secondly you say, such may be true Christians: whereas for the point in hand you should have said, all such as touching the Church-constitution wherein they stand are true Christians. If you thus affirm, prove it by the word of God. If you cannot, it will appear to be blasphemy rather in yourself so to affirm, then in others to deny it. Remember, it is 
‡ Of this see Before, Pag. 7. 8.  one thing for men to say, such may be accounted true Christians (being considered apart from the Church constitution wherein they stand); and another to say, such as touching their Chur-constitution are to be accounted true Christians. 3. Thirdly set the Reader mind, how under the term of external ceremonies, you would still hide the impiety of your false worship, and most filthy heap of your Antichristian abominations. 4. Fourthly, set you down by the word of God what is fundamental: and see if I prove not the Antichristian errors among you to be such. They subvert Christ's office; they are doctrines of Devils; 
Col. 2.8. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3 Rev. 14. 9-12. 2 Thes. 2. 3-12  marks of the Beast; lies and unrighteousness of Antichrist; the mystery of iniquity; the apostasy of the son of perdition etc. Consider now with yourself, what will follow hereupon. 5. Fiftly although your errors were not fundamental, yet for the Proposition it skilleth not, so as your constitution be such as is there spoken of. Either therefore must you prove your constitution to be otherwise, or else both the Proposition and the Assumption stand firm against you: as I have proved for both. 6. For Mr Cranmer &c. (whose errors you oppose more unto us then any word of God) I have answered already, and showed how their case and yours is not alike. Pag 40. 41. Besides that I doubt not but some erring in fundamental points (as diverse of the Martyrs have done) may yet be partakers of salvation. Of which point see more in the second Exception 
* Pa. 44. etc.  before, and the 
“ The answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 7. Reason.  next Reason hereafter following. 7. Lastly, concerning your confident avouch in the presence of God, know you not that the Friars and Monks for their callings, and all false worshippers for their service of God, will avouch as much and as confidently as you do here? Yea and allege that it is no less than horrible blasphemy against God and his Saints, to say the contrary? Is this therefore of any weight for their defence? No more than for yours. To turn your own words then upon yourself, you bring not a syllable or one letter in all your writing, neither can you, for warrant of your estate, neither against that I have said to the contrary, but bare begging of the controversy which is infinite often, and mere sophistical dealing every where rife throughout your Replies. Of the third Exception and first and second Reasons enough is said before in the handling of them. All the Sophistry you have, will not prove them sophistical. If you think good, you may try your skill once again. Yet remember how you are foiled already, and know that still you shall find the light of the truth to shine and the power thereof to prevail against you, as alway it hath and will against all adversaries whomsoever.  
For the Samaritans (whose example proveth the Proposition) I noted first, that most excellent truths may be acknowledged, and yet they which so profess not be in their estate true Christians or true Churches, to whom appertain the covenants etc. This you pass by, as if you saw it not. Belike that your Reader might the less mind it. Next I required proof for that you said, The Samaritans believed not in the Messias. Now in stead of proof you bring us, it might be, if it were so, let it be howsoever etc. But Ifs and Ands cannot be received for proof. Specially when such evidence is showed for their faith in the Messiah, as may be seen in joh. 4.25.26.29.30.39.  
Where you say, you hold your faith and doctrine by the word professedly, as the public ordinance of your Church showeth: I neither hear you prove it, nor see the ordinance of your Church show it. The contrary I have declared before, and occasion there will be to speak of it again. In the mean time tell me, whether you hold by the word professedly your faith and doctrine touching the Hierarchy, the forbidding of meats and marriage, and the other particulars mentioned before, Pag. 63. etc.  
Tell me also whether your Church's faith and doctrine, for Christ's descension into Hell, be held by the word professedly among you, viz, That Christ's soul went down into Hell, whiles his body lay in the grave. I know (Mr jacob) for your part you will not stick to say, your Church's doctrine is not thus. For so I remember you have answered D. Bilson now Prelate of Winchester ‡ in a treatise which you wrote against him concerning this point. But how do you show it in that book of yours? 
H.I. his treatise of Christ's sufferings & descending into Hell. Pag. 172. 173  Thus forsooth. The Articles of the Synod holden in K. Edward's time have thus, As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed that he went down into Hell. For his body lay in the grave until the Resurrection, but his spirit gone out from it was with the Spirits which were detained in prison or in Hell, and preached unto them, as the place of Peter testifieth. But your Synod holden since in the year 1562. you say correcteth it, and hath thus only, As Christ died for us and was buried, so we are to believe also that he descended into Hell: Which you translate thus, that he went unto the Dead. The rest following in the Article of the former Synod, your latter doth not mention. Hereupon you gather thus. It repeateth and ratifieth part of the foresaid Article in express words: but part of it, even 
* Not all.  all and every whit that containeth this doctrine expressly of Christ's going down to the Hell of the damned, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it casteth away. Therefore you conclude, that the public sentence of your Churches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the same, is against this opinion of Christ's descending into Hell.  
But in earnest (Mr jacob) do you think this reason is good? Then for your learning mark this which followeth, as good as yours and all one. The Litany 
♣ See the Books of Common Prayer & Ordering Priests &c. printed in K. Edw. tyme.  in K. Edward's time ran thus, From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us. But your Litany since in this Queen's time correcteth it, not mentioning this clause at all. It repeateth and ratifieth part of that Litany in express words; but part of it, even all and every whit of the clause aforesaid concerning the Bishop of Rome and his enormities to be prayed against, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it casteth away. Look in all your books of Common prayer now published, and you shall find it as I say. Therefore by your Logic it will follow, that the public sentence of your Churches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the same, is against this, that any should pray to be delivered from the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities. If you will have your reason go for currant, then let this also go with it hand in hand.  
Now because you would here persuade us, that the public ordinance of your Church showeth you hold your faith and doctrine by the word professedly, I will further prove unto you that it is the faith (or in deed an heresy) of your Church, that Christ's soul went down into Hell, while his body was in the grave. First the third Article of 
‡ Book of Artic. published 1562.  your faith agreed upon in the year 1562. hath this title, Of the going down of Christ into Hell. Then the words of the Article follow thus, As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed that he went down into Hell. Your translating and changing of the words of the Article otherwise then they do themselves (as I noted before) showeth not their meaning, but your perverting thereof. I omit, that in your answer to D. Bilson you set not the words of the Article of K. Edward's time in English at all. Belike you saw, it would sooner have discovered your fraud. Secondly M. Nowell in his 
† On the Artic. of the Creed, He descended into Hel.  Catechism saith as much as your Article doth. And this Catechism is authorized in an whole 
* Syn. Lond. Anno. 1571.  Synod, and commanded to be taught throughout the Land. Thirdly (to put the matter out of all doubt) the singing Psalms printed with privilege and authorized to be sung in all your Churches 
♣ In the Psal. beginning thus, All my belief and confidence etc.  have it expressly, thus, 
And so he died in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit:  
His body then was buried, as is our use and right.  
His spirit did after this descend, into the lower parts:  
To them that long in darkness were, the true light of their hearts.   
Note also that the title of this Psalm is, The 12. Articles of Christian faith. Is not this then your Churches express faith and doctrine? Yea, is not that also expressed here, which in the Article in K. Edward's time was mentioned? How badly then and sophistically do you plead about your Church's faith and ordinance herein? touching which (I mean, the ordinance of your Church) you may see D. Bilson hath the better of you: though otherwise, by the word of God, it is plain he hath the worse, and standeth in a detestable error, both against all proportion of faith, and against the express evidence of these Scriptures, Luk. 23.46. with Psal. 31.5. joh. 19.30. Luk. 23.43. with 2 Cor. 12.2.4. & Rev. 2.7. & 3.21. Heb. 12.23. Col. 2.14.15. Eph. 4.8.9.10. 1 Pet. 3.18.19.20. 2 Cor. 13.4. Psal. 16.8.9.10.11. with Gen. 5.24. & 37.35. 2 King. 2.1.11. Eccles. 12.7. Act. 7.59. Luk. 16.26.  
But tell me now Mr jacob, what power of Christ your Church hath, and in whose hands it is to excommunicate D. Bilson for teaching and maintaining this or any other false doctrine a 'mong you? Yourself are a member of that Church together with him: You have written against him, and by the word of God convinced him. He notwithstanding persisteth, and leaveneth others as much as he can. Now if you be the Church of Christ (as you would bear us in hand) why do you not proceed with him by the 
† Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4.5.6.7.11.12.13.  rule and power of Christ? Or if your Church have not that power of Christ (as all may see), why do you not confess it to be none of Christ's? Even by this then (if you note it well) you may perceive what your Church's faith and ordinance is. Not to speak here, of other most erroneous doctrines and filthy abominations maintained among you.  
In the third place, I proved the Samaritans sin to be against the second commandment, inasmuch as worshipping the true God, they did it in and by the Images they framed. Now your answer is, that 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 to prove this assertion of yours true, and mine false, you allege 2 King. 17.29.30.31. Where it is said, Every nation made their Gods etc. But are you no better divine, then so Mr jacob? Are you a teacher in this light of the Gospel, and understand not yet this phrase of Scripture? Know you not that the Lord “ accounteth them to be made and worshipped as Gods, whose ordinances, Images, Altars, places, ministries, rites, ceremonies etc. are kept and observed: though it be for his worship and service? Or mind you not that 
† 2 King. 17.29.30.31.  these and the like speeches in the Scripture are sacramental? (“ Deut. 12.30.31. judg. 17. chap. 2 King. 16. 10-16. with 2 Chron. 28.23. 2 King. 17.7.8. etc. Hos. 2.16. Ezec. 14.3.4.5. etc. & 20.39.40. Exo. 32.4.5.)  
When the 
‡ Exod. 32.4.  jews and 
♣ 1 King. 12.28.  jeroboam said of their golden calves, These be thy Gods o Israel, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: Do you think they meant those golden Idols now made by themselves, were in deed the God of Israel that brought them out of Egypt? Or do you not thus understand it, that they made and used those only for signs and representations of that God? That this was their purpose, appeareth both by the * occasion of making them, and by their 
‡ Exod. 32.4.  use of them being made, whereas still they intended their feasts and worship before them and by them, to be to jehovah the true God. (* Exod. 32.1. 1 King. 12.26.27.28. 
‡ Exod. 32.4.  Exod. 32.5. 1 King. 12.28.32.33. with Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.22.23. & 8.14. Micah. 6.6.7.)  
The same may be seen in Michah's example of mount Ephraim, and in his mother, judg. 17. In her, that when she made a graven Image, even than she prayed to jehovah the true God, and dedicated to him the silver whereof she made that Image. judg. 17.2.3.4. 
† judg. 17.5.10.  In Michah himself, that he 
‡ Exod. 32.4.  made an Ephod and Teraphim, and had an house of Gods, and took first one of his own sons, than a Levite for his Priest: Yet by all these intended the worship only of the true God. As appeareth both by his own speech, 
judg. 17.13.  when he † said, Now I know that the Lord (jehovah, not Idols) will be good unto me, seeing I have a Levite to my Priest: and by the history following, judg. 18.5.6.  
Yea of the Samaritans themselves (of whom the question is) when they had made their Gods and put them in the houses of the hy places, the Scripture here cited by yourself saith, Thus they feared [jehovah] the Lord, and appointed out Priests etc. 2 King. 17.32.  
The words then (when it is said, they made Gods &c.) are not literally to be taken, but sacramentally, attributing that in phrase of speech to the sign, which in deed is peculiar to the thing signified. And this manner of speaking is usual throughout the Scripture, both touching the true and false worship of God. The Altar which jacob set up at Shechem he called, the mighty God of Israel. Genes. 33.20. Gedeon called the Altar he made, the Lord of peace. judg. 6.24. The Ark is called, the Lords strength and beauty Psal. 78.61. The bread in the Lord's supper is called, the body of Christ. Mat. 26.26. And many the like speeches in the Scripture are every where to be found. Now as these in the true, so the other before in false worship of God, are sacramental speeches. When it is said then, that 
† 2 King. 17.29.30.31  every nation made their Gods etc. the meaning is, they made Idols or Images for the representation of God, by them to be put in mind of him and so to worship him.  
Mind further, that the Scripture relating the sin of the Samaritans useth the very same words and like phrase of speech as is in the second commandment: It saith, they made them Gods, that is, Images (as it is expounded, 
2 King. 17 29.33.41.  vers. 41.) and served them. Which are the words also of that commandment. Exod. 20.4.5. And note that whereas the first commandment is directly of God's inward worship, viz, to love, trust, fear him etc. The Second is of outward, as the very terms of making, of Images, of bowing to them etc. which are things outward, do specify. This being noted, it giveth light for the true understanding of both these commandments (which will otherwise be confounded, 
Pag. 80.  as I have showed ‡ else where) and proveth the sin of the Samaritans directly to have been the breach of the Second, not of the First.  
Now let us come to the proofs alleged in the former answer, and to your Reply here made against them. 1. By that of Ezra it is evident, † they sacrificed to the Lord God of Israel. 
Ezra. 4.1.2  The words of the Text are so plain, as cannot be withstood. Neither is it any thing to the question in hand, that in hypocrisy they conspired against the building of the Temple, and so against the true worship of God. When yourself or any other among you do by counterfeit hypocrisy and false brags set yourselves against the sincerity and observation of Christ's ordinauce (and so against the true worship of God) will it follow, that therefore your false worship is to some other than the true God; and not against the Second, but the First commandment?  
2 That the contention between the jews and Samaritans was not, whether the true God only was to be worshipped, but in what place & manner, is so clear by Ioh 4. as it must needs be a bold assertion of yours to deny it. Doth not the woman of Samaria acknowledge Christ to be 
‡ joh. 4.19  a Prohet of the true God whom she worshipped? Is not the question and speech between them of this only, 
† ver. 20.21.24.  Where and How God must be worshipped? Now if the controversy had been of the Person (whether the true God only or Idols also were to be worshipped) to what purpose had it been to contend about the Place, when as yet there had not been agreement about the Person? Why did not she, taking him to be a Prophet, inquire aswell Whom as Where we are to worship? Nay why did she not ask this first and specially? To what end was it for her to allege the example of 
* Ibid. vers. 12.20.  jacob and the Fathers, for the place, if they had not worshipped the same God that jacob and the Fathers did? Or was it ever heard, that any people but such as worshipped the true God only, did know and look for the Messiah to come, spoken of by the Prophets, as the Samaritans did? joh. 4.25.28.29.30.38.39.40.41.42. Likewise in 
† Ibid. vers. 21-24.  Christ's speech and instruction of that Samaritane woman, how plain is it that the controversy was as before I have noted? What commandment (I pray you) doth the place and manner of God's worship properly concern? Is it not the Second? Or would Christ (think you) instruct her so carefully about the Second, and omit the controversies of the First (being the most weighty) if therein they had differed? The case is so clear, as if you have your eyes in your head, you can not but see it. Therefore will I spend no more time to confute you in it. Your misunderstanding and misalledging of 2 King. 17. I have also discovered here a little before.  
3. Your own confession I did and will still allege, until you do as plainly revoke it, as you did at first affirm it. I deny not but you brought the whole Reason in as our Objection. Yet that point of the Israelites worship under jeroboam and other clauses of the Objection, any may see you set them down, as being true also in your own judgement. Otherwise how said you, that it is fit than all our Reasons? 
Pag. 105.  Or how did you acknowledge that their worship resembled the ordinances at jerusalem? And to what end else did you confirm it by those two Scriptures, 1 King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. A shame than it is and great shame for you Mr jacob, at first to confess the truth, and now when you see what follows upon it against you, to draw back again. But to clear the point from all your double dealing, I ask, Is it not true, that the Israelites under jeroboam at Dan and Bethel served not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their own devices etc. Is it not true also, that the Samaritans coming after them so feared and served the Lord, as those Israelites before had done? If you deny either of these, see here the proof of both from the word of God: Of the first touching the Israelites, in these Scriptures, Hos. 2.16. Amos. 5.21.22.23. & 8.14. 1 Kin. 12.27. & 21.29. Of the latter touching the Samaritans in these, 2. King. 17.28.32.33.41. Ezra. 4.1. 2. joh. 4.19.20.25.26.29.30. Both these then being true, who seethe not that their sin was directly against the Second commandment, as yours also is, by your own confession? Pag. 70. 71.  
But you say jeroboams seemeth far grosser and filthier than the worst is with you. You say, it seemeth. You say not, it was. But be it that it were so, what would it avail for the question in hand? Doth such answer any whit help the Papists when they allege it? Yourself do here a little after in this Reply jnsinuate as if the Idolatry of jeroboam was not at first so ill, 
Pag. 110  as afterward Achabs' was and Manasses etc. If it were so, was this any defence of jeroboams estate: seeing he notwithstanding stood in transgression of the Second commandment, though the other might exceed him in grossness or otherwise?  
Now for the comparison between yours and jeroboams, you tell us he * erected visible Idols, 
1 Kin. 12.28  and very filthy ones, even calves and brute beasts. The same you might allege of the Israelites with Aaron: Exod. 32.4. whose sin notwithstanding was directly against the Second commandment, as you confess yours also is. Besides (Mr jacob) have not you and your Church too your visible Idols? What else (I pray you) are your Service book; your books of Canons and Homilies; your Book of ordering Priests and Prelates taken out of the Pope's pontifical; your idol-shepherds, 
Zach. 11.17  even the Prelates and Priests themselves: such as to whom (for any sound knowledge they have in themselves, or good instruction they give or receive of others) may fitly be applied that saying of the Prophet concerning Idols, They have a mouth and speak not, they have eyes and see not, 
Psal. 115.5.6.  they have ears and hear not &c.  
Where in the next place (to lessen your sin in respect of jeroboams) you say you profess your Ecclesiastical orders to be but indifferent things, for order and comeliness only: how absurd again and shameless is your pretence? Do you in deed profess that your Book of common prayer with the other aforesaid are but indifferent things, for order and comeliness only? If so, then are they not the true worship and service of God, commanded in his word, to be observed of his Church. For that is not an indifferent thing, but straitly enjoined to be kept without spot or change until the appearing of our Lord jesus. Exod. 20.4.5.6. 1 Tim. 6.13.14. Col. 2.8.22.23. Rev. 22.18.19. Again, do you profess the confusion of all manner people in the body of your Church, to be an indifferent thing, for order and comeliness only? If so, than you might aswell tell us, you profess darkness to be light, disorder and confusion to be order and comeliness etc. Or do you profess that your Archbishops and other Prelates and Priests, with their offices and callings taken out of the cup of Babylon; your forbidding of meats and marriage (called by the Apostle, doctrines of Devils); your retaining the Apocrypha Books in your public worship, 
Pag 63. etc.  which have many lies and great blasphemy in them: Do you (I say) profess that these with the rest of your abominations ‡ before rehearsed, are but indifferent things, only for order and comeliness? And is this in deed the profession of your general State, as ‡ here you note in the margin? Then sure you are not far behind jeroboam: 
Pag. 110.  if not far worse in some respects. And by this it is evident (to note it by the way) that your general State is convinced of great impiety: inasmuch as (howsoever it stood for the controversy otherwise, yet) none can be so gross as to deny, but thus far you are convinced that these are not indifferent things etc. You had need also look well about you, what to answer for speaking in such manner of your general State.  
Now for jeroboam, what will you say if he also held this, as the chief and main thing, ♣ that the true God, who is infinite and every where present, be worshipped: but whether at jerusalem or at Dan; 
joseph. Antiq. jud. lib. 8. cap. 3.  whether in salomon's Temple, or at the Calves▪ which he had now made; whether by the Levites, or by others consecrated to that service etc. that these and the like he accounted and used as indifferent things, as might seem best to serve for the opportunity of their dwelling, for that estate etc. See josephus antiquities, if he do not testify thus much concerning him: affirming further, that by these means he deceived the people and drew them from the true worship of God: which in the end was the cause of their utter ruin. Lo here the fruit and issue of such pretences.  
Further you allege 2 Chron. 11.15. Where jeroboam is said to appoint Priests for the high places, and for Devils, and for the Calves he had made. So have you also appointed Priests (such as God never ordained) and that for your high places and Calves, that is, for your Idols Temples and Service, the places and manner of your public worship to this day. Of which three points, viz, your Priesthood, Idoll-temples, 
A treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England.  and false worship, I have written in another treatise, to which I refer you.  
Where it is said, jeroboam appointed Priests for Devils, you are to know (if already you do not) that this is spoken mystically, in respect of God's account, and as it was in deed, not that jeroboam and the people did so think and esteem it themselves. And that you may have less prejudice of this which I say, hear it of Peter Martyr who writeth thus of it: jeroboam and his complices said, they worshipped not the Calves, but jehovah in that figure & visible sign: but the Scripture in the Chronicles witnesseth their imagination to be frustrate, because in deed they did that service not to jehovah, but to Devils. P. M. Lo. come. p. 1130. Epist. ad Eccles. peregrin. Lond. I will also help you to understand this point by a like example, to which I suppose you will yield. The Papists in God's account are worshippers of Devils, Rev. 9.20. Yet in their own judgement they do not so, but pretend to worship God himself. Even so it was with jeroboam.  
Further for the more clearing of this matter, see what it is in deed thus to worship Devils: And hear it of Mr junius, whose judgement (I know) in this case you will judge less partial. He in his notes upon Lev. 17.7. saith thus, Men sacrifice to Devils, if they sacrifice either in other place or after other rite and manner than the Lord hath prescribed: See Deut. 32.17. & 1 Cor. 10.20. And this he showeth was the sin of the jews, both in Egypt, and in the wilderness: first by Exod. 32. chapter: then by 
‡ Lev. 17.7.  this verse, where the word (hereafter, or, no more) is used; and lastly by Stephen's testimony, Act. 7.42. jeroboam then worshipped Devils (not in his own purpose and judgement, but in God's account) because his worship of God was in other place and after other manner than the Lord had appointed.  
Now seeing you grant this here to be true of jeroboam, how will you deny it either for the Papists (from whom you have borrowed your worship) or for yourselves, the children of their fornications? And that you may see, it is a thing needful to be minded in your Church-constitution, note for yourselves, that 
* 1 Tim. 4.1.3.  the erroneous doctrines of Antichrist are by the Lord accounted and in the Scripture called doctrines of Devils; 
† Rev. 9.20.  the worship of Antichrist, the worship of Devils; 
♣ Rev. 16.13.14.  the Ministers of Antichrist, the spirits of Devils; 
‡ Rev. 18.2.  the confusion of all profane people and abomination in the body of antichrist's Church and religion, the habitation of Devils etc. Either therefore you must approve your Church-constitution to be such, as it retaineth not the erroneous doctrines, worship, Ministry, and confusion of people brought in by Antichrist; but the truth & way of Christ prescribed to his Church: or else you see by evidence of Scripture, how like your case is to jeroboams also in this respect. Not that you do so esteem it (any more than he did) but that God doth so account of you and of all such Churches whose constitution is to worship him otherwise then himself hath ordained: howsoever your devices may resemble his ordinances, 
Pag. 105.  as * you confess jeroboams also did. (1 King. 12.32. 33. Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.21.22, 23.) So you confess enough against yourself.  
Next you allege the examples of Ahab; Ahaziah; the jews under Ahaz, Manasses, and Amon, to whom the Israelites were like in Idolatry: also the Ten tribes: and finally the Samaritans themselves. These examples and the Scriptures cited about them, speak of Baal and like Idols, and their Altars, houses, Priests, etc. Now I have proved ‡ before that in and by these Idols and their appurtenances, 
Pag. 117. etc.  they intended the worship of the Lord God himself. And yet further by these testimonies of Scripture it is most plain, viz. Hos. 2, 16. Micah. 6.6.7. 1 King. 21.28.29. and 22.12.24. Exod. 32.1.4.5. judg. 17.2.3.5.13. and 18.5.6.17.18.19.20. Amos. 5 21.22.23. Yea in the Scriptures which ‡ here yourself allege, they are said to worship after the fashion of the Heathen (though it was to the true God) because they sacrificed in their hy places: 
Pag. 110.  or on the Altars and before the Idols, either of the Heathen or their own, set up for the representation and service of God. Finally none of these Scriptures do show, that the Samaritans did so worship the Idols of the Heathen, as accounting them to be in deed Gods aswell as the God of Israel. Which is your assertion. So it is yourself Mr jacob, that are clean gone.  
Your perventing of my words I omit. But now what will you say, if the case of the very Pagan's Idolatry be not so clear as you take it, for the worshipping of the Idols themselves, and esteeming them to be so many several Gods? Augustine saith the Pagan Doctors defend their many Gods to be but 
* August. de Civit. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11.  one and the same jupiter, that is, one God: of whom the ♣ Poet saith, He is throughout all the earth, the sea, and the heaven. 
Virgil. 4. Geo  Again, he testifies that they themselves did thus answer him: 
‡ Aug. Ibid. cap. 24.  What, Should we believe that our forefathers were so exceeding foolish, as to think Bacchus, Ceres, Pan, and the like, were Gods? Nay they believed only one God: whose name because they knew not, therefore did they honour his gifts & functios under diverse names etc. Plato a Pagan himself, in one of his Epistles saith thus, Hereby you shall know whether I writ in good earnest, 
Plato Epist. 13. ad Dion.  or not. If in earnest, I begin my letters with the only one God: If otherwise, with many. Yea Phocylides an heathen Poet could say, 
Phocylides.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There is but only one God, wise powerful and very happy. And Epictetus a Stoic, thus, It is before all things to be learned, that there is but one God: that he ruleth all things: 
Epictetus' apud Arrian.  that he provideth for all: that whatsoever we do, speak, or think, nothing can be hid from him: that we should worship him as our Creator and Father, and the only author of our felicity: And that if we call upon God aright, we shallbe advertised of the best things by his Angels at his commandment. Calvin also saith, the profane men thought not to draw the only God from his heavenly throne, when they feigned to themselves many Gods: 
Calv. in Hos. 2.17.  but reserving a supreme Godhead over all, they would have patrons, whom to use for obtaining grace and favour of the most high God. And by Plato himself it appeareth they took the Angels for such, whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Plato in Epinom. e● in Cratylo.  Spirits: and therefore thought they were to be honoured, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being the means of 
“ or, praiseworthy.  prosperous intercession or proceeding. Whom therefore they used as helps for better access unto God, as now do the Papists their many intercessors, who yet hold there is but one God. Thus they thought of God, and of his gifts, works, Angels, etc.  
Then for the Pagans use of their Idols or Images, Calvin (writing against such men as in excuse of their Idolatry pretend, 
Calv. Inst. lib 1. ca 11. se. 9 1●  they account not the Images to be Gods) showeth that neither did the jew think their Calf to be God, nor the Heathen their Images: but that as the Papists now, so the Heathen and jews then, were persuaded they worshipped God in and by those Images. Thus writeth Calvin. Then which what can be more full and pregnant against you? And Plutarch recordeth that Numa Pompilius (a Pagan) forbade the Romans to think that God's Image had either the likeness of Man or the form of any creature. 
Plutar. in vita Numae.  Neither was there before with them (saith he) any Image or representation of God either painted or feigned: but in the first hundred and seventy years they built in deed Temples and erected holy Chapels, but consecrated no Image at all: Even as if it were detestable to resemble better things to worse, and because God can not otherwise be perceived but in the mind and understanding. And yet further, Plutarch also in an other place hath to this effect, that the Sun, 
Plutar. de Isid. et Osyrid.  the Moon, the Heaven etc. are not to be worshipped; that they in deed are but looking glasses wherein may be seen the workmanship of God that adorneth the whole world: And that the world is no other thing but his Temple. Yea moreover (touching both these points now treated of) that the several nations have not their several Gods, so as we should think the Grecians have theirs, the Barbarians theirs, the Northern people theirs, the Southern theirs: But like as the Sun, the Moon, the Heaven, the Earth, the Sea, are common to all, yet are called by several names of several people; so likewise that one divine Spirit, which framed this whole world & whose providence is over it all, yet hath several honours, and several names, attributed unto him, according to the laws of several nations etc. Behold then what the Pagan's themselves do testify. Albeit I neither doubt nor deny but some among them (specially in later times) were far more gross than others: even as now we may see in the Papists a great difference, among themselves, both for their judgement and practice, in their Idolatry. Yet notwithstanding by the testimonies aforesaid you may see, you had need clear this point even for the Heathen, far otherwise then yet you have done. To which purpose I might yet allege many more testimonies out of other Writers, which I will not stand to relate. Only, to take away all scruple, 
Arnob. contra Gentes. lib. 6.  take this withal, That Arnobius writeth the Heathen themselves said, they worshipped not the Stones (or stony Idols) but the presence of God exhibited at those Images. Thus you see what the writers of all sorts, Christian and Heathen, testify concerning this matter.  
I could now allege from the Scripture also, that the Apostle Paul affirmeth of the Gentiles, 
Rom. 1.21.22.23.  they knew God, yet glorified him not as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the similitude of the Image of corruptible man etc. Again where he saith 
† 1 Cor. 10.20  what the Genttils sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils, and not unto God, it appeareth they thought themselves that they sacrificed to God, when as indeed (before the Lord) it was to Devils. As already the like hath been showed in jeroboams and antichrist's worship. Otherwise if the Heathen themselves had professed their service to devils and not unto God, what needed the Apostle have been so earnest in affirming it, and in persuading the Church of Corinth therein? Why did he not also urge the Heathens own profession against them? Yea, what pretence any manner way could the believing Corinthians have had, to be partakers with the Idolaters in their Feasts and Temples, if they had professedly appointed them to Devils, and not unto God? Further we read that in Athens (a chief City of the Heathen) Paul found an Altar wherein was written, 
Act. 17.23.  Unto the unknown God. Whereupon he reasoned thus with them, Whom ye ignorantly worship, him show I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein etc. Now you will not deny but Paul preached unto them the only true God. And Paul himself testifies, he preached the same God whom they did worship before (though ignorantly): and of whom their own Poets said, * We are his generation. Then which what can be more plain? 
Act. 17. 2●. ex Arato.   
Finally consider, that an Idol or Image is not the thing itself which is intended, but a representation or likeness thereof. So as even this very term of calling them Idols or Images, showeth that they took not any of them to be God, but all of them to be types or resemblances of him. 
T. C. Rep. 1. Pag. 42. & Rep. 2. pag. 184. etc.  I could here also put you in mind how Mr Cartwright hath set D. Whitgift at a Non plus in this very point: so as you might well have learned by your Archbishop's foil, to have laid your hand upon your mouth.  
But to leave this, I conclude by that which hath been said, that whether we mind the nature of the word Idol, or the testimony of all kind of writers, or the Scriptures themselves: the matter is far otherwise and nothing so clear for the very Pagans Idolary as you pretend, viz, that they should worship the Idols themselves, and take them to be so many several Gods. How much les may we admit it to have been the case of the Israelites, yea or of the Samaritans, as you would persuade us? Yourself then Mr jacob are greatly deceived both here and in your Rtplie to the first Reason before: Where I proved that which I said, so as you are not able to take it away. In deed “ there you referred us hither, 
Pag. 71.  as to the proper place for it: yet here now you bring nothing of weight more than before, either for the point itself, or for the Scriptures which there I alleged. See them, Pag. 68 And Let the Reader note it.  
Where you say I affirm, that they professed the written Law to be the rule, both for their inward belief, and outward manner of worship: Show in what words I affirm this? In what sentence? In what clause? Set down my words, and consider your own dealing. In deed the falsehood of that which you said concerning this point, I showed both by other Scriptures (which you pass over without any Reply unto them at all) and by Ezech. 43.8. Now against this you except, 
Ezech. 43.8.  first That the Samaritans were further from sincerity then the Israelites commonly. Unto which I oppose both the Scriptures-testimonie, and your own confession. The testimony of Scripture, in that which is written 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. which showeth both their estates herein to have been alike. Your confession, 
Pag. 110.  who granted here a little before that the Samaritans did in deed worship like the Ten tribes of Israel that were before them. Thus still you forget yourself.  
Secondly you except, that Israel itself in this 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. This being granted, yet you both contradict and condemn yourself. Your contradiction is, that here you say Israel itself held not the written Law for their rule; and yet in the very next sentence before preferred them afore the Samaritans in this respect: Or else you speak nothing to the purpose. Your condemnation of your estate is, that by this reason of yours, neither doth your Church hold the written Law for your rule: seeing you have as professedly (as they) left this rule, and do as constantly worship according to your Sevice beast taken out of the Pope's porruis, and by your Priests and Prelates, unlawful as the Calves and Priests of jeroboam. Not to speak of your Idol Temples, a breach of the second commandment, as Dan and Bethel were. Besides, although the Israelites in their apostasy left the written Law of God (as you also have done in yours) yet did they not in word profess so to do (any more than you) but contrarily: As I proved before out of josephus, Peter Martyr, and the Scripture itself.  
Thirdly you except, that Ezechiel showeth even here, cap. 43.7.8. they kept not this rule, but departed therefrom, and that as appeareth professedly and constantly etc. But mark how both here and before you change the question: which is not whether they kept this rule, but whether they professed to keep it, so as they did. I showed that the joining of God's Thresholds and their own together, did argue their profession in word, but breach in deed. Their profession in word, whiles they pretended to retain God's thresholds: their breach in deed, whiles they added their own withal. To make the case more plain, see it in your own estate. Do not you profess in word the written Law to be your rule? Yet do you not also break it in deed, whiles you join your tresholds with Gods, that is, your inventions with his ordinances? To the examples of Ahab, Ahaziah etc. 
Pag. 122.  is answered before. Apply therefore to yourself Mr jacob the intolerable blame and foul error whereof you speak. As for example, you profess the forbidding of meats and marriage at certain times: the worship prescribed in your Service-book and other the like, by read prayer; devised Homilies: Saints days: Communion to one alone: women to baptise: Ministry of Priests, and Prelates: Apocrypha; and the rest before mentioned, Pag. 63. etc. Are these after the rule of the written Law?  
Next followed the Assumption to be answered: which was this. Such is the ecclesiastical constitution of the people and Assemblies of England as they worship God after a false manner, 
Pag. 106.  never appointed by himself nor allowed in his word. This was proved by your confusion of People, counterfeit Ministry, Service etc. Now neither this Assumption nor proof thereof, did or do you deny. So here again you yield the cause. And whereas you were told of hiding the fowl heap of your Abominations under the term of Ceremonies, you neither deny it nor amend it, but do still use the same fraud. Mind it and amend it hereafter.  
Now where you say, it is a just defence of your Ministry, worship, & estate to be as touching the substance and foundation of Christianity sound and acceptable to God, if your Assemblies throughout the Land have not their consciences convicted therein: You may blush for shame to speak so sencelesslie. If you mean, that your ministery, worship, and estate is not in truth of the substance and foundation of Christianity, then by your own words you stand in a strange and fearful estate: beside that you speak not to the point in hand, and so there is in your speech no sense at all. Or if you mean, that howsoever your Ministry, worship, and estate be, whether approved of God or not, whether Antichristian or whatsoever else, yet your Church-constitution is for substance and foundation of Christianity sound and acceptable to God: then is your speech again most senseless and absurd. For how is it possible, that your ministery, worship, and estate should be condemned by God, Antichristian, or the like: and yet your Church-constitution either have the substance and foundation of Christianity, or be in such a way sound and acceptable to God? To be disallowed of God, and to be acceptable to him, are contraries. Finally, howsoever your meaning be, yet still your speech is senseless and untrue. For 
* Luk. 12.47.48. Hos. 4. 1-6. 2 Thes. 1.8. Rev. 14.9.10.11.  sin is sin before God, and so to be esteemed of us, though not so grievous before, as after conviction. And men's consciences often are convinced, when they will not acknowledge it, but withstand the truth notwithstanding. 
‡ Esa. 6.9.10. Act. 14.2. & 28. 23-27. jer. 17.9.10  For both which see the Scriptures here quoted: Which refute your assertion sufficiently. Besides that you have without all sense fancied to yourself such a manner of conviction, as cannot either be known or expected. Of which point I have spoken before. Pag 42.43.  
How strange is it also that you say next, you know this is no just defence of your whole Ministry, estate, and manner of worship, which you never intended (you say) much less professed to justify? How agrees this with the title of your book which you call, A defence of the Churches and Ministry of England? Or will you seem to plead for that which you know can not be justified? Or will you have us admit of an unjust defence? For yourself confess this is not a just one. Or is the Office, Entrance, Administration, and Maintenance of some of your Ministers lawful, of others unlawful? and so likewise some parts of your estate and worship? For you say here, this defends not the whole. Deal plainly then Mr jacob, and show which you hold lawful, which unlawful, and your proof of both. So will appear (I doubt not) even by yourself, both that our separation is just and of necessity to be made from your Ministry, worship etc. and that your defence of them is most silly and senseless.  
That which you speak of Aaron's line, I said before was a mistaking: now I say, it is a gross error. And you may be ashamed thus to hide it, whenas you should rather acknowledge it, when it is showed you. As for the meaning, 
Pag. 105.  which you have now coined and newly added in the margin, your words will not bear it. Let others judge. Thus the defence you make for yourself is as absurd, as that which you make for your Church.  
After this you are earnest to persuade us, that the word of God (though it be as plain and full in itself, yet) is not so plain for our understanding & use now, as it was for the jew under the Law. An assertion most false, most impious, such as the very Papists (I think) would be ashamed of. Was it ever heard afore, that the Gospel of Christ should be more obscure for our understanding and use now, than the Law of Moses was for the jews then? Was not Christ (think you) as willing, as able, as careful to explain it for our understanding and use, as Moses was for theirs? Or doth not Christ give his Spirit to his people now, aswell as he did then? Or hath he taken away those dim shadows and ceremonies, to bring now a cloud of darkness in stead thereof? Or is it false which the Prophets foretold and the Apostles testify to be accomplished, for abundance of knowledge and understanding in the time of the Gospel, far above that which was in the time of the Law? Compare together these Scriptures following, and see if the contrary to that you say be not most true. Esa. 11.9. jer. 31.33.34. with 2 Cor. 3. cap. & 4.3.4. Heb. 8.10.11. joel. 2.28.29. with Act. 2.17.18. Hab. 2.2. 2 Pet. 1.19. 1 joh. 5.20. Rev. 1.3. & 22.18.19.  
But you pretend three reasons of this your assertion. So also did Saul of his action, 1 Sam. 13.11.12. Neither was jeroboam himself without colour for his devised worship, as I noted before. But this is the ancient cloak of sin, with which it hath been wont alway to hide itself, even from the time of our first parents. Gen. 3.6.12.13. And tell me yourself, If pretences would serve, what schismatics, Heretics, Apostates, factious or contentious men ever was there, that had not store of such, so both deceiving others and being deceived themselves?  
Yet let us now examine yours. You pretend (1) discontinuance a long season of the simple offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, and continuance of the Prelacy all that while. So might Israel have alleged, 2. Chron. 15.3. Had it therefore been of weight? And this pretence might far better serve the Papist, than it can you who confess Rome to be Babylon, and know that your Prelacy, Priesthood, and worship came from thence, not from jerusalem. Besides how will you prove this continuance and discontinuance to have been so many thousand years, as you speak of? Yet if it were, the word of God is still as plain to discover error, as it was at first to reveal the truth.  
You pretend also (2) the opinion of many ancient and late learned godly Christians: and (3) their exposition of the Scriptures so as herein they carry ambiguity, in infinite Thousands judgement. To both which I answer: 1. That great antiquity was alleged by the Samaritans, Ezra. 4.2. joh. 4.20. and is also by the Papists at this day for their Prelacy, Priesthood, worship, and other their errors of Purgatory, Mass, Prayer for the dead, mixing water and wine in the Cup, justification by works, Extreme unction, Transubstantiation etc. And the Scriptures too are so expounded, as they carry no small ambiguity in these points, in the judgement of infinite Thousands. 
Pag. 44. 45.  2. I have also showed before, how even some of the Martyrs, learned and godly Christians, held diverse of these popish errors unto death: And therefore doubtless so took and expounded the Scriptures as upholding them. 3. And be sure whensoever you bring the many ancient and late learned and godly Christians (you speak of) for your assertion, that as many such, if not far more, both ancient and new may he brought to the contrary. And what then are you the nearer? 4. But in deed I deny this which you say. There is not testimony from such antiquity as you speak of, for your Prelacy and the rest of your abominations before rehearsed: Pag. 63. etc. If you can therefore, show it in your next. And mind (as for the rest, so) for the Prelacy in particular, that you show it to be such as yours, in office, entrance, administration, maintenance, etc. For although ♣ the mystery of iniquity began to work betimes, yet it was both withheld a while from being revealed, 
2 Thes. 2.3.6 7.8. with Rev. 13.11.  and coming up out of the earth, it appeared and was exalted, not all at once, but by degrees. So as it was a long season in this rising of Antichrist, ere the Prelacy came to that height, which now it hath with you and in Rome the mother thereof. Search, and see if it be not thus. And in the mean time (because I know you have a prejudice of whatsoever I say) hear a little what Mr Cartwright (one of yourselves) hath written of your Prelacy against D. Whitgift now Archb. of Canterbury. Our Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's &c. (saith he) besides the names have almost nothing common with those of elder times. Again, If those Bishops were alive, they would not know each other. For that they would think ours Princes, and ours would esteem them as hedge Priests, not worthy of their acquaintance or fellowship. T. C. first Rep. Pag. 124. etc. and his 2. Rep. Pag. 660. And in the same place comparing them together, he showeth unanswerably in many particulars how far they differ the one from the other. So as your Archbishop in this point also hath ever since been at a Non plus. Now if you please, you may take your Archbishop's quarrel in hand, and strive with as good success, as he, for these and the rest of your Romish traditions. 5. Finally, remember on the one hand how our grandmother Eve, at the first entering of sin into the world, insinuated ambiguity in the word of God, which yet in deed was most clear and plain: Gen. 3.3. with Gen. 2.17. And mind well on the other hand, if at this day the Papists themselves bring not greater show of Scripture for their grossest heresies of 
“ jam. 2.21.24.25. Dan. 4.24. Mat. 25 35.36.  justification by works, 
† Mat. 26.26. joh. 6.51.53.  Transubstantiation, 
“ jam. 5.14.  Extreem unction, 
* 1 Tim. 3.15 joh. 14.26. & 16.13.  Impossibility of the Church to err etc. then you or any other either have brought or can bring for your Prelacy and other impieties before mentioned. Shall we therefore conclude as you do, that they are not easily convicted, though they be mistaken in these things, God having so disposed in his providence to suffer this among Christians, so long and so universally? God forbidden.  
Or shall we think, that jeroboam and the jews (of whom you speak) had not their pretences and excuses, aswell as you and the Papists? I have showed before that they had. Besides also, as Moses and the Prophets were plain against their corruptions, so are both they and the Apostles as plain against yours. As for example, that there should be no forbidding of meats or marriage; no read or stinted prayer; no men's inventions to worship God by; no Priests in office of Ministry, neither any Lord Bishops, but Christ only; no baptizing by women; no Idol Temples, no Apocrypha books, or prescribed Homilies, for the worship of God; no Pope's Canon Law, or Prelates decrees, to rule the Church by etc. Compare now with these, the Calves, Images, Priests, and places, whereof you speak: and see if the word of God condemn not the one aswell as the other. Mind also how against these, God's voice hath sounded in your ears by the testimony of his servants, from time to time: and how his hand hath fearfully smitten you with hardness of heart, and given you over to false worship and persecution of the truth, besides all other impieties reigning among you. Then which what greater judgement can there be in this life?  
Consider also the example of Corah and his companions, whom the earth swallowed up, and fire devoured from heaven: Num. 16. chap. & 26.9.10. Whose case although it be handled and compared with yours in the Second Exception before (Pag. 33. 52. 55. 3.): yet because of the childish excuses which you shame not still to plead under pretence of want of conviction, darkness of the word unto you etc. and because 
‡ Before, Pag. 37.  yourself also do judge their case to be most wretched and altogether inexcusable, therefore will I here again put you in mind to consider well with yourselves and to examine by the word of God, whether your sin may not be esteemed in some respects greater than theirs. 1. The Office and function which they usurped was a true one (Numb. 16.10) Yours false. 2. The things which they took and offered were such as God had commanded (vers. 18.) Yours, such as man prescribeth. 3. The people to whom they would administer, were a true Church (vers. 2.3.) Yours a false. 4. The reasons which they alleged, diverse of them, were more seeming-good, than any you bring. (vers. 3.14.) 5. They thought they did well and as was meet (vers 3.13.14.18.19.) You, at least many of you, know and have professed that your Ministry and worship is Antichristian, and therefore evil and abominable. 6. They had not the written word, so as you have. (vers. 5.7.9.10.28. etc. & Lev. 8. & 9 chap. with Heb. 1.1.2. & 2.2.3.) 7. They sinned in one thing (vers. 10.): You in an hundred. 8. They were twice or thrice admonished and reproved (vers. 4.5.8. etc.) You ten times. 9 They stood up against Moses and Aaron (vers. 3) You against jesus Christ. 10. They, as they pretended, for the liberty and service of the Israel of God (vers. 3.13.) You (as yourselves do know and acknowledge many of you) for 
* Rev. 13.16. & 17.4.5.6. & 18.3.  the slavery and abominations of the Whore of Babylon. Of which see before, Pag. 63. etc. Now your case being thus Mr jacob, it is high time for you to lay it to heart, and to look unto it betimes. Or if you will not, yet let such among you as fear God and tremble at his word, be warned by this example of Corah and his partakers, that they do with speed departed from the tents of such ungodly men, and that they towch nothing of yours, lest they perish in all your sins. Numb. 16.26. with Rev. 18.4.  
Neither need you or any among you flatter yourselves in this (as it seemeth you do) that the punishments of sin are not now under the Gospel so outward and miraculous with God's hand from heaven, as they were then under the Law. For first this argueth the more clearness of the word now revealed (as less needing such outward work to be joined withal for help thereof). Which is contrary to that you spoke before of greater darkness in the word for our understanding and use now, then for theirs then. Secondly, the judgements that then came upon them, were for ensamples, and are written to admonish us, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10.11. with Num. 26.10. Thirdly, even since the time of the Gospel there are some examples in the Scripture (though not so many as in the time of the Law) of God's miraculous hand smiting both 
† Act. 5. 1-11  hypocrites in the Church, and 
‡ Act. 13. 6-11  oppugners of the truth without. Which should teach all men to take heed to their ways, aswell as if there were a thousand more besides. Not to speak here of such examples, as the ecclesiastical stories in all ages, older and later, do abundantly afford. fourthly, the less outward punishment is now in this life brought upon Idolaters, persecutors, despisers of the truth etc. the greater is reserved for them in the world to come. Else the Papists and the most profane might pretend this for themselves, aswell as you. And yet too, 
In the year, 1593. etc.  take heed you forget not * the great plague and famine by which God hath pleaded against England already. Neither do you know what other judgement he hath in store for you even in this life, if you still persist in your Antichristian estate, and will not be reclaimed. Finally, for full answer of all you say here, read and mind well that which is written, Eccles. 8.11.12.13. & 9.1.2.3. & 12.13.14.  
touching the estate of jeroboam and the Israelites compared with yours, I have spoken enough before. 
Pag. 110. etc.  I wish your case were not in diverse respects worse than theirs.  
Where I said, this cause hath been made manifest to the consciences of men, to the high Court of Parliament etc. you grant in this I say well. If so, than yourself have done ill in resisting it so long. But now it is well you yield it at length. Yet behold, as if you feared to yield to much to the truth at once, you do by and by except, that it is not made manifest to the consciences of all men, or the most, no not of them that know and fear God among you etc. 1. If it be not, where is the fault? In the manner of conviction, or in yourselves? That it is not in the conviction, yourself testify, seeing you grant it is such, as thereby to some men's consciences the cause is made manifest. Why then should it not be likewise to the rest, if your own blindness or wilfulness (through the just judgement of God) were not the hindrance?  
When Paul at Rome testified to the jews the kingdom of God etc. some were persuaded with the things that were spoken, but some believed not, Act. 28.24.25. etc. Had it now been any exception of weight to have said as you do here, it is made manifest to the consciences of some, but not of all etc. Nay the Apostle so rests, telling such as were not persuaded, that this came to pass through their own wilful blindness and hardness of heart, by the just hand of God upon them, And to this end he alleged against them that saying of Esay the Prophet, Esay. 6.9.10. Which you in this case of yours may fitly also apply unto yourselves.  
2. Further you can not deny but it hath to the Parliament been made manifest. Now that being gathered out of all the parts of the Land, and representing the whole body thereof (as I noted in my former answer) by this is evident that the whole body of the Land have had it manifested unto them. 
Exod 3.16.18. Deut. 21.2.6.7.8. 2 Sam. 5.1.3 1 Chron. 13.1 2.4. & 28.1. 2. Act. 28.17.  And this in such cases is sufficient, yea the best course that can be taken, for the general State. Of which the question is. (In the place before alleged, we find that Paul judged it the best course, and sufficient, to call together but the chief of the jews, and to testify his cause unto them. Act. 28.17. etc.) And otherwise how will you prove the Religion now maintained among you to be the profession and consent of the whole Land? Do all and every one that is member of your Assemblies so profess? Nay do they so much as know what it or any Religion is? As than it stands for your profession, so must it for your conviction, that what is done by or to the Parliament, it is reputed as done by or to the whole Land.  
3. The books also that are published, and our testimony otherwise, not only by word and practice of us all, but (as is come to pass in many) even by death, exise, imprisonment, etc. are offered to all alike, and known so to be throughout the Land. If any than be ignorant or vnconvinced, it lieth upon themselves, who either believe not what they know, or might know further if they would. 
jer. 9.6.  But we may fear it is with you (as jeremy said) that in deceit you refuse to know the Lord and his truth. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the Prophets, Behold ye despisers, and wonder, and vanish away: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye will not believe, if any declare it unto you. Hab. 1.5. with Act. 13.40.41.  
4. Finally, can you give us a rule or instance of such conviction as you insinuate? Would you have us go to all your parishes and Assemblies one after another, yea to every Prelate and Priest, man and woman, old and young, high and low, bond and free, throughout the Land, and convince them in particular? If you mean so, all men surely will either pity your simplicity, or laugh at your folly. I omit that the Papists might thus plead, as you do. And that so much the more, as they bring more show of Scripture, 
Pag. 129.  than you. More show (I say) as before I noted. For otherwise I know both they and you pervert the Scriptures to maintain your errors. I wish it be not to your destruction. Consider these things Mr jacob, and return a sounder answer, or else learn to lay your hand on your mouth.  
To that which you urge next concerning myself, I have answered already. Pag. 41. But that which I urged next to you, viz, your forsaking the true ministry, 
Pag. 108.  worship, and order appointed by Christ (as the Israelites also did); and your retaining a false Ministry, worship, and confusion of Antichrist etc. This you pass by, and answer not a word unto it.  
Then where I alleged, that you were not behind, but rather exceeded the Israelites, in persecuting unto bands, banishment and death, such as bear witness to the truth of Christ etc. To this you answer, It is a toy. Thus first you make ‡ a mock of sin, and so carry yourself as if you had been Chaplain to Boner, Bancroft, Gardiner, Whitgift, or some such Caiphas. 
Pro. 14.9  By this also you testify, that not only the Prelates and Formalists (as some would bear us in hand) but even the Reformists among whom you reckon yourself, have your hands in our blood, consenting unto and approving that which is done against us. Further you do thus become like the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, upon whom Christ pronounced a most heavy Woe, 
Mat. 23. 29-35.  for that whiles they builded the tombs of the Prophets slain by their Fathers, themselves did kill and persecute the witnesses of Christ sent unto them. And yet they blessed themselves in their evil, even as you do. Behold to what height of impiety you are come, and in how fearful estate you remain.  
But yet you comfort yourselves with two things: 1. that this can not make you worse than the jews in Christ's time, who for all that they persecuted, yet were not wholly fallen from God. O most woeful estate: Though yet your case be worse than theirs, inasmuch as their Church was in a true constitution, yours in a false: 
Mat. 21. ●3 etc. Act. 2. & 13. & 17. chap. & 19.8.9.  And therefore they to be admonished (which was done by Christ and his Apostles) afore any were required to separate and save themselves from that froward generation. Whereas the rule and commandment concerning your and all false Churches is, forthwith to go out from such and to witness the truth against them. (Rev. 18.4.5.6. & 12.17. & 14.12. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Phil. 1.28.29. Hos. 4.15. Amos. 5.5.6. Micah. 2.10.) And thus far your estate is worse than theirs, so as both other account is to be made of it, and other manner of walking to be used toward it. But suppose you were both alike in this, yet most miserable is your case, when for your persecution you are driven to plead the example of the jews, 
1 Thes. 2.15.16. Mat. 23.33.34.35.  † who both killed the Lord jesus and their own Prophets; and did by persecution drive away the Church and Apostles of Christ; and brought upon themselves all the righteous bloodshed upon the earth from the beginning of the world; and had the kingdom of God taken from them; neither could escape the damnation of hell, wrath being come upon them to the utmost: as both Christ and his Apostles testified against them. How woeful then and miserable is your case, though it be no worse than theirs?  
2. The second thing is, that you say we suffer more than we need, if we would but acknowledge the grace of God with you so far as it is: & that therefore it is not Christ's cross in that regard, but our own that we bear. 1. But what if the jews or Papists did or should say thus much unto them they persecuted? Were it of any moment? Nay did not Boner and other of the Papists often so speak to the Martyrs? 2. What think you also of the sufferings of Mr Udall; Mr Cartwright, Mr Fenner, Mr Dearing, Mr Merbury etc. Did they suffer more than they needed? Or di● they not acknowledge the grace of God with you so far as it is? Or was it not Christ's cross, but their own that they bare? 3. Tell us next what grace of God is with you, which we acknowledge not so far as it is? Hold you any truth of doctrine, which we hold not? Or reject you any errors, which we reject not? Approve you any way of righteousness, which we approve not? Or refuse you any evil, which we refuse not? If thus we do not, convince us by the Scripture 
† 2 Tim. 3.16.17.  which is profitable to these uses, that the man of God may be absolute being fully furnished to every good work. But if we do thus (as by the grace of God we do) than your speech against us is untrue, and your persecution of us unjust. 4. Show withal in what particulars we suffer more than we need. 5. And prove that the things we suffer for, are not good but evil: Being careful alway that your proofs be from the word of God, which only is the rule of truth. 6. Finally we testify in all good conscience before God and men, that we suffer only for bearing witness to the truth of Christ, against the abominations of Antithrist. And this the Confession of our faith already published in English, Dutch, and Latin, doth and will testify to the ages present and to come. As also our other writings, Examinations, Answers, Conferences etc. For which you have already condemned and put to death diverse of us, and others you have imprisoned, impoverished, banished etc. It is then Christ his cross, which we bear, through his grace. And you are become fighters against God, and persecutors of Christ in his members. Yea even this writing of yours proclaimeth, that you are now already become drunken with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of jesus. Else could you never have pleaded so wickedly, nor blessed yourselves so foolishly, as you do. But we will leave you and our cause unto God, who judgeth righteous judgement, and will give every man according to his works. When he maketh inquisition for blood, he will remember all that you have done unto us, and will not forget the complaint of the poor. Therefore will we wait on him and say no more, but with Zechariah (when he was put to death) 
‡ 2 Chron. 24.22.  The Lord look upon it and require it.  
In the last place you urge again that there is contrariety between my speech here, and in the second Reason before. (1) But I pray you tell me, Saith not the Scripture both the things that are spoken in these two places? Read we not for the one, that Christ accounted the jews, not the Samaritans, the true worshippers of God. Ioh 4.22. etc. And for the other, that Christ notwithstanding said to some of the jews, 
Ma●. 15.9.  they worshipped God in vain, teaching doctrines men's precepts. Mat. 15.9. How say you Mr jacob, is the Scripture therefore contrary to itself? Or were Christ's speeches contrary the one to the other? 
Pag. 83.  (2) Besides, are you so dull as you can not conceive (no not when it is told you) that the sins and corruptions of the members of a true Church, may fitly be alleged against whole false Churches: and yet neither condemn the true constitution of that Church wherein the one stand, nor justify the false constitution of the other? (3) Yea, know you not that a Church in true constitution jointly considered may be said to be true worshippers of God etc. and yet some, yea many of that Church be said also through their own default in other respect to worship God in vain, or to be tainted with Idolatry, or the like? And yet no contradiction be implied in so saying.  you cannot understand it in Christ's words concerning the jew, see if you can perceive it in Paul's to the Corinthians. When he speaketh to the whole Church jointly considered, he commendeth them for keeping his ordinances, and acknowledgeth they call on the Name of the Lord jesus. 1 Cor. 1.2. & 11.2. But when he speaketh in respect of some that sat and eat of the sacrifices in the Idol-temples, he biddeth them fly from Idolatry, and telleth them they cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils. 1 Cor. 10.14.21. & 8.10. Yet is he not contrary to himself for all this. Mind withal what I answered before concerning this point, in the Second reason. Pag 90. And so again I leave it to the Reader to judge whether the contrariety you speak of be not in deed an harmony, and that therefore you abuse both the Scripture and us.   

Chap. 13. The seventh Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. johnson. If the Spirit of God account them to be departers from the faith (and consequently no true Christians) who though they hold other truths of the Gospel, yet forbidden to marry, and command to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving: Then such account must needs be made of the estate of the Church of England, which not only both these things, but withal forbiddeth the true ministery and worship of God, and commandeth a false: Whose Ministers and people also do all of them partake therein. (For proof whereof, besides their practice of these, and persecution of the truth, see their own Canons, Articles, Statutes, Injunctions, etc.)  
But the former is true, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Therefore etc.  
H. jacob his 1. Reply to the 7. Reason. 
●●, 1●.  THis your seventh Reason is: They are departed from the faith, that forbidden to marry and command to abstain from lawful meats: Also this is worse, than that: viz. to forbid the true Ministry 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 ●h●●●, Testam. in Mat. 15.18. Fr. Io. See D. Fulke● answer thereunto.  forbidding of marriage & meals, if they had done no worse doth not make them departers from the saith (that is, not) 
“ or not fundamentally, not simply, which words I think ●itter 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. Reply 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 
* vid. in abstaining from Marriage and meets.  these points they (erred or) departed from the faith, but not absolutely and wholly. 2. Furthermore (touching your Proposition) if you understand Paul, of Martion the Heretic, 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 
“ Pag. 105.112.  lately spoken of, 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).  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 7. Reason. HEre, being not able with any colour to deny the consequent of the Proposition, neither to justify your present Ministry, worship, Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. (which you must do Mr jacob, and still we call for it, if you will justify your present estate): yet being desperate sure, for else you would never have done it, you fear 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 and Meats, are departed from the faith. You say, No. Now whether (I pray you) shall we believe. You, or the Apostle?  
But what colour have you for your denial? This forsooth: That they which do so, do not departed 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 your 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 may no heretics or Antichrists 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 have you 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 such a stout Champion, as can thus in one word justify his forbidding of meats and marriage, yea and his most detestable Hierarchy and superstitions withal?  
By your learning (Mr jacob) all the Martyrs and writers heretofore, which by evidence of this Scripture convicted the synagogues of Antichrist to have departed from the faith, and therefore separated from them, were utterly deceived: Yea and the Apostles themselves were wholly mistaken, when they call antichrist's Church and Religion 
♣ 2 Thes. 2.7.  a mystery of iniquity; which 
‡ 1 Tim. 4.2.  speaketh lies through hypocrisy; 
* 2 Pet. ●. 1.  prively bringing in damnable heresies; and ‡ having a show of godliness, but denying the power thereof: And john's eyes, it seemeth, were not matches, 
2 Tim. 3.4  when he saw in the whore's forehead (that is in antichrist's Church and Religion) a name written, A mystery, great Babylon, the mother of whoredoms, and abominations of the earth. Rev. 17.5. For now I would know of you who are so deep a Clerk, how antichrist's Church and Religion should justly be accounted a mystery of iniquity, and truly be said to speak Lies in hypocrisy, also prively to bring in Damnable heresies, and to have a Show of godliness: if they did absolutely and 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 marks how to know false teachers and false religions: 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 wolfs. And again 
† Mat. 24.23.24.  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 departed 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 be in such unspeakable danger to be deceived by them? This might suffice to show the falsehood and impiety of your answer. But yet I will note a few things more therein.  
First it being granted, that the popish forbidding of Marriage and meats, so they were no worse, doth not make them depaxters from the faith totally: yet tell us, if holding never so many truths beside, and yet forbidding these, they could by the word of God truly be said in that estate to hold the faith of Christ, and to be true Christians? 
1 Tim. 4.1.3.  If they could not (as the Apostle * testifieth) then is your answer in this respect also nothing to the purpose, but against yourself, both for the popish forbidding of meats and marriage, and for the English Hierarchy and other abominations among you received from the Papists, which under colour of this answer you would defend.  
Next, see in Bales Votaries, and in the Acts and monuments etc. what abominable filthiness the forbidding of marriage, and what fowl superstition the forbidding of meats, hath wrought in the kingdom of Antichrist: And tell me then, what man fearing God durst once open his mouth for such devilish doctrines and estate.  
Again, where you say, 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: Tell us first, whether in this sense the Papists can for these be said to departed from the faith totally? If they can not, what weight is there in this for defence of your estate, that the Papists could not allege for themselves, viz, that in these points, they depart from the faith, but not absolutely and wholly.  
Secondly tell us, whether there are no 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 you can not deny) of what weight then is your answer to defend the present constitution of your people and assemblies, seeing there are diverse other things besides these, that do and may cause, that you can not be deemed true Christians or true Churches in that estate. Many 
“ 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 Chrestians or true Churches?  
Thirdly your manner of reasoning here for your defence, is as if the Adulterers, to justify their course of life, should allege thus, We are (1) no Blasphemers (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. Yet the Scripture saith, 
* 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 whatsoever sins the Adulterer be far from, yet (as Solomon saith) committing adultery with a woman, he faileth in heart and destroyeth his own soul. Prov. 6.32. The same is the case of all spiritual Adulterers: who (whatsoever sins they be far from) yet in the worship of God run a whoring after their own inventions, embracing the bosoms of strange women, and drinking on their cup of fornications. Num. 15.39. with Prov. 5.20. and Rev. 17.4. jer. 4.18.  
Fourthly show us sufficient warrant from the Scriptures, why (setting these three aside) the Hierarchy and other popish abominations received among you, can not be judged to make you in such estate departers from the faith, and therefore false Christians and false Churches, whatsoever truths you hold beside. 
Num. 16.1.2. etc.  Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their partakers, were far from the Abominations of the Heathen; they held also 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 notwithstanding they 
* vers. 3.  showed their reasons why they were so persuaded. Yet will you not deny (I trow) but they departed from the faith, and were in this estate neither to be accounted true Israelits, nor their assemblies true Churches, with which communion might be kept. If you should, the Scripture is witness against you, Num. 16.26. Now compare case with case, and time with time, and you shall find the estate of your people and Assemblies to be far more grievous. As hath been showed already in the Second Exception before, and in other Treatises to which we have yet received no answer. viz, The answer to Master A.H. & The 9 Reason's concerning not hearing the Ministers of these assemblies of England.  
To conclude this point, if your Abominations in England were far fewer than they are, yet so long as you retain that poisonful leaven of your Hierarchy and worship, we must tell you as the Scripture saith, and experience teacheth, That 
” 2. King. 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 
Eccl. 10.1.  a few dead flies cause the oynctement of the Apothecary to stink and putrefy. Although indeed your abominations are not a few, but swarm in abundance among you. Some whereof see before, Pag. 63. etc.  
In the next place (fearing belike that the evidence of 
“ 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.  this Scripture could not by these shifts of yours be avoided, but that still the reason deduced from thence is of force against you, now you would have us pass by you and not to apply it unto you or your mother Church of Rome, but to understand it of Martion and Tatianus, of whom you say, that they absolutely condemning marriage and certain meats, might indeed even therein wholly 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: And thus (say you) are they in no comparison with you of England. But first if your former answer were of any weight, it might be asked why the followers of Martion and Tatianus might not likewise have defended them thus and said, that their departure from the faith, was but in some points, not wholly from all?  
Secondly, if this scripture was verified (as you grant) in Martion and Tatianus, for their condemning of marriage and meats, than we must needs think it verified also in the romish whore and her apostate children, which are fallen into the very same sins that are here mentioned. The Apostle nameth 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.  
And further, if the words of this scripture be duly weighed, and either other scriptures or the estate of the Romish harlot and her children compared therewith, it will be found as lively to describe these as either Martion or any other that ever were in the world. 1. First when the Apostle saith, 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 and Tatianus, who lived 1400. years since or thereabout, may also be comprehended therein.)  
2. 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 spouse of God, and since is fallen into Apostasy, and become the Mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth. 2. Thes. 2.3. and Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5.  
3. 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 where testifies) is become the habitation of Devils, & hold of all soul spirits? Rev. 18.2.  
4. 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 also 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, and all his holy ordinances. 2 Thes. 2.4.7.  
5. 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 and his Kingdom, concerning which the scripture also testifieth †, that when the vials of God's wrath shallbe powered out upon them, and they convinced of their jmpieties and abominations, they shallbe so far from acknowledging and forsaking them, as they shall gnaw their tongues for sorrow, and rather than they will forsake their wickedness, shall fight against God and his truth, 
‡ Let their railings, slanders, Edicts, Articles, injunctions, finally their continual oppositions & madness against the truth & people of God be witnesses of all this.  blaspheming the God of heaven for their pains & for their sores, and not repenting of their works. Rev. 16.10.11. Lo here a seared conscience in the Beasts kingdom.  
6. Finally, when the Spirit of God giveth here two particular instances of this 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 these Churches to all men and women in Lent, Advent, Rogation week, etc. In the other, that is, the forbidding of meats, when they forbidden the eating of flesh, on Fridays, saturdays, Emberdayes, Lent, Saints eves, etc.  
Thus you see this Scripture (which you would turn over to Martion and Tatianus) doth most fitly agree unto, and most plainly describe the Romish Apostasy, whether we apply it thereunto, or compare this and other scriptures together speaking of the same Apostasy and defection. By this also may appear, that as you say of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be said wholly to fall from the faith, somewhat like to Balaam, judas, & those apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for having their consciences convicted and seared with an hot iron: So may be said also of the Romish Babylon and her daughters. Touching which point, see moreover what is said before in the sixth Reason. (Neither will your marginal additions, nor your new clauses in the Reply itself, help either you or the Papists any whit. They are all as foolish, and as contradictory to the Apostles express words, as be those which you used before. So the same answer may serve them all still. And whereas in the margin you refer us to your next Reply following, thither also do I refer you for answer of whatsoever you can there allege. In the mean time let the Reader mind here, that both all your marginal notes, and such clauses also in this Reply of yours as are now included in a parenthesis, be newly added in your printed book, and were not before in your written copy which I answered. Yourself belike do now see the folly and insufficiency of your former pretended distinctions and excuses. This by the way I thought now to add, by reason of these your new additions.)  
Now if seeing the evidence of this Scripture so full and plain against yourselves, you would therefore except, 
1 Tim. 4.1.2.3  that in deed in the Romish Church it is so, but not in yours of England: First by this means you should overthrow your own answer here, who have denied it of the popish forbidding of meats and marriage, and would turn it over from them to Martion and Tatianus: Yea and fear not now again to give the holy Ghost the lie, when you pretend that the very Papists themselves, if they erred in nothing else, have not their consciences convicted nor seared with an hot iron, which yet the Apostle affirmeth expressly of all such. 1 Tim. 4.2.3. Secondly, this would not hinder but that the consequent of the Proposition, and the Assumption are good, and therefore the Argument strong and of force. thirdly, the particulars before mentioned, being found in your Church of England, will testify it also to be verified of you. Lastly, although many of the abominations of the “ whores cup of Babylon be now cast out of England (for which we praise God) yet so long as you retain the Hierarchy, Liturgy, confusion of people, Canons, 
Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5.  Excommunications &c. derived unto you from that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth, we must needs believe and allege against you the Scripture and common proverb which saith, As is the mother, so is the daughter. Ezech. 16.44.  
For a conclusion let it here be observed, how to defend your estate you are glad to run into the Papists Tents, and to take up their worn and rusty weapons, which have been of no force to defend themselves, but have often and justly been turned into their own bowels. 
Rheims Annot. upon 1 Tim. 4.3.  Read the † Rheims Annotations upon this place, and see if here you would not avoid the evidence of this Scripture against you, by the very same shift and answer, as the wretched 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. 
A strange untruth.   
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, 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, Anabaptists, 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, A little leaven leaveneth the lump, A few dead flies make the ointment to stink, 
Scriptures abused.  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, & 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, Dathan and Abiram likewise. See before in answer to the 2. Exception, the 2. 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 save, 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 fundameneally, 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 &c. 2. Martion, Tatianus, judas, Corah, Balaam, the Apostate Israelites etc. Thus then your questions and demands about the Papists & their errors, I pass by, as more vain, then pertinent. Only note withal, if this reason of yours were good, it maketh Mr Cranmer, Ridley, etc. to be departers from the faith, and no true Christians.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 7. Reason. LEt others judge (Mr jacob) whether in yourself this be not in deed found true and undeniable, which you do vainly charge me withal, Though every where you are very unreasonable, yet no where more unconscionable and wilful then here.  
You have contradicted the Apostle, and yet have neither conscience nor will to acknowledge it, no not when it is told you. I proved my Assumption by the Apostles Yea, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Your denial thereof then must needs be as much, as to say No to his Yea. Neither is there any help for it in your vain additions of totally, simply, fundamentally, absolutely &c. They are rather so many witnesses against yourself: as any men of understanding may and will discern. 
Pag. 136. etc.  But for this see further in my former answer. Against which you cannot say a word, but in stead of replying fall to plain railing.  
For the conclusions I gathered from your words, about Departers from the faith, the Papists, and other Heretics: let the judgement be the Readers, whether they follow not necessarily upon your erroneous and most absurd assertions and distinctions. Yea see both for them, and for your contradiction of the Apostle, if even here where you seek to colour and avoid them, you fall not into them again. Here you would have me know that this you say, That whosoever do forbid marriage and meats, do departed from the faith. Well: I hear you say so. But a while after I hear you say this too, 
Pag. 142.  If Papists were no worse but in these errors only, they might be true Christians notwithstanding. A most false and heretical assertion. As if the doctrines of Devils were not bad enough to make them Antichristians? Or as if they could both be true Christians, and yet departed from the faith of Christ, give heed to spirits of error, maintain doctrines of Devils etc. All which they do, even in these errors, as the Apostle saith expressly 1 Tim. 4.1.3. Now then do you not thus still both contradict the Apostle, and forget yourself? Will not the conclusions also which I gathered from your words, still follow hereupon? And who then is it Mr jacob, that speaketh strange untruth, and is unreasonable, unconscionable, wilful, etc.  
Yet mind further, Whosoever (say you) do forbid marriage and meats, they do departed from the faith. But both the Papists Church and yours (say I) do forbid marriage and meats. Therefore both the Papists Church and yours do departed from the faith. What part of this Reason now do you deny? The Proposition or first part is the 
* 1 Tim. 4.1.3  Apostles saying, and now at length yielded unto by yourself. The Assumption or second part is the estate and practice both of your Church and the Papists: As I have proved before, and you have left unaunswered, being not able to speak one word in defence either of their Church or your own. The Conclusion or last part than is and must needs be true. This all men know, that know any thing in sound reasoning. And yet behold, to show your self a notable Dunce, you shame not to try about the Conclusion, yea and to deny it, whiles you say, they are true Christians notwithstanding. Which is as much as if you should say, they do not departed from the faith notwithstanding. And what is this else, but to deny the Conclusion? Lo here your Clerklike skill in Argumentation, your Christian and conscionable disputing.  
But you note that in departing from the faith, some do it more, some less. What then? They that do it least, do they it not to much? Because your case or the Papists is not worse than the jews, Turks, Arrians, Manichees etc. is it not therefore bad enough? Yet thus you reason, There are that depart from the faith more than we and the Papists. Be it so. What will you conclude thereby? That the Papists case and yours is therefore good enough? 
1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.  or that you are not within compass of ‡ this Scripture? Or not subject to wrath in and for such estate of your Church? If this be your meaning, speak it out plainly, and fumble not still in the mouth as you do. But then note for your learning: 
* Mat. 11. 20-24.  Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, had more great works of God done among them, than Tyrus, Sidon, or Sodom had. Yet these who had less, perished notwithstanding in the wrath of God. To what purpose then do you reason in this manner? I will show you a better way. Either justify (by the word of God) your estate, that in it you depart not from the faith: or else yield to the truth, which all may see so dazzles your eyes, as you can not go on, but are driven to a flat Non plus.  
Where you say, Men depart from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two ways: Although I might yield to both, and your case be never the better: yet you must prove, first that the Scripture teacheth this distinction of yours. For else what weight is there in it? 2. Prove that there are no more nor other ways of such departing but these two. Else your division is unperfect. 3. Show that such may be found as holding the foundation in doctrine sound, yet do desperately profess and teach somewhat else against the manifest light that is in them. Which is one of the ways you speak of, and for example of it you bring Martion and Tatianus. But in these you prove it not: neither (I think) will you prove it by any other in haste. For is it possible that any should both hold the foundation in doctrine sound, and yet desperately profess and teach somewhat else against the manifest light that is in them? If this be not a Paradox, what is? 4. Yet mind that now you grant, Men may hold the Foundation in doctrine sound, and yet err fundamentally other ways. Thus you are quite gone Mr jacob. For heretofore you bore us in hand, that you err not fundamentally, so long as you hold the foundation in doctrine sound. (Pag. 28. 91. 92. 109. 111.) This also was the ground of your main Argument, from your book of Articles. Which now yourself have overthrown. 5. Your distinction and acception of Fundamental errors here and every where is such, as whosoever hold them, are utterly abolished from Christ, and cannot possibly have a lively saving faith withal. This you must prove by the word of God, if you will have it received. Your words and distinctions (without such proof) cannot settle the conscience. I have showed before that some of the Martyrs died in such errors, as yourself account Fundamental. Pag 44. etc. Shall we therefore say (as here you teach) that they were utterly abolished from Christ, and could not possibly have a lively saving faith withal? God forbidden.  
(1) Some may err in fundamental points, and yet through the mercy of God in Christ be saved: failing therein of ignorance, and not striving against the light of truth, but labouring to walk faithfully with God in that he hath revealed unto them. For proof hereof I have 
‡ Pag. 44. 45. 46.  before alleged, not only the example of diverse Martyrs, but such also in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, as before they received admonition and better instruction, died in their errors which 
† pag. 28. 92.  you acknowledge to be fundamental: And the like among the Israelites that died in Egypt, 
“ Ios. 24.14. Ezech. 20.5.7  where they had and used Idols, which 
♣ pag. 105. 109.  yourself esteem to be a fundamental sin, wholly destroying the truth in them that do so. Yet dare I not say but some of these might be saved, by the mercy and in the truth of God which they embraced notwithstanding: and namely such who erred and died, before that admonition came to them, as did to the rest, whereof we read, Ezech 20.5.7. 1 Cor. 15. Gal. 5. chap.  
Much more may and ought we to think thus of Terah Abraham's father (of whom Christ came according to the flesh): Gen. 11.27. with jos 24.2.14.15. Not to speak of Haran, Bethuel, Rachel, and the like then, who did all of them serve the Lord by Idols. Yea though it had been so, that Rachel had died before (as she did presently after) that commandment given by jacob to his household and to all that were with him, for putting away the strange Gods or Idols that were among them. Gen. 35.2.3.4.16.18. with Gen. 31.16.19.30.34. & 24.4.15.50. & 11.27.28. Ios. 24.2.14.15.23.24. So far am I from being of your mind, who think the truth wholly destroyed in all such as have served Idols, or held any other fundamental errors.  
Consider also the Aethiopian Churches, which retain many of Moses ceremonies and of the gross points of Popery: And the Greek Churches, erring greatly of old about free-will, and since that time about the Person and proceeding of the holy Ghost, besides other very great errors among them. Not to speak of the Lutherans, holding (with other errors) that of Consubstantiation, which by necessary consequence overthroweth Christ's human nature, and therefore is fundamental in your own account. Will you now say, that none of these can have a lively saving faith? I dare not be of your mind. I hope and am persuaded otherwise. Nay even for the Papists and others of whom you speak; I dare not with you, say peremptorily of them all, from the first arising of their errors, they are utterly abolished from Christ. My reason I showed before out of the Papists own doctrine. To which I refer you, with this note: 
Pag. 47.  that as on the one hand I acknowledge 
* Exo. 33.19 Rom. 9.15.  God showeth mercy to whom he will; so on the other hand I am persuaded (neither can I see otherwise by the word of God, but) whosoever liveth and dieth a Papist and member of that Church of Antichrist, in the knowledge, profession, and maintenance of that Religion, in the parts thereof, can not of us be esteemed to live and die in the state of salvation. (And this I speak as of all such generally, so specially of them which have lived since the height and clearer manifestation of that apostasy.) 2 Thes. 2. 3-12. Rev. 13.8.11. & 17. & 18. & 19 chap. Such also take I to be the case of the Anabaptists, Arrians, and the like, departing from true Churches, and being once convicted. Tit. 3.10 Heb. 10.25.38. 1 joh. 2.19. jud. ver. 19  
This being noted, I could now further allege, against your peremptory condemnation of all such as have held any fundamental errors, that even yourselves, yea the chiefest pillars of your Church, are of a contrary judgement herein. And for proof I could cite D. Whitgift (now your great Archb.) in his ‡ last book against Mr Cartwright. 
pag. 83.  But because where sound judgement is needful in question of Religion, his testimony is but of small value, I will not stand upon it: but refer you rather to Mr jewel, a Prelate also, yet a man otherwise worthy to be reverented both for his sufferings in Q. mary's days, and for his gifts and labours employed in defence of sundry points of the truth against the Papists. This Mr jewel alleging the examples of Papias, Apollinarius, Victorinus, Tertullianus, 
jewels defence of the Apology. Pag. 337. 338.  Lactantius, and others in former times, confesseth that both they defended the heresy of the Chiliastae which said, that Christ after the general judgement should dwell here a thousand years together upon the earth: and yet notwithstanding were godly, and worthy members of the Church of God. So also he thought of Irenaeus, though he held beside the former heresy, this also 
Ibid.  that Man at the beginning, when he was first created, was unperfect. And of Hilary, who affirmed both that 
‡ Ibid. pag. 353.  Christ received not flesh, of the blessed Virgin, and that the flesh of Christ was impassable and could feel no grief. Also of the Picardes, concerning whom when Harding the Papist objected, 
† jewels Rep. to Harding. Pag. 119.  that sometime they pulled out their eye and cast it from them: he answereth, it was an error of simplicity, if they did it, much like the error of Origen and others who ghelded themselves for the Kingdom of heaven. Which two last things, of the Picards and Origen, it may be you include in your second sort of fundamental errors, and the other before in your first: and so account them all without saving faith, and utterly abolished from Christ. Yet you see, the chief governors of your Church, are otherwise minded. Yea and your Church itself: for Mr jewels books were published with consent and special privilege thereof. Note this well.  
(2) Some again who err not in any fundamental point (as you distinguish) yet no doubt shall perish and be condemned. As, for not relieving the poor and people of God; for not yielding obedience to Christ, but fearing of man more than God; for want of sanctification; for hypocrisy, contention, wicked life etc. Mat. 25. 41-46. joh. 3.36. Mat. 23. chap. Rom. 2.8. 1 Thes. 4. 3-6. Ephes. 5. 3-6. Gal. 5.19.20.21. Neither can you be ignorant but that 
“ Deut. 27.26 Rom. 6.23. Ezec. 18.10.11 jam. 2.10.  curse and death by the Law of God is threatened to all sin, even to the least. Yea and that the very infants, through original sin alone, are subject hereunto. Rom. 5.14. 1 Cor. 7.14.  
For your defence than it is not sufficient, though it were granted, that you hold the Foundation, and err not in any fundamental point. Your persisting in false worship and disobeying the ordinance of Christ (howsoever you consider it) sufficeth to make your estate unlawful, and subject to condemnation, God imputing it unto you. Thus at once all your building and defence of your Church falleth to the ground.  
But yet (that you deceive not yourself nor your Reader in this point any more) mind if your Church do not also hold and maintain sundry Fundamental errors, against the true faith of Christ. For example, 
Fundamental errors in the Church of England.   
1. Yourself say before, 
* pag. 28. 35.  that your Church holdeth all outward government and ceremonies to be unwritten and uncertain, but at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magistrate etc. That this is a fundamental error appeareth thus, 1. It doth wholly take away and annihilate the Second commandment. 2. It maketh Christ the Son inferior to Moses the servant. 3. It upholdeth these and the like fundamental errors, viz, That it is not written nor certain, but at the Churches and Magistrates pleasure, Whether the Pope be to be head of the Church, or Christ only; Whether now we may retain the Priesthood of Levi, the Passeover, circumcision etc. For these concern the outward government and ceremonies of the Church.  
2. Your Church holdeth that Christ in his soul descended into Hell. Which I have showed † before to be your Church's opinion. 
Pag. 116.  And who knoweth not, that Whitgift P. of Canterbury, Bilson P. of Winchester, Chaderton P. of Lincoln, with other the pillars of your Church, do thus hold and maintain? And that it is Fundamental, yourself I suppose will not deny. See but your own book against D. Bilson, about this question: Pag. 92. 127. 133. 148. 156. 162. 165. 174.  
3. Your Church's Ministry, worship, confusion, and government are such, as they profane and disannul Christ's office of Mediation, that is, of his Prophecy, Priesthood, and Kingdom. That this is Fundamental, against the true faith of Christ, these Scriptures prove, Deut. 18.18.19. Heb. 3. 1-6. Mat. 6.24. Luk. 10.27. Rom. 6.16. Col. 2.8.19.20.21.22.23. 2 Thes. 1.8. & 2.3.12. joh. 3.36. jer. 4.18. That your Church's constitution is such, I have proved in another treatise both by the Scriptures and your own writings. viz: In a treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England. Pag 30-35.  
4. Your Church forbiddeth Marriage & Meats. Of which the Apostle saith expressly, it is a departing from the faith of Christ: and therefore Fundamental. See 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Col. 2. 8-23. And before, Pag. 137. 140.  
5. Your Church persisteth (and persecuteth such as refuse) to worship the beast and his image, or to receive his mark in the forehead or hand. That this bringeth damnation, and is Fundamental against the commandments of God and faith of jesus, see Rev. 14.9.10.11.12. & 17. 1-6. & 18.2.3.4.5. 2. Thes. 2. 3-12. Exod. 20 4.5. That it is your case, appeareth by your Hierarchy, Leitourgy, confusion of people, Courts, Canons, Dispensations, Licences, Suspensions, Excommunications &c. practised, maintained, and yielded unto, by your Church, Ministers, and people, framed also according to the image and fashion of the Romish Apostasy: Which yourselves confess to be that Beast, spoken of in the Revelation.  
6. Together with these, remember also the particulars which I noted before concerning this point. Pag. 22. 31. 60. 63. 73. 94. 103. 114. 122.. 126. 129. 133. In which places you may mind diverse the like, with further proof thereof. And so for the present let this suffice, till we see what your next Reply can bring against it.  
The Scriptures alleged against you, what man of conscience knowing your estate, durst ever open his mouth to say they were abused or misapplied? When the Corinthians did but neglect to excommunicate one wicked man from among them, the Apostle fitly alleged this saying, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 
1 Cor. 5.6.  How is it then abused when we apply it to your estate, which swarmeth with so many known wicked men, and yet hath not the power of Christ to cast out any one from among you? That I say nothing of the other infinite corruptions among you touched before. Pag. 63. etc.  
But in deed if these Scriptures be in any respect not fitly applied, it is in this that your corruptions are so many and so abominable as you had need of far sharper corrosives and other more dreadful sentences of Scripture to be applied to your estate. Such as these be, If any man worship the Beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or on his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God etc. Rev. 14.9.10.11. They that receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved, God will send them strong delusion to believe lies, that they may be damned etc. 2 Thes. 2.10 11.12. He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. joh. 3.36. To them that are contentious, and disobey the truth, and obey unrighteousness: shallbe indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon the soul of every man that doth evil. Rom. 2.8.9. Those mine enemies (saith Christ) which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me. Luk. 19.27. I protest to every man that heareth the words of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life etc. Rev. 22.18.19.  
And mark these clauses well, If any man worship, If any man add, If any man take away, The soul of every man, I protest to every man, etc. None is excepted. Let every man therefore mind your estate, betimes to deliver his soul from the fierce wrath of God. Your estate (I say) wherein there are so many things added, and so many things taken away from the ordinance of Christ. And those also, marks of the Beast, even a multitude of abominations, derived from Antichrist, that son of perdition.  
And will you yet persuade men, that this is but some taint of evil in a Christian? Can you put no difference between the sins and infirmities of Christians walking in the faith, and the impieties of Antichrist and doctrines of Devils making departure from it? Know you not that even 
† Luk. 22.24 Rom. 7.23. Gal. 2.11.12.13.14. jam. 3 2. 1 joh. 1.8.10.  the Apostles themselves were subject to the former, and yet were wholly free from the latter? Or are you grown so presumptuous against the holy Ghost, as what it directly teacheth to be 
* 1 Tim. 4.1.3 Rev. 17.4.5. 2 Thes. 2.3.  doctrines of Devils; fornications and abominations of the whore of Babylon; Apostasy of Antichrist the man of sin: that you dare say, is but as the taint of evil in a Christian? Belike you would have us see this very Prophecy fulfilled in yourself, viz, that you are led with the Spirit of error, and have your conscience seared with an hot iron. 1 Tim. 4.1.2. Otherwise how could you thus lewdly speak lies in hypocrisy, if you were guided by the spirit of truth, and made any conscience of that you say?  
But yet further to show that you have gotten the very habit of falsehood you shame not to call that a wicked slander which all the world may see is most true. For proof whereof compare but your Replies here, with the jesuits Notes upon 1 Tim. 4. Thus they writ, 
Rhem. Te●●. on 1 Tim. 4.  first in their marginal notes, We see plainly by these words such abstinence only to be disallowed, as condemneth the creatures of God to be nought by nature and creation. Then in their Annotations following they labour to prove that here the Apostle speaketh of the Manichees, Encratites, Marcionists etc. touching whom they say, They thought that Marriage was of Satan, and condemned diverse creatures, as things by nature and creation polluted and abominable. And then they add, Lo these were the Heretics and their heresies which S. Paul here prophesieth of that forbidden marriage and meats, as you have heard etc. These are their own words. And thus they labour in vain (as D. Fulk in his answer tells them) to post over the crime from themselves to the old Heretics, who with as good reason might post it of from one to another, the Manichees to the Tacianists, and the Tacianists to the Manichees etc.  
Now let the Reader well mind your Replies in this place, and compare them with this dealing of the Papists: and then let him judge how you are slandered with a matter of truth, when I said you run into the Papists tents, and fight with their weapons, to shift of the evidence of this Scripture against you, by posting it over from yourselves to the Heretics of old, Martion, Tatianus etc. But thus in deed you do still show your brazen forehead and seared conscience.  
touching Corah, Dathan, Abiram etc. besides that I have answered to your Reply in the Second exception (Pag. 53.) I have also purposely in many particulars compared their case and yours together, in the sixth Reason: Pag. 130. Which if you can, you may refute in your next: or by silence give place to the truth.  
Where I proved by sundry other Scriptures, compared with this to Timothy, 
Pag. 139. 140  that the Romish harlot and her children are here properly and specially deciphered, you answer not one word unto it. Nay you are so turned out of all your shifts, as even now when you would shift it of to Martion and Tacianus, you give more evidence that it resteth on your own heads, rather than on theirs. And this I prove by comparing together your saying here, with the Apostles there. You say here that Martion and Tatianus did Fundamentally fall from the faith, because they simply forbade those good ordinances of God, Marriage and meats, even against the light of conscience and nature, presumptuously quenching the instinct thereof. Now if this were so Mr jacob, than (by your own saying) they did not speak falsehood in hypocrisy, but in open and presumptuous blasphemy. Whereas the Apostle noteth such expressly, as speak lies in hypocrisy. 1 Tim. 4.2.3.  
And such in very deed I proved your case and the Papists to be, in my former answer. Pag. 137. etc. Against which you can bring nothing at all. Yet you blush not to say you pass by my puestions and demands about the Papists and their errors, as more vain than pertinent. Whereas in deed the truth is, that the questions and reasons do so nearly concern both the Papists and yourselves, as you dare not meddle with them. Otherwise if you could, you should at least not only have said, but some way proved them to be vain. But this labour it may be your reserve to your next Reply. If so, then examine them in particular, and show the vanity of them from point to point. Else know they are so pertinent, as here again you are brought to a plain Non plus.  
And because in my former answer I did but briefly touch that point of your speaking lies through hypocrisy, I will for further evidence of this Scripture against you, mention here some few particulars more. 1. It cannot be denied but you worship God by a Service book taken out of the Pope's portuis, and by many other the inventions of men: Yet you pretend that you worship God in spirit and truth according to his word. A lie in hypocrisy. 2. Your Churches, Ministers, and people, stand subject to other Archbishops and Lordbishops than jesus Christ, and to their Courts, Canons, Excommunications, etc. Yet you bear men in hand that you receive Christ only as Lord and King of the Church, and obey his Laws and ordinances. Another lie in hypocrisy. 3. Your Hierarchy and whole Ministry from the highest Archbishop to the lowest Priest, is Antichristian in you offices, entrance, administration, maintenance: Yet who knoweth not that in all these you persuade the world you are the Ministers of jesus Christ? Falsehood in hypocrisy. 4. You still, banish, and imprison us because we separate from your Antichristian estate, and endeavour to keep the faith and ordinance of Christ: Yet you give out that we suffer more than we need, that we are justly punished as enemies to the State, as Schismatics, Heretics, seditious etc. Another lie in hypocrisy. 5. Finally, even the truths which you teach and profess, what are they else in your estate but the sheep's clothing of your wolvish Hierarchy and Priesthood, by means whereof you deceive and devour the more? Lo here a taste of your speaking lies in hypocrisy; and if you will also of your consciences burnt with an hot iron.  
Besides these in your Church, note also in yourself in particular, how even here you do slander me, and yet pretend that it is I which slander you. Neither sufficeth it you in this one place to do it once, as I showed before: Pag. 149. But here again you will needs double it, that we might the better note this property in yourself, which yet you shame not falsely to lay upon me. And because you will not seem to want colour for it, you pretend this, that I say the words of your first Reply imported such only to departed from the faith, as fall from it totally: To departed from the faith (I say) so, as in that estate they cannot by the word of God be esteemed true Christians. 
Reason. 7. Pag. 135.  For this was the point which I proved, and you denied. Now touching this matter the case is so very plain, as I neither need nor will do any more (for your conviction therein) but set down your own words, as they were at first, and then with a note concerning your dealing since, leave the judgement thereof to the Reader: when he shall have compared together the words of your Reply and of my Answer. Neither of which you love to keep unto.  
For your words then, thus it was: When against your Church I had proved by the Apostles testimony, that forasmuch as all such depart from the faith, as forbid Marriage and Meats: therefore also your Church so doth, which not only forbiddeth these things, & the true Ministry & worship of God withal, but also commandeth a false, etc. You did then answer thus, word for word, The Popish forbidding of Marriage and of Meats, if they were no worse, doth not make them departers from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy & ceremonies simply: Neither do they make us (the Protestans) to be such. The Papists fall from Christ in other points, namely, The Papal supremacy etc. These were your words then. The other clauses which now you have annexed in the Margin and Reply itself (though they help you no whit neither, yet) were they added since you received my Answer: as I noted before, Pag. 141. Let the Reader mind this: And withal, these two things, 1. That now you note in the margin both “ hear and in the Eight Reason following, 
Pag. 136.  that you think the word fundamentally fit to be here used, than the word totally. And why fit, I pray you, but because this word totally implieth that directly which I inferred thereupon in my Answer, Pag. 136. etc. 2. That whereas you did at first annex a clause concerning the Apostles meaning that in these points they departed from the faith, not absolutely and wholly this also is so far from helping you, as it maketh altogether against you, howsoever you would persuade otherwise in this your latter Reply (both in the beginning and end thereof.) Pag. 141. 142. Which will yet more fully appear even to the most simple, whensoever you shall answer the particular questions and objections, which I propounded in my former Answer, concerning the Papists and yourselves. For which cause also it may be, you were the more willing to pass by them, being in deed afraid and unable to deal with them.  
But to let this pass, let others now judge (by that which hath been said) on whom the slander lieth. And note you by the way, that it is the common wont of slanderers, to impute that to others under some pretence or other, which in very deed they do themselves, yea and that often with an impudent forehead.  
Of your vain distinction of fundamental errors, and of the necessity which lieth upon you to answer the particulars which I objected about the Papists and yourselves, I have spoken ‡ here before. If it stop not your mouth (as I suppose it will) yet let it teach you at least to take heed, 
pag. 144. etc.  that your next Reply be less vain, and more pertinent, than these former have been.  
In the last place (when all other shifts fail) you would hale in again, to help at a dead lift, those good but dead men, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, etc. whom you do never linne calling upon, as if you would give them no rest, till you had brought them up even from the dead, to bear witness on your side. But I have showed before so great difference between your case and theirs, as they can not help you at all. And now I tell you further as Christ hath said of old, 
Luk. 16.31.  If you hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither would you be persuaded, though one rose from the dead again.  
All these things considered, I hope in your next you will either by the word of God justify, that you depart not from the faith, in your leitourgy, Hierarchy, confusion of people, forbidding of Meats and Marriage, persecuon of the truth etc. or else yield, that in such estate you do in deed departed from the faith, and therefore cannot therein by the word of God be esteemed true Christians.   

Chap 14. The Eight Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption afoersaid.  
Fr. johnson. IF the Apostle account them deniers of the faith, and worse than Infidels, and consequently no true Christians, who (though they do hold other truths of the Gospel, yet) provide not for their household: Then how are such to be accounted, who (though they profess some truths of the Gospel, yet) are not true worshippers of God, but execute or submit unto a false Ministry, worship, & government ecclesiastical? (Which to be th'estate of the Ministry and people of the Church of England, appeareth as aforesaid, in their Canons, Articles, Book of Common prayer, etc.)  
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 Reas. 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.  
Er. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 8. Reason. FOr answer of this Reason, you refer us (both for Proposition and Assumption) to your answer to the last Reason. But there I have proved those your answers to be untrue. Therefore yet we have no answer either to that Reason, or this.  
(As for your new meaning, now (and not before) noted here in the margin, although it help you no more than the other, yet tell me in your next, where you learned thus to confound things that differ so much one from another. For now your Reply to both these Reasons is such, as if wholly and fundamentally were all one. Or else what have you said? But this (Mr jacob) is to confound, not to distinguish, as you pretended before, Pag. 135. 142. Men may err fundamentally in some points of the faith, who yet err not wholly in all. 
Pag. 92. 136. 142.  The Papists at this day (you confess † yourself,) do err fundamentally in some things, as in justification by works, the Pope's supremacy, the Mass, etc. Will you therefore say, they err wholly in all? Do they not, howsoever they err otherwise, yet notwithstanding hold also these and many other truths, viz, That there is but one God, and three persons in the Godhead; That he made heaven and earth and all other things, and that of nothing; That the Son (not the Father, or holy Ghost) took flesh of the Virgin Mary; That the bodies of the dead shall rise again at the last day, etc. Likewise for the Corinthians and Galathians of old, 
Pag. 28. 92  of whom also you confess that they erred fundamentally in some points, as about the Resurrection, Circumcision, etc. Shall we therefore think that they held not any one point of truth, but erred wholly in all? The Scripture itself doth witness the contrary: as may be seen throughout the Epistles sent to those Churches. How senseless then and confused is this your new coined meaning? touching which I thought to add thus much here, besides that which I spoke concerning it in the last Reason before.)  
Let the Reader moreover observe, that both there, and here, and in your Reply to the Reason following, the power of the truth so prevaileth against you, as you cannot but grant, you depart from and deny the faith, in your Ministry worship and government ecclesiastical: As appeareth in your Canons, book of Common prayer, Articles, Injunctions, persecution, etc. All which being mentioned as proofs thereof, in these several reasons: when now they should be defended, if you would maintain your standing, behold you are as mute as a fish therein. And not that only, but in your Reply to the next Reason following, 
Pag. 156.  you grant that in these things we may and aught to separate from you. Which is directly to yield us the cause: Thus soundly you answer us, and dispute for yourselves.  
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 conscience, and nature's instinct, than I deny the Proposition. This I say, because the Apostle may very well mean both these, but in divers 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 not true Christians also. For maintenance whereof, 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 Ministry: I have told you how, in my answer to your 7. Reason, Also see my Replies to your 2. Exception.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 2. Reply to the 8. Reason. NOw that all your shifts fail, you come with Ifs and Ands, If the Apostle mean this, and If he mean that etc. As if the Apostles * words were not plain, 
1 Tim. 5.8.  so as the meaning may easily be discerned of any that is not wilfully blind. Read and mind in all such cases and Scriptures that which is written, Prov. 8.9. with Act. 28.26.27.  
But you say the Apostle may very well mean, both such as neglect their household against convenient Christian providence, and such as do it against the light of conscience and nature's instinct. If the first, than you deny the Assumption, that is, the Apostles own saying. And thus again you give the holy Ghost the lie. If the latter, than you deny the Proposition. And then you must prove, that thus they do it. For who knoweth not, that such will not (for this case, any more than you for yours) confess that they do it against light of conscience etc. Nay will they not say, as stiffly as you, that this concerneth not them? And moreover is not that also which is light in one man's conscience, often dark in another man's by one means or other?  
See it in an example. One of your professors in London runneth to all your Sermons and Lectures from place to place throughout the City, every day and every hour. By this means he neglecteth his family. You tell him he doth it against light of conscience and nature's instinct. He denies it, and saith he doth it not so, but as being persuaded in his conscience that he must first seek the kingdom of God, and that then all outward things shallbe cast to him and his. Hereupon (in a blind zeal) he doth, as aforesaid. Now tell me, Is not this man notwithstanding within compass of the Apostles rule here spoken of? Yet will he stand against it for his case, as stiff as you for yours: yea and allege for himself more colour and show of Reason, than you do or can for your Hierarchy etc. So then both the Proposition and Assumption stand firm against you, and therefore also the whole Reason.  
Now here again, being loath (belike) to give them any rest, you call for Mr Cranmer etc. As if they were your Pages, to wait at your heels on every call, and to serve your turn at every need, whether they will or not. Never were poor men in all the world (I think) made such a stolen. But they serve you accordingly. They let you command, and go without. For every where you command their names, and yet alway go without their fellowship. As I have showed before in particular: Pag. 40. 41.  
touching your grant, let the Reader note here again, that you yield, you depart from and deny the faith in your Ministry etc. You say, you have before told us how. But what you have said before is there answered and taken away. And beside, for us it is sufficient, that it is done. Look you unto it, how you do it. It may be, some of you do it of ignorance; some of knowledge against the light of your own consciences; some for fear of men; some for love of the world; some of contention, or vain glory; some for their profit, pleasure, ease, honour, quietness, or the like. Thus I deny not but in the manner of doing, there may be among you in these respects a diverse measure and proportion of sin. But this concerneth not us; but yourselves to look unto: and that greatly.   

Chap. 15. The Ninth Reason against Mr jacobs' Assumption aforesaid.  
Fr. johnson. THey which do otherwise teach, and condescend not to the wholesome words of our Lord jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, all such by the rule of the Apostle are 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 such is the case of all the Ministers and people of the Church of England, in their ministry, worship, and Church constitution: As appeareth both by the several points of their false doctrine 
* Points of false doctrine.  else where noted, and by the proofs 
“ Pag. 61. 63. 135. etc.  here before alleged out of their own Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc.  
Therefore all the Ministers and people of the Church of England, in their Ministry, 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 divers 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. 19.9. whom Paul separated from, which he did not from all other jew, Act. 13.14. & 16.3. & 21.23.24.26. & 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 & Ridley were with their Congregations in King Edwards tyme. And thus our Assumption in the beginning, standeth firm, The doctrine in the book of Articles, is sufficient to make a true Christian.  

Conclusion  The contrary whereof, is such a Paradox, as hath not been heard of till this day: All reformed Churches in Europe do and have always held otherwise. Themselves 
† M. Barrow Mr. Penry. Mr. 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 a 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.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr jacobs' 1. Reply to the 9 Reason. TO this Reason you answer, It is a fallacy, Separate from such: Ergo separate wholly. But how show you any fallacy therein? You bid us see your Replies to the third Exception, and two last Reasons of all. Well we have seen them, and find nothing there but against yourself, as hath been showed. So this Reason and the rest stand still unanswered, and strong against you.  
And that we may not doubt, but yourself also see it, howsoever you seem to plead the contrary before, therefore now you grant it (and so yield the cause) both in express words, and by not defending the points of false doctrine, wherewith you were charged, neither your Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc.  
In express words, when you say, you grant, that so far forth as you hold otherwise then truth, so far we may and aught to separate from you. Lo here what the evidence of the truth (against which you have struggled so long) hath now at length drawn from you. The truth is mighty, and prevaileth.  
But you add, that we must not separate from you any further, then as before: not wholly or absolutely: and so (say you) the Apostle “ here meaneth. 
1 Tim. 6.3. ●  First of all, let us know what yourself mean hereby. If you mean that we must not for your other defection forsake the truths which you hold, I answer that we do it not, and this yourself know well enough. And in this sense your meaning comes nothing near the Apostles. You say yourselves, you have separated from the Papists: yet you neither can nor will say, that you have forsaken the truths which the Papists hold: As, that there is a God; that there be 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 etc.  
But if you mean, that because of the truths which you profess, therefore we should not separate from you: then first you contradict yourself, having granted that we must separate from you, so far forth as you hold otherwise then truth. secondly, you condemn your own practice in your separation from the Papists, notwithstanding the truths they profess. thirdly, in this sense also your meaning comes nothing near the Apostles meaning. Thus therefore is evident, both that there is no fallacy in the Reason, but that it is plain and forcible against you: And that you have directly in express words given us the cause, 
See the particulars before, Pag. 63 etc.  and acknowledged our separation to be lawful from your * Ministry, worship, Assemblies, etc. because in these you hold otherwise then truth.  
And as in express words you yield it, so in deed you show it, in that you leave without all defence (as unlawful and to be separated from) your Ministry, worship, Church-governement, Doctrine, Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. mentioned both here, and more particularly in the First and Second Reasons before: which thing we wish the Reader well to observe. And because we are fallen again into mention of your false doctrine, to the end that the Reader may yet more see the deceitfulness of your dealing and insufficiency of all your answers: therefore it shall not be irksome to set down here, some such points of false doctrine as heretofore have been objected against you. They are as followeth:  
1. That though the open notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Sacraments, yet neither the Sacraments, 
False doctrine in the Church of England, and in the defenders thereof.  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. & 10.28. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17.18. Gal. 5.9. Mat. 18.8.9.15.16.17.18.19. Exod. 12.43. Levit. 15.4.5.6.7.31. & 11.24. & 13.45.46. & 19.7. Num. 5.2.3. & 19.21.22. josua. 7.11.12. etc. 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 and spirit of God in the testimony of his servants, except they have authority from earthly Princes. Which doctrine is against the Kingly power of Christ, and these scriptures. Mat. 28.18.20. Acts 3.23. 1 Cor. 1.27. Psal. 2.6.9.10.12. Esa. 9.6.7. Zach. 4.6. & 6.12.13. Dan. 2.44. & 7.27. & 9.25. Mich. 5.7. 1 Cor. 14.27. with 1 Thes. 4.8. Phil. 2.6.12. 1 Tim. 6.13.14.15. Rev. 1.5. & 12.11. & 14.12. & 17.14. & 19.16. & 20.4.  
3. That the true visible Church of Christ is not a separated company of righteous men and women, from the Idolaters and open wicked of the world, but may consist of all sorts of people, good and 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. & 20.24.25.26. Psal. 24.3.4. Ezra. 6.21. 2. Chron. 11.13.16. Nehem. 10.28. Eze. 22.26. with 44.23. Zeph. 3.4. Mat. 3.10.12. Act. 2.40.41.42. & 19.9. Rom. 12.1.8. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. 1 Pet. 2.9.10. Rev. 14.9.12. & 18.4. & 21.27. and 22.14.15. etc.  
4. To 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, and that they may be retained and communicated withal, in the Church. Which doctrine is against the truth of the scriptures, yea against our Saviour's own interpretation in the 38. verse, who teacheth, that by the field is meant the world, in which his Church is militant here on earth. And as therein there is the good seed, the righteous, the Children of the 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, and being discovered are here cast out of the Church in the Name and by the power of jesus Christ; so shall they in that great day be perfectly severed from the godly by the Angels: howsoever here in the mean time making profession of the truth and having a show of godliness, they be suffered to grow together with the good seed, and be with the upright of heart reputed members of the Church on earth. Note also, that the Church because it is the Temple, House, & kingdom of God on earth, wherein he dwelleth by his spirit and ruleth by the sceptre of his word, as also the gate of heaven through which he bringeth us into his kingdom of glory after this life, is therefore by Christ in this place called the Kingdom of heaven, though yet it be here in the field of this world. Mat. 13.19.24.37.38.41.43.52. compared with Gen. 28.17. 1 Cor. 3.16.17. 2 Cor. 6.16.17.18. Ephes. 2.21.22. Mat. 8.12. & 16.18.19.28. & 21.43. & 22.12.13.14. & 25.1. etc. Luk. 8.1. & 11.20. & 13.18. & 17.20 ●1. Ioh 1.49.51. Act. 1.3. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5.24.25. & 6.3.5. & 2. Tim. 2.20.21. & 3.5. And further, if Christ's meaning were that men should here still dear and partake with the known wicked and profane, notwithstanding that their estate, then by this it would follow that there should neither be use of Excommunication in the Church, nor punishment of malefactors in the Commonwealth. Which could not but be the destruction of both: And is directly contrary to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, in other Scriptures: As namely, in Mat. 18.17.18. and 26.52. Rom. 13.4. 1 Cor. 5. chap. 1 Tim. 1.20. Finally, this their doctrine aforesaid, is against the express commandment of God, the heavenly order of Christ in his Church, and the continual practice of the Prophet's Apostles and faithful in all ages: For which see these Scriptures, Gen. 17.14. and 19. 12-16. Lev. 18.29.30. and 20. 22-26. Numb. 16. 23-26. Ezra. 6.21. & 9.14. Esa. 8.12.18 and .44.5. & 52.11. jer. 15.19. Ezeh. 22.26 zach. 2.7. & 8.21. 22.23. Mal. 3.16.17.18. Mat. 18.8.9.15.16.17.18. Act 2.40.41.47. and 5.28.29. and 17.4.7.34. and 19.9. Rom. 16.17. 1 Cor. 1.26.27. and 5. 4-7. 2 Cor. 6.17. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. 2 joh. vers. 6.10 11. jud. vers. 3.21.22.23. Rev. 2. & 3. chap. & 14.9.12. & 17.14. & 18.4. & 20.4.  
5. That the people may tolerate & join with open iniquity in the Church, until by the Magistrate it be redressed. Which doctrine is contrary to these Scriptures, 2 Cor. 10.4.5. Mat. 28.20. Act. 2.40. & 3.23. & 4.19. & 9.26. & 19.9. 1 Tim. 5.22. Deu. 5.32. & 12.32.  
6. That the gifts of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a sufficient and lawful calling to the Ministry, etc. Which doctrine is both false and anabaptistical, contrary to the Scriptures, Heb. 5.4. Rom. 12.6.7.8. Levit. 22.25. Ezech. 44.8.9. etc. Numb. 1.51. & 3.10.38. & 16.40. & 18.2.3.4. Act. 1.20.26. & 13.2.3. & 14.23.  
7. That the Church may yield obedience unto other Laws, Canons, traditions, officers and offices, than God hath prescribed in his Covenant. Which doctrine is contrary to Gen. 49.10. Mat. 6.24. john. 10.4.5. Rev. 14.4. & 22.18.19. Heb. 3.1. etc.  
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, Esay. 29.13.14. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. Mat. 6.6.9. & 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Exod. 30.9. with Psal. 141.2. Rev. 5.8. & 8.3.4. jud. vers. 20. Ephes. 4.7.8. & 6.18. 1 Pet. 2.5.  
9 That it is lawful to join with the Ministry of dumb and Idol Priests, and to receive the Sacraments at their hands. Which doctrine is contrary to Mat. 15.14. & 7.15. & 24.24.25. Esa. 56.10. john. 10.1.5. Num. 16.5.9.24.26.39.40. etc. 1 Tim. 3.2. & 6.5. 2 john. vers. 6.11.  
10. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ, to cease preaching, and forsake his flock, at the Commandment of the Lord Bishops. Which doctrine is contrary to 1 Cor. 9 16. Esay. 62.1.6.7. jer. 48.10. Zach. 11.17. john, 10.11.12.13. Act. 4.18.19.20. & 5.29. Amos 7.12.13.14.15. 2 Tim. 4.2.  
11. That the Church of Christ hath not always power to bind and loose, to receive in, and to cast out by the Keys of his 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 Ministry. Which doctrine is contrary to Deut. 18.15. Mat. 17.5. & 7.15. 2 john. vers. 10 11. 1 Cor. 10.18. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 14.9.10.11. & 18.4. john 10.5.  
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 & 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. 5.3. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.8. john. 3.35.36. Rev. 9.3. & 14.9.10.11. & 19.14.15.19.  
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. Esa. 29.13.14. Mat. 15.9. Mar. 7.6.7. Gal. 3.15. john. 4.24. Rom. 8.26.27. Ephes. 4.7.8. Col. 2.23.  
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. Rev. 14.9.10.11. and 17.14.16.18.  
16. That men may give the titles of Christ jesus to these sons of men, his mortal enemies, to call them their Archbishops, Lordbishops, Fathers, Lords etc. Which doctrine is contrary to 1 Pet. 5.3.4. with 2.25. Mat. 23.8.9.10. Esa. 42.8. and 48.11. Prov. 17.15. and 24.24. Esay 5.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.17.  
17. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to be maintained in his ministry, by jewish and Popish tithes, Chrisomes, offerings & Which doctrine is contrary to Heb. 7.12. 1 Cor. 9.13.14. 1 Thes. 5.12.13. Pro. 27.26.27. Phil. 4.10.18. Rom. 15.27. Gal. 6.6.  
These are the points of false doctrine mentioned * before in the proof of this Reason. 
Pag. 155.  Which you have left altogether unanswered: as also your Canons, Articles, Injunctions, etc. And thus are you driven again and again (whether you will or not) to yield the cause.  
That which you add in the next place, of your not wholly denying the truth, nor fundamentally, nor obstinately, perversely, and desperately any part thereof, is answered before in the second Exception, and sixth and seventh Reasons.  
Where you say, you are not herein like those jews (Act. 19.9.) 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. you say nothing to any purpose. For what though you be not in all respects like those jews? Are you not therefore to be separated from? So in deed you would conclude. But then tell us, if Corah, Dathan, Abiram, the Apostate jews under jeroboam, the corinthian infidels, Papists, & 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, Num. 16.25.26. 2 Chron. 11.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4.  
secondly, consider the case here spoken of (Act. 19.9.) and compare it with your estate and practice, and see if there be not now as great and just cause to separate from you, as was then from them. The words are these, When some were hardened, and disobeyed, speaking evil of that way before the multitude, Paul departing from them, separated the disciples. Act. 19.9. Compare now your case with theirs, and answer for yourselves. Are not you hardened against the truth? Let your writings against it, your imprisonning, banishing, and killing for it give evidence. Do you not also disobey it? Let your constitution and practice be witness. And do you not speak evil of the way of God before the multitude? Let the Sermons of your Ministers bear record, your books also and ill speeches of your Prelates, judges, people, etc. Therefore (by that Scripture) you are to be separated from. Whereunto may be added in this case that which Peter saith, Act. 2. Save yourselves from this froward generation.  
Thirdly where you object, That Paul did not separate from all the other jews, as he did from these, Act. 19 and show it by Act. 13.14. & 16.3. & 21.23.24.26. & 3.1. I answer, that the Apostles had good and just cause so to do. For first the jews were the people of God, separated from the world, and set in the true way and order of God. Rom. 9.4. Levit. 20.22.24.26. Luk. 16.8. & secondly, Christ commanded the Apostles, when he sent them to preach his Gospel throughout the world, that they should first preach it to the jews. Luke 24.47. Act. 1.8. & 13.46. thirdly, the jews ministry and ceremonies being the ordinances of God himself, and given in writing by Moses the man of God, were therefore now (when they should cease) to be buried with honour. Act. 15.21. and 21.30.21.22.23.24.25. Heb. 8.5.13. and 9.1. & 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 
“ Rev. 13.16.17. & 18.2. 2 The. 2.3.4.8  confusion and defection of Antichrist; whose Ministry and worship were never the ordinances of God, but taken out of 
* Rev. 17.2.4 & 18.3. & 9.3. etc.  the whore's cup of Babylon; for which God never gave Commandment to go unto them, but to departed from them, as being daughters of the great Babylon, that mother of whoredoms and abominations of the earth. Rev. 18.4. with 17.5.  
Add hereunto, that even from those jews (notwithstanding the reasons aforesaid) when they put from themselves the truth and would not receive it, the Apostles departed and separated themselves, yea and shook of the dust of their feet against them, teaching others to do so likewise, Act. 13.46.51. and 18.6. and 28.25.26.27, 28. and 19.8.9.  
To that of Master Cranmer, Ridley, & is answered before.  
And hitherto of your 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 by the Exceptions and Reasons aforesaid, is proved to be untrue.  

Touching the Conclusion.  Now let the godly Reader (trying all things by the word of truth) judge, whether we or you hold Paradoxes.  
In that which you speak of the reformed Churches, you are deceived, if you think they allow your present estate and Church constitution. Both their public profession and practice witness the contrary: 
In the answer to Mr T.C. Mr A.H. etc.  as is declared at large in ‡ other treatises, which yet remain unanswered.  
Where you say, we ourselves heretofore have acknowledged and professed it, (viz your general Assumption to be true) you are again deceived. We have alway testified the contrary, both by our profession and practice, and were and are therefore cast into prison, appointed to exile, and to death: besides many other injuries and grievances inflicted upon us for this very cause. We have in deed acknowledged and do acknowledge, that you profess diverse excellent truths, but that the whole doctrine, as it is publicly professed & practised by law in England, doth make you in that estate true Christians, never any of us (that I know of) did once acknowledge. Therefore till you show the contrary, I must needs think you do falsely burden us all, and specially such of us, as you have mentioned here in particular.  
To that of the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days is answered already. Yet for more evidence of the truth, I will annex some particular speeches and testimonies of the Martyrs themselves, both then, and in former times.  
Master Bradford, (speaking of the days before Queen Marie) said. 
‡ Act. & monum. In the conference with Archb. Heath.  The time was, when the Pope was out of England, but not all popery. And moreover, 
* In his first speech with D. Harpsfild.  That the scripture knoweth not any difference between Bishops and Ministers, which men call Priests. And that the Scripture speaking of Bishops, cannot be understood of Bishops that minister not, but lord it.  
Master Hooper held, 
Hooper on the eight commandment.  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 cannot 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.  
john Bale (an exile for the testimony of jesus) writing upon the Revelation affirmeth, 
The Image of both churches: upon Rev. 13.1. & 17.3.  That the names of Blasphemy written upon the Beasts head (Rev. 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 ●her else (saith he) is Pope, Cardinal, Metropolitan, Primate, Archbishop, Diocesan, Archdeacon, Official, chancellor, Commissarie, Deane, Prebend, Parson, 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 you?  
And writing upon the 14. of the Revelation, he hath these words: To receive the beasts mark in their foreheads and hands, 
Ibid. upon Rev. 14.9.  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 “ afterward upon the 16. of the Revelation, 
Ibid. upon Rev. 16.12.  expounding the drying up of the waters of Euphrates to be this, That the wealthy Pope's possessions and pleasures of the Clergy (their false feats once known) are and shallbe clearly taken away from them: He saith thus, In England by the 
♣ Mark by this, of what time & estate he speaketh, even of such when the Gospel was preached, the Monasteries suppressed, etc.  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 sincere 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, & 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 Winchester, Durham, York, London, and Lincoln work (let us also add Canterbury) with such other pleasant disposed Euphratines'. But be of good comfort, and pray in the mean tyme. For the holy Ghost promiseth here, that they shall whither away with all that the heavenly Father hath not planted. All which generation will the Lords breath consume etc.  
And (to speak also of others in former times) john Wickleff held, 
† Acts and Mon. 5. edit. pag. 414. b.  That Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacon's, officials, Deans, Canons, & be disciples of Antichrist.  
William Swinderby said, 
* Ibid. pag. 431. b.  that what Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Prelate, or Priest, in manner of living, or teaching, or 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.  
Sir john Oldcastle (Lord Cobham) witnessed, 
′ Ibid. ●ag. 518. a. & b.  that the Bishops, Priests, Prelates, and Monks, are the body of that great Antichrist: And that the possessions and Lordships of the Clergy, are the venom of judas shed into the Church.  
john Claidon (burnt in Smithfield) professed, 
‡ Ibid. pag. 588. b.  that the Archbishops, and Bishops, speaking indifferently, are the seats of the beast Antichrist, when he sitteth in them and reigneth above other people in the dark Caves of errors and heresies. And 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 
* In his treatises called▪ The obedience of a Christian man, &. The practice of prel.  William tindal and 
“ In his Preface before his Antithesis between Christ & the pope.  john Frith published, That Archbishops, Lordb. Archdeacon's, Deans, Officials, Parsons, Vicars, and the rest of that sort, are the disciples of Antichrist, yea very Antichrists themselves.  
These are the speeches and testimonies of the Martyrs in former ages, whereunto diverse other such like might be added. But these may suffice for the matter in hand. Now compare therewith, the public profession and practice of England (even as it is by law at this day) and see whether your own proofs be not so many witnesses against yourselves.  
But if it were so, that the reformed Churches, we ourselves, and the Martyrs of former time, gave allowance of your present estate and Church constitution, what would this help you, when as the word of God condemneth you, as we have showed in the Reasons aforesaid and defence thereof. Whereunto (if you will still justify your estate) we require direct answer from point to point, and that from the Scriptures, which only can 'stablish the conscience.  
Furthermore, that the truth itself and your estate may better appear what it is, as also that you may not turn away or obscure the truth by your shifts and evasions, as your manner is: I will here propound a few questions concerning the points now in controversy, desiring your plain and sincere answer thereunto, by the word of God, as you will answer to him at that day. The questions are these.  

Seven questions containing the whole controversy between us: yet unanswered.  1. Whether the Lord jesus Christ have by his last testament given unto and set in his Church sufficient ordinary Offices, with their Callings, Works, and Maintenance, for the administration of his holy things, and for the sufficient ordinary instruction, guidance, and service of his Church to the end of the world, or no?  
2. Whether the Offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, and Helpers, be those offices appointed by Christ in his Testament, as aforesaid. Or whether the present ecclesiastical Offices of Archbishops, Lordbishops, Suffragans, Deans, Prebendaries, Cannons, Petticanons, Priests, Deacons, Archdeacon's, Doctors of divinity, Bachelors of divinity, Chaplains or Housepriests, Commissaries, officials, Proctors, Apparitors, Parsons, Vicars, Curates, Vagrant or Mercenary preachers, Churchwardens, Side men, Clerks, Sextons, and the rest now had in the Cathedral and parishional assemblies, be those Offices appointed by Christ in his Testament as is aforesaid, or no?  
3. Whether the Calling and entrance into these Ecclesiastical offices aforesaid, their Administration, and Maintenance, now had and retained 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 and the false worship and ways thereof 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 Ecclesiastical Assemblies of this Land be such, or no?  
5. Whether the Sacraments (being seals of righteousness which is by faith) may be administered to any other but 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 the Book of Common prayer with the Feasts, Fasts, Holy days, stinted prayers, and liturgy prescribed therein, and used in these Assemblies, be the true worspip of God commanded in his word, or the devise and 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 Ministry, Worship, & order, which Christ as Lord and King hath given and appointed to his Church? Or whether any may receive and join unto another devised by man, for the service of God? And consequently, whether they which join to the present ecclesiastical Ministry, worship, and order of the Cathedral and parishional Assemblies, can be assured by the word of God that they join to the former ordained 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 your direct answer, with proofs of your answers from the scriptures. According to which word if you speak not (as I said before, so I say again) 
Esa. 8.20.  it is because there is no light in you.  
And now to conclude, where you would in the end of your writing (being not able to answer our Reasons) fasten upon us some strange passion, yea mere desperateness, for separating from you, and answering of you as we have done: we refer it to the godly and discreet Reader to judge by that which hath been said on both parts, whether it be not yourselves that are taken with the strange passion you speak of, and driven thereunto by mere desperateness: when for to maintain your own estate; you will have the scriptures to fall and exalt the Church and Magistrate above Christ himself, even flesh and blood above God blessed for ever. Your practice whereof see before, Pag. 28. 91. 100 105. 135. etc.  
But for this & all your unrighteous dealing against the truth & people of God, we leave you to the Lord, who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his works: That is, to them that by continuance in well-doing seek glory & honour and immortality, eternal life; But unto them that are contentious, and disobey the truth & obey unrighteousness, indignation & 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 eo quod est secundum 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 equivocationis, 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 appear, separate from such wholly: Or else, erring in simplicity & of oversight, and former prejudice, from such, separate nor 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 Praelacy and Ceremonies, be of these latter sort: which thing hitherto, you have not nor cannot overthrow, (& withal you must utterly overthrow Mast. Cranmer & the rest of the Martyrs their Christianity like wise): Therefore we in England, by the grace of God, are still true Christians: & you ought so to acknowledge us, as you will answer unto God: All which you may do, & 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. Nither is our absolute departure from the Papists, hereby any whit impeached. We have justly forsaken them clean, because by their very profession and doctrine, we cannot esteem them true Christians, neither in case of salvation, while they so remain, but indeed very Antichrists, 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,) containeth sufficient to make a true Christian: 
As it doth not.  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 & seeming reasons, & allege them, & publish them for the Praelacy against you: & are unanswered. And yet will you say they are convicted, & 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 & 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 apsolute 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 & 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 & Mr. Hildersham that are unanswered. If they be like to this your answer here, verily they do wisest in yielding silence to such frivolous & wandering words.  
Secondly I alleged yourselves to have acknoledged heretofore, That our public doctrine allowed, would & 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 writngs every where, etc. Have we not commended the faith of the English Martyr, and 〈◊〉 thousand, notwithstanding the false offices and g●●●● corruptions in the worship they exercised, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their sincere ●aith to jesus Christ extended and super abounded 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 and 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, 
Nota, from Christ.  to cut them of from God's election, 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 majesties 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 l●ft: But join notwithstanding 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 assemblees, 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, as true Christians: as Hooper, Bale, Bradford etc.  
After where you say: though the reformed Churches, yourselves, and the Martyrs, had thought otherwise then you now do, yet all this is no so und proof against you. Yes in deed, that now you hold a Paradox, those witnesses are sufficient for that: where unto may be added, the whole Church's judgement and practise, with all the ancient learned Fathers these 1300. or 1400. years, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Nazianzen. Hierom. Austen. Ambrose, & c. 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 & 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 hereabout: 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, 
Not a Fir●●● for victory but a lover of 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 regarding your own, but the praise of Christ in all things. AMEN.  
Fr. johnson his Answer to Mr. jacobs' 2. Reply to the 9 Reason. AS if your bare word were proof enough, still you say, but never prove, that this Reason is a fallacy. Yea and all the Reasons before in your school-learning are likewise. But the best is, you are not the greatest Clerk the schools have known. Every of the Reasons is proved before to be true, direct, sound, and strong against you. And in all your Replies against them, what else have you done but played the Sophister, and that notably? Apply therefore to yourself what you speak here. And of all these things, now let the Reader judge.  
It seemeth very absurd unto you that I say, you do here grant us the cause. But what if the absurdity be found in yourself? Mark then first your own words before, 
Pag. 156.  ‡ We grant (say you) so far forth as we hold otherwise then truth, so far separate from us. Now you hold otherwise then the truth, in all the particulars † before rehearsed touching your Prelacy, Priesthood, Sacraments, Book of common prayer, 
Pag. 63. etc.  confusion of people, etc. Thus far therefore you grant we may and aught, to separate from you. And further we do not at all. For there is not any truth you hold, which we also hold not with you. So then in express words you yield us the cause. And yet further you yield it again, in that you do not defend by the Scripture your Hierarchy, worship, doctrines, Canons, Articles, Injunctions &c. received and joined unto by all in your Church. How absurd then and ungodly is your denial of so manifest a truth? And how distempered is your brain, that can not perceive so plain a contradiction with yourself?  
Your two fold sense of the Apostles words, is a silly fiction of your own head, without any ground or proof at all. If you will have us think otherwise, bring warrant for the particulars of your distinction from the book of God. But I pity you, Mr jacob. For I see you are brought to a low ebb. Who knows not that this is the very last refuge of all enemies of the truth, when they are pressed with evidence of Scripture so as they can not avoid it, then to feign distinctions and to cast about for the sense, as if that were hard and obscure which in deed is most plain and easy? Look in Bellarmine, Bilson, Whitgift, Bridges, and whosoever else have written against the truth, if their dealing be not such. This then doth not answer the Argument, but proveth it rather to be unanswerable.  

Tim. 6.5.  As for the words, The Apostle saying, from such separate thyself, if now you would know, from whom, Himself telleth it as plain as may be, If any man teach otherwise and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness etc. from such separate thyself. 
vers. 3.  But such is your case in particular: As hath been proved, in your Prelacy and the other abominations of Antichrist, yet taught and maintained among you. Therefore are we bound by this rule of the Apostle, to separate ourselves from you. Else should we answer it to God at that day.  
Of your continual vain distinctions of fundamentally, wholly, presumptuously, simply, etc. enough is said already in the handling of the for mer Reasons. As also of Mr Cranmer and the rest of the Martyrs: Whom here you set before us again, as coleworts, not twice but ten times sodden. Leave this usage of them Mr jacob, for they have left you long since. See before, Pag. 40.41.  
Next, you tell us we may join with you, and yet towch no part of your ecclesiastical corruptions at all, to give allowance unto them. Prove this, and you say somewhat. But I doubt we shall find you as slow in proving, as you are rash in speaking. Mind but these particulars following, which I will name for example. Can we receive your Priesthood from the Prelates, or execute it under them? Can we join to your Service book, or any part of your worship and Ministry? Can we receive the word or Sacraments from your Ministers in that constitution? Can we remain members of your confused Assemblies? Can we stand subject to your Prelates, and their Courts, Canons, censures etc. Can we (I say) do these, or any of them, and yet towch no part of your ecclesiastical corruptions at all, to give allowance unto them? In your next Reply (Mr jacob) declare us this riddle, if you can. And in the mean time, I will attribute it to your distempered conceit, that you do thus every foot forget and contradict yourself, and yet discern it not.  
But what will you say too, if such as join with you in any part of your worship (suppose it be the best) become thereby partakers of your whole worship and constitution, even of the worst things that are among you therein? To make it plain and certain unto you, mind these proofs. In Israel, 
† 1 Cor. 10.18.  they that did eat of the sacrifices (as 
“ 2 Sam. 1.4.5  the people might) were thereby partakers of the whole jewish religion, yea even of the altar: Unto which yet they might not come at all, but the Priest only. Lev. 1. chap. etc. Numb. 18.7. Luc. 1.9.10. In Corinth, the Christians that abhorred Idols and Idolatry, yet when after the sacrifices were offered, 
* 1 Cor. 10. 14-22. & 8.4.10.  they sat but in the Idol Temples to eat of the meats that had been sacrificed (which in 
† 1 Cor. 10.25.26.27.  other places they might have done) became thereby partakers of the whole Idolatrous wprship: though they were not present at it, but (as they thought) abhorred it. In like manner, they which connnunicate in any part of your worship, become thereby partakers and guilty of the whole: though it may be, neither you nor they so think. So false it is (which here you give out) that we may join with some of your worship and Ministry, and yet towch no part of your Ecclesiastical corruptions at all, to give them allowance.  
For the Papists (to omit that you answer not what I objected) you see and grant readily that they are no true Christians but very Antichrists etc. Yet for yourselves, though your Hierarchy, Leitourgy, confusion of people, false doctrines etc. be merely Popish and Antichristian, you will not see and acknowledge it. Take heed least when you see, yet you wink with your eyes, and though you understand, yet you harden your heart; because you will not be converted and healed. Esa. 6.9.10. Act. 28.26.27.  
For the question between us, let the Reader judge how I have proved it, and how you have quitted yourself and your Churches.  
Where you say, the points of false doctrine in your Church are most falsely laid to your charge, all may see here again you have an hard forehead to deny any thing, and yet are so sottish you can prove nothing. But you say you list not meddle with them at this present. I easily believe you. They are so pregnant against you, as it is no marvel if you have no list to do it. Otherwise you show list enough to meddle with any thing that you think may carry any show against us.  
But you must mind, the point is not, what you list, but what you ought to meddle withal. You have taken upon you the defence of your Churches in the estate wherein now they stand. Therefore must you answer aswell for the false doctrines, as for the true, maintained in your Church. Else would the Papists justify their case against you well enough.  
For this cause than must you answer aswell for your Book of common prayer and other your books of Articles, Canons, Injunctions &c. as for that book of Articles which was published in the year 1562. For they contain the doctrine and constitution of your Church aswell as the other, if not also more. They are public authorized among you aswell as the other, whether you respect the Prelates and Clergy in the Convocation house, or the whole body of the Land in the Parliament. They are generally received professed and practised of all the people in every Parish and Cathedral Church throughout the Land, aswell as the other: Yea and more too, yourselves being witnesses. One of your own Prophets, 
Mr Giff. Di. of the strife of the Church. Pag. 100  writing of your estate saith, There be thousands which be men and women grown, that if a man ask them how they shall be saved, they cannot tell. Neither can your self deny this to be true. How do they then know and profess the faith of your book of Articles? Or will you say, they are as ignorant of your Service-book and of your Prelates other Articles, Injunctions, Courts etc. unto which they join and submit daily?  
Either therefore you must meddle with the false doctrines and other public books of your Church, aswell as with that book of Articles whereof you speak: or else you meddle not at all with the question between us, neither defend your Church's estate. The question between us is, Whether the truths you profess together with the false doctrines and abominations of Antichrist retained among you, do make you true Churches and I true Christians in that estate. If you keep not to this point, you may make as fair a plea for the Church of Rome and all other Heretics, whilst you meddle not with their errors and false doctrines, but look only at the truths they profess. Mind but the Papists profession concerning Christ, and his full and sufficient satisfaction for all our sins, whereof I spoke before, Pag. 47. And consider now with yourself, how well and soundly you have defended your Church's estate.  
How your doctrine and constitution erreth fundamentally, I have declared before, Pag. 22. 114. 147.  
But now though you have no list to meddle with your Church's doctrine, yet let us see in your next Reply, if your list will be to deal with your own. Your own (I say) which I had from yourself, and take to be private to yourself. I had it from you, in a Conference which passed “ between you and me, 
April. 3. 1597  in the presence of diverse that can witness it. Yet for more certainty and better remembrance, I desired and obtained of you to write it down yourself. So you gave it me then under your hand, in writing, which I have with me yet to show. Thus it is, word for word: A power borrowed from Antichrist to excommunicate, may externally be committed unto a people & used by them who have power to excommunitate from Christ. Henry jacob.  
When you had thus set it down, I desired your proof of it from the Scriptures. But none could be had: I could not obtain that at your hands. Thereupon I took the paper, and wrote underneath your assertion, thus: This is against the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 5.4.5. compared with 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17. Ezech. 43.8. Mat. 18.17.18.19.20. & 1 King. 18.21. Fran: johnson.  
It is a good while Mr jacob, since this passed between us: and like, that you have had leisure enough to consider of it all this tyme. Therefore in your next, I hope you will have some list to meddle with this doctrine of your own, though you have none at all for your Churches.  
Yet for the doctrines of your Church also (because I am fallen into the mention of them again) let me put you in mind of two things more.  

Mat. 13.24. etc.  The first is touching the parable of the tars (spoken of before, Pa. 158.) of which, because it is strangely and daily perverted among you for the maintenance of your confused and wicked estate, therefore will I here in particular add a word or two more, besides that which I annexed before, for the further explication of this point, and conviction of your error. As first, that you do consider with yourselves, if with this parable agree not also the Apostles doctrine, where he calleth the Church the house of God, and saith that in this house are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and that as some of them be for honour, so some be also to dishonour, from which therefore if any purge himself, he shallbe a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Lord, and prepared to every good work. 1 Tim 3.15. & 5.24.25. & 6.3.4.5. & 2 Tim. 2.16.17.18.19.20.21. & 3.5. Next, that howsoever the parable be understood by any, whether of (1) the general estate of the Church, from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, how Satan alway hath his tars, his wicked ones (sometimes more open, sometimes more secret) even as God alway hath his righteous children and servants, until the day of that final and everlasting separation (Mat. 13.35.40.): (2) Or the particular estate of the Church, in the time of antichrist's apostasy, wrought by Satan, until the discovery and full abolition thereof (2 Thes. 2. 3.-14.): (3) Or the Churches continual being and conversing in the world, with the children of the wicked: Which they must needs do, or else they must go out of the world (as the Apostle affirmeth, 1 Cor. 5.9.10.). Howsoever (I say) the parable be understood, whether of these or any the like, yet doth it no way make for the receiving or retaining of the known wicked (whosoever they be) in the body of the Church: The scope of the parable, by these interpretations also leading to no such thing: but only to comfort and instruct the godly how to carry themselves, with patience and wisdom, in such estate of things in the world.  
And the Apostle (whose doctrine doubtless is not contrary to Christ's) teacheth expressly, in that place to the Corinthians and the other mentioned before, both that the Church is a distinct body separated from the world, not partaking in their evil ways; and that if any of the Church will not so walk, but commit iniquity, and repent not, that then they be so far from being suffered to grow or remain any longer in the Church, as they be forthwith cast out of it, and delivered unto Satan, the Prince of the world and children of disobedience, even the Enemy that soweth the tars here spoken of. And thus also was the Apostles practise. For both which, that is, both his doctrine and practise herein, see these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 5. chap. & 2 Cor. 2. 6-11. & 6. 14.-17 Act. 19.9. Ro. 16.17. Ephes. 2.1.2. Gal. 5.12. 2 Thes. 3.6.14. 1 Tim. 1.20. & 6.3.4.5. & 2 Tim. 2. 16-21. & 3.5. & 4.14.15. Tit. 3.10. Heb. 10.38.39. To conclude then, albeit that such having crept into the Church, do both before and after their excommunication, as do also the other of the world who never received the faith, offend and trouble the Church and children of the kingdom, yea and do often flourish also in outward prosperity in the world: yet the godly notwithstanding must learn neither to fret at them, nor to faint in themselves, but alway to walk faithfully in the truth, and to wait patiently on the Lord, looking for the great harvest of the world. At which time God will for ever free his people from them all, both casting the wicked into a furnace of unquenchable fire, and making the righteous to shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Mat. 13. 37-43. compared with ver. 47-50. Rev. 2. 20.-26. & 7. 14-17. & 10.7. & 11. 15-19. & 14. 14-20. & 17-22. chap. and with the other Scriptures noted before, Pag. 158. 159. 173.  
The second is, that besides the false doctrines mentioned before (Pag. 157. 158. 159. 160.) your Church hath also many more. Some whereof I have noted in * another Treatise, 
A treatise of the Minist. of Engl. pag. 10. 11. 12. 13.  to which I refer you for them. So as if your list and leisure will serve in your next Reply, you may let us have your defence of them also. Or else provide (Mr jacob) that you change the Title of your book, and call it not any longer, A DEFENCE OF THE CHURCHES AND MINISTRY OF ENGLAND.  
Now to proceed, there followeth next the comparison between you and the jews from whom Paul separated, 
Act. 19.9.  Act. 19 To which you can not reply a word to any one thing I answered. Only you bring some new exceptions, but not any of them all worth a rush. You might aswell except, that Paul was an Apostle and a jew, we not; that the people he dealt withal, were in Asia, you in Europe; they at Ephesus, you at London etc. Such pretences, as they are very common among you, so are they most absurd and frivolous, not worthy the hearing or any refutation at all. Only note, that the very Papists themselves may likewise allege against any that witness the truth unto them: (yea and do they not daily thus pretend as you do?) viz, that they be infinitely many more, than Paul had there to do withal; 2. That Paul was better able to convince them etc. than any such are the whole Popish Church; 3. That there be many learned among them, which have many probable and seeming reasons etc.  
Where you say, there be some of you that have published some reasons for the Prelacy against us, and are unanswered, it is most false. Name but one Reason (if you can) to which we have not given answer, to the stopping of all your mouths. But in deed (Mr jacob) you and your fellows have let the * the Prelates and their proctors insult over you, 
Bancroft. Bilson. Sutcliff. etc.  with book upon book, and yet answer not a word. You that ere while cried out so earnestly against dumb dogs, are now become dumb yourselves, not moving the tongue against any that writeth for the Hierarchy and leitourgy of Antichrist retained among you. But (to leave this to yourselves to be better minded hereafter) tell me now, if it were any thing to the purpose, though that you say here were true? By your own confession, the Reasons which are published against us are but probable and seeming, not true and undoubted. And this also seeming so but to you, not to us. What matter then, though they were never answered by us?  
Where you ask, What if these speak evil of that which we hold for truth, but they hold to be errors & schism? We ask again, Do not the Papists also say so unto you? Yea and did not the jews (think you) say so unto Paul? Why then are you so partial against us? But for us it skills not, what you or they think of our cause, unless you speak according to the Law and testimony of God: which is far from you.  
Let the Reader also note here, the manner of your speech. You say, that which we hold for truth, they hold to be errors & schism. They (say you) as speaking of others, not of yourself. You belike do not so hold it, as they do, but are persuaded it is truth, and not error. Why then do you not obey and practise it? Why are you become our enemy for bearing witness unto it? Why are you so partial against us in it?  
touching the estate of the jews Church, I showed three reasons why the Apostles neither did nor might wholly separate from them at first. Against which you are not able to open your mouth. 
Pag. 161.  Petitio principii (whereof you speak) is the sum of all your Replies. Show otherwise, if you can. Do you not every where beg, and no where prove, that you are separated from the world, set in the way of Christ, free from the defection of Antichrist etc. So yourself are guilty of that wherewith you charge me falsely, all that you say being nothing else but to beg the question and deny the Conclusion. As for your short writing about the comparison of your Ministry with Marriage, I did answer it * above three years since. But you have not yet replied again, neither (I think) will in haste. 
In the year 1596.  When you first acquainted me with the purpose of publishing these things you know (besides other things then spoken of) I did in particular desire you to publish that answer of mine with the rest. Therefore you have done me the greater wrong, both in leaving it unprinted, and much more in giving out that I have not answered you these whole three years together and upward. But I perceive, you will have your book suitable one part with another, and therefore you will end as you ‡ began, that is, 
Pag. 5.  with lies and untruths.  
Of that which you annex of the jews Church, in Christ's time and after, and of separation from them and communion with them, I have already spoken sufficiently. Pag. 161. Neither can you with any Reason deny or stand against any thing I have there said: as I noted before. Tell us yet I pray you, when and how that full experience of obstinate and malicious resistance of the truth (whereof you speak) may be had and discerned in any, either Ministers or people. For yourselves, you cannot deny, but this is your case, that you resist and refuse the truth, many times and sundry ways, witnessed unto you; that you rail and speak evil both of it and of us that profess it; that you persist in the errors and defection of Antichrist; that you bereave us of our lives, liberty, goods, country etc. And all these, because we will not run with you to the same excess of impiety. Now seeing this is the case (as yourself, I think, will not deny) of your Prelates and many other of your Priests and people, and seeing all the rest of you stand with them in one body and estate of a Church, cleaving unto them in the same way, worship, ministery etc. therefore even in this behalf can we not possibly separate from some of you, but we must needs do it from all. And for your resistance, whether it be such as you speak of, or not, we leave to the Lord, who knoweth the hearts and ways of all men. It sufficeth us (as it did the Apostles, and must do the servants of God in all ages) that the Reasons of separation include and belong unto you all, even all your Churches, Ministers, and people, in that estate: As I have declared before throughout this Treatise.  
touching the conclusion. Therefore until you prove the contrary (which will never be, mark what I say) the Paradox still remaineth upon you and your Church.  
touching the reformed Churches, some of * yourselves (men of far better judgement and learning than Mr jacob) have confessed and published, 
In the first Admonition to the Parl.  that you have all the best reformed Churches throughout Christendom against you: And further, that you have an Antichristian Hierarchy and Popish ordering of Ministers, strange from the word of God and the use of all well reformed Churches in the world. Yet you (like blind Bayard) stick not boldly to say to the contrary, that all men know they hold communion with you as Churches of God. First then reconcile yourself (Mr jacob) with your fellow Reformists at home: And then your Church's Hierarchy and constitution, with the ministery and constitution of the reformed Churches abroad.  
And remember here, that the Ministry of those Churches is not esteemed sufficient by yours: As the Priesthood of Rome is. (The proof of both which, you may see in the answer to Mr A.H. Pag. 96.) With whether of these then (I pray you) do you hold communion? Or do you not in deed halt, as neuter, between both? Mind further, that Mr Beza (whose judgement, you know, is worthily reverenced and approved in all the reformed Churches) speaking but of four or five of your corruptions, affirmeth that in the Antichristian Church there is nothing more intolerable, 
Bez. Epist. 8.  yea that (your case being so) it is not a corruption of Christianity, but in deed a manifest defection from Christ. His own words I noted before, Pag. 73. Now when themselves do thus witness and write of your estate, how should any think that they hold communion with you, as the Churches of God, unless you could prove they do also hold it the Church of God, which standeth in manifest defection from Christ?  
I know in deed that you have long deceived them, by the Apology, which you published for yourselves against the Papists. In which you concealed from them all your corruptions and abominations. By means whereof, not having knowledge of the truth of your estate, they have thereupon for a time thought much better of it, than it doth deserve or will bear: As even some among them already, upon better information since, have acknowledged. But of this matter, and of your dealing therein, Reason. 6 I have written already † in the answer to Mr T. C. And therefore for these things I do still refer you, as I did.  
The Answer to Mr Hild. (such as it is) now is published. And so may the answer to Mr Cartw. be in time: specially seeing you do thus provoke thereunto. In the mean time, diverse copies thereof are abroad in men's hands. In which, as also in the ‡ other Treatise, 
A ●revis●o ●f the Minist. of Engl. Pag 67. 68 69.  I have noted in sundry particulars, the testimony of the reformed Churches, against your present estate. You (Mr jacob) may account of these or any other our writings, as you please. Your tongue is no slander. Yet till we be answered, and that soundly from the word of God, all men of conscience will see and mind how you bring nothing at all in defence of your Churches and ministery, but frivolous and wandering words.  
Next followeth our own acknowledgement to be discussed. For touching that bloody mind and speech of yours when you say, if we be troubled for witnessing against your Church estate, none can pity our imprisonnement, banishment etc. I leave you and it unto God, 
a See the like before, Pag. 112.  who seethe and will judge. Only let the Reader note here “ again, that not the Prelates alone, but you also (the forward preachers and professors) have wittingly and willingly your hand in our blood.  
Mr Barrow is the first you name: Whom together with Mr Greenwood you 
† At Ty●um by London, in the year 1593. Apr. 6.  killed in time of Parliament: that the ages present and to come may know, it was done with knowledge of the whole Land. In all his speech there is not one word, that the members of your Church are true Christians in that estate. He testified unto death and sealed with his blood, that you do all stand in Antichristian estate. I think yourself will not be so shameless, as to deny it. Now in his speech here alleged by yourself, mark four things, which all do show it is against you.  
1. That speaking of the Martyrs false offices and corruptions, he deemeth them saved notwithstanding, through the mercy of God which superabounded above their sins etc. By which is evident that he thought them under the wrath of God in respect of their false offices & corruptions, had not the mercy of God superabounded above those their sins. For mercy (you know) presupposeth misery, and superabundance thereof a great measure of sin.  
2. He intimateth as if he thought that these their sins were unseen of them: as doubtless they were of many of them, yea and of all of them as touching that measure of knowledge which God hath since by his word revealed therein.  
3. He declareth that he was far from cutting of all among you (as Mr Gifford suggested) from God's election or from Christ. Where mark that he speaketh of God's election (under which we also trust that many of you are) not of your present outward estate. 
In his Disco. of the false Church Ref. of Mr Giff. Conferen. etc.  In respect whereof here he saith, the servants of Christ may justly deny you in that constitution to be members of a true constituted Church. A case very woeful and miserable. Yet add hereunto, that which ‡ else where often he testified, that your Ministry, worship, estate, are Antichristian etc. For which cause he could not join with you in such estate, but separated from you, and witnessed this against you unto death, himself so signifying at the very time and place of his execution. So far was he from judging you to be in that estate true Christians. To make the case yet more plain, know that we dare not condemn them of the Church of Rome with any such peremptory sentence as Mr Giffard accuseth us, to cut them all from God's election or from Christ. Doth it therefore follow, that in the constitution of there Church, we judge them true Christians? Nothing less. Yet thus you shame not to reason.  
4. He asketh, what now should let, that we should not have the same hope (as of the Martyrs) where the same precious faith in sincerity and simplicity is found? So as they neither neglect to search out the truth, nor despise the truth when they see it etc. We also ask and say the same. But now if you say, this is your case, both we and your own works deny it. For proof whereof see the differences between you and the Martyrs before specified. Pag. 40. 41.  

At Thomas a Water by London, 1593. May 29  Mr Penry (whom you ♣ martyred also the same year) his speech followeth. In which likewise note four things, not one of them for you, as touching the question in hand.  
1. The true doctrines established by Law and professed by her Majesty, their Honours, and such as have knowledge in your assemblies, he acknowledgeth to be such, as if he did not maintain and hold them likewise, he could not possibly be saved. We also are like minded. And to put you out of all doubt, we tell you further, that if we did not hold and maintain the true doctrines professed in the Church of Rome, touching the only true God, the holy Trinity, the Mediator Christ, the Resurrection, Life eternal etc. we could not possibly look to be saved. Yet do we not therefore approve their Assemblies to be true Churches, or the members thereof true Christians in their estate.  
2. He separated from your Church as remaining in Antichristian constitution, and professeth here that he durst not join with the public worship of your Assemblies. The causes thereof he mentioneth in the same confession, which you conceal. Of which see further in his answer to Mr Fanshaw hereafter following.  
3. He confesseth that many of the Teachers and professors in your assemblies, have so embraced the truth of doctrine established and professed in the Land, as the Lord hath given them to show outwardly many tokens, whereby (in regard of the Lords election) he judged them members of that body whereof Christ is the head: and prayed God herein to be merciful to them (as to himself in regard of all his sins) that they are not under that outward form of government which Christ hath left in the Church. Now mark here, 1. that this is no other thing, then as we alway did and still do profess likewise. Of which see before, Pag. 7. 41. 2. That he speaketh but of some, not of all the members of your Church. Whereas your Assumption and Conclusion are of your whole public Assemblies, and so of every member of your Church, as touching their outward standing therein. 3. That the persuasion he had of such among you was (as himself noteth) in regard of the Lords election, not of their estate in your Church's constitution. For touching this (which is the question between us) here he prayed God to be merciful to them, as to himself in respect of all his sins. Now I suppose you will not deny but his sins (as also the sins of all God's people) deserve in their own nature the curse of God, if they were not forgiven in Christ. So that by praying thus, he acknowledged the estate of all (even of the best among you) to be such, as for this very cause you are every one subject to God's wrath, because you are not under that outward form of Government which Christ hath left in the Church. Consider withal that even for Papists we may pray thus, that the Lord would be merciful to them in this, that they are not under that outward form of government which Christ hath left in his Church: and yet not hereby justify them to be a true Church in their estate, but rather the quite contrary. For Christ his Church (wheresoever and among whomsoever it be) is under Christ his government, not under antichrist's. Neither have any people, promise of salvation, in such estate. 4. By all this it appeareth, that he spoke of them, as judging them to be members of the invisible and Catholic Church, which containeth all Gods elect, not only among you, but among the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Papists, and all other people whatsoever. Now what is this to the point of the question controverted, which is not of men as they belong to the Catholic invisible Church, but as they stand members of some particular visible Assemblies in this or that constitution?  
4. His speech in examination before Mr Fanshaw, why do you not set it down in his own words, as you did the other before? Belike you see yourself, it is against you, howsoever you would pretend otherwise. That all may know it, thus it was. Mr Fanshaw asked him this question, Do the Martyrs teach you, that there is no Church in England? Mr Penry answered, If you mean by a Church (as the most do) that public profession whereby men do profess salvation to be had by the death and righteousness of jesus Christ, I am free from denying any Church of Christ to be in this Land. For I know the doctrine of the holy Trinity, the natures and offices of the Lord jesus, free justification by him, both the Sacraments etc. published by her majesties authority and commanded by her Laws, to be the Lords blessed and undoubted truths, without the knowledge and profession whereof no salvation is to be had. These are his words. By which you may see he saith no other thing here, than what he spoke in his Confession before objected. So as the answer given for it, may serve for this also. Or if that please you not, you may mind it thus, If he had been demanded by Mr Fanshaw whether there were no Church of Christ in Rome: and had answered thus, If you mean by a Church, that public profession whereby men do profess Christ jesus, by nature to be truly both God and man, that one eternal Priest and Redeemer which by his sacrifice and death upon the cross hath reconciled us to God, and paid his blood as a full and sufficient ransom for all our sins etc. as the Papists do publicly profess: 
Rhem. Annot. on 1 Tim. 2.5.  then am I free from denying any Church of Christ to be in Rome. If (I say) to this question he had thus answered, would you have concluded upon his words, that he acknowledged the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ, or the members thereof to be true Christians, in their constitution? Or do you see for the Church of Rome, but not for your own, that such conclusion can not be pressed out of his words?  
But yet further, for the more clearing of this matter, let us mark what Mr Fanshaw next asked, and he answered, touching the estate of your Church and his separation from it. Upon his former answer Mr Fanshaw said thus unto him,  you acknowledge that her Majesty hath established the truth in so many weighty points, seeing she hath commanded the true Sacraments to be administered, what mislike you in our Church, and why will you not be partaker of these truths and Sacraments with us?  
Mr Penry answered, I mislike 1. the false ecclesiastical offices; 2. the manner of calling unto the offices; 3. a great part of the works wherein these false offices are employed; 4. the maintenance or live whereby they are maintained in their offices. All which I will be bound to prove (by the Lords help) to be derived, not from jesus Christ, but from the kingdom of Antichrist his great enemy. And therefore forasmuch as I can not be partaker of the former holy things of God, but I must be subject unto the power of Antichrist in these officers, and known by those marks whereby his subjects are noted, therefore I am enforced & bound to seek the comfort of the word and Sacraments where I may have them without the submitting of myself unto any ecclesiastical power in Religion, save only unto that which is derived from Christ jesus the Lord, in whom all fullness of power dwelleth (Col. 1.19.) and from whom all those must derive their power and office, unto whom the Saints of God are to submit their consciences to be wrought upon in Religion. Again, seeing the aforenamed 4. enormities of this Church, are marks which properly belong unto the Kingdom of the Beast, that is, the Roman Antichrist, we dare not have any communion and fellowship with them, nor be known by them, lest we should be partakers of those most fearful & most dreadful judgements, which are denounced by the Spirit of God, against all those that have communion with any of the irreligious inventions of the Beast. Rev. 14.9.10. These are the things, together with the want of Christ's true order, which I especially mislike, and the special causes why I dare not join with the Assemblies of this Land etc.  
Thus was his answer. In which you may see, how he professeth your Church offices and estate to be such as he dare not join therewith, both because they are not derived from CHRist Jesus the LOrd of his Church, and for that they belong to the kingdom and body of Antichrist, and are marks of that Beast against which and all that partake therewith God hath denounced most fearful judgements in his word. Unto these most plain declarations of his mind, I might add many more out of his letters and other writings. But what needeth it, whenas the laying down of his life in testimony against the Antichristian estate of your Church, is and will be alway as a thousand witnesses against you, whatsoever you pretend otherwise.  
And now (Mr jacob) let me upon this occasion ask you this question, whether you think Mr Barrow, Mr Greenwood, Mr Penry, etc. died Martyrs and witnesses of the truth against your Antichristian estate; or whether you account them evil doers, justly deserving to be put to death. The thing is a public action, and concerneth the public state of your Church which you would seem to defend. Therefore is it needful that you declare your mind fully and plainly therein: which yet I think you will be loath to do. You love so to walk in darkness: and yet would seem to defend your Church, when in deed you do nothing less.  
Next you allege mine own acknowledgement to Mr Philip's and yourself for the approbation of your estate. Of which, being also objected before, I have spoken already, Pag. 41. To it therefore I refer you.  
Yet before I end this point, I will note here three things more, for the Reader to observe. The first is, touching Mr Barrow, Mr Penry, and myself, that seeing you spare not to wrest our words, whose meaning all men know and our own practice proclaimeth, we can not therefore look for any other at your hands but that you will much more pervert the Scriptures and word of God, about the meaning whereof men make so many doubts and controversyes from time to tyme.  
The second is, touching your own words in these Replies: That whereas in the Conclusion of your first Reply (Pag. 156.) you said, we ourselves acknowledged your Assumption to be true: now in the Conclusion of your second Reply (Pag. 167.) you change your own words, and say, we acknowledged your public doctrine would and did make many of you true Christians. By which you clear us, and contradict yourself. For if your Assumption were true, than not only many, but all and every member of your Church, should thereby be deemed true Christians, as touching their outward estate: even all your Prelates, Priests, Dumb dogs, Nonresidents, Thiefs, Conjurers. etc. Which you may speak with shame enough. Sure I am, none of us did ever acknowledge it, and I trust never shall.  
The third is concerning some things spoken to me, in the presence of others, at one time by Mr Philips (whom here you name) and at another time by yourself. Of Mr Philip's, when once he had speech with me about our cause, I asked, If her Majesty should permit, both that way wherein the Prelates and you now are, and the way wherein we are, to be free for all men to walk in either of them as they should be persuaded, In which of the two then he would walk himself, as being persuaded it was the truth of God: Whereunto he answered, that then he thought he should walk in the way wherein we are.  
Of yourself also among other things once I asked this, Whether you were so minded for the Ministry which Christ hath appointed in his Church, as you thought you ought and would die for it, God assisting you: To which you answered, Yea. Thereupon presently I asked again, Whether you were so minded for the Ministry of the CHurch of ENgland, as you thought you ought & would also die for it: To which you answered, No.  
If now (Mr jacob) I would press conclusions out of Mr Philip's words and your own, as you do out of mine and others: might I not gather from yourselves (far better than you do or can any thing from us) that in your consciences you see your Church's estate and Ministry to be unlawful, and none of Christ's at all? But I spare you.  
The Martyrs (whom next you allege) I showed to be against you by their own testimony. Unto this you answer, That it maketh stronger against us, seeing although they misliked the Hierarchy, yet they themselves refused not to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians; as Hooper, Bale, Bradford, etc. But are you in deed so simple, as not to perceive that this is of no moment at all? What if the Papists should so answer, when we bring against them the testimony of the ancient Martyrs, touching the Mass, the Hierarchy, Auricular confession, and other corruptions of that Church? Or are you ignorant that 
* See before, Pag. 44.45.  john Hus, john wickleffe, William Swinderby and many other of the Martyrs in elder time did in these things communicate with the Popish Church unto their dying day? If this answer then be frivolous for them in such case, how should it not be likewise in yours? Besides that you may by this reason persuade aswell to communicate with the Popish Church in their Mass and Ministry, as with yours in your worship and Hierarchy.  
But further, by this answer you yield, that the Martyrs spoke and wrote against your Church estate. Which being so, whether do you or we (I pray you) the better? You in following the error of their practice? Or we in receiving the truth of their testimony? And then if all that you say be granted, is it ought but this, that you have the weakness and sin of their practice, for a cloak of your standing in evil: whereas we have the truth and soundness of their judgement, for our walking in that which is good? Now let others judge, which of us follow them best, and have the best interest in them. And let it also be minded, that they then coming newly out of the darkness of Popery, and being exercised also with other points of that religion, neither did nor could so consider of this matter, as since their time in this clearer light it hath in our days been discussed.  
lastly, if you will have this answer of yours go for currant, then will I by like reason prove, that you may also submit to the Pope's authority, and receive all the corruptions of the Romish Church. And albeit that which I have already said of the ancient Martyrs before, be sufficient for proof hereof, yet will I show it you further, thus: The Protestants (you know) do usually allege against the Pope's Antichristian authority and other corruptions of that Church, the sayings of Bernard, Beda, etc. Suppose now the Papists should answer as you do here, This maketh stronger against you, seeing for all that, yet they themselves refused not to yield to the Pope's supremacy, and to partake with this Church, as being Christ's, &c. What would you reply again? Either you must say (as the truth is) that this answer is wandering and frivolous: or else you must needs confess, that by this reason of yours you may also receive the Pope and all that popery which is already cast out of England, and communicate therewith. Which I pray God be not the issue of this your pleading for and partaking with the remnants of Antichrist yet held in your Church.  
To that where I demanded, If it were so that the reformed Churches, we ourselves, and the Martyrs of former time, had given allowance of your present estate and Church-constitution, what would this help you, when as the word of God condemneth you etc. You answer, that those witnesses are sufficient for this, that we hold a Paradox. So the testimony of Man (if you had it) is of more force with you, than the warrant of God's word. And whatsoever the Scripture saith, yet to you it is a Paradox, if it be gainsaid by the reformed Churches etc. Blush for shame Mr jacob, and fear any more to publish such godless assertions and shameless Paradoxes.  
All your clipping and perverting of my words will not help you. Neither your new supply of the whole Church's judgement & practice, with all the ancient learned Fathers, these 1300 or 1400 years, Chrisostome, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Hierom, Austen, Ambrose etc. As if they had known and practised the Antichristian abominations now had in your Church. But when you bring proof of this your lavish speech, it will then be time enough to answer it. In the mean time hear what Mr tindal that faithful Martyr said (speaking of the Prelates and Priests in his age, for their so alleging the Fathers as you do). As for the holy Doctors (saith he) as Augustine, Hierome, Cyprian, Chrysostomus and Bede, will they not hear. If they wrote any thing negligently (as they were men) that draw they clean contrary to their meaning, and thereof triumph they. Those Doctors knew of none authority that one Bishop should have above another, neither thought or once dreamt that ever any such should be.  
This is Mr tindal his speech and observation. Which you may mind. I note it now for this, that you may see how your Forefathers alleged the Doctors, and how it stands you upon, well to mind what proof is brought from them, whether it be for this point (which here he nameth) or for any other corruptions of Antichrist retained among you. Some of which I have rehearsed * before in particular, 
Pag. 63. etc.  for which I will expect your proof from such antiquity as you speak of, ad Kalendas Graecas, in deed never. And yet I know that both 1400 years since, and before also, they began to decline very much. But Antichrist notwithstanding came not of a long time after, to that height and impiety, wherein now he is to be seen and felt both in your Church, and in your mother of Rome.  
Note also, that when all is said that can be in this matter, it is but a Popish shift to fly from the Scriptures to the Fathers; and an impious Paradox to exalt their sayings (who are known to have erred in many things) above the word of God, which alone is the rule of truth, and can not lie at all.  
Finally you say, that to try you I propound a many of questions. Yet they are but seven in all. In deed I think it doth and will try both you and your fellow Priests to answer them. Such superfluous stuff they are. And have you not read too, 
job. 32.3.  how ‡ jobs friends condemned him, and yet could find no answer? Apply it to yourselves and your dealing with us. But you say you would first have us clear this present question and our reasons thereabout. Well: besides that is already done, the deciding of these few questions will fully and plainly do it. Let others judge if it would not. And mind you then what you have answered. To shut up all, you tell us aforehand you have no leisure to meddle further. Very like so. You have leisure enough, to write book after book, to no purpose: yet you have not so much as to answer a few short questions, which may end all the controversy between us. He that can not see how you would shift of the matter, and yet labour to withhold the truth in unrighteousness, what doth he see? The Lord open your eyes (Mr jacob) that yourself may see and mind it. As for others that be seduced by you and the rest of your Prophets teaching lies, let them in time (afore it be to late) apply unto you and themselves in such estate, that which is written, The leaders of the people cause them to err, and they that are led by them are devoured. Esa. 9.16. Therefore also let them all, even whosoever fear God and will be assured of his mercy, give no rest to their souls, until with the Prophet they can say in truth of heart, and show it forth in their practice, My portion O Lord, I have said, to keep thy words. I have considered my ways, & turned my feet into thy testimonies. I made haste, & delayed not, to keep thy commandments. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. Psal. 119.57.59.60.101.   Let him that readeth, consider.  

AN ANSWER TO MASTER H. JACOB HIS TREATISE Concerning the PRIESTS of the Church of England, Made by the prelates, Accepted and joined unto by the people. Which he termeth A PASTORAL CALLING,  
By Francis johnson an exile for the testimony of JESUS.  
Put yourselves in array against Babel round about; all ye that bend the bow, shoe as her; spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the Lord.  jer. 50.14. 
They shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundation: but thou shalls be a perpetual desolation, saith the Lord.  jer. 51.26. 
1600.   

Mr JACOB his Argument, by which he would prove the Priests made by Prelates, to be the Pastors ordained by Christ: Taken from a comparison of Marriage, Which he falsely faith is gathered out of our own confessions. Together with the Answer to it, & to his Reply thereabout.  

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

AS a couple of ignorant people not contracting, but meaning to marry, & yet thinking that unless a Priest marry them, their marriage is nothing, whereas in deed their public accepting each of other maketh the marriage: Now being married, (though 
“ As themselves bold.  unlawfully) by a Priest, yet their marriage is true & 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.   
Fran. johnson his Answer. THe Reader is to know that Mr jacob did at first propound this comparison far otherwise. Which since being answered, so as he could not defend it again, he hath now changed and propounded it with some other terms then before: trying belike if he can any way help himself, or his cause. Now although both his first and last be alike in this, that neither of them are of any moment, yet because the former answer here following was made unto the comparison as it was first propounded (which Mr jacob concealeth) and to the end the Reader may see what change he hath made therein: I will here also set it down, as himself did propound it at the first. Which was thus:  
As a couple of ignorant persons that are contracted together, do think that unless the Priest marry them, 
Mr H. jacob his Comparison, as it was first proponded & answered.  their marriage is nothing (whereas in truth the contract maketh the marriage): yet being married (though unlawfully) by a Priest, their maring is notwithstanding lawful:  
So the ignorant people that have made choice of a Minister, do think unless the Bishop make him a Minister, he is no Minister (whereas in deed their choice made him a Minister): yet being made Minister (though unlawfully) by a Bishop, his Ministry is notwithstanding lawful.  
Thus did Mr jacob at first make his comparison. In which and the change thereof, let the Reader observe and Mr jacob answer these things following.  
1. That before in the Proposition or first part of the comparison, he spoke of persons contracted together; now of persons not contracted.  
2. That in the Reddition or latter part, he spoke of ignorant people; now of Christians: Before of ignorant people that had made choice of a Minister; now of Christian people intending to choose or meaning to have a Pastor.  
3. That he spoke before of any man generally for a Minister; now particularly of a sufficient man for a Pastor. Then of a supposed lawful Ministry received afore the Prelates do unlawfully make them; now of this unlawful one received afore the other. Then of the people's choice first had, now of their mutual accepting and joining together afterward.  
4. That thus changing the terms of the Comparison, his answer therefore to the ‡ Reason's first brought against it, 
* The Reasons were 7. hereafter set down.  is even in this respect indirect and insufficient: besides that it is otherwise most weak and frivolous. Of which more hereafter.  
5. Where now he speaketh of sufficient men for Pastors, set him tell us plainly what he thinketh of their Dumb Ministers, and of the rest among them otherwise unmeet and insufficient: viz, Whether the Dumb Ministers and Formalists, have not the same calling of the Prelates, that the other have.  
6. Whether they have not like, and many of them greater acceptance of the people, than those he speaketh of have.  
7. Whether they therefore being thus ordained of the Prelates and accepted of the people, are by the word of God true and lawful Pastors, to whose guiding men may commit their souls, and join to their public Ministry.  
8. Whether their Churches (as they stand) have power to choose to themselves their Ministers, so as being chosen by them they are by the Laws of their Church their lawful Ministers.  
9 How it is possible, that any should hold marriage by a Priest unlawful, and yet think that unless they be so married, their marriage is nothing? And again, to hold the Prelates making of Ministers to be unlawful, and yet to think that unless the Prelates do so make them, they are no Pastors at all, neither can be theirs? What strange contradictions be here? Is it possible, that these things can stand together? Or can they ever be reconciled, unless Mr jacob think their people be so mad, as to hold that no lawful Marriage or ministery can be had, but by unlawful means? And consequently, that whosoever will marry or become Ministers, must needs sin against God: Yea so, as they know and hold it before they do it: and therefore also sin against their own conscience. 
Pag. 186.  For thus much do “ his Marginal notes, said together with the words of his Comparison, necessarily import. And what a devilish doctrine also is this? 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.  
10. Whether the Offices and functions of the Prelates he speaketh of, be not among them (as the Apostle foretold) exalted above and opposed against the holy things and offices of the Lord jesus. Yea, Whether those very words of the Apostle, 
2 Thes. 2.4.  thus describing the Man of sin [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, set against & life up above all that is called God or 
“ Or, appertaining to divine worship. As the same word is used, Act. 17.23.  holy] do not most directly as it were with the finger point out that Antichristian Prelacy. And here (to speak of it by the way) let the Reader mind how wonderfully God hath disposed, that they should by themselves (in their Statutes, speeches, writings) be called by this name and title of [Prelate's] which is the very English of the Greek word used by the Apostle when he describeth Antichrist: The word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, exalted above; lifted up; set before; or (as we usually speak) Prelate. 2. Thes. 2.4.  
11. How it can be then that Pastors should be made by the Prelates, as here he taketh for granted. Men surely do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. Neither hath the throne of iniquity (which forgeth wrong for a Law) fellowship with the Lord. And whatsoever be pretended to the contrary, certain it is that Christ and Antichrist cannot accord together. Mat. 7.16. Psal. 94.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.  
To the end therefore that the Reader may better perceive Mr jacobs' corrupt dealing, it will not be amiss, briefly to note here (out of their own Pontifical and practise) how the Ministers he speaketh of are made by the Prelates.  
1. First, they are made Deacons or half Priests, whose duty is to read the book of Common prayer and Homilies, to minister Baptism, to assist the Priest at divine service, and (if he have the Prelate's licence) to preach withal.  
2. Then after a years service in that Deaconship (or such time as pleaseth the Ordinary) coming to be made full Priests, they are presented to the Lordbishop or his Suffragan, by an Archdeacon or his deputy, saying, 
Note this Point of blasphemy. For now Christ alone hath the Ministry of Priesthood, & that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, such as can not pass from him unto another. Heb. 7.23.24.  Reverend father in God, I present these persons present to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood.  
3 The Prelate than saith to such as be there (be they his Serving men or any other that happen to come that way), Good people these be they whom we purpose God willing, to receive this day unto the holy Office of Priesthood etc.  
4. None of them showing any impediment to the contrary, the Clerks and people present say or sing the Litany etc. And the Prelate readeth over a number of Collects and stinted prayers taken out of the Pope's pontifical: with an exhortation, an Epistle and Gospel, wherein they abuse and pervert the Scripture.  
5. The Prelate demandeth of them thus, Do you think in your heart that you be truly called according to the will of our Lord jesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England, to the * Ministry of Priesthood? And the parties to be ordained then answer, every one for himself, I think it.  
6. After other questions and answers about the sufficiency of the Scriptures &c. (wherein they condemn themselves) the Prelate asketh, if they will reverently obey their Ordinary and other chief Ministers of the Church (that is, the Lordbishop of the Diocese where they live, the Archbishop, Archdeacon, Chancellor, Commissary and the rest of that Antichristian Hierarchy). They make answer again, every one of them saying, I will so do the Lord being my helper.  
7. Then the Bishop readeth a prayer for them, that they may have strength and power to perform the same: and desireth the congregation, secretly in their prayers to make humble supplications to God for the foresaid things. For the which prayers, there is a certain space kept in silence. (Note this mystery).  
8. After a while, the Prelate prayeth again in such wise as is set down unto him in the book: being not able belike otherwise to conceive any prayer himself.  
9 When this is done, the Prelate with the Priests present lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth orders: the receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Prelate saying unto them, 
* Note here again blasphemy.  receive the holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained etc.  
10. Then is sung the Creed, and they go to the communion: they that received orders, being appointed to tarry and receive the communion with the Bishop the same day, and remaining in the 
† Well far all good tokens.  same place, where the hands were laid upon them, etc. So testifying that they are of the same faith and body with the Prelates, who are known to be notable persecutors of the truth, and very Antichrists themselves.  
11. Now being thus made Priests (and yet I omit many like things that might be noted out of their Book and practise, for it were endless to recount all) they pay for their letters of orders. Which they must also have in a readiness at all times, to show (whensoever there shall be occasion) for better assurance that they have received the Beasts mark. And if now they be to enter upon a benefice, or whensoever that day cometh (for which they are now prepared to day afore to morrow) then there is yet further required, that they have the presentation of the Patron (who perhaps is a Papist, or an Atheist, or a child, or the like) and the institution of the Lord-bishop, who without question is an Antichrist. 
Ephes. 4.5. 1 Cor. 12. ●5. with 1 Pet. 2.25. & 5.3.4  The true Church hath but * one Lordbishop, the Lord jesus Christ. All other Lordbishops are Antichrists.  
12. Lastly being thus ordered, presented, instituted, and having sworn Canonical obedience to the Prelates: now whether the people will or not, they are and must be their Priests and have charge of their souls. And both themselves, their Ministry, and people remain subject to the Prelates and to their Antichristian courts, power, jurisdiction etc.  
This is the case of all the Priests, even of them that have the most and best acceptance of the people whereof he speaketh. And would any now have thought, that the Prelates making, and the people's accepting of Priests, being such, Mr jacob would be so senseless as to persuade that these are true and lawful Pastors? Might he not aswell tell us, that a clean thing may be brought out of filthiness, yea that Christ may be made to agree with Antichrist? Which both Scripture and experience teacheth can never be. job. 14.4. 2 Cor. 6.15. Either therefore let him make the tree good, 
Mat. 12.33.  and his fruit good; or else make the tree evil, and his fruit evil. If the Prelates and their functions be Antichristian and were never but nought, than such must needs be the Ministry derived and received from them. But so it is with the Prelates, even himself being witness, who both yielded it 
* Pag. 92.  before: And here again in plain terms confesseth, that the calling received from them is unlawful.  
By this it is too evident that the light of the truth shineth in his conscience, howsoever he strive against it. Therefore will I not now further urge it, hoping that himself in time will better mind it. In the mean time, let the Reader note it: And withal, that this calling by the Prelates (which he yieldeth to be unlawful) is the only calling which by Law is ratified and allowed in that Church. And doth not Mr jacob then (whiles he saith, notwithstanding, they are true and lawful Pastors) speak riddles, and contradict himself?  
These things being observed, and Mr jacob desired to resolve them in his next: I will now proceed to show the weakness and insufficiency of his present pretended Defence. Where for more evidence of the truth. I will first set down the Reasons heretofore alleged against his Comparison, and then answer his cavils now brought against them.   

Chap 2. The first Reason against Mr jacobs' Comparison, as it was first propounded.  
Fran. johnson. Infidel's, 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 choice of Ministers in the Church. For profane godless persons (such as these Assemblies consist of, being never rightly gathered together according to God's ordinance, remaining in subjection and bondage to their false Antichristian Offices and Courts, consisting of all sorts of people etc.) are not capable of choosing and joining to a true Minister in this estate, as Infidels and such like may marry in their estate.  
Therefore the comparison holdeth not, neither is such choice of a Minister by such people lawful.  
H. jacob his Reply. 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 to 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.  
The first Accusation is from our question, 
Accusation. 1.  for we speak of a Christian people, but you of assemblies consisting of profane and godless persons. If you say, our assemblies all & wholly are such: That is false. If you say, some are: Of them we speak not. If you 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, and without knowledge to speak so of all. 2. If it were true, yet it were false to say, our assemblies consist of such, or to 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. & cap. 1. vers. 3.9. Rev. 2.20.21. & 3.1.4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1.2. & 4.11.16. & 5.4.9.  
The second Accusation [that our assemblies were never rightly gathered together at the first according to God's ordinance.] I deny it: 
Accusation. 2  especially touching many famous Congregations in the Land, where the gospel was not unknown before the Queen's commandment 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 Chr. 33.15.16.17.  Manasses, and 
† Zepha. 1.4.5. & 3.1. jer. 3.6. etc. & 4.1. etc. & 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, You condemn not (I hope) all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate. 2 Chron. 34.32.33. & 33.16. & 15.13 .. Seeing therefore, the assemblies thus openly, and 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.  
But they received all together, Papists, Atheists, ignorant men, and all dissolute livers, Objection. into one communion and fellowship.  
Indeed all, who after this advizement and notice taken, submitted to and received this doctrine, Answer. 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 & so general reformation of a public state. And so questionless it was in Hezechias, Manasses, & josias reformation. 2. Chron. which we noted before. The notorious, dissolute, & wicked, some were reclaimed, all undertook another profession, and 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 and corruptly, & very like even to your own receiving in to your Church at this time: nay more tolerable and more lawful than yours: who to furnish only one congregation, have received many 
* This particular Mr jacob hath not printed: but it was in his written copy which I answered.  bankrupts, known bad men, and very ignorant: yea and still retain men full of contention, and 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.  
The Third Accusation is, [Our Assemblies remain in obedience to the false Antichristian Officers, 
Accusation. 3.  etc.] Let this be our general sin: yet there is diversity of sins. All are not of like detestation before God, not 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 2.3.4. Rom. 1.25. 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, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrisostome, Leo of Rome, etc. No less was in ours of late Cranmer, Ridly, Hooper etc. in King Edward's 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 own consciences, as they did not in those times: It is utterly false, and 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 (and not of the simplest) this present government to be th'only true and right kind: but all men almost, to be indifferent, and lawful: very few indeed, and 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, 
H. I●.  that the godly learned Protestans 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 than this our sin is 
* 
see the 2. sorts of fundamental sins, in the 2. Reply to your y●●●eason before. Pag. 142,  
Fr. Io. See the answer thereto in the same treatise, Pag 144.147.   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 you uncharitably speak.  
O beware of rash & hasty judging, even of one brother, Rom. 14.3.4.13. how much more of such anb so many whole assemblies professing Christ in England? Woe be 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 and partiality) even of him that is despised. Better it is and more Christianlike, 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, and unjust anger. Mat. 5.22. 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 and religion taught in the book of Articles published 1562. maketh the people that believe and obey the same, true Christians: such as so living & 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, you have denied it. Howbeit for answer, I refer you partly to that which here hath been said before, & especially to that which is replied to your Answer in the former Treatise: which being well weighed, I doubt not but all indifferent, & Christian minds will acknowledge, our public Church assemblies in England to be true Christians.  
Fran. johnson his Answer. YOu have now ten times reproached me, and are not ashamed. Whatsoever yourself or others do think of your Church's estate, God forbidden that I should either justify it, or take away mine own innocency in witnessing the truth against it. Hear therefore, and I will answer you once again: I will open my mouth for the truth, against him that pleadeth for Baal.  
The strength of the Reason standeth not (as you ignorantly suppose) in the truth or falsehood of the particulars you mention: but in this, that it is not so with choice of Ministers in the Church, as it is with choice of parties in marriage. For Infidels, Idolaters, godless persons etc. may in that estate marry together: but they are not in that estate capable of choosing and joining to a true Minister. And therefore your Comparison doth not hold.  
Yet the particulars do all of them avail much against you, whatsoever you pretend to the contrary. The first is directly to the question. For although now (having seen my answer) you speak of Christian people, yet your comparison (which was given me to answer) spoke at first of ignorant persons, and those also such as might marry together. Now you cannot deny but ignorant persons (be they never so profane and godless) may marry one with another. Yet have they not power in such case to choose a Minister. It is yourself then that keep not the point, but chop and change the terms of your Argument, as you think may best fit your turn.  
And yet all this changing of your hue will avail you nothing at all, unless you could prove, 1. That your people in that Church-constitution are true Christians: 2. That your Ministers so made and received are true Pastors. But neither of these can you do. For the first, let the Reader see the former treatise, where this point is purposely handled. (And mind here that yourself confess, some of your Assemblies are all and wholly profane godless persons: Of which (you say) you speak not: Yet tell us whether you think such Assemblies be true Churches, such people true Christians, and their Ministers (having like ordering of the Prelates and acceptance of the people) true Pastors, or not.) For the latter, this is the treatise and place where you should prove it, if you could. But behold, you do nothing less. 
In the Comparison, Pag 186.  Nay even: here you yield, that your calling received from the Prelates is unlawful. Yet this is the only manner of calling that your Church constitution appointeth.  
That which you speak, of your Assemlies not being all and wholly profane and godless persons, is nothing to the purpose. You might easily have seen (if you had minded the words of my Reason) that I said expressly, your Assemblies consist of all sorts of people, that is, some better, some worse: Yet seeing the best among you remain in confusion with the worst, and all of you in bondage to Antichrist: that even for this cause also you can not in that estate be deemed true Churches, having power to choose such Officers as Christ hath appointed for his Church.  
And where you say, whole companies of Christians are not by such commixtures made unholy, profane, and godless, it is wholly from the question. The point is not, 
A treatise of the Ministry of Engl. in answer to M. A. H.  whether the better sort among you do by such commixture become godless persons, like the rest; but whether your Assemblies in such commixture can be deemed true constituted Churches of Christ. The Scriptures you allege, are therefore misalledged, and fit not your purpose at all. Yea they are direct against you, as I have ● else where proved at large. Now note but these things briefly.  
In Mat. 23.2.3. Christ speaketh of such as sat in Moses chair, that is, in the offices and functions which God by Moses had ordained. Deut. 33.8.10. & Neh. 9.4. with joh. 1.19.24. Now what is this to your false ministery, which God never appointed? The same is to be minded in those other Scriptures of 1 Sam. 1.3.9. & 2.17.  
In Luk. 1.6. & 2.21.22. mention is made of God's ordinances and offices then observed, after the Law of Moses, without reproof. Is not this then directly against your Antichristian ordinances and offices, which are not according to the Law of God, but after the Apostasy of Antichrist: and therefore all the observers of them to be reproved?  
In Act. 21.23.26. we read that the Legal ordinances were for a time permitted to the jews being zealous of the Law, and so observed of the Apostle, himself being also a Iew. Which was the honour of their burial. But what proportion is there between those ordinances of God, and the enormities of Antichrist? Nay, if we may not now keep those ceremonies of Moses, once God's commandments: how far ought we to be from keeping the abominations of Antichrist, by God most straitly forbidden? Gal. 5.2. with Rev. 14.9.10. & 18.4.  
In Rev. 2.20.21. & 3.1.4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1.2. & 4.11.16. & 5.4.9. the Scripture speaketh of true Churches and people set in the way and order of Christ. What is this to your Assemblies and people standing in the apostasy of Antichrist?  
But you will say, these Scriptures show in these Churches some corrupt men, opinions, and actions. What then? 1. This was not the estate of those Churches, but the personal aberrations of some therein. 2. Though true Churches planted in the order of Christ, be subject to corruption: yet this doth not justify any false Churches in Antichristian constitution. Though judah being the true Church of God had her enormities, yet Israel in apostasy was no wife but an harlot. Hos. 2.2. & 4.15. with 2 Chron. 15.17. If you mind not this difference, you may plead for Rome at this day and all the false Churches in the world, as you do for your own. 3. Although bad men under a show of holiness creep into the Church, till afterward in time they be descried; yea although many hypocrites both enter and continue in the true Church: yet this nothing approveth the confusion of such Assemblies as are cages of every unclean and hateful bird even of known wicked persons, Atheists, persecutors, 
Rev. 18.2.  Whoremongers, Drunkards, Usurers, Idolaters etc. 4. When any such are espied in the true Church, there is Christ's power to cast them out, if they repent not. Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.4.5.11.12.13. But such being common and notorious in your and the like Churches, yea and still remaining unrepentant, yet you have not the power of Christ to remove them: but all the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction among you is in the Prelates and their Officers, which is merely Antichristian. 5. Even in true Churches, when such persons and corruptions are not redressed or removed, they do in time leaven the whole lump, and Christ in justice removeth his Candelstick, and taketh his kingdom away from among them. See it in such Churches as are spoken of in these Scriptures here noted by yourself. Mat. 21.42, 43. Rev. 2.5.16.22.23. 1 Cor. 5.6. Gal. 5.9. And if judgement begin at the house of Christ, what shall be the end of the Synagogues of Antichrist?  
These things I thought briefly to note, partly to show that these Scriptures approve not your estate, partly that the Reader may alway mind to put difference between true Churches, and yours with all other false ones whatsoever. And let it be noted withal, how you seek out the very Scribes and Pharisees with the corruptest times and people, by them to colour your ungodly estate, if possibly you could. Whereas the true fear of God would teach you to make choice of the Prophets and Apostles with the purest times and people, for examples, to walk in their steps.) But for the further handling of these things I refer you to other treatises, where they are more fully spoken of. 
The answer to Mr A.H. etc.  Now I will annex (for more clearing of this question) a brief description of a true visible Church, which hath power from Christ to choose to itself such Officers as he hath ordained in his word. Thus therefore I describe it.  
A true visible Church of Christ, is * a company of faithful people, † by the word of God called out & separated from the world & the false ways thereof, ′ gathered and joined together in fellowship of the Gospel, “ by a voluntary profession of the faith & obedience of Christ. * Mat. 18.17.20. Ephes 1.1. Act. 1.15. Ezech. 36.38. † joh. 15.19. & 17.14.16. Lev. 20.26. Act. 2.39.40. & 19.9. Rom. 1.7. 2 Cor. 6.17. Rev. 18.4. “ Mat. 18.20. Phil. 1.5. Act. 1.15. & 2.41.47. & 17.4. Esa. 60.4. “ Esa. 44.5. 2 Cor. 9.13. Act. 2.41. Psal. 110.3. Rom. 1.8. & 16.19.  
This I take to be a true description. If it be not, show the error by the Scriptures. If it be, compare herewith your Cathedral and Parish Assemblies, and, if you can, prove them or any of them (even the best among you) to be such. And hitherto of the first of the particulars before mentioned.  
For the second, it is needful that you both name those many famous congregations you speak of, and that you show how they were rightly gathered and joined together according to God's ordinance. Otherwise who can know whereof you speak, or what to think in particular concerning them?  
If [by Congregations where the Gospel was not unknown before the Queen's commandment came to urge them] you mean the persecuted Churches that were in Q. mary's time: this helpeth not your cause, but maketh against it directly. For they were then separated from the rest of the Land; and voluntarily submitted to the Gospel of Christ: and enjoyed th● true and lawful offices of Pastors, Elders, Deacons: neither stood in subjection to the Antichristian Prelacy and other Clergy of the Land, but renounced and forsook it. None of all your Assemblies were ever such, either at the beginning of her majesties reign, or at any time since.  
If you object, that even they of that persecuted Church (when this Queen came) submitted to the Prelacy and Clergy aforesaid: I deny it not. But note withal, that such as did so, made thereby defection from the way of Christ, wherein they were before. And the rest that would not so do, were either cast into prison, and so detained unto death, or otherwise evil entreated: as both your prisons and so me yet alive are able to testify. Since which time, your persecution hath increased far more, even unto exile and death, upon such as refuse to join to your Hierarchy, worship, and other abominations of Antichrist, by your Law then established.  
How absurd then is it to pretend for your estate, the reformations of Hezekiah, Manasseh, josiah etc. Of which the Scripture testifies, that God gave the people one heart to do the commandment of the King, and of the Rulers, according to the word of the Lord. 2 Chron. 30.12. And who knoweth not, that these Kings did both abolish the false worship and Ministry which before time had been in their Kingdoms, and did in stead thereof establish that true worship and Ministry which God by Moses had ordained. 2 King. 18.6. & 23.25. 2 Chron. 29. & 30. & 31. & 33. & 34. & 35. chap. Besides that those Churches consisted of people separated from the world, and willingly submitting themselves to the Lord: as these Scriptures also do testify, 2 Chron. 15.8.9.12. & 30.11.12. 2 King. 23.2.3. with Exod. 19. 5-8. Lev. 20.24.26. Howsoever then, being set in the way of God and walking therein, they had their blemishes and imperfections, yea and evil men arising among them (as the best Churches on earth are alway subject to have): yet this is nothing either for such commandment of Rulers, as is not according to the word of God, or for your Church's estate, which from the beginning to this day neither are separated from the world, nor have the true Ministry and worship appointed by Christ, but stand both in confusion with the most profane, and in subjection to the Hierarchy and worship of the man of sin. Otherwise the ten Tribes of Israel might justify their defection, and the Romish Babylon her filthiest apostasy by such pretences.  
For your people at the beginning of her majesties reign, you allege, 1. that they did not all generally want all knowledge and all faith. I do willingly grant it. But doth it therefore follow that your Assemblies are true Churches, rightly gathered according to the ordinance of Christ? Then by the same reason conclude the public Assemblies heretofore in Q. mary's time, and now in Rome and the rest of Italy, Spain, France etc. to be true Churches right lie gathered: because their people neither did nor do all generally want all knowledge and all faith.  
But your people had then had in many places the word taught, books scattered, much conference, daily consultations and disputations, and the blood of Martyrs preaching unto them aloud & lately before. All these being granted, yet they are so far from excusing your sins, as even therefore it is far the greater: inasmuch as by this it should seem you knew better, and yet neither did it then, neither do it yet unto this day. And so you are in the sin and under the judgement spoken of in these Scriptures, jam. 4.17. Tit. 1.16. jer. 6.16. Luk. 12.47.48. Let him that readeth mind it well. And this too, that you speak not of the whole Land and all your Churches, but only of some places and persons, such as had the books, conference, and disputations you speak of: 
Pag. 3.6.  Whereas your * former defence speaketh of your Churches, as they are established by Law, and therefore of them all.  
2. Next you allege, that there was more than half a year (viz. “ from November to Midsummer) for the people to hear, learn, and consider before the commandment came: so that it was not sudden, neither can be counted compulsion etc. But know you not Mr jacob, 1. That it neither was, neither could possibly be as you pretend, that the people in that time throughout the Land should be taught: Yet at Midsummer were all constrained to receive it, whether they did so believe or not. 2. That this time was appointed, not for the people's instruction, that so upon konwledge they might do what was enjoined, but that in this time the Statute being known throughout the Land, they should then do as was appointed howsoever they were persuaded thereof in themselves. This I prove, 1. Because the Priests and people that would, were suffered by Law all that half years space to say and hear Mass as before. Which I trow you will not say was to hear, learn, and consider, as here you allege. 2. Because when Midsummer came, they were bound to receyv (and so did) what was published, for their faith, worship, Ministry etc. howsoever either themselves were persuaded, or the things imposed did agree or disagree with the word of God.  
But now I would know what you will say to this, that all your former pleading was from your Articles agreed upon in the year 1562. and here you make your plea from your people's estate in the year 1558. (for then began her majesties reign: which I pray God long to continue and prosper.) If your profession of those Articles made you now true Churches, which before you were not: how were your Assemblies then rightly gathered so many years before, as here you pretend? Or if you were not true constituted Churches at that Midsummer you speak of here, how could those Articles effect it, being afterward agreed upon, not by your Churches, 
See the title of those Art.  but by your Priests, neither by all of them, but only by your Archbishops and Bishops and such other of your Clergy as were with them in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562. If to this last point you say, this agreement of your Prelates and Clergy was then published through the Land, and so you count it as the agreement and ordinance of your whole Church: then must you grant withal, that the Antichristian Canons, Injunctions, Articles, Advertissements &c. agreed upon at the same and like Convocations, and likewise published, are also the agreement and ordinance of your whole Church. And so your Church's estate and profession is to be considered, not by those Articles only of 1562. but by the rest likewise agreed upon among you from time to tyme. Thus all your defence is found to be full of deceit and contradiction every where. But it may be in your next we shall know your mind better.  
In the mean time we answer what you desire to know of us: viz, That we condemn not reformation commanded & compelled by the Magistrate, but do unfeynedlie desire that God would put into the heart of her Majesty and all other Princes, within their Dominions, to command and compel a reformation according to the word of the Lord: As it is expressly noted, that Hezekiah and other the good Kings of judah did. 2 Chron. 30.12. 2 King. 18.6. & 23.25. 2 Chron. 17.3.4.5.6.  
We acknowledge with thanks to God and her Majesty, that out of her highness Dominions there be already abolished many of the abominations of the Romish Babylon. And we pray God, that forasmuch as many of them be yet remaining in your worship, Hierarchy, confusion, Canons, Licences, Dispensations, 
Rev. 14.9.10.11. Exod. 20.4.5.  Excommunications etc. with ♣ which no man may have spiritual communion under pain of eternal wrath: that if it be the will of God, her Highness may be his instrument to suppress and abolish these also, and to establish the whole truth of God, according to his word. And further, that she may take to her own Civil uses the Lordships and possessions of the Prelates and other Clergy, as God hath foretold and appointed should be done with them (Rev. 17.16. & 19.17.18.) And as King Henry the eight (her majesties Father of famous memory) did with the abbots, Monks, Friars, Nuns, and with their possessions and revennewes.  
Which happy work, by what Princes soever it be done (as certainly will come to pass, for the Lord of hosts hath spoken it) it will greatly redound to the glory of God, the honour of themselves, the free passage of the Gospel, the peace of the Church, and benefit of the whole Common wealth. The Lord therefore hasten and accomplish it. Yea true and strong is the Lord, who hath spoken, and will perform it. Rev. 17. & 18. & 19 chap.  
This is our mind (which you desire to know) concerning reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate. Where note withal, that it is the work of God only, to add to his Church such as he will save. And therefore that it is not in the power of Princes or any Man whatsoever, to persuade the conscience and make members of the Church: but that this must be left to God alone, who only can do it. Act. 2.47. & 11.21. Gen. 9.27. 1 Cor. 12.13. & 14.24.25. Zach. 8.23. jer. 32.38.39.40. Prince's may and aught within their Dominions to abolish all false worship and all false ministries whatsoever; and to establish the true worship and Ministry appointed by God in his word, commanding and compelling their subjects to come unto and practise no other but this. Yet must they leave it unto God to persuade the conscience, and to add to his Church from time to time such as shallbe saved. But with you in these things, you know it is quite contrary.  
Thus then neither the examples of the aforesaid Kings of judah are in your case fitly alleged: neither is it of any weight, if all your people and Assemblies in the Land willingly, openly, & advisedly, submitted to whatsoever was proclaimed at the beginning of her highness reign: Unless you could prove that Religion, worship, Ministry etc. then proclaimed and still used, to be by God prescribed in his word. Which still you take for granted, when it is the very thing which we deny and you should prove, if possibly you could.  
And what if here I should put you in mind, how you might more fitly allege for your case, the keeping of the Statutes of Omry, and the like, Micah, 6.16. But I will leave this for your next Reply. And then also tell us, what truth it is you speak of, that was proclaimed at the beginning of her majesties reign, whereof the people had such advizement & notice as you pretend, from November 17. to Midsummer following. For the book of Articles * heretofore so much pressed by yourself, 
Pag. 3. etc.  was so far from being proclaimed then, as it was not agreed upon till the year, 1562. Which was at least four or five years after the time you speak of here.  
Now to proceed, you tell us that no open professed Papists, Atheists, nor other Heretics were then received into your communion etc. But how can we believe you, when D. Whitgift your Archprelate of Canterbury (a man of as great reckoning and of more experience in your Church then Mr jacob) tells us the clean contrary, yea and prints it too (even then when he writeth in defence of your present estate) viz, 
† Whitg. book, Pag. 176. & 178 639. 643.  that now the Church is full of Papists, Atheists, Drunkards, whoremongers etc. Even the Prelates themselves (I perceive) do in some things deal more sincerely than you Mr jacob, and are nothing so shameless. Yet I know that some others of your coat which seek reformation, deal herein as plainly as the Prelates, and far more faithfully than you. For example, they confess and publish that you have 
‡ Sermon on Rom. 12.  swarms of Atheists, Idolaters, Papists, erroneous and heretical sectaries, the Family of love, and such like. Another spareth not to avouch more particularly, 
♣ State of the Church of England between Diet. & Tert. etc.  that some Doctors of the Arches be the same men they were in Queen mary's tyme. Others (also speaking of your Ecclesiastical courts) writ thus, 
‡ Ad●. to the Parliament.  God deliver all Christians out of this Antichristian tyranny where the judges, Advocates, and Proctors for the most part are Papists &c. Thus your own men of all sorts bear witness against you.  
But to let their testimony alone, who knoweth not that the whole Land being polluted with most Popish and wicked Idolatry in Q. mary's days, they were all straightway after (without repentance or the word preached going before) received into the body of your Church, and constrained to become members thereof? Who with their seed unto this day do so remain, and are commonly called, the Church of England.  
Neither will that clause of [open professed] be any starting whole for you, as it may be you dream. All know well enough, it is no matter how open and professed they be, so as they will be conformable to come to Church once a month, and hear your Divine service book. Did Mr W. Smith (your great acquaintance) never tell you, 
Mr Wroth, justice.  how ‡ one of the Commissioners themselves (when he was called before them) said unto him, Come to Church, and be a Devil, if thou wilt?  
That which you say of ignorant men received in a general reformation, if you mean of some having far less knowledge than others, being also unable either well to express their own mind, or to defend the truth against an adversary: I deny it not. Otherwise know, that all who are received members of the Church, being of years, are to be such as in their measure (less or more) have learned Christ, and do willingly submit to his Gospel, having heard and known the grace of God therein. Ephes. 4.7.20.21. 2 Cor. 9.13. Col. 1.5.6. Act. 2.41. & 17.3.4. Esa. 44.5. Zac. 8.20.21.22.23.  
And so questionless it was in the time of Hezechiah etc. For which, see these Scriptures, 2 Chron. 29.31. & 30.2.3.4.11.12.13. 2 King. 23.2.3. 2 Chron. 15.15. Besides that the jews did long before Hezekiahs' time upon knowledge enter covenant with the Lord, to have him to be their God and they to be his people. Exod. 19.7.8. Deut. 29.10.11.12.13.  
For the notorious, dissolute, and wicked, you plead that some were reclaimed, all undertook another profession and a new appearance of Christianity etc. Which how false it is, appeareth not only in the receiving and retaining in your Church the most profane of the Land and their seed, yea and constraining all whosoever in every Parish to be members thereof: but is confessed also by yourselves on all hands, as I showed * before, 
Pag. 16. 2●.  by testimony both of the Prelates and of the Reformists: who do both of them testify that your Church swarmeth with Whoremongers, Drunkards, Liars, Extortioners, Blasphemers, Sorcerers, and other wicked persons. Now say yourself, if these be not notorious, dissolute, and wicked? Or if your Church abound not with such, even to this day? How were they then reclaimed &c. as you pretend? And how was your Church rightly gathered according to God's ordinance? Are these fit stones for the Lords Temple, fit servants for the Lords house, fit members for the body of Christ? Whatsoever you think, such estate is before God intolerable, and by his word unwarrantable .. Learn it by these and the like Scriptures, 1. Pet. 2.5.9. 1. Timoth. 3.15. Zach. 14.21. Esa. 35.8.9. 1. Cor. 12.27.  
But you say, we have likewise received bankrupts, known bad men, ignorant, etc. 1. If it were so, would our sin justify yours? 2. Neither in deed is it so, as you charge us. Known bad men we receive none at all. By bankrupts, if you mean such as are not able to pay their debts, and do therefore think that they are not to be received or retained members of a true Church, you do therein too much bewray your ignorance. The Scripture teacheth that the true fear of God, and want of ability to pay a man's debts, may meet together in the same party. 2. King. 4.1. Levit. 25.35. etc. And who knoweth not, that it is a trial wherewith God sometimes exerciseth his dearest children? jam. 2.5. with 2 King. 4.1. etc. Not to speak how there gathered to David (who was a type of Christ in many things that befell him) all that were in distress & debt and troubled in mind etc. 1. Sam. 22.2. Yet notwithstanding if any shall wilfully run into debt, not caring what they borrow so they may get it, 
Rom. 13.8. with 2 King 4.7.  neither making conscience to pay again though they be able: such do both break the commandment of God, which saith unto all: † Own nothing to any man, but to love one another: and are therefore by the Prophet accounted for wicked persons, The wicked (saith he) borroweth and payeth not again. Psalm. 37.21. Now any that are known to be such, we neither receive nor retain. Yet you know, yourselves, it is common among you. And what power hath your Church to redress it, if you would?  
touching ignorant men, you have our mind † before. And as we are minded, 
Pag. 201.  so do we practise: Remembering alway, that which is written of Christ our Lord, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench: etc. Esa. 42.3. Math. 12.20.21.  
Where you add further, that we do still retain men full of contention and bitter strife, it is also untrue. For although with such men we have been exercised (as the Church on earth is alway subject to be, that they which are approved may be known): Yet neither is it any other thing then the Primitive Churches even in the time of the Apostles themselves did sustain (as the 
‡ i Cor. 3.3.  Scripture here alleged by yourself, and 
* Act. 20.30. 1. Cor. 11.16.19. Gal. 5.12.15  other the like do testify): and when such people and dealing once be manifest, we cast them out from among us and avoid them, according to the rules prescribed in the word of God. Gal. 5.12. 1. Cor. 5.11.12. and 11.16. Rom. 16.17, Mat. 17.18. And yet, even then when they are hardened and please themselves in strife and contention, they may both be received and retained members of your Church, any of them that will come to your false worship, and so return to their former vomit again.  
That which followeth in the last place, for the shutting up of this matter (when you say, That which disannulleth not a Church gathered &c.) is directly against yourself. For seeing confusion and commixture with the world and wicked thereof in one body of a Church, will disannul and make void a Church already gathered and settled: how much more shall it there, where a Church is but a gathering and beginning? (If we could imagine that to be a gathering of a Church, which leaveth it still in confusion with the world and bondage to Antichrist.) Now that such mixtures with the profane will disannul Churches before gathered aright, you may see by that which is written, Gen. 6.2. etc. Ezech. 16. chap. and 22.26. and 44.6.7.8. And in the Churches that were at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Rev. 13.16. and 17.1. and 18.1. and 18.2. being compared with Rom. 1.7.2. Cor. 6.14. etc. Thus all your answer is in a word taken away.  
But further, mind here a contradiction with yourself. For now you grant (which before you denied) that your Church is commingled of all sorts of people, having mixtures of profane and dissolute, with the rest that are better among you.  
The Scriptures you quote, I have showed ♣ before how you do pervert them. Pag. 195. And thus much of the second particular.  
The third was, that you remain in bondage to Antichristian Offices. Courts, etc. This you grant to be your general sin. Which is directly to give the cause. For they which stand in bondage to Antichrist cannot possibly in such estate have also the power and liberty of Christ, either for choice of Officers, or for any other action to be performed by the power and in the Name of the Lord jesus.  
Thus having given the cause, yet fearing belike to yield too much to the truth, you labour still to lessen and excuse your sin, as much as you can. Now you allege, that it is not of the most heinous nor extremest disobedience. And thus may all sin be pleaded for, except the sin against the holy Ghost. Thus might Nadab and Abihu justify their strange fire: Corach, Dathan, and Abiram, their usurping of the Priest's office: the Ten Tribes their desertion: the Papists all their abominations: Hymena●s and Philetus all their impieties, and finally all Heretics and lewd persons their heresies and bad dealing.  
Next you tell us, of sins that are against the foundation or not against it: of the jewish Church, of the ancient declining Bishops, Cyprian etc. of King Edward's days, M. Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, etc. of your Churches and Ministers generally, that you are not all convicted etc. These pretences are all answered before in the former Treatise. Mind now withal, that the sin of the later Bishops since the exaltation of Antichrist, is far more grievous than was the sin of the other that were before that time: hath because the Mystery of that iniquity is now more more fully disclosed which then was more hid and secret: and because these later have seen before their eyes the mischief that followed upon that declining, which the other of former time neither did nor could.  
Add hereunto the great unlikeness (when they are compared together) in their Offices, Entrance, Titles, prerogatives, Courts, Canons, jurisdiction, and other proceedings. And tell me why you left out Cyprian in your printed Book, whom you named in your written copy? (for which cause I have now also noted his Name with the rest.) Is it so, that you see already how he is against you? Assure yourself Mr jacob, that so will the rest also be found, less or more (I alway except the Prelates of Rome) whensoever due trial and comparison is made. Which I neither need nor purpose here to stand upon, seeing these things are purposely handled and already published by others well known and approved also of yourselves, as by Mr Beza against Saravia. T. C. his 1. and 2. Reply. The Demonstration. etc. I omit also that yours are become persecutors, whereas the other were persecuted. Therefore your sin is far the greater.  
And many other things I might allege: but it sufficeth us (and hereon we rest) that your Prelacy, and other Ministry, Worship etc. are none of Christ's ordinances appointed in his word. If you be other wise minded, prove it by the book of God. 
joh. 17.17. Psa. 119.105 Esa. 8.20.  You know that ” it alone is the word of truth, and aught to be unto all the lantern of our feet. Hence forth therefore speak according to that word: and seek not by the less sins of others, to hide and nourish your own far greater. Otherwise remember and apply to yourselves the judgement that is written, Exod. 20.5. Ps. 129.21. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 14.9.10.11. and 22: 18.19.  
And note these things withal, 1. First, That here you speak of such as live and die in your errors ignorantly. Now what defence is this for yourself (Mr jacob) and for all the rest of your Church throughout the Land who do not only know these errors, but have also taught, professed, and witnessed against them heretofore? 2. Secondly, that here you are glad to use the same pretences (as rusty weapons) against the truth, which were sometimes used by D. Whitgift and the Papists for defence of the Prelacy, and found to be of no force at all. 3. Thirdly, that whatsoever you speak here in excuse of your conviction, may be likewise alleged by the Papists and other Heretics for defence of themselves, viz, that they are not all convicted & sin against their conscience: also, that such and such points are not acknowledged even of ignorance in a thousand to one among them; that many of them (and not of the simplest) hold their way to be the only true and right course: and almost all of them to be indifferent and lawful: very few and scarce any that see it to be merely wicked and intolerable. Yet these are the reasons and armour of proof you bring for defence of your Hierarchy and Church-estate.  
And what should I speak of your manifold contradictions, fearful clauses, notable untruths etc. Your contradictions, as when you grant here, 
Pag. 28. 61  This is your general sin, and yet said before, you held these to be Christ's ordinances. Your pretended excuse, that you speak some things in your own person, some things in your Churches, I have showed before to be vain and against yourself. Pag. 55. 56. 72. Another contradiction, in that you profess the ancient Bishops and yours have declined (viz, from the truth and way of Christ, or else tell us in your next, from what?) and yet plead, as if your Church generally were either ignorant hereof, or held your present government to be the only true and right kind, or at least to be indifferent and lawful etc. For how (I pray you) can these stand together? If you say, yourself know thus much, but as for any others that know it, they are very few and searce to be found (these, I take it, are your own words) this is but a vain conceit of yourself, and such as is still accompanied with folly. There are no doubt a thousand to you, who are but one, that know these things aswell or better a great deal. Yea I know many of your Church myself, who have taught and written far more sound and godly of them, than ever Mr jacob did. And if these had all held their peace, yet your Book of common prayer (as gross as it is) knoweth thus much, 
‡ In the Commination.  that in the Primitive Church there was a godly disclpline, which (it saith) is much to be wished that it might be restored again. The particular there mentioned, I stand not upon. I note it only for this, that you may see even by that book, received among you generally, how your Church neither is so ignorant of the estate of things in former times, as you pretend, neither thinketh your present government to be the only true kind etc. Not to speak of your so many and so public suits to the Parliament, to have it removed as being unlawful and Antichristian: Neither of the many books printed with Privilege, avowching as much. A third contradiction (till you clear it better) note in this also, that you acknowledge they in K. Edw. time were godly learned, and yet insinuate withal, as if they were little better than time-servers.  
Your fearful clauses, importing partly a yielding of the cause, partly a seeking of starting holes and excuses for your sin: As when you say, 1. Let this be our general sin, yet there is diversity of sins. 2. All sins by their nature are mortal, yet do they not all alike abolish us from Christ. 3. This sin of outward Church-orders is not of the most heinous, nor extremest disobedience. 4. There are sins, wherein men living and dying ignorantly without particular repentance, may be saved. 5. No greater is now in our Bishops presently, especially touching our Churches, and Ministers too, generally. 6. If you say, we are all convicted now, it is false. 7. The godly learned Protestants in King Edward's time, were not utterly ignorant of this point of reformation. 8. The jews were not generally plainly convicted. 9 Our Assemblies are not all godless and profane: Our sin destroyeth not faith & Christianity in our whole Assemblies, etc. As if yourself thought it did in some.  
Your notable untruths also are many, as when you allege Mr Beza upon Act. 15.20. as if he spoke of such jews as did personally hate and persecute Christ: where as he speaketh expressly of such as believed in Christ, but were withal zealous of the Law, being not yet persuaded of the abolishment thereof. Again, when from him you would teach, that they which did personally hate and persecute Christ, yet were the true Church until the Temple and City were destroyed, yea and saved though they repent it not. Which is contrary to these and many the like Scriptures, Act. 2.40.47. and 13.45.46.50.51. and 19.8.9. 1. Thes. 2.14.15.16. Rev. 2.9. Another untruth is, that you say the sin of your Bishops now is no greater than of the ancient declining Bishops and them in K. Edward's time: Whereas many ways it is incomparably greater, as I have showed before. Pag. 40. 41. 129. 133. 148. 162. 175. 177. 183. 203. Another is, in that you say your sin is no way fundamental. The contrary whereof see proved before, Pag. 22. 73. 114. 147. And another, when you charge me, as if I held all among you to be godless and profane: when I have alway thought and professed otherwise. Yea even here I said, your Church consists of all sorts, that is, both good and bad, better and worse, some making conscience of their ways according to the knowledge they have, some not, etc. For which also see further before, Pag. 7. 20. 21. 41. 78. 103. 168. 178. Finally, it is ●either untrue also when you say, this point touching the Hierarchy is not acknowledged in your Church even of ignorance in a thousand to one: Or if it be true, it is a shame for you and all the Ministers of your Church, who have not in this clear light of the Gospel, by the space of forty years together, made known unto the people so great a point of Antichristianity, as the Hierarchy is: Which is the very sinews and strength of the Pope's Religion: As (I fear) woeful experience will teach you further, if yet you do not see and feel it enough. But of this also I have spoken before, in the Preface: Section 6.  
Lo here, the ornaments of your Reply and Defence of your estate. The very naming whereof, is sufficient to show your folly, and your Churches misery. Yet lest you should please yourself in this course, as also for the satisfying of such as desire further handling of these things, I have spoken of them before more particularly. As namely, of sins fundamental, Pag. 22. 32. 44. 46. 51. 73. 114. 147. Of the Scriptures which here you allege in the margin, Pag. 51. and in the Preface, Section 3. Of the jews Church, Pag. 84. 161. 195. 197. & in the Preface, Section 5. Of the ancient Bishops, Pag. 129. 162. 183. 203. Of them in K. Edward's days Mr Cranmer etc. Pag. 8. 40. 41. 48. 49. 67. 77. 162. 182. Of your Church's estate and conviction, Pag. 3. 7. 16. 27. 33. 42. 43. 53. 60. 61. 63, 73. 78. 82. 94. 101. 103. 108. 120. 130. 131. 132. 135. 147. 155. 157. 171. 180. 188, 194. 196. 200. etc.  
Your caution against rash & hasty judging of any, is very good and needful. We do together with you exhort all to beware of such dealing: and to take heed they † judge righteous judgement, as Christ hath commanded. And therefore that they be careful to search out and help forward the judgement, 
joh. 7.24.  given by the Apostles and Prophets, on the Whore of Babylon and all her Daughters. Rev. 18.20.21. and 17.1.5.6.7. with jer. 51. 61-64.  
Neither let any think that this is to curse where God blesseth, or to lay an hindrance and stumbling block before any: but that it is in deed to reward Babylon as she hath rewarded us, and to bear witness to the truth and sincerity of the Gospel, 
Rev. 18.6. & 14.6.7.8 2 Thes. 2.8.  that it may the more be brought to light, and received of the elect, to eternal life. To such, we know, Christ with all his ordinances is precious: but in deed to them which be disobedient, he is a stone to stumble at and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, to the which thing they were also ordained. 1 Pet. 2.7.8. Take heed therefore you bless not yourselves in your disobedience of any truth of Christ, promising yourselves peace, though you walk according to the stubbornness of your own hearts: so adding drunkenness unto thirst. For such blessing God hath threatened to curse, Deut. 29.19.20. Zach. 11.5.6. Malach. 2.2.  
For ourselves, we judge not any man. It is the word of God that judgeth, which shall also judge in the last day. joh. 12.48. By it therefore let every man try and examine his ways (of what place or calling soever he be) first for the worship he performeth unto God, and then for all the other actions of his life: that he may so please God in this life, as he may in the next be partaker of the glory that shallbe revealed. Neither let any be daunted with the reproaches and afflictions which accompany the truth and witnesses thereof. Even Christ himself the Prince of our salvation was consecrate through afflictions: and he hath promised, if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. Heb. 2.10. Rev. 2.10. Rom. 8.17.18. 2 Tim. 2.12. Therefore also we say with the Prophet (as you do here) and wish it might sound in the ears of all men as a trumpet, Blessed is he that judgeth wisely of the poor, even of him that is despised etc. Psal. 41.1.  
To conclude, your one word (whereof you told us a little before) is now become two words: and all little enough. For if your reason be good, all me yourself, if a man might not (after your example) in two words conclude the Papists also to be true Christians, thus:  
That faith and religion taught in the Creeds commonly attributed to the Apostles, the Nicene Council, Athanasius, etc. maketh the people that believe and obey the same, true Christians: such as so living and dying may be saved.  
But the Popish Church doth so hold that faith:  
Therefore they are true Christians, etc.  
If your reason be good, what will you say to this? If you say, they profess in word, but do in deed both in their Church-constitution and practice deny it: such also is your case. Besides that the question is not, whether any among you may be saved by the truth you hold: (For we doubt not but even in the Popish Church God saveth his, by the truth there held.) But the question is, whether you (or they) can in your estate and Church-constitution be deemed by the word of God true Christians or true Churches: such as none may separate from your worship and Ministry established among you.  
And here I can tell you, that even some of yourselves have acknowledged and openly avowched your Church's case to be such, 
Demonstration, in the Preface.  as “ a man may be any thing among you but a sound Christian. Yet I suppose you will not say they were desperate for saying so. And if I be not deceived, yourself also have been like minded with them heretofore. Sure I am, you had need clear these things very well: and in any case take heed you become not desperate therein. Neither two nor three of your words will help the matter. It is the word of God that must decide it between us.  
Whatsoever you have replied in the former Treatise, I have there answered. And now I leave it to all indifferent and Christian minds to acknowledge your public Church asseblyes for such Christians, as in that estate they are found to be by the word of God. If by it either you or any other can prove them to be true ones, I have done. If not, than I wish you and all others to yield to the truth, and no longer to strive against it. Hitherto of the first Exception, against your Comparison.   

Chap. 3. The Second Reason or Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison.  
Fran. johnson. THe Priest doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage without the married first give their consent.  
But the Prelate make ministers without and before the people's consent.  
Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.  
H. jacob his Reply. 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 & 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 you except here against those Pastors amongst us, that were first chosen by the people, they first professing their consent, and are after instituted, and inducted by the Prelate. Many are thus called amongst us: and 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 you say the Prelates make Ministers without & before the people's consent: 
Beza in Act. 14.23. Fenner against Bridges Pag. 148.  We" 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, and can not be proved.  
Fr. Io. his Answer. BEcause I see you need it (Mr jacob) I will deal very liberally with you. I grant, that your people's consenting (whether before or after the Prelates ordaining) is in nature and value all one etc. that is, of no value or force at all: Whether you respect the Law of God, which knoweth no such juggling of people and Prelates: or the Law of your own Church, which appointeth no such election by the people at all. And thus too it is a very vain thing for you to make this any matter, viz, our people's consenting either before or after the Prelates ordaining.  
Yet remember that your Comparison (which I answered) spoke of people that had made choice of a Minister before he came for ordination to the Prelate. Therefore it was and is enough against the Comparison, to show that the Priests can not celebrate marriage before the parties consent each to other: Whereas the Prelates make Ministers both before and without the people's consent, yea and without their knowledge commonly. It is vain then in you to count such exception vain.  
I mind also how deceitfully you pass by that clause [without the people's consent.] Therefore to discover your fraud, and to see what better answer you can give in your next, I will propound the Reason also thus: 
 The Priest doth not celebrate any marriage without the married first give their consent.  
But the Prelates make Ministers without the people's consent. Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.  
Your case [of a Maid being merely enforced and denying consent, yet not striving nor resisting] is merely absurd and ridiculous. Can it possibly be, that one should both be merely enforced, denying consent, and yet not strive nor resist? As soon may you make Fire and Water agree together, as these two. For, to be enforced, yea merely enforced, must needs imply a striving or resisting against it. Else what needed there, or how should there be said, to be any forcing?  
But you say, if afterward she agree, there is true wedlock. True in deed if they both agree. But than it is not by reason of any thing done before (which was sinful altogether) but by virtue of the present mutual willing consent: they having liberty and power to marry together according to God's ordinance. But with your people and Assemblies it is far otherwise: seeing you have not liberty or power in your estate to call a Minister according to the ordinance of Christ. Which I have proved both in the first Reason before, and in the rest hereafter following.  
2. To your demand about Ministers first chosen by the people afore they are instituted by the Prelates: I answer, that if your people had power in your estate to choose a Minister (which they have not) yet the receiving of institution and induction by the Prelates afterward (being never ordained by God) were at least to set your thresholds by God's thresholds that is, your inventions by God's ordinances. Which were in very deed to commit abomination against the Lord, and to defile his holy Name, and you in so doing become so far from having him present with you, as even by this means you set a wall between him and yourselves. Ezech. 43.8. And not so only, but do also rebel against the Lord, and turn away from him, in receiving an other Ministry for the administration of his holy things, them he by his word hath ordained in his Church. Ios. 22.29.  
Let the Reader note here beside, how you speak only of the institution and induction by the Prelates, and closely pass over the Prelates first ordaining of them Priests and Deacons. Without which they are in your Church no Ministers at all, neither capable of any benefice, though the people should never so much make choice of any.  
Where you say, most of your Ministers have the people's consent at their first inducting, or at least soon after by the people's submitting & maintaining them even presently: First I answer (as before) that your people's consent in your estate is of no moment. Secondly, if this reason of yours be good, than your dumb Priests, Nonresidents, and most Popish Ministers in the worst times and places, are to be accounted true Pastors, aswell as the best among you: because upon their induction the people submit to their Ministry and maintain them even presently. For who knows not, that when once a Priest is presented by the Patron and inducted by the Prelate to a benefice, your people do and must join to his Ministry, and for his maintenance give him their tithes, etc. will they, nill they.  
Add hereunto, that even the maintenance belonging to your Ministry is such, as was never ordained by Christ: and therefore neither to be received by the Ministers, nor given by the people. Which I prove thus: 1. Your Ministrrs are maintained by Tithes, which is jewish, and ceased with “ the Levitical Priesthood: Or if you will, Popish, derived from the jews: 
Heb. 7.12.  which comes all to one end. 2. Your maintenance is such, as by it all manner ministries once received in the Land might be maintained, were they never so Popish, or otherwise never so impious in any respect. 3, You are bound so to maintain the Ministers you have whatsoever they be: and that also, whether you will or not. 4. On the contrary, the manner of maintenance now ordained by Christ for his Ministers, is such, 
2 Cor. 9.14.  as belongeth" but to them which preach the Gospel, and must come from the people of love and duty in that behalf. 1. Thes. 5.13. Gal. 6.6. Rom. 15.27. 1. Timoth. 5.17. 1 Cor. 9.7. etc.  
3. Lastly you say in a word (but a shrewd word) that the Prelates make not the Pastors at all in deed and in truth, but only supposedly. And now in your printed book (for more certainty) you affirm it with consent of others, whom you note in the margin. But for this point it needeth not. For we yield it most willingly. Yet note withal, that thus you do both give the cause, and condemn at once all your Ministry as unlawful, such as may neither be received nor joined unto. See it for plainness sake in a Syllogism, thus: 
Witness your Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Statutes, etc.  

Your Law and Church admitteth no other Ministry as lawful among you, but that which is received from the Prelates.  
But this (say you) is none at all in deed and in truth.  
Therefore all the Ministry admitted among you by your Law & Church is none at all in deed and in truth.    
A very sound defence of your ministery: such as all the Prelates and Priests in the Land may well thank you for, with cap in hand: At least wise, if you could draw them to be thus minded. And here let me put you in mind, how once you wished us to set down nothing in answer unto you, but that which is the doctrine of our whole Church. If yourself have kept this rule, it is well. If not, how will you answer it?  
That which you have added concerning Imposition of hands, I admit, with these cautions, 1. That it is not to be neglected where it may well be had. Hebr. 6.2. Act. 6.6. and 13.3. 2. That in Churches already established it be done by the Eldership: and where people first come into the order of Christ, by the fittest among them, being thereunto appointed by the rest of the Church. 1 Tim. 4.14. Numb. 8.10. And thus much of the second Exception.   

Chap. 4. The third Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison.  
Fran. johnson. THe people can not choose their Minister, unless the Prelate do either before, or after, make him a Minister.  
But a couple may choose and take each other in marriage, whether the Priest will or no. Therefore the Comparison holdeth not.  
H. jacob his Reply. 1 WE deny your saying, the people can not 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 you say, But a couple may choose each other whether the Priest will marry them or no: Mark, That we speak of blind Papists, that think that the Priest is the whole absolute and necessary marriage maker. If you say, even such have right and power to marry, though they be far from knowing it, and farther from practising; Then grant the like in choosing a Minister, to our Christians: for so the Comparison importeth, Else if you mean those words of others that be men of knowledge, Than you fight with your shadow: you touch not our question.  
Fran. johnson his Answer. YOu do still take for granted that which is denied: viz, that your people have power in Christ to choose their Ministers etc. I proved before that seeing your people stand in Antichristian servitude to the Prelates, their Canons, Courts, confusion, etc. they have not in that estate (neither can have, whiles they so remain) the liberty and power of Christ, either to choose them Ministers, or to perform any other action belonging to the Church of Christ. And further that they can not in that estate by the word of God be approved true Christians. For which see the former Treatise.  
In that you grant the people's choice to be an holy privilege, you condemn both your Church which rejecteth it, and such of your people as seem to use it, whereas in your estate they do nothing else but profane it. Why also do not such of you as know these things, deliver every man his soul from that slavery wherein ye stand under the Prelates, that so you might enjoy and practise the privileges and holy things of God, as Christ hath given them to his Church?  
2. To that you pretend of such as be blind and ignorant, thinking thereby to help yourself: I answer, that we speak of your people, as now they stand in your Church-constitution. For so (you know) the question is. Now whether they be ignorant, or whether they have knowledge, it skilleth not for the matter in hand. This we allege, that none at all of your people or assemblies have, in your estate, the liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Church: as the other have for marriage. So we have touched the question directly. But in deed the fault is Mr jacob, 
Iren. adversus Valem. lib. 1. cap. 1.  that your Comparison and Arguments hold together, like ropes of sand: as “ Irenaeus said of the Valentinians.  
Let the Reader note withal. 1. How you match together, and put as in an even balance, the blind Papists and your Christians. A worthy defence of your estate. 2. How here you pretend to speak of such as be ignorant, other where of Christians having knowledge of Christ, fear of God, faith etc. Thus turning yourself into so many shapes and colours, as a man can not tell where to have you, or what to make of you. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?   

Chap 5. The fourth Reason or Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison.  
Fran. johnson. IF any that by the word of God are not capable of marrying together (as Brother and 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 can not choose & take each other as Pastor and Church in their estate (such as now is in this ●a●d) do notwithstanding consent so to accept each other: yet are they not therefore lawful Pastor and Church.  
H. jacob his Reply. 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. You reason against people not capable of a Pastor; And we speak of true Christians which are always capable. You do ill therefore in comparing this action to marriage between brother and sister: who indeed can not marry.  
Happily you may likelier compare it to a couple that have lived both of them wanton: Afterwards they marry together, and this marriage itself 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.  
Fr. joh. his Answer. KNowing the question Mr jacob, you might well see (if you were not blind) that this is directly unto it. And so in deed it is like the first Reason: that is, it showeth the folly of your Comparison, and is such as you can not answer. True it is that we speak of people not capable of a Pastor: that is, of yours in your Church-constitution. And if you speak (as you say you do) of true Christians which are always capable, then speak you not of your people or Assemblies in your estate. And so it is yourself that f●●ht with your shadow, and towch not the question, but still presume that which you should prove: viz, that standing in Antichristian bondage to the Prelates and their proceedings, yet notwithstanding you are by the word of God to be judged true Christians, having the liberty and power given by Christ to his Church, whereof he is the head. Till you prove this, we must needs think that the comparing of your choosing a Minister in your estate, to a brother and sister or such like that can not lawfully marry together etc. is good and pertinent.  
Your own comparing of it to a couple that have lived wanton, and afterwards marry together, yet use not their marriage soberly &c. descryeth that yourself see the wicked and unlawful estate of your Ministers and people, as now they stand, howsoever you labour to hide and excuse it, as much as you can. And beside, if you would describe your estate, as it is in deed, you should compare it to such, as both had and do still live wantonly and wickedly in adultery and uncleanness: whom God will judge. Let all such therefore among you as fear God, delay no longer, but with speed forsake your adulterous ways and turn unto the Lord: that by his grace you may be “ married to him in righteousness and judgement, in mercy and compassion, 
Hos. 2. 19.2●.  and not still run a whoring after your own inventions, and abominations of the man of sin, whom the Lord will destroy. Rev. 17. 1-6. 2 Thes. 2.3.4.8. Numb. 15.39.40. jer. 4.18.   

Chap. 6. The fift Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison.  
Fran. johnson. 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 his Reply. THe second Proposition we here flatly deny. It is answered in our last words against the 2. Reason.  
Fr. joh. his Answer. YOu have an hard forehead Mr jacob, that can flatly deny so clear a truth. But for proof thereof, besides your Churches-constitution, I cite your books of Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Statutes: together with the consent of your whole Church: and your book of ordering Priests and Deacons etc. All which are so many proofs of the second Proposition, and witnesses of the truth, which you shame not to deny.  
Is it not your Churches express Law, that no other be received for Ministers, but such as are made Priests or Deacons by the Prelates? Yea, that every one must to this end have his Letters of Orders under the Prelate's hand and seal that ordained him? Can any among you (though he have the consent of all your people) be Parson, or Vicar, or (as you speak) one of your Pastors, not having the Prelate's ordination and institution? On the contrary, having these of the Prelate, is it not sufficient for him, though all your people stand against him? Yea, must not all the people (whether they will or not) receive and join unto his Ministry being by the Prelate so ordained and instituted as aforesaid? The truth hereof is so well known and ill practised through the whole land, as it is strange any man should have the face to deny it. But what will not Mr jacob deny, when he knoweth not what to answer, and yet hath not an heart to yield to the truth? It must needs be a weak and bad cause that can not otherwise be maintained then by such impudent denials.  
Your Answer to the second Reason before, is there taken away, and proved to be both against yourself and against the Law and constitution of your Church. Mind it better next tyme.   

Chap. 7. The sixth Reason or Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison aforesaid.  
Fran. johnson. 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 his Reply. THis is answered as before in the Fourth Reason. It carrieth some likelihood indeed, and some reason against Pluralities, but nothing any further.  
Fr. joh. his Answer. Neither the fourth Reason, nor this, nor any other of them are yet answered, Let others judge. And now yourself are driven to confess that, this hath both likelihood and reason against your Pluralityes. Which is in deed to yield unto it. For tell me, if your Pluralitie-men have not (as well as the rest among you) both the some calling by the Prelates, which your Church appointeth; and like acceptance of your people, who join unto them and maintain them, as you alleged before: Pag. 208. The Reason than hath weight not only against your pluralists, but against all your other Ministers too: seeing they have all of them one and the same false Ministry, received from the Prelates, and executed under them,  
Unto which you may add, that the Ministry of all among you is such as Christ never set in his Church: whether you look at your Offices, from the highest Prelate to the lowest Priest: or at your Entrance, according to your Church's Canons and Book of ordination; or at your Ministration, by your Book of common prayer and other your Canons and Injunctions: or finally at your maintenance, by Tithes, Chrismes, Offerings etc. When you have well minded these things, you shall find this Argument reach a great deal further than to pluralities, even to all the Ministers of your Church in your estate. Make a trial: search the Testament of Christ throughout, and if you can, show it to be otherwise. If not, give glory to God, and yield to the truth.   

Chap. 8. The Seventh Reason or Exception against Mr jacobs' Comparison aforesaid.  
Fran. johnson. AS when a man and woman have consented each to other, if the man do afterwards give his body to another, and so commit adultery: Then is the marriage-knot broken.  
So, if after a people have chosen a man to be their Minister, he give himself to another and a false Ministry, and so commit spiritual whoredom: Then is the former knot also broken.  
H. jacob his Reply. THe taking of orders from a Prelate, after consent given to a Minister by a people, is not like adultery in marriage: especially where both 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.    
Fr. joh. his Answer. YEs Mr jacob, albeit your people's consent were the choice of a true Church, yet such taking of the Prelate's Orders were like adultery. How much more in your case, who have drunk so deep of the cup of Babel's fornications? Yet you say, these two are not alike: but your saying you prove not at all. I do still affirm there is likelihood between them, and thus I prove it.  
To receive the ministery of Antichrist, is to commit spiritual whoredom. (For antichrist's ministery is part of the Whores abominations, spoken of, Rev. 17.4.5.)  
But the taking of Orders from a Prelate, is to receive the Ministry of Antichrist. (Witness your Book of ordination, 
Adm●●. to the parliam.  compared with the Pope's Pontifical: Wherein (your selves confess) he showeth himself to be Antichrist most lively. Witness also the nature of your Orders and Prelacy, compared with the ordinance and Ministry of Christ.)  
Therefore the taking of Orders from a Prelate, is to commit spiritual Whoredom.  
Now that there is likelihood and fit Comparison between corporal and spiritual Whoredom, the Scripture doth every where teach, and yourself Mr. jacob (I think) will not be so senseless as to deny it. Even here you confess that your taking of Orders from a Prelate, is an error.  
Neither will the ignorance you pretend, help the matter. For although it cannot well be thought, that after so open and manifold declaration of the truth, as you have had, you should still be ignorant thereof: yet if it were so, your ignorance (you know) will not warrant your action, nor justify your sin. Ignorance in deed causeth a sin to be less, but not to be none at all. Suppose that two ignorant persons, not knowing (or at least pretending not to know) adultery to be unlawful, should commit that folly together: Were their action therefore not to be deemed adultery? Yet thus you reason. And your answer beside importeth some yielding to the similitude, as touching them among you which know the truth. Let all such therefore, especially, weigh with themselves in what woeful estate they remain wittingly, even such as is spiritual whoredom against the Lord.  
So this Reason in deed is like to the last before, that is, direct and of weight against you: and your answer unto it not unlike to that of the Fourth Reason and the rest, that is, merely frivolous and to no purpose at all. For this error as you call it (that is, your subjection to the Prelacy and abominations of Antichrist yet remaining in your Church) maketh you in that estate even at the first uncapable of choosing a Pastor: or of entering such Covenant as you speak of, or of performing any other action, by the power and liberty which Christ hath given to his Church For what concord hath Christ with Antichrist? Or how can the liberty of Christ and bondage of Antichrist stand together, 
2 Cor. 6.15. 1 King. 18.21.  and the one not expel the other? Or will you alway halt between two opinions, and never make straight steps unto your feet, to turn them into the testimonies of the Lord? Be not deceived: God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. He that soweth to Antichrist, shall with him reap corruption: but he that soweth to Christ, shall by him reap life everlasting. 2. Thes. 2.10.11.12. Rev. 14.9.10.11.12. Gal. 6.7.8. joh. 3.36. Heb. 5.9.   

Chap. 9 Of the clause annexed at the end of Mr jacobs' printed book, which is thus:  
H. jacob. THis last Treatise, hath remained in their hands, these three years & more, unanswered.  
Fr. johnson. THis is most false, Mr jacob. For I did answer it myself, “ above three years since. 
In the year 1596.  And (being then close prisoner) I sent it away from me sheet by sheet (as I did at the same time my answer also to the former Treatise) to be copied out and conveyed unto you. Since which time, you have not given any Reply unto it again. No, not unto this day. So it is yourself that have not answered me these three years and more. Mind therefore how greatly you have abused both me and your Reader.  
But perhaps you will say, my answer came not to your hands: For so by this clause of yours, it may seem to be. If it were so (as for mine own part, I know not whether it did or no) yet of this I am sure, that when you sent me word these things were to be published, 
month. 5.10. and 30.159 8.  I wrote to you “ twice, desiring (among other things) this in particular, that then you would with the rest publish also my answer to this Reply of yours. So as by this you had knowledge (if not before) that it was answered. Yea you know moreover, how I wrote unto you at the same time, that you had not replied unto me again, since I answered you: and that if you wanted any of my answers, or by any occasion had them not perfect, I would help you to them, if you sent me word etc. And these Letters of mine you received, 
In your Letters to me. Mon. 5.27 and 6.20. 1598.  as yourself “ certified me: Which I have yet to show under your own hand. Yet you have not only left my Answer to your Treatise unprinted, but you shame not beside to affirm (contrary to your knowledge) that it hath remained in our hands, these three years & more, unanswered.  
Think now with yourself (Mr jacob) what conscience or honesty there is in such dealing. But it may be you had not so much care to deal well, as to have the parts of your book agree together alike. For as with untruth and bad dealing you began, and proceeded in it hitherto, so you do now also end it: Principio medium, medio ne discrepet imum.  
Thus in deed all the parts of your book from beginning to ending are suitable one with another. Yet such correspondence in your Book, is small commendation to yourself. Better dealing would better become you: save that seeing you fight for Antichrist his Churches and Ministry, it is no unmeet thing that you use the weapons of Antichrist: Which are chief two, falsehood and violence. Of the former whereof your book is full, from end to end, speaking lies through hypocrisy. And with the latter your Church (which you would defend) aboundeth, as your violent courses against the truth will alway testify to your face, howsoever you shame not to plead even for this also. For which see before, Pag. 112.133.134.  
If you writ again, be better advised. 
Rev. 14. & 18. chap. Psal. 84. jer. 50. and 51. Chap.  Or rather learn to lay your hand on your mouth, and plead the cyuse of Antichrist no more. But follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth: And give yourself no rest, until you appear before God in Zion. Forsake Babel: Let jerusalem come up on your heart, and help you to build the walls thereof, though it be in a straight and troublous tyme. And this which I speak unto you, by the word of God, I wish to be minded of all, that fear God, and love the Lord jesus.  He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Math. 13.9.   

A Table of some particular things contained in this Book.  

ANtichristian corruptions yet had in the Church of England. Pag. 63. etc.  
Antichrists, of two sorts. pag. 95.  
Of the Apocrypha books. pag. 22. 60.  
The Chaldean and Spiritual Babylon compared together. pag. 99 etc.  
Of the Beasts mark. Preface, Section: 3. Pag. 163. 189  
Blasphemy in the profession & Ministration of the Church of Eng. p. 22. 60. 188. 189.  
Of the ancient and late Bishops. pag. 129. 162. 183. 203.  
Of the Name Brownists. pag. 2.  
A true visible Church described, pag. 14. 196.  
The true Church hath but one Lord-bishop, the Lord jesus Christ. p. 163. 189.  
It is Christ's ordinance, that there be true offices of Ministry, and a lawful administration, and to a faithful people. pag. 16. 19 39  
The Worship and Ministry of the Church of England, is against the Prophecy, Priesthood, and Kingdom of Christ. pag. 33. etc.  
Of the Church of England. Pag. 1. 3. 11. 27. 122, 126. 161. etc. Her confusion, pag. 16. 103. 122. 200. Conviction. pag. 42. 53. 78. 108. 130. etc. Book of Common prayer. pag. 27. 33. 63. 86. 96. 120. etc. Dispensations and Licences. Pag. 65. 73. False doctrines. pag. 122. 157. etc. Fundamental errors. pag. 22. 114. 147. Excommunication and Absolution. Pag. 33. 65. Hierarchy and Ministry. Pag. 2. 23. 27. 63. 120. 122. 188. etc. Holy days. pag. 33. 64. Idol-temples. P. 65. 121. 126. Indifferent opinion of the Hierarchy. pag. 94. 120. 121. Persecution pag. 66, 108. 112. 133. 177. 178. 197. Profession. pag. 21. 60. 120. 171. Speaking lies in hypocrisy. pag. 150. 151. Will-worship and superstition. pag. 27. 33. 82. 86. 87.  
The faith of the Church of England, abolisheth the Second commandment, and perfection of the Scriptures. pag. 38.  
The Church of Engl. holdeth all outward government of the Church to be unwritrens and uncertain. pag. 28. 38.  
The Church of Engl. holdeth the inventions of Antichrist, to be Christ's ordinances, if the Magistrate so please. pag. 61. 69. 72.  
The Preaching, Sacraments, Prayer, etc. in the Church of Engl. appointed by men's precepts. pag. 82. 86, 87.  
None can join with any Chutch or Ministry of Engl. but they must needs partake with their Antichristian abominations. pag. 88 170.  
The estate of the Ministers and Church of Engl. compared with Corahs', &c. pag. 32. 53. 130. 138.  
Difference to be put between true Churches having corruptions, and false Churches making show of Religion. pag. 92. 133. 161. 195.  
Things verified of the members of a true Church, may be applied to a false Church, and yet not justify their estate. pag. 83.  
Of the Ethiopian Churches. pag. 94.  
Of the error of Christ's descension into Hell. pag. 115. 116.  
Of the Foundation in Christian Religion. pag. 46. 51.  
Some dying in fundamental errors, yet saved. pag. 44. 45. 545  
Some holding no fundamental errors, yet condemned. pag. 48. 146.  
The falsest Churches and greatest Heretics, hold much truth. pag. 47. 104. 106. 113. 136. 137.  
The Heathens acknowledging and worshipping of the true God. p. 123. 124.  
The Papists bring more show of Scripture for their grossest heresies, than Mr jacob or any other do for the Hierarchy etc. pag. 129.  
A notable false doctrine of Mr jacobs', wherein it seemeth he is alone. p. 172.  
Three special things to be noted in Mr jacobs' Replies. pag. 9  
How Mr jacobs' Argument should be propounded. pag. 12.  
Popish shifts used by Mr jacob. pag. 26. 30. 32. 128. 136. etc.  
Idolatry and false worship, of two sorts. pag. 67. 80.  
Visible Idols in the Church and worship of England. pag. 120.  
Of the jews Church. Preface, Section: 4. 5. pag. 83. 84. 89. 195. 197.  
Of Imposition of hands. pag. 208. 210.  
Of the forbidding of Marriage and Meats. pag. 73. 129. 135. 137. 140. 143. 147.  
Of the Martyrs. pag. 8. 29. 40. 44. 54. 67. 79. 182.  
How the Ministers of England are made & ordered. pag. 188. 189.  
The word and Sacraments administered and received in the Church of Engl. in and from a false Ministry. pag. 16, 64.  
The Oath ex officio. pag. 63.  
Of such as live and die Papists, etc. pag. 146  
Of the word, Prelate. pag. 188.  
Seven Questions yet unanswered. pag. 164.  
Separation from the Church of England granted in express words by themselves. pag. 156. 157. 169.  
The Sacraments administered in the Church of England, with many corruptions. pag. 15. 17. 25. 33. 64.  
Of Sacramental speeches. pag. 117. 118.  
Of the Samaritans. pag. 104. etc.  
The Parable of the tars. pag. 158. 173.  
Testimonies of the Prelates themselves, against the Church of Engl. p. 16. 200.  
Testimonies of the Reformists, against it. p. 16. 27. 39 79. 86. 103. 129. 176. 200.  
Testimoyes' of the Reformed Churches, against it. pag. 17. 176.  
Testimonies of the Martyrs, and of former times, against it. pag. 162. 163. 177. 180. 182. 183.  
The Testimonies alleged out of Scripture for defence of the Church of England, are also against it. Preface, Section 3. 4. 5. 6. pag. 51. 52. 195.  
Of Tithes, and maintenance of the Ministry. pag. 209. 210.  
The Word of God only is to be our rule and light of our feet. pag. 22. 30. 34. 203.  
The word and ordinances of Christ, as plain for us now, as was for the jews under the Law. Yea, more plain. pag. 128.  
The objections of Discontinuance, of Antiquity, of Ambiguity in expounding the word etc. answered. pag. 128. 129.  
How the Lord abhorreth in his worship, the mixture of man's inventions with his word and ordinances. pag. 61. 101. 209.  
The doctrine and worship of Devils. pag. 121. 122.  
The Lord accounteth them to be made and worshipped as Gods, whose ordinances are observed, though it be for his worship. pag. 80. 117. 122.  
Princes and Magistrates ought to abolish all false worship & ministries, and to maintain the true, which God hath prescribed in his word. p. 199.  
Though they do not, yet ought all the people of God to forsake the false, and cleave unto the true. Preface, Section: 4. 6. 7. pag. 43. 46. 51. 101. 148. 158. 163. 170. 180. 184. 196. etc.    

ERRATA.  
PAg. 6. lin. 9 read thus: the Assumption. And note down in the Margin.  
Pag. 86. and 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, after a sort, or, in part.  
Pag. 183. Mr Tindals' testimony there alleged, is in his works printed together (pag. 176.) in the Book called, The obedience of a Christian man.  
Pag. 197. lin. 41. sin, as Pag. 200. lin. 38. starting hole. Pag. 204. lin. 9 that they.  
FINIS.