Plain Evidences: THE CHURCH of England is Apostolical, the separation Schismatical. DIRECTED AGAINST Mr. Ainsworth the Separatist, and Mr. Smith the Se-baptist: Both of them severally opposing the Book called the Separatists Schism. By Richard Bernard, Preacher of the word of God at Worsop. For truth and peace, to any indiferent judgement. PROVERBS 24. 21. My Son, fear the Lord, and the King, and moddle not with them that are seditious. PROVERBS 24. 27. Turn not to the right hand, nor to the left, but remove thy foot from evil. Set out by Authority. Anno. 1610. Printed by T. Snodham, for Edward Weaver, and William Welby, and are to be sold at their shops in Paul's Churchyard. modern book plate EMMANUEL Collegium Emmanuelis Cantabrigioe Reverendissmo in Christo Patri ac Domino D. Tobiae, providentiâ Divinâ Archiepiscopo Eboracensi, Angliae Primati ac Metropolitano, suo Dioecesano 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ecclesiae Anglicanae pacis Maximo Patrono, Patri indulgentissimo, suae Provinciae alteri beatissimo Grindallo, Episcopo quondam & Archiepiscopo aeternae memoriae viro, Hanc suam Brounistarum direptionem, & Schismaticae illius Synagogae demolitionem, in perpetuum testimonium obseruantiae, summaeque suae gratitudinis ob illius Gratiosae Paternitatis plus quàm vulgarem favorem dedicat, consecratque. Suus in Christo servus obsequentissimus, Richardus Bernard. Huius inscriptionis Appendix ad LECTOREM. QVàm variè fuerint hinc affecti homines divinare cesso. jampridem sum expertus quales naturâ sumus, instabiles nempe, Mari similes fluctuanti, in quo varijs huc, illuc, ad dexteram modo, modo ad sinistram opinionibus instar navis ventis exagitatae circumferimur. Igitur mihi impraesentiarum pro minimo est, quid homuncio Consceleratus, vel Scrupulosus quis, vel Sectarius de me dicat: Suo Domino quisque stat aut cadit, ut inquit Apostolus; & qui Deum quidem ex animo colit, & ita se exercet, ut intermeratâ conscientiâ & apud Deum & apud Ecclesiam illius sit praeditus, facilè susque deque ferat & Impiorum & Sectariorum omnium sententias. De istis enim, verè dicatur, quot semper fuerint capita, tot etiam sententiae: qui etiam ita inter se variant, ut vix de Deo ipso omnes ad unum idem sentiant. Didici ipse non in incertis fluctuare, ut mos istorum est; non intentione bona, & sola affectione, (post habito judicio) ambulare: non in verba Magistrorum jurare, secu ti in iuventutis feruore soleant nonnulli, tantisper dum non assequuntur ea principia, quae sunt illis a doctioribus immaturè proposita: quae tamen arripiunt & auide, sed quodam affectu potiùs perverso, quàm intellectu bono. Puer iam non sum, nolo igitur, si Deus volverit, quovis vento doctrinae circumferri, in illis incertis casibus, quibus hody iactantur novitatis avidi; & etiam, Deo volente, est mihi decretum, ea tantum, proprijs, quae video, meis, non alienis, oculis confidenter asserere. Teneant igitur, ut recte vident, alij, mihi non displicuerit, agnoscam ego Episcopos, & Archiepiscopos esse in Ecclesia Christi gradus, minime contemnendos; ut qui principiò bene fuerunt instituti, ad lites componendas, ad Schismaticorum vias praeoccupandas, & ad publicam Ecclesiae pacem conseruandam. Assero quoque eum esse verum Episcopum, virumque bonum, Archiepiscopatu dignissimum, qui spartam, quam salnâ conscientiâ, est nactus, sedulŏ ornare studuerit; qui Ecclesijs eius fidei commendatis semper invigilauerit; qui idoneos Christi ovibus praefecerit pastores; Illiteratos autem, nullouè Academiae titulo insignitos, necnon & homines flagitiosos, ac scelerum aliquo genere insignes sacris initiari penitus recusaverit: qui suis ad hoc viribus incubuerit, ut fidelium Ministrorum numerus indies crescat: qui denique ita in puppi sedet vigilans perspicaciter, & Nanem suae Dioecesews (cuius tractat gubernaculum) ita dirigere conatur, ut (Deo auxilium adferente) nec ad Schismaticorum scopulos illidatur versus dextram, nec in Haereticorum Syrtes praecipitetur ad sinistram, dignus is est profectò, qui tanto praeesset muneri, quique possit vocari vir pijssimus. Cuius est praetereà non posse bonis non favere; in leviusculis Ministros Ecclesiae utiles & paci addictos tollerare; clementia paterna alienatos ad se iterum potius allectare, quàm a se animos severitate aliqua alienare; supplicibus supplicium remittere; sed male affectos, nequitiae deditos corrigere, & obstinatos ad supplicium dedere. Cuius etiam est è jurisdictione sua donatisticum Schisma, & Anabaptisticum furorem fugare; & denique in viperinum illud ac cruentum genus hominum Pontificiorum fraud vulpina irrepentium intentos habere oculos, ne vineam Domini depopularentur, manusuè sanguineas Dei populo inijcerent, quorum sanguinem sitiunt, cuius semper fuerunt insatiabiles. Si huiusmodi Moderator Ecclesiasticus Sanctis Dei & Fidelibus feliciter contigerit, nonne dignitatem Episcopalem meritus est? quis eum summâ obseruantiâ colendum non judicet? Quis sanae mentis, & non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 furore Brounistarum accensus virum talem Antichristianum, Christique adversarium vocaret? ita vel semel tam indignè, tam nequiter, ne dicam perditissimè cogitare, longè a me absit in perpetuum. Patrem habemus nos divinâ providentiâ Reverendissimum, qualis Theologus ipse, & quàm egregiè in Concionibus dominatur, non est ut ipse praedicem. Sciunt omnes dextrè eum posse Scripturas interpretari, & quanto movetur studio Christi gregem pascendi quis nescit? Singulis enim Sabbatis, si corporis non impediat imbecillitas, alicubi docet populos; ex industria, ut videtur, devitat controversias, dum apud rudem populum concionatur, ne, ut alicubi usu venit, Auditorum contentione potiùs quàm devotione implêrit animos. Locuples est oratione, dicit concinnè, & ornatè, Sermones tamen suos illuminat verborum claritate. Methodo utitur perfacili ad vulgi captum accommodata, adeò ut inde fructum maximum capiant non pauci. Nota haec quidem non obscurè quamuis eat ipse saepissimè pauperibus predicatum in locos perobscuros, ubi dissipatos esse intelliget Paraecoes, tanquam Pastore carentes Oues. In quibus omnibus singulare, ferè praecaeteris exemplum inferioris gradus Pastoribus se praebet. Cuius diligentia summa efficiat, alij ut supinam erubescant negligentiam. Cuius docendi methodus cursum aliorum vagum, nullo seruaeto ordine, & incompositum praedicandi modum in ordinem redigat. Cuius sermonis perspicuitas, materiae gravitas, pura & minime affectata oratio nonnullorum inducat animos, ut vaniloquentiae suae futilitatem prae pudore deponerent. Est enim hominum genus quoddam, qui cenodoxiae ventositate utris more, sufflati, stultè affectant obscuritatem, quò prae se ferant, nescio quam & Artium omnium & Linguarum scientiam: Pudet istos Thrasones ubique locorum non extra captum vulgi multa proferre. Sed eò forsan loquuntur, ne intelligantur; docent isti vaniloqui, sed non ut discant Auditores. Non cupiunt, ut videtur, Christum crucifixum praedicare, Christo suos lucrifacere: sed suas animi dotes nundinari, hominum applausum aucupari. Laudem volunt, esto: habeant mercedem. In admirationem duci avidè desiderant, neque hoc eis denegatur, sed dum miselli Idiotae in istis mirantur, nesciunt quam rerum peritiam, docti viri ac boni perditissimam in eisdem admirantur stultitiam. Ex divinorum dispensatione qui laudibus efferri quaerit, quique placere hominibus studet, & non dogmata proponere Christiana auditoribus, neque eadem eo modo tractare sanctissimè qui ad condendos sanctos est aptissimus, Ministerij pietati consentaneus, & ad corporis Christi extructionem accommodatissimus, secundum sibi concreditum talentum, non est fidelis dispensator, non est inquit Apostolus, Christi servus. Cuius denique in pauperculas Christi oviculas commiseratio, (quas saepe sacro aeternae vitae pabulo alere non dedignatur) ignominia quadam alios afficeret, qui animi fastu ita insole sunt, & Pharisaica elatione ita turgescunt, ut publicis tantum in Rostris, si dijs placet, locisque eminentioribus videri cupiant, sed inter Paraecos suos domifastidiant isti Homunciones laborare. Ditiores sunt istis unicè in honore, hos sibi constituunt patronos honorificentissimos, hos solummodò colunt, quos tanquam bonos suos Magistros, & Benefactores isti assectantur asseclae: sed gregem interim pauperrimum eorum fidei demandatum flocci pendunt, & ex animi superbia in miseras Ouicularum animas, ut dicam, stomachosè perdespuunt. Quid commemorem, quam maturè nuperrimè grassantimorbo praesantaneum attulit remedium? quàm cito turbam quandam Separatistarum, ne dicam asperiùs, temerariam è ditionis suae finibus exterminavit? Quorum alios, ut erat necesse, quadam severitate castigavit, non quò crudeli aliquo dominatu ab eo tenerentur, sed ut a Schismate, ad pacem, & a dolo Seductorum ad orthodaxam veritatem retraheret. Alios ita tractavit humanitate & suadela, ut facilè hos in sanam mentem retroduxisset, si non nimium privatis addicti fuissent opinionibus, & non obstinatè affectassent singularitatem. Sed ut fastigium tandem imponam, & rei metam adiungam, adeò severitatem lenitate, gubernandi euram praedicandi sedulitate, authoritatem humanitate, proventus amplitudinem liberalitate ita sapidè condivit, ut & ipse summa colatur reverentia, & hic vivatur inter nos concorditer. Siquidem de rebus non necessarijs minime decertatur: Contentionis faces a Brounistis accensae restinguntur penitus. Hinc fit, ut & fraus Papistarum magis ac magis Rudioribus per quorundam Ministrorum industriam detegitur: & evangelium in hac tandem part septentrionali felicissimos facit progressus. Inuitis omnibus pseudocatholicis (quorum non exiguus inter nos alicubi delitescit numerus) praevalet veritas, & indies magis ac magis praevalebit, si modò Deus aliquando nos ex suâ misericordiâ a mutuis contentionibus revocaret, si Ecclesiasticae gubernationis praepositi, Ecclesiae pacis causâ, in rebus minimis & nullius momenti aliquid concederent, abususque manifestos corrigendos curarent. Si etiam nos infimae classis Homunculi Superiores agnoscere, partes primas Primatibus concedere, Anthoritati nosipsos non invitò submittere, & hoc regimine, potestate Regiâ, stabilito placidè acquiescere vellemus. Pro quibus apud Deum misericordem effundam ego preces ardentissimas: cui intereà ob eas res, hic fruimur, laus sit maxima, & huius Reverendissimi Patris animae salus aeterna: cui Deus in precibus occurrat semper, & sempiternè beet ita, & remuneret, ut quâ ille misellum me dignetur miseratione in terris, eandem ille abundè cumulatam apud Patrem Coelestem & misericordem in Coelis inveniat. Amen. E Musaeolo nostro Worsopiae. Et veritatis & pacis aequè studiosus, Ric: Bernardus. THE PREFACE. AUTHORS of new devices are self pleasing, they are conceited and like only their own inventions: I perceive it is in vain to persuade. Easier it is to draw a profane person from Hell gates, then to remove an opinion from a wilful mind. Schism is the Ship whereon go aboard malcontents, the Winds that set it forward are violent passions, Will is the Rudder, Obstinacy the Anchor. schismatics are headstrong, they will not see evident conviction: self-love maketh them judge the best of themselves, but their want of Charity very badly of others. They beguile themselves with show of piety, heat of affection, and with a strong apprehension of things greatly amiss in others. These can they see with both eyes, themselves with neither. No Church can pass them, wherein they cannot see a rock of offence, and a stone to stumble at. They keep a loof off from all, they leave one Church, and come not at another; alone they love to be; singularity is their pathway. The common road of the best reformed Churches is too foul for their sincerity. Our arguments against them are paper shot, as they hold: but their weakest reasons against us (if themselves may judge) are shot of Cannon. They despise every man's endeavour against them, and are in admiration with their own works. Let any confer with them, and they shall hear it, I myself sufficiently have experience of it. By this might I be moved to cease this second labour; but I am not hopeless to hold some men back, & to gain some also, though I cannot recover what is wholly already lost. If I might speed in both I would be glad, if but in one, I am content: in both to lose my labour, I cannot doubt. Thou hast here (gentle Reader) an Answer of mine, and also a Reply unto an Answer made by one by Mr. Ainsworth the Doctor, so called, of the Schismatical Church of Brounists at Amsterdam. His answer is, to my book called the Separatists Schism: what we both say, I pray thee judge after trial. Let it please thee to read my former book, to discern what I hold, and here still maintain. If thou hast hap to light upon this Answerers' book, so read it, as thou also compare mine and it together. Much hath he omitted in my book, the Epistle wholly, and all the Counsels of Peace: wherein are somethings, peradventure, in the reading whereof thou shalt not judge time lost. This Answerer in his book only once doth mention them, but with this his Comment upon me, that perhaps I knew no more than CAIPHAS what I said. It is well yet, that the work is approved, though he judge the Author ignorant of his own invented labour. He hath also passed over very much in the matter of the Book, touching the chief points between us and them: and therefore the better to judge of his answer, and to see the truth, read my other Book. I observe an humour in men arising of idleness, or of carelessness, or of love only of novelties, or of them all, to read the last only, and to neglect what before hath been written, so take they opinions without trial, judge without searching, but so can hold nothing certain. A reason to dissuade men from writing in matters of controversy, except we do writ all on both sides, and make a great volume of a penny Pamphlet, which is too toilsome, and also superfluous, when books may be compared together. When I was writing over my reply to this Mr. Ainsworth: which I had thought should have gone forth so alone, I received by God's good providence the Se-baptists book, I mean Mr. Smiths answer also, that so it might not boast like an Heathenish Goliath, against God's Church, without an encounter, I have therefore placed him, and ranked him in his due order as he came, & made answer thereto as is meet, jest this woeful man should still misled others, as he doth his own self, by his braine-sicknesse: I hear of Mr. Robinson's answer also; if it had come in, he should also have been replied upon. Though I be a weak man, and my weapons be against these three Captains of three Companies, and but a stone in a sling, yet shall Israel prevail: the truth is strong against all enemies whosoever they be. They would overloade me with number, but as Elisha said, more are with us then against us. Indeed I want the help of my brethren: yet I neither do nor will bid, curse Meroz, the Lord forgive them their judg. 5. 23. carelessness, if not the hypocrisy of men herein. If we be the Lords people, why suffer we the Lord to be blasphemed by these men? if we be not, why halt we between two opinions? If our standing be of God, let us maintain it; if these men be in the true & only way, let us make a separation; why stand we idle in the market place? Here is work, let us labour in the Lord's Vineyard, if (in our judgement) it be the Lords Vineyard; else let us be going. If I were not persuaded in my soul, that here is the true Church of God, I profess unfeignedly (by God's help) that I would renounce my standing, whatsoever wicked and uncharible hearts censure to the contrary. But say some, these men will never be answered. Not more will the great Adversary (he and his instruments are importunate) yet must he and they be ever resisted, till they fly from us. Men fear the end, before they begin: remove carelessness and idleness, and behold the issue. If thou wilt not be public, writ in private. They rail (some say) and abuse men, what then? God will be avenged on Rabshakehs': and their cause gaineth nothing by their bitterness. For my part, I will endeavour to further the truth, as far as I shall be able to give answer to what may be said against it; for their ill carriage, I will as well as I may bear it patiently. I hope I have in this, published sufficiently to the world my Faith and resolution, in this particular truth of the Church, in contending with these our adversaries. In time, if time may be granted me, I have a purpose to set down, so the truth of this point, concerning a true, and a false Church, by definitions, and distributions, declaring the properties and privileges of the Church invisible and visible, and so of the militant and triumphant, as the order with the several members thereof shall require: and thereto as an evident plainness of the same to all, I will add an Historical narration of the Church out of the Scriptures, from the creation of the world, and so far as the Scriptures evidently declare it: wherein I will, by God's help, observe the matter of the Church, the Worship, the Government, and the Governors of the same, as may give indifferent men a godly satisfaction in this point of controversy, if other more fit for this, do not perform it. In the mean space, I judge that herein I have performed on my behalf, what I aught, and what was expected at my hands to discharge, for the honour of God, the reverence of our Church, the credit of mine own ministery, the verity of my undertaken cause against these Schismatics, and withal for a just defence of mine own person, wickedly traduced by some. I look not to satisfy the Separatists, much less the strange man Mr. Smith the Se-baptist; how can a man quiet them that love contention? I have endeavoured to perform a duty, whereunto I have been justly called, as I have showed in my former Book; what men may imagine I know not; how they will judge of my good purpose, I much reckon not; let conscience acquit me, though all condemn me, I much care not, albeit I desire the approbation ever of thee a godly and judicious Reader: if so thou be'st. I leave thee friend to peruse this labour, I commend the cause, as of great moment, to thy consideration: weigh well the matter, judge of our reasons, answers, and the reply without partiality; let thine upright heart effect, as thy right knowledge in every thing shall settle thy judgement and convince thy conscience. I leave every one to their own liking, approve or disallow, do their own wills, so will men in these days, I am one in myself, to them indifferent: let Truth prevail and God receive glory. Amen. Farewell. AN ANSWER unto Mr. Ainsworths' first Fore-speech, so he termeth it, as much as it toucheth me. IN the Forespeech of all his whole Book, he tells his Reader, that my Book hath rather show then weight of reason. It may well be the praise of his answer to me, if it had but the show of reason. Haste it seemeth begot it, travel of mind in discontentment brought it forth. The labour will own the Author, though the child may shame the father. It proclaims indigested thoughts; it is a Lapwing not void of the shell, leaving the nest, and fluttering with penny wings, endeavouring to fly, and yet hardly hatched; as the judicious Reader may perceive. It seemeth (saith he of my Book) to be penned rather to disgrace others, then to defend themselves. So it seemeth to him: this is his charity, sinisterly to interpret, to suppose a scope in thought not intended, nor by writing manifested. The end I have set down in my Epistle to the Reader; but that he doth not believe, what remedy? He belike thinks me one in pen, and another in heart; if so, I suppose herein he taketh measure of his own length, to meet me. If the former distaste him for disgracing them, and not defending ourselves, I hope this will please him, if it will not, I know no remedy. To abuse him, I intent not, neither to make their cause worse than it is; to defend ourselves he must give us leave: and this is now my drift. But not better fruit (saith he) can be expected from such as rebel against the light, which themselves once seemed to regard. There is a regard to be had of truths ever, that regard still I have, but sometime is a seeming regard to untruths, for to find them out, to hold the truth, and that I profess to have had touching their way. He calls that light, which I knew of their way, but I now judge it darkness, through knowledge of the truth now, whereof I was ignorant then. I see now by the light, their darkness, our truth, their errors, and yet bewail personal corruptions. My former Book may speak for me herein, the title thereof tells it them, and this labour will more manifest it. I then rebel not against the light received, but by the light resist I darkness, as I judge their uncharitable censuring, separation, and condemning of us to be. I wish themselves not to be rebellious against God, against his Church, and against the light of our loving endeavours in the truth, to reduce them to a better course, to join to some reformed Church, to be no more Separatists, that they breed no more Anabaptists. But what if it had been light, even the truth of God, which I did seem to regard, and yet withstood my knowledge? can no better fruit than rebellion be expected? The light of Christ in Peter was withstood Mat. 26. of him with fearful perjury; the light of the Gospel Gal. 2. afterwards shuffled by through dissimulation, yet Peter was an Apostle, his denial of the truth sprung through weakness, yet better fruit was by Christ expected from him, and better he brought forth. You are deep (Mr. Ainsworth) in censures: All opposing your way, are men in your judgement deprived of Grace, rebellious against the light: you are presumptuous in censuring; you may give sentence against all men and all Churches in the world; but none may give judgement of you? I wish to you less pride, more humility; less dislike of others, & more charity, with greater dislike of your own selves: the want whereof is the present enemy to lovely unity, that ever accompanieth true piety, which many pretend, but few truly do enjoy. AN ANSWER unto the Fore-speech of his An swear to my Book. IN this his Preface he toucheth my person, my labour, and showeth his purpose in answering, declares what he maketh answer unto, and why only in general, and concludeth with a Prayer for himself to be able to answer me, and others to discern my work, which is also my desire: for than I doubt not, but such as well understand the cause between us, will easily condemn their part. In the beginning he accounts me an adversary come forth to fight against the truth. I grant the first, that I am an adversary, to wit, to their Schism; but I deny the latter, that therefore I fight against the truth, that is the matter in question; though in my judgement it is out of question that their separation is not truth, but the error of Schism and schismatics. A while since (saith he) I would needs seem to favour it. [A while since.] Time is an instructor to a diligent searcher; I see now, what I then saw not; if I had, the late Separatists had not misled so many: the few, or rather the none, which now they do win here-away manifesteth the same. [Needs.] What necessity was there? if I would, I might have gone the way, they were gentle entertainers, (most silly ones were received, such as now the Anabaptists have rejected) I needed not to have made any forcible intrusion. But the man here speaks now besides his Book; it's not material, he hath hereof a supporter, his Talebearer. [Seem to favour] A favour is no sound approbation: and a seeming favour, is a very small allowance. Out of these words it may appear, that I was neither a Leader, nor a Setter of others on as, lewdly by words, malicious men belie me: I profess myself most ignorant of what a Brownist held, before Mr. Smith and his followers went that way; I never saw a Book of theirs, nor to my knowledge, the face of a man in the way of the Separation. I confess I was much moved with fair shows of Scripture, and with great pretences of holiness in their way: but I was not removed. O, but ask Mr. Ainsworth why I was not removed; being so moved, why I went not forward? forsooth things not succeeding to mine expectation, I have changed my love into hatred. Mine expectation was only the truth; I saw no ill success, but error of the way, which hindered my course. It is not therefore condemnable to change my love into hate: Love is an affection only fit for the truth; and hatred must persecute error. If a man at the first expect truth, and by trial find falsehood, is it not fit to change affections, and to place them right, which through ignorance were before misplaced? this man would find a knot in a bulrush; a fault where none is. [In the bitterness of my zeal, I sent out (saith he) my Treatise.] Zeal, is laudable in a just cause against slanderers of the truth, and the Church of God their mother: this Zeal liketh him not lukewarmness is best, it doth their cause no hurt: they would be let alone, that so they might still deceive the honest heart, and carry away the simple, to a right hand sin of Schism. I am commanded to be zealous, the lukewarm will God spew out of his mouth: we have too many Laodiceans; if we were more zealous for the Lord of Hosts, much would be amended, Schismatics and Heretics would be abandoned: which I hearty pray for. Touching bitterness, the whole Book defendeth me from so false an accusation. For bitterness let them look to their grand Master, Barrow; whose spirit was the bitterness of gall and Wormwood, as his railing, scoffing, and other outrages do show in his Printed Books. It (to wit, my Book, saith he) containeth dissuasions from the practice of the Gospel. Here he changeth the Title of my Book, to enlarge his sin; He calleth their Inventions, Gospel; and their Schism from God's Church, the practice of the Gospel. He would put upon me a labour full of wickedness, but he beggeth that which he can never make good, nor I ever yield him. How is it that Mr. Smith hath found out their Presbyterial practice, to be no practice of the Gospel, but the invention of man, having both an Antichristian ministery and government in it? And therefore (saith he) When the Popish Prelacy was suppressed, and the triformed Presbytery substituted; one Antichrist was put down, and a other set up in his place: or the Beast was suppressed, and his Image advanced. And therefore as they that submit to the Prelacy, are subject to that woe of worshipping the Beast; so they that submit to the triformed Presbytery, are in like manner liable to that woe denounced against them that worship the Image of the Beast. Thus hath Mr. Smith written of late against these In his book entitled: The differences of the Churches of the separation. men, who so much brag of the practice of the Gospel. And this he doth not barely avouch, but doth proceed orderly, setting down his positions, and hath laboured to prove them by Scripture, by reasons, and doth answer objections made to the contrary. And therefore I think it not amiss, to set down what he there saith; to show what a labyrinth the silly people are run into, who forsake our Church for Antichristian, their native soil, their harbour and livelihood, the company of many truly fearing God, to go into and under an Antichristian ministery and government, into a strange Country, among a people of a strange language, where they spend all, are pinched with poverty, and live among schismatics, Heretics, Papists, Turks, jews, Arians, Anabaptists, and among people of all ill disposition, only to avoid some corruptions here, through officers ill demeanour: the Lord amend them, or remove them. But let all know, that it is a Christian man's valour rather to oppose corruptions, then to fly the Church of God for them, and better to endure corruptions, then to be turmoiled with such distractions, and to be brought into such confusions, even a Babel of languages, of opinions, of assemblies, of governing, of Governors, and what not? It is a blessing to be well, it is a greater to know to be well, and so to abide. Now thus writeth Mr. Smith in his Book, page 22. Having Page. 22. spoken of the liturgy of the Church: now follow (saith he) the Offices of the Church, viz. the Presbytery, and Deaconry. Phil. 1. 1. Esa. 66. 21. Nu. 3. 5. 10. & 16. 5. 38. &. 17. cha. The Presbytery of the Church is, the company of the Elders, which are for the Church in the public actions of the Church, either of the kingdom or Priesthood. Heb. 13. 17. 1. Thes. 5. 12. 1. Tim. 4. 14. 15. 17. The Presbytery is uniform, consisting of Officers of one sort. Esay. 66. 21. compared with Exod. 28. 1. and with Num. 11. 24. 25. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 8. Act. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. jer. 23. 1. 4. Ezech. 34. 1. 16. These Officers are called Elders, Overseers or Bishops, Pastors, Teachers, Governors, Leaders, Prepositi: which are several names of one and the same office, consisting of several works or qualifications. For every one of these Officers must be: 1 An Elder, or ancient in years. 1. Tim. 3. 6. & 5. 1. 2 Oversee the flock. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. 28. 3 Feed the flock. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Act. 20. 28. 4 Able to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and convince the gainsayer. 1. Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 9 Ephes. 4. 12. 5 Govern the Church. 1. Tim. 3. 4. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 28. 6 Led the Church in all the public affairs thereof. Heb. 13. 17 7 Are preferred to place of honour. 1. Thes. 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. and special labour. 1. Tim. 3. 1. Seeing all the Elders must teach, exhort, convince, feed, oversee, rule, and lead the Church, therefore they may all administer the seals of the covenant: for that is a chief work of feeding, and applying the covenant, and that particularly. Of Reason's proving the Elders to be of one sort, viz. all Pastors. 1 IN the old Testament there was but one kind of Priests, who had all equal authority, to administer all the holy things (excepting the high Priest, who typed forth Christ jesus, the high Priest of our profession:) So proportionably in the new Testament, there is but one sort of Elders, who succeed the Priests in the dispensation of holy things. Esay. 66. 21. 2 As in the old Testament there was the Sanhedrim, which consisted of seventy Ancients, for the administration of the kingdom, which was a type of the visible Church, all which Elders in their first institution, Numb. 11. 25. did prophecy, and were of one kind under Moses: So in the new Testament under Christ jesus, who is the King of the Church, there is a Synedrion, or Eldership, consisting of Ancients of one kind, who administer for the good of the Church. Revel. 4. 4. and 5. 6. 3 If Pastor, Teacher, Elder, had been three offices formally differing: the Apostle intending to teach the several offices of the Church, would have mentioned them, 1. Tim. 3. but there he only mentioneth Bishops and Deacons, according as Phil. 1. 1. therefore Bishops are only of one sort or kind. 4 If the Apostles had ordained three kinds of Elders: Acts. 14. 23. they would have mentioned them with their several kinds of ordination: but that is not done: for in one phrase their Election and ordination is mentioned. Ergo, their ordination being one, their office is one, and not three. 5 If there had been three kinds of Elders at Ephesus, than the Apostle at Miletum, would have given them several charges, as having several duties lying upon them: but the Apostle Acts. 20. 28. giveth them one general charge, common to them all, namely, the duty of feeding, the work of the Pastor: therefore they are all Pastors. 6 Eph. 4. 11. Pastors and Teachers are all one office: for whereas the Apostle had spoken distributively before of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, as intending them several offices; he speaketh copulatively of Pastors and Teachers, exagetically teaching that they are both one office. 7 And lastly, if all Elders have the pastors gifts, and the works of the Pastor, and the pastors ordination; then they have all the pastors office: But all the Elders have the pastors gifts, viz. the word of wisdom, or the gift of exhortation. Tit. 1. 9 and therefore the pastors work as Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. which is feeding, exhorting, and so the same ordination. Act. 14. 23. Therefore all the Elders have the same office of the Pastor; and so are all one sort. From all this he concludeth what is before written: that the Presbyterial practice is the invention of man, and Antichristian. Objections for the three sorts of Elders answered. 1. Objection. IN this place, the Apostle maketh two sorts of Elders, viz. 2. Tim. 5. 17. first, those that rule only: secondly, those that teach and rule, and Eph. 4. 11. the Apostle maketh two kinds of those that teach. Pastors and Doctors: therefore there are three kinds of Elders, formally differing each from other. Answ. 1. The Apostle to Timothy teacheth, that Elders are to be honoured for two works: well ruling, and laborious or painful teaching. And the place doth not import a distribution of officers, but a commendation of several works of one office, and the speciality consisteth not in the works of ruling and teaching, which are common to all Elders, but in the quality, viz. well ruling & painful teaching; as if the Apostle should say, Elders are to be had in double honour, for wise government; but much more are they to be honoured for their laborious and painful teaching. That this is so, see Tit. 1. 9 1. Thes. 5. 12. 13. compared with, 1. Tim. 3. 1. 4. 2 In Timothy, the Apostle saith, every Bishop must be didacticos and proaistamenos, and therefore that some Elders are only Didacticoi, and not Proaistamenoi, is contrary to the Apostles intent. 3 In Titus, the Apostle expoundeth Didacticos, to be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to convince the gainsayer: how then shall some of the Elders be Rulers only? 4 To the place of the Ephesians; the Apostle in it speaketh copulatively of one office, and exegetically of the principal work of the Pastor, which is teaching: he doth not say, some Pastors, some Teachers; but he saith Pastors and Teachers: expounding the former by the latter, viz. feeding, by teaching, which is the principal part of feeding, and for which Pastors are principally commended. 1. Tim. 5. 17. if they labour therein painfully. Objection. 2. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 12. 5. 8. 28. saith, there are diversity of Ministers; namely, one that hath the word of wisdom, another the word of knowledge, another that hath government, ver. 28. therefore the Eldership consists of three sorts of Elders, viz. of the Pastor that hath the word of wisdom; of the Teacher, that hath the word of knowledge; of the Ruler, that hath the quality of government. Answ. 1. It is granted that there are diversity of ministries, as Ephes. 4. 11. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 8. Phil. 1. 1. namely, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Deacons, yet it followeth not hereupon, that Elders are of divers sorts as is pleaded. See verse. 28. 2 The word Diaconia, signifieth sometime, any spiritual work, proceeding from any member or officer of the Church: as 2. Cor. 4. 8. Alms is called Diaconia, 1. Pet. 4. 10. Diaconein signifieth any work that proceedeth from any gift, so it may signify here, and all the works that follow almost may be referred thither, only there are certain Energemata mentioned. verse 10. Objection. 3. THe Apostle Rom. 12. 6. 8. maketh an opposition between Prophecy and an office, and maketh five kinds of officers, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, Deacons, Widows. Answ. 1. That is denied to be the true resolution of the place of the Romans'; for although there be five several actions repeated, yet it doth not follow, that there are five several Officers to perform those actions; for one person may perform them all, and yet be no Officer, viz. teach, exhort, rule, distribute, show mercy. 1. Cor. 14. 3. 26. 31. Rom. 12. 13. 1. Cor. 5. 5. 2 The distributive particle (eite) four times repeated in prophecy, Diaconia, exhorting and teaching, importeth thus much, that the Apostles intention is not to subordinate, teaching and exhorting to Diaconia, but to oppose each of these four particulars to other, as thus: Prophecy is the manifestation of a gift: 1. Cor. 14. 3. Diaconia, is the office, and there are divers kinds thereof. 1. Cor. 12. 5. Teaching is one action or work of the Prophets or Officers. 1. Cor. 14. 26. Exhorting is another action or work of them. 1. Cor. 14. 3. Hence it follows that teaching and exhorting are as well subordinate to Prophecy, as to Diaconia. 3 If Diaconia be the genus to these five species following, than I say, that Diaconia signifieth not an office, but a work, and of works there are those five kinds: that Diaconia doth sometime signify a work is plain. 1. Cor. 8. 4. 1. Pet. 4. 10. 4 And lastly, the Apostle that knew how to speak, would never have made Teaching and Exhorting members distributive, with Prophecy and Diaconia, if he had intended to have made them species subordinate to Diaconia. Therefore questionless that is not his intention. Objection. 4. THe Apostle by the commandment of Christ writeth to the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia. Reu. 1. & 2. & 3. that is, to the Pastors which are but one in every particular Church; for so the words are, to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, etc. Answ. 1. It can never be proved by the Scriptures, that there was but one Pastor in a Church. It is plain, Act. 20. 28. that there were many in the Church of Ephesus, (which was one of these seven Churches) who did perform the work of the pastor, which is Poimainein, to feed, even all the Elders of Ephesus. Act. 20. 17. compared with verse 28. And therefore there were many Pastors, in the Church of Ephesus, in Paul's time. 2 All Churches had Officers of one sort, and one kind of Presbytery, and therefore as all the Elders of Ephesus were Pastors, so were all the Elders of the six Churches of Asia, and of all other Churches wheresoever in the world, if they had many Elders. 3 The Angel of every one of these Churches doth not signify one Pastor only, in every Church; but either the College of Pastors, if they were many, or the company of the most sincere and holy men, that most opposed the corruptions of the Church, or were most holy and zealous in life and doctrine. And that an Angel doth signify a company of men, is plain. Reu. 14. See Doctor Downehams' Sermon, for this point. 6. 8. 9 & 18. 4. And why not a principal Pastor of chiefest note among the College of Pastors in Cities? 4 And lastly, in all likelihood there were some extraordinary men yet living in the Churches, either Prophets or Evangelists, that had extraordinary gifts: whose zeal and holiness might win unto them special estimation in the Churches: in regard whereof it might be, that the holy Ghost intending his Epistles to the whole Church, chiefly directeth them to those persons so qualified, as men best able to prevail with the Church, and calleth them Angels, whether one or more, as john the Baptist is called an Angel. Mark. 1. 2. After all this saith Mr. Smith: Seeing all the Prophets of the Church must have gifts for edification, exhortation, and consolation; the Pastors of the Church must have gifts for the performance of the same works, Katexochen, after an excellent manner, and in a greater measure. The Pastors excelling the Prophets of the Church in the gifts of doctrine, exhortation, consolation, may also excel one another in gifts: for all the Elders have not the same measure, or degrees of gifts. In respect of the measure of gifts in Elders, some excelling in one gift, some in another, the holy Ghost may give several titles to the Elders or Pastors. Although some Elders excel in one gift, some in an other, yet it followeth not that therefore they are several Officers; formally differing one from another: for not the degree, measure, Q. What several kind of gift had Timothy an Evangelist, from an Apostle? or excellency of a gift or gifts, but the several kind and nature of gifts & works, make several kinds of Officers. 1. Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6 The Elder that excelleth in government most properly may be called a ruler or governor, although he have the gifts and power to teach, exhort, comfort, apply, and that by virtue of his Office. Tit. 1. 9 Heb. 13. 17. The Elder that excelleth in doctrine, and convinceth gainsayers, may most properly be called a Teacher or Doctor, though by virtue of his office, he may perform all other pastoral duties. Act. 18. 28. & 19 1. 1. Cor. 3. 4. 6. compared with Tit. 1. 9 Eph. 4. 11. 1. Pet. 5. 2. The Elder that excelleth in exhortation, consolation, and application, may most properly be called a Pastor or Shepherd, though by virtue of his Office, he is to teach, convince and govern. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 9 Eph. 4. 11. 1. Pet. 5. 2. And thus Mr. Ainsworth, may see if Mr. Smith say the truth herein, that they themselves do practise humane inventions, and have an Antichristian ministery and government: and therefore he that speaketh against their way, or useth dissuasions from the same, neither speaketh nor dissuadeth from the practice of the Gospel, as he would make his Reader believe, that I have so done by my former Book. The argument from all that is said, to clear me in this point, may be thus framed. Dissuasions from Schism, from human inventions, from a Ministry and Government Antichristian, are not dissuasions from the practice of the Gospel. This cannot be denied, being an argument from the contrary. But the dissuasions which I have sent forth, are dissuasions from Schism, from human Inventions, from a ministery and Government Antichristian. That their way is Schism, I have proved in my former Book, which in this reply I also again justify against Mr. Ainsworth, and against Mr. Smith. The rest of this Minor Mr. Smith, as is here before showed, goeth about to prove at large. Conclusion. Therefore my dissuasions from Brownisme are not dissuasions See more touching this matter in Doctor Fields fift Book. cap. 26. pag. 128. from the practice of the Gospel. Out of themselves may we see, is one risen to condemn themselves: a Pupil, a Tutor, a Scholar in Separatisme, a grand Master in Brownisme. He hath meet unto them, as they have measured unto us: we are Antichristian, say they: They are Antichristian, saith he. What then have they gotten by their uncharitable and lewd Schism? Now to return again to Mr. Ainsworths' Forespeech, where I left it. He saith, that in my Book, is little weight of reason or truth to be seen, nor any thing which may trouble a discreet Reader. In his first Forespeech, he said, my Book had a show, and but a show of reason, now here he alloweth it weight of reason, though he add the word little. He giveth and taketh away, he writeth he knows not what. It hath little weight (saith he) but Reader compare his answer with my Book, and thou mayst see that he found himself overladen: the little weight of reason, was more than he could lift, as appeareth by all that which he hath left behind him. For truth to be seen; he seethe not, the cause is in his blindness, and not in the matter by me delivered. One but meanly acquainted with their cause (he saith) may found out my deceit. It is hard to find what is not, plainness harboureth not such a guest as deceit; how far I am from fraudulent dealing, let the work be judge. If a mean acquaintance with their cause can so enlighten their eyes, as they may easily see my dealing, and wield the weight of my work; what need this man speak of a discreet Reader, and tell him of trouble too? where was his own eyes? and what was become of his discretion in answering, that saw no more, and discerned so little? He sets my labour light, and yet crieth to the Lord for wisdom to answer me: He maketh the meanest a fit judge for me, and yet prayeth for an understandding Reader to discern me: how can these things stand together? He is constrained, it seemeth, by a greater power, to yield me in my labour more studious endeavour, (though he despise it in heart) than his ill will otherwise would afford. Thus it falleth out with them that against the shining light, struggle, of an ill disposition, to wipe away undeservedly, what is due to others, for their own praise. His end in answering (as he saith) is to stop my mouth, and to help the simple to prevent and to discern, I know not what fraud of mine. He hath a marvelous conceit of his labour: he thought it should come near me, when he meant with it to stop my mouth: but if he think so idle an answer can put any to silence, he is much deceived; yet had he stayed my pen, and prevented this labour, had he but set out my whole labour with his answer: If this had been done, a Reply had been needless, so little hath he advantaged his cause, or endamaged me by his answer, as indifferent and learned Readers have judged. He offers this as help to the simple: A fit choice, a simple answer to a simple Scholar. Simple is he indeed that needeth so silly a help. For preventing of offence, he is so far from it, as he and his, with such like, have greatly increased it, have caused many to fall, and the common adversary to advance himself against us, to the great hindrance of the Gospel, and to the heart's grief of many a true Christian soul Such Preventours' of evil may be rather called inventors of mischief. Touching the imagined fraud, which he layeth to my charge, here he saith so, but no where in his answer proveth any such thing; had he found it, he would have named it. Surely I was in mine intendment far from it, and I confess myself to be in nature one, as all that know me can witness, as it were cast into the mould of plainness: what I have written, it was done in the simplicity of my heart, as I then was, and am persuaded of the truth. Let fraud and falsehood stick to the ribs of the deceiver, but be it far from me for ever. [He thought it needful (as he saith) to observe and answer briefly the principal things by me objected.] A general answer is no answer: what must become of the particulars whereon the reader must stumble? The truth of the generals are established in and by particulars, either therefore must these be refelled, or the other are not truly answered. But herein he took his case: little credit to his cause, as by the Reply made, doth well appear: yet in this case which he took, he nevertheless would insinuate, that therein he laboured more than was needful: for that many of the principals are in the Treatise (before written to Mr. Spr.) and in other Books more largely confuted. If he have refuted any principals of my labour in an other man's book, it was an idle labour in him to say the same things again unto me, and omit particulars, which he had never said any thing unto. This doth show, that what he thought he could answer, he spared not to afford thereto a double labour but where he could not, there he craves pardon for giving so much as once one single answer. If he say true, that he hath refuted any thing of my Book in any man's labour, I here tell him aforehand, that in so doing, he hath spared me so much labour: I mean fully to reply to his answer made to me, so much as it is, not doubting but the other can and will answer what cometh in his way, as I should do in the like case. What he meaneth by other Books, which he speaks of, I know not, he nameth none. Belike he thinks hereby to set me a tax to seek them, as well where they are not, as where they are, thorough out their contentious works; he that cannot be better exercised, I wish him that labour to keep him from idleness. If this his answer serve not the turn, [All of them may (he saith) if need require, hereafter by some other be particularly refelled.] What he was not able to refute, (and yet would he be a busy undertaker,) he leaveth for others to refel; if need should require. How needful it was, though this man make but an If thereof, may appear by an answer made now to the particulars, by the Se-baptist Mr. Smith, who reprehendeth this Answerer, for so leaving particulars without defence, to shifted for themselves in the plain field: And therefore he cometh forth as a Goliath, to fight for his own gathered host of the Philistines; I mean his own opinions, partly absurd, and partly heretical, which he hath mustered in his unstable brain by Sophistry, through discontentment, to trouble the host of Israel, the true Church of God with us. And thus much for an answer to Mr. Ainsworths' Forespeeches: a man busily interessing himself in a cause, when it seemeth he knew another to own it, and to go about to defend it. He should have suffered the other to have gone before him, except he could have forestalled him for the cause, which he undertook rather (as may seem) to disclaim, denying many things, skipping over most things, then to defend any thing, for that he answereth nothing sound: see Reader and judge. A PREFACE BEFORE the Reply, touching Mr. Smith the Se-baptist, and his Book. IF any ask, why I do give him a new title to his old name: my answer is; he wanted, I know, a Godfather, when he was Christened again; now it is an ancient custom to name then the child, and the susceptors to give it. Indeed I was not requested by this Child's Parents to be an under-taker, nevertheless upon so extraordinary an act, I will be somewhat exorbitant with myself, to call him Mr. john Smith, the anabaptistical Se-baptist. Notorious acts, we may read, have made men remarkable, and have gotten them names and titles, for a memorial of the facts and deeds done; why should not he then obtain what worthily he hath deserved? he is anabaptistical, for rebaptisation; and he is a Se-baptist, because he did baptize himself; it is more than Christ would do: but he could find no whither to So he thought of Baptism in Reformed Churches; yea, and among the Separation. go for Baptism; in some Churches it was false, as he imagined; in some true, but not lawfully to be received, because of some * As only among the Anabaptists. Heresies. But is his Baptism true? Not verily, if himself may be made judge: for in his Answer to me, page 91. line 28. he saith, that a baptized person must baptize into the true faith of Christ, a person capable of baptism, else it is not a true Sacrament. Now Mr. Smith did baptize himself, and was not before by his own judgement & profession baptized; so a person unbaptised did baptize: and therefore it is no true Sacrament by his own doctrine, as also unwarrantable from the Scripture. And therefore all his company have received by him corruption, they have made a false entrance into their new way, by Mr. Smiths own testimony. He would not go to others to be baptized, for than he should have been of their Fraternity, and so have lost his own company; but he would none of that. He layeth to my charge inconstancy: but I profess I was never of them: indeed through ignorance, which taketh that for light which is darkness, and through affection lead by ignorance, and held on by a foolish good meaning, I was tossed by the present tempest, sometime to a favouring, but otherwhile to a great dislike; until by study, and other endeavours, I found out a certain truth to rest upon, and so stuck to my old, former and first way, wherein I do walk: is this, as he termeth it, inconstancy, Apostasy? Is this to be often of and on, as it hath fallen out with him; whose judgement is instability itself, whose course is as changeable as the Moon? for: First, he was a Subscriber, a Conformitant, and as honest Mr. Smith's changeableness. a man then, as ever since, for any thing seen or heard hitherto to the contrary: this is evident, when first he was made Minister, and when he was instituted into a living. Whether wholly a Conformist, he best knoweth: it is enough that he was, what he was. Secondly he fell from that, but allowed the authority of Bishops, and published his dislike against a great point of Brownisme, touching set Prayer, the saying of the Lords Book on the Lords Prayer. pag. 91. and in the Epistle to the Reader. Prayer: and said in his then judgement, that it was the verily assured truth. Thirdly; He disclaimed Episcopal Authority utterly, and fell in love with the doctrine of the Separation, but warily and secretly at the first: for being brought to trouble, and called into question about it, he renounced Brownisme, under hand-writing, a copy whereof was brought unto me, by one now of their company. Fourthly, he after fell to it again, and went unto divers Ministers, godly and learned, in conferring with whom he came resolved of the truth against the way of the Separation: of his Prayer, of his solemn thanksgiving, of his purpose to go to Amsterdame to reclaim his Tutor Mr. johnson, I have spoken in my book, page 37. the truth whereof will be confirmed by the oaths of Mr. Hi: Mr. N. and Mr. Ho: of whom I have heard these things with their protestation of the truth, whatsoever he affirmeth in his own private cause to the contrary. Fiftly, for all this he fell quite from us again to Brownisme, See his answer to me, pa. 124. 108. and made a Separation: then was that way clearly the truth: yea, saith he to me in his Letter, I marvel you see it not; I profess before the Lord, that this truth which we testify unto you, is as clear and evident unto us, as the noon day. Hereupon he writ a Book of Principles and Inferences, in maintenance thereof. Sixtly, within a while this Protestation for that so great a truth, turned into detestation against it, as a falsehood; and that clearness as noon day became in his new after thoughts as darkness at midnight. He holdeth for truths, what Mr. Ainsworth in his answer to me, rejecteth for errors: He judgeth their worship in part judaisme; their ministery See his Book of Differences. and Government Antichristian; of which he hath also published a Book, and there in the Epistle (because he is found so inconstant, to wipe away the shame thereof, and to cut off offence for afterward) he without shame, professeth to be unconstant, and desireth that ever his last writing should be taken as his present judgement; so there is no certain where he will hold. Miserable people will you still be led by so changeable a chameleon! seven, and lastly, if it prove the last, He hath founded a new Church, he hath (if you will believe him) recovered the true Baptism, and the true matter and form of a true Church, which now is only to be found pure among a company of Se-baptists. Mr. Smith will * Mr. Smith loves singularity, to be one alone with his company, that is his politic humility. hold ever this word (See) to himself, for in going into Brownisme, he was a separatist, he held differing opinions from them, and now that he is in Anabaptisme, he is a Se-baptist, he wholly goeth not with that Heretical Sect. It may seem he intendeth to have an Oar in every Boat, and a piece of every profession; holding all, and none wholly, and yet will suppose himself the best, as if he were an unerring Reformer, having an infallible rule in Scrinio pectoris to be universally good. If he hold this, let him show his authority from above, and then have we done. But I see already, without farther time to read his commission, that he is out of the way. Baptism (saith he) is the door into the Church: there must be then a Church, and a door into the Church. I ask therefore whether the visible Church was among them or not, when Mr. Smith did baptize himself? If he say it was none, than he entered into that which was not, so a door was without an house: & Baptism before the Church. If he say, they were the Church: I ask how could a visible Church be before there be true matter of a Church, that is, a company truly baptized as they hold? His action is therefore altogether extraordinary without Scripture, without practice of God's Church formerly: and therefore must he herein have an extraordinary warrant, or else he is extraordinarily presumptuously wicked. But by this trick is he dispastored, and is but among them as a private person, till he be again elected; this is most true: And thus hath he been off and on in the ministery two or three times. He was made Minister by Bishop Wickam, that by and by in Brownisme he renounced; & was made Minister by Tradesmen, and called himself, The Pastor of the Church at Gainsbrough: this hath he lost again, by his Se-baptisticke way, till he be chosen again. Thus is his inconstancy apparent, and 'cause sufficient He himself doth overthrow daily himself, a reason sufficient to let him alone: 〈…〉 ve easily suffer present fits in mad men, for that we do know them to be sudden and not during. for me to spare my labour in answering his Book, till it were known, what he would defend and maintain, and stick thereunto; lest answering him to day, he himself tomorrow should condemn the very same that I disallow, and so my labour be lost. But I will once follow a wavering Reed, a mutable Proteus, a variable chameleon, and take him as at this present I find him; for that he * In his Book, Page 135. affirmeth before the Lord, that except I do make answer, I am not able to answer. He supposeth himself unanswerable; and therefore he bids me battle. Truth is unanswerable, but errors broached from an unstable judgement are confutable. If he hold that I cannot answer for his truth sake, he in this is deceived; for how can he maintain truth, that knoweth not what it is; with whom a verily assured truth is by and by a See by these, his foolish confidence for the present in every opinion. verily assured falsehood: with whom that which is now as clear for truth as noon day, is soon after Egyptian darkness, and plainly error, as is before showed. A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit, it cannot bring forth good: A false Prophet Mat. 7. 17. 18. beware of, by his fruits thou shalt know him, judge of his spirit by the fruits thereof, here in this Preface manifested, as they are set down in his Book. In the forefront of his Book he quoteth nine Scriptures, What first he intendeth against us out of Scripture, the same is altogether against himself. which may be truly understood, as the holy Ghost forewarning us, to take heed of him, and his ways. It is he that saith, Lo, here is Christ, lo there: for he said; Lo here is Christ in protestancy: nay after; Lo, here is Christ in the reformed Churches: nay, Lo, Christ is there at Amsterdam in Brownisme: and lastly, Lo, now is Christ only Mat. 24. 23. with him in Se-baptisme. He is clothed as a Sheep, but as Mat. 7. 15. a Wolf scattereth the Lambs. He it is, that climbeth into the Sheepfold another way, as none ever did, and therefore john. 10. 1. 10. is a Thief and a Robber: he stealeth away the people to destroy them. He audaciously hath, by attempting to plant 2. Cor. 11. 13. a Church, transformed himself into the Apostle of Christ: And thus by his pretending all holy duties to God, and a reformation of all corruptions in Churches, Satan is changed into an Angel of light. For his applying of Mat. 24. 24. 25. to us, it shows as much his folly, as the other his blindness, that saw not these places as pregnant proofs brought out for him against himself. The Book itself in which he makes answer to me, with his other Book of differences among themselves set him out to the world: for therein he doth show much evil, far from that grace which he pretendeth. First, A high Maister-sinne, the Pride of heart, in censuring The intolerable pride of the man. all Churches after his conceived opinions, in too boldly expounding Scriptures after his private judging, in neglecting the witness of learned Divines, and practise of the Godly, in rejecting by open proclamation the judgement In the Epistle before his book of Differences. of all men and Churches, which he calleth, The not holding of their Faith at any man's pleasure, or in respect of persons, and the not binding of themselves to walk according to other men's lines: in daring to be like a john Baptist, or an extraordinary man, in his new and unheard of attempts: in seelifying every man's labour against him, or any man's judgement crossing his opinions, as he of me saith, bringing in Bezaes' judgement, Alas for you, this is borrowed Page. 60. in his Answer. stuff, (as if he scorned to take any man's advise) and then rejecteth it thus: It is stark naught, froth and chaff, what hath O the Humility of this man! Wheat (so must his opinion be held) to do with chaff, as he esteemeth of Bezaes' judgement: and this his high heart and proud spirit appeareth by these usual terms: know you: understand you for your learning: know you for your humiliation: thus he writeth often in his Answer, and also in a controversy between him and Mr. Clifton: for they two are also out: and so Mr. Robinson stands singled from Mr. Clifton, and the rest with his company, all differing one from another. So, to avoid corruption, they have fallen into Babel, an oppinionate confusion. Secondly, Wilfulness, that follows the former; he contentiously His wilful obstinacy in error. maintaining any thing against an opponent, though also he will renounce any former opinion to be in a new way, but yet of his own mind; he defends, that the spit whereon the meat for the Passeover was roasted, was the Altar, and withal maketh the cross whereon Christ died the Altar: wherein he is a gross Papist, and very absurd, and Mr. Perkins upon the Creed. for his learning, let him know, that the Altar doth sanctify Mat. 23. 9 the Offering. Now then, did the Spit sanctify the Passeover? or did the wooden Cross sanctify Christ? was not the altar john. 17. 19 his Godhead, by which he did sanctify himself? Privileges and properties with him must be one without difference, because they agreed generally in aliquo tertio, they must therefore in special be one and the same; he that thinks otherwise must be derided of him: his much Logic maketh his followers, I will not say himself, mad; as in his Book of Differences is manifest. Yea, he can allow Barrowes outrages, railings and evil speeches, partly under the name of Scripture Page. 134. phrases, partly by the example of Eliah and Esay: and where the said Barrow out-rayeth from the Scripture phrase; forsooth, he supposeth, he knoweth not what particular motion of the spirit guided him so to writ: what hope is there to reduce such spirits into the quiet way with other, or to bring them to confess the errors and boisterous courses in themselves, when they will suppose God's spirit to be the author of such railing, from such intemperate affections, and so distempered a brain? Thirdly, A wretched or rather a damned conceit of us all, His cursed Uncharitableness as we stand visibly here in this public state of our Church, what profession soever we make, or practise we perform. To manifest this: as I set in my other Book, page 70. 71. Barrowes censure of all sorts together unto the view of all: So will I here do Mr. Smith's judgement of the Church of England, and all therein. First, our Constitution (saith he) is Antichristian: pa. 132. His judgement of our Constitution. and a real Idol. page 11. and so a greater and more abominable Idol, than any Idol that possibly can be in a true Church. Secondly, we in the constitution are Idolaters: page 12. What we be in his fond conceit. for first, we have (saith he) an Idol which we do worship, that is, a false Christ, page 12. which he calleth a false head, a fantastical Christ of our own devising. page 87. Secondly, we have many Idols, by or in which we worship Christ: first, a false Church: secondly, a false standing: thirdly, a false ministery: fourthly, an Idol Temple: fifthly, the Service Book: sixtly, all Ecclesiastical Officers & Courts, Parishes, Holidays, Crosses, surplices, Priests and Deacons: so many Idols (saith he) have we. Page 12. with Page 106. Thirdly, all the People are false matter of a Church, His censure of the People. Page 88 the most part being the seed of the Serpent: Page 87. that he cannot say visibly, certainly, and particularly, that any one hath faith or fear of God in the Churches of England: Page 108. and that we ourselves cannot prove to them certainly that we fear God. Page 110. Fourthly, all our Assemblies are false Churches, and What he thinks of our Assemblies. without: Page 23. 83. monstrous bodies, knit together by the spirit of Antichrist, and the spirit of Satan, unto the head Antichrist: Page 87. remain in the gilfe of Antichristianisme: Page 84. they are not gathered together by Baptism into the new Testament of Christ: they have a false Mediator. Page 117. Fiftly, our Profession is not the true Faith of Christ simply: His estimation of our Profession. Page 85. but the faith of Bishops, or Church of England: Page 117. and we make profession of a false Mediator. Sixtly, our Faith is false, devised and stinted. Page. 85. Faith. seven, our Covenant with God is a false Covenant. Covenant. Page, 85. Eightly, our Communion Antichristian: Page 132. and Communion. therefore he liketh not that they should be accounted brethren by us; and saith, he detests our Church, hath in abomination our brotherhood, utterly dislikes the brotherhood of the forwardest Preachers, and Professors, and rejects the fraternity of such as be of us extraordinarily, the rest he abiureth, Page 26. and abhorreth to call us Saints. Page 34. Ninthly, our Worship false, Page 83. a literal stinted Worship. Booke-worship, flat judaisme. Page 105. Tenthly, our Baptism and Sacraments false. Page 85. Sacraments. and 116. Eleaventhly, our Ministers they are as truly in quality What accounted he maketh of our Ministers. Antichristian Ministers, as the Romish be: Page, 81. & 46. false Ministers. page. 83. They be Antichristian convinced Heretics: page 109. they convert none to the true visible faith, taught in the new Testament of Christ: page 94. but pervert men from it, page 81. to a false repentance, false Faith, false Church, false ministery, false Worship, false Government: Page 116. they teach a false Mediator: Page 117. they baptize not into the New Testament of Christ indefinitely and simply, but respectively and indefinitely into the faith and doctrine which is taught in their stinted book of Articles: Page 85. that they do challenge at the hands of them that are Infidels and unbelievers tithes and offerings. Page 120. He saith, he dare in the true fear of the Lord, call the best of us all, a spiritual Thief and a robber: yea, a Wolf that cometh to kill, rob and to destroy. Page 101. And to conclude, that we are the instruments of Satan, sent by the Lord in his wrath, to keep the people in bondage, from the obedience of the Faith, taught in the new testament: Page 95. Twelfthly, touching our whole Church; that Christ is Of our whole Church. not our King, Page 86. nor our Priest, nor our Prophet, pag. 87. that it denieth all Christ offices: Page 87. that in a manner it hath rejected the whole doctrine of Christ's kingdom: Page 91. that it is an Idol: Page 106. a false Church, Page 106. Babylon, Egypt, Sodom, where the Lords people are held captives, and that the having of the Word, Sacraments and conversion is, but as the thief hath the true man's purse: and as the false Church of jeroboam had, and as the Samaritans, the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and the Ismaelites, had Circumcision, and the Sacrifices by usurpation: Page 26. That the Faith, Repentance, and Covenant of it is false, our Church false, the ministery of it false, the Worship false, the Baptism false, the Lords Supper false, all false. Page 116. That the difference between us and them, is more than between us and the Papists. Page 134. And lastly, that our Law doth not establish, the Prelates and Ministers do not teach, the Church of England doth not profess, the Baptiser doth not intent, the Parents and Susceptors do not consent to, and the service-book doth not mention the Faith of Christ simply, but the Faith of Bishops, or Church of England. Fourthly, Perverseness of mind, and an overthwarting His perverseness of Spirit. spirit to cross the truth, and that divers ways. First, by strange and unheard of expositions, as Mat. 24. Strange expositions of Scripture. 24. false Christ's must be false Churches, to maintain his opinion that our Church is an Idol: because (saith he) a false Church is a false Christ: So john 10. 3. The Porter must be the Church, to cross in us the work of God's spirit. So he expounds many things in the Old Testament to overthrow this truth, that the visible Church is visible of a mixed company against the truth. Secondly, by Cavils: as Heb. 13. 17. being objected to Cavils. prove that the Church is to obey her Pastors, and not the Pastors her: he answers like a Caviller thus; The Church must not yield to the voice of the Elders in every thing that they list, Page 65. which no man affirmeth. Objecting the 1. Cor. 5. 3. For Saint Paul's Apostolical authority, which was more than a Church, and more than all the Presbytery in giving the incestuous man to Satan: and also, 2. Cor. 2. 6. to prove that all did not proceed against him in rebukes: he averteth the Readers understanding from what I say, by cavilling and his idle imagination, and affirmeth that I say, tell the Church, is sometime, tell the Elders: again, tell Saint Paul, and the Lord Bishop, that one while I say, the Elders did excommunicate, and another while Saint Paul like a Lord Bishop in his Court: whether I do so cross myself (Reader) in this point, peruse my Book, see the particulars, and My Book Page 98. the scope of alleging the places, 1. Cor. 5. 3. and 2. Cor. 2. 6 and out of his absurd dealing with me, judge his handling of Scriptures. He would yet tell the Reader, what I did in my study, when I wrote my sixth reason, what books were before me: that I was then in wrath and choler enraged, & so through ignorance knew not what I did. If there were no more but this, here is sufficient to set out the pride, the folly and lewdness of this man's spirit and purpose. Pride, in his so contemptible writing and speaking of another. Folly, in telling what I did in England, and more particularly what I did in my study, in setting down one reason in my Book: whilst he in his study coined his new Baptism, to set that stamp upon his new conceits, and whilst he so played the madling at Amsterdam. And Lewdness, in shamelessly publishing his terms of reproach, out of mere imagination to disgrace another: but here it is come to pass, that in what he would have been held wise, he hath showed himself ridiculous, & by his folly exposed himself to laughter. Thirdly, By idle and very frivolous distinctions: as a Minister doth convert souls, not as a Pastor, but as a Teacher: as if a Pastor were not a Teacher, when he saith himself, they be one and the same office: here is absurdity and forgetfulness, or Unstableness in judgement. Fourthly, By most ridiculous absurd a Absurd and and beastly similes. similes, and one very beastly, by which he would set out our Church, from the mingled seed of an Horse and an Ass in generation, producing a third thing, but neither a true Horse, nor a true Ass: so is it (saith he) where good and bad persons are joined together: he mentioneth this two or three times, an Horse and an Ass, an Horse and an Ass: some man (not I) might perhaps b I acknowledge him to have both more wit, and knowledge than grace to use them. But better is Balaams' Ass, avoiding the angel's stroke, and reproving her master, than Balaam himself cursing God's people. stumble in reading, and by mistaking and contracting of an Horse and an Ass, call him hastily, a Horsene-Asse. Fiftly, By c Crafty dealing. craftily detaining from his Scholars, & from the view of the world, the labours of certain Divines opposing him and his conceits, touching the mere typical cleanness in the old Testament. He reproveth others for not answering his private letter, before publication of his errors: but he can spread his heresy, and say nothing to the reasons against it, though he had them many months before he made this answer unto me. He may pretend desire to see his errors, and may profess his willingness to disclaim them, but this truly showeth to the contrary: for he writ under his answer to those Divines, If I err, make me to understand mine error, I love the truth. They made a large Rejoinder, and writ in the end thus: We are well assured that you do err, God make you able to see it, and preserve your soul from pride and obstinacy. This their assuredness from their Rejoinder he keepeth secret, and yet holdeth obstinately his opinion, and publisheth also again without a confutation of what they have said. But mark his subscription: If I err, (saith he) make me to understand mine error, I love the truth: but he saith not that then he will forsake his errors: the leaving out of this might tell them his mind, and that their labour was but lost on him, and so is mine; but I writ not to satisfy his wilfulness, wherein I leave him, till, God remove him. Sixtly, his judgement in somethings so strange, in some He holds opinions strange, absurd, erroneous, heretical some, and Schismatical many. other things absurd; in other erronions, if not heretical, yet Schismatical: which of these, either all or but some, the Reader will lay upon his judgement for his conceits, I do not divine, but how justly I have thus written, his opinions now by him holden, & here set down doth declare. His opinions are to be considered of, as he begun, and so hath proceeded on hitherto. For the orderly setting down of them. First, As one disagreeing from us, and all reformed Mr. Smith's several out-roads, and his difference of opinions in every one of them. Churches, a johnsonean, that is, one agreeing with those of Mr. johnson and Mr. Ainsworths' Assembly, by which discord from us, and all other Churches, he became, Mr. Smith, a Brownistical Schismatic. Who in this standing, held that our Church was a false Church, our ministery a false Ministry, and what other opinions else, which I lay to their charge; & Mr. Ainsworth In the separatists Schism. maintaineth in his answer: and every other opinion held by the Separatists, he embraced as the truths of God, as his letter shows. Secondly, As differing in some points from the Brownists: for beside theirs, he added more of his own, as in all those things, where Mr. Ainsworth, in answering my Book, doth leave him to answer for himself, as none of theirs, by which his disagreement, he became, Mr. Smith, a separatistical Erronist. Who here in held. 1. That only Saints, that is, a people forsaking all known The opinions for which Mr. Ainsworth disclaimeth Mr. Smith, as no true Separatist with them. sins; of which they may be convinced, doing all the known will of God, increasing and abiding therein, are the only matter in a visible Church. 2. That the power of binding and looseing is given to the whole Church, yea to every one of them, and not to the principal members thereof. 3. That the sin of one man public and obstinately stood in, he being not reform, nor cast out, doth so pollute the whole Congregation that none may communicate with the same, in any of the holy things of God, though that Church be rightly constituted, till the party so offending be excommunicate. 4. That Baptism here is not administered into the faith of Christ simply, but into the faith of the Bishops, and Church of England. 5. That our faith and repentance is a false faith and repentance. 6. That Ministers converting men to God, do it not as Pastors, but as teachers. Thus Mr. Smith from the time of his first out-breake from us, kept no full consort with them, to whom he seemed to conjoin, but was as a jarring string to mar their music, and to make it, by God's providence, at the length untunable, that others might not be enticed with the seeming melody thereof, to the unskilful ear. Thirdly, as one differing so far from the Separatists, as he would have no communion with them, by which he became, Mr. Smith The Schismatical Separatist. Who then held, 1 * In his Book of differences, see the Contents, & pages. Pag. 4. That the reading out of a book is no part of spiritual worship, but the invention of the man of sin. 2 That books and writings are in the nature of pictures or images, and therefore in the nature of Ceremonies, and so by consequent, the reading of a book is ceremonial: For as the Beast in the sacrifices of the old Testament was ceremonial, so was the kill of the Beast ceremonial. Pag. 6. 3 That holy Scriptures are not to be retained as helps before the eyes in time of Spiritual worship. Pag. 6. 4 That it is unlawful to have the book before the eyes in singing of a Psalm. Pag. 24. 5 That the Presbytery of the Church is uniform, and that the triformed Presbytery, consisting of three kinds, Pastors, Teachers, and Elders, is none of God's ordinance, but Antichristian, and the image of the Beast. Pag. 28. of the Church treasure. 6. That the contribution of such as be without, (if they will give any thing) must be separated from that which themselves give. Many things else in his Book of differences are set down, which he taught in this Schismatical Separatisme. Fourthly, As one falling to Anabaptisme, leaving all Churches for that way, and entering thereinto by baptiseing of himself, whereby he is become, Mr. Smith the anabaptistical Se-baptist. The opinions at this present held of him (if he be not changed in this month, since his book came over) may be gathered: Partly by his strange Act, which showeth: First, That our Baptism, and that of the Reformed Churches, yea, and the Baptism of the Separatists is false Baptism, because he was baptized again. Secondly, that true Baptism was no where to be had lawfully: because he did baptize himself. Thirdly, that in this case he might baptize himself, and so his Church be a pure Church, whence men may fetch true baptism, but lawfully belike no where else. Woeful premises, miserable conclusion: error and arrogancy void of true charity. Partly, by his answer unto me, wherein he teacheth these things. 1 That most properly an Idol is contrary to any ordinance appointed by God in matter of religion. page 11. 2 That a falsely constituted Church is a real political Idol. page 12. 3 That a falsely constituted Church, is a greater and more What, a greater and more abomination, than the golden Calf among the Israelites? or the abominable Idols which Solomon set up for his strange wives? abominable Idol, than any Idol that can possibly be in a true Church. page. 14. 4 That a false ministery, Worship, and Government may be in a true Church, but not a true Ministry, Worship and Government in a false Church. page. 14. He sets out this by a Simile: A true man may have a wooden leg, and an eye of glass: so a true Church, a false ministery, Worship and Government. A wooden man cannot have any truth of a man in him, but all in him is wooden; so a false Church can have no thing true in it, page 15. 5 That a true Church is better than a true Worship, ministery and Government; and a false Church worse, than a false Worship, ministery and Government. page 15. 6 That the visible Church truly constituted is the only kingdom of Christ. page 16. and such as be not of it are no subjects of Christ's kingdom. page 15. 7 That the visible Church is not only the outward Communion, but especially and chief the inward and spiritual fellowship, which the Saints have with Christ, and one with another. page 21. 8 That true faith professed in the true Church, is not a thing invisible, but visible and sensible. page 17. 9 That a man separated from false Churches, and professing the visible Faith of the true Church, may be yet of it, though for corruption he hold it unlawful to join unto it: And that a man may be of a true constituted Church, and not of a particular constituted Church. page 17. 10 That hypocrites are no true members of the visible Church. page 28. 11 That such a one as may forsake all known sin, doth all the known will of God, groweth in knowledge and grace, and continueth to the end, may be an Hypocrite, and before the Lord be damned. Page 28. 12 That Stephen was a true member of the visible church, but what Stephen was in the Lord's counsel doth not appertain unto us. page 29. 13 That in the constitution of the jewish Church, there was not required true holiness. pag. 30. The heresy of servetus that Heretic. 14 That the worship of that Church began outward in the letter, and proceeded inwardly to the spirit: ours beginneth at the spirit, and proceedeth to the letter. page 31. Their real or moral wickedness did not pollute their visible Communion, but only ceremonial uncleanness. page 30. The sons of Belial very wild wicked men were visibly clean, then typically, they might come to the holy things, and not pollute others. page 75. 74. Our moral and spiritual uncleanness polluteth us visibly. They sacrificed and worshipped to repentance; we from repentance: their Worship was reconciliation and repentance to acceptation; but our Worship after repentance, reconciliation and acceptation. page 30. 15 That in the time of the Law, a Saint was a Typical Saint; so an Hypocrite was a Typical Hypocrite, and a wicked man was a Typical wicked man. page 30. 16 That the power of binding and losing is given to Mary Magdalene and Cleophas, jointly with the rest of Christ's Disciples, page 52. and by Disciples he understands every brother. page 38. 17 That if the power of binding and losing be not given to the whole Multitude, but to the principal members, than he acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and to have a true ministery, and that what he and his, with all the Separatists hold, is Schism and Heresy. page 40. 18 That the acknowledging of our Minister's ordination, to be by the Romish Bishops, is a justifying of Rome to be a true Church; their sacrificing Priesthood a true ministery; Order a true Sacrament; their Mass to be a true Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead, etc. page 45. 19 That the twelve were not Apostles, before the holy Ghost descended upon them at Pentecost. Page. 55. 57 20 That it may be a question, whether the Church, the multitude, may not administer the Sacraments before there be officers among them. page 56. 21 That the Church, that is, the multitude, and not the ministery, is the true successor of the Apostles. page 57 22 That Women and Youths may show their dissent in the public congregation in election of Officers, or in excommunication: and (he saith) that sometime occasion may be, that the Church may consist only of Women. page 63. 23 That in the old Testament, the Magistrates were the utmost means for reforming abuses, and if they neglected their duty, the people were not to separate, but to depend upon the Lords redressing: but now the Saints are answerable to the This is against his majesties Supremacy. Kings then, and have the power Ecclesiastical in their hands, to reform the abuses in the Church. pa. 76. I hope that his poor misled Scholars are not of this judgement. 24 That whosoever doth convert any from Antichristianisme, and establisheth a people in the true faith, performeth that work, either as a Minister of Antichrist, or as an Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist of Christ, or as a private man. pa. 98. 25 That the Heart is the spiritual book of the New Testament. page 105. 26 That the letter was a type of the spirit. page 104. 27 That though we preach the true word, administer the true Sacraments, and pray true Prayer, these cannot be true Worship, offered up unto God in a false church. page 106. 28 That he which is chosen by good and bad, is no true Minister: page 110. and yet that a mixed company may appoint one to preach the Word unto them. page 111. 29 That among the Antichristan Papists and Heretics, there is true conceived prayer, preaching and thanksgiving. pa. 103. 30 That literal stinted Booke-worship is flat judaisme. page 105. These interlaced opinions in his answer, scattered here and there occasionally, leaving the principals in controversy, till I come to reply upon his answer, I have set down, that this man's brain, a Smith's forge for casting new devices and strange opinions, may be beholden, the ill use of his wit, and Satan's abusing of him, as his instrument, to carry away silly souls, God knows whither: but undoubtedly to ruin, except the Lord's mercy prevent him; which I hearty desire, partly for his own good, and also for the recovery of poor Lambs scattered abroad, and taught still by him to wander and go astray. But to proceed to more fruits of his spirit after the flesh. Seventhly, his praising and lauding of themselves, with dispraise of others: for he saith; That their Faith is visible, Repentance visible, their Charity visible, their Spirit visible, so their Baptism, Preaching, Covenant and judgement are visible, and so forth, page 118. That they have foiled the Oxeford Doctors, Mr. Hildersham, Mr. jacob, Mr. Bredwell, and Mr. Giffard. page 124. That the Prelates and Church of England hath one Faith; the Puritans and their faction another; and Christ (saith he) and They a third: thus he slanderously maketh a differing faith where it is not, and proudly affirmeth Christ only to themselves, and secludeth others from him. page 116. If Christ be only with them, and the faith of Christ, then only in their assembly, and to be of them is salvation, and not otherwise; can the proud Antichristian Church, or rather Synagogue of Satan claim more, and boast more loftily Lucifer-like? Weigh and give judgement. A worthy fruit of Brownisme: Is this a spirit of temperance, or of fury? Eightly, and lastly, his wild abusive terms, his railing speeches, and lewd belying of me. He layeth to my charge, deep Hypocrisy, pretence of Zeal, Inconstancy, Apostasy, blasphemous Uncharitableness, horrible Impiety, Blasphemy, childish Ignorance and Folly, monstrous Fraud, abominable Dissembling, shameless Lying, Arrogancy, Pride, & Ambition in my carriage, boisterous and robustious Disposition, Perverseness of spirit. He telleth me of a bloody mind, that I hunt after their souls, that poison is under my tongue, that I do raise up false expositions, wrack the text to support Heresy, thereby making the Scriptures a leaden Rule to my crooked conceits, and a nose of wax to be wrung, which way my perverse apprehension doth incline. He calleth me in a base contempt, a sworn slave to the His Brownistical spirit, a Satanical railing. His anabaptistical Rhetoric. Prelates, a pharisaical hypocrite, in the indifferent judgement of those that love me best, a wrangler; he attacheth me before the Lord, as a deceiver of the people, to be a most ignorant shameless perverter, and false Interpreter of the Scriptures, he termeth me an ignorant Slanderer, or subtle adversary to do them hurt, touching their lives. He saith I am strangely seduced by Satan; he proclaimeth me (so he writes) to the whole Land, to be one of the most fearful Apostates of the whole Nation, some few only excepted: he saith, the Devil is my father, and compareth me to a Dog returned to his vomit, and a Swine to his wallowing in the mire. And then concludeth upon me and others, that I am manifested by the Lord to be one, that hath fulfilled the measure of my iniquity, & that such as have been enlightened with their way, & now do quench it, shall grow from evil to worse, & shall have God's hand against them, so as every one shall say, the Lord is avenged on you. He speaketh against me most untruly in private matters touching a greedy desire of livings: wherein I appeal to every honest heart that knoweth me, and to those that are acquainted with the instances he giveth. He saith, that I also approved their way: and yet he knows, that I gave him certain reasons against the same, which he sent back without answer. For his expounding Daniel, and the Speech of Naaman, so against me, he showeth neither fear to Godward, nor love to man. But to these by-matters in his Letter, have I made answer at large: and before the printing of my former Book, had I it ready, which yet I reserved to myself, as some know, thinking it to no purpose so to contend with him, and supposing he would not have been so shameless, as to set out to the world a private Letter of the private matters of such a nature, and lies too. But saith he, I did first publish his Letter; this is untrue: he hereby would save his credit, and blame me, to keep himself from shame. My Answer to his Bymatter, in his Letter, is five sheets of Paper, too much here to set down, but if any be desirous to see it, I will not now (as afore) be sparing of it. The matter of his Letter concerning his opinions I did publish, as by them better understanding the Separatists errors, than before; which opinions I thought fit to make known, and so rather to object against them, for more evidence of truth, than withal to make answer to private reasons for them, which might afterwards be disclaimed, till the defence of them came public, as now it is. In one place of his book page 119 he accuseth me of a disgraceful and hateful intendment towards them, in not publishing their opinion touching Magistrates, and thereupon blustereth out a Proclamation of Loyalty: saying, that they and others are as faithful, as the best Prelate of England, and that the more Pope-like they are, the more traitorous they will prove unto the civil Magistrate, and if they be let alone, they with the Pope at the length will take upon them: Petrus dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho: and 'cause the Emperor to hold the stirrup, Thus can he not justify his own innocency herein, if so be he be innocent, but he must needs wrongfully tax others in a high degree of traitorous aspire. Sithen he hath called me to speak in this matter, I confess in civil respect he * As a Brownist, but what he doth now as an Anabaptist is to be in this point inquired into. giveth to Princes all just due: but I say, all that he hath said, giveth them no way, a cheiftie in causes Ecclesiastical, as a member of the Church, & therein over it next under Christ, which is the matter between him & me: and for this, Reader, examine his 23. position before mentioned, and thereby judge to whom he giveth kingly power in causes Ecclesiastical. If this bite, let him blame himself for barking. I wish his followers to consider this, to prevent the danger which must necessarily follow. Thus have I, Reader, as in a glass, even out of his own works and words, set before thee the spirit of Mr. Smith, not of malice, but of love to the Seduced, to reduce them, to forewarn others of him, and if God will, that he may see himself, if with patience he can but read these things. His profession is to avoid all pollution, to flee all corruption, but his work showeth, that he understands it of others, and still remaineth corrupt in himself. Let my former Book be searched through, & see whether I so deal with him, so term him, so scorn him, so rail on him, as he here doth of me: if I do not, then judge of his pretended sanctity, by such fruit of impiety. The Lord reduce him to a right way, and rebuke Satan that seeketh to devour. If I happily, Reader, by occasion slip now and then in this Reply: by any overthwart term, thou mayest blame me, but not much; thinkest thou not that I have just cause to be tart? He commendeth his sharpness to me as physical, to vomit my choler, and to cast up ill humours, so he saith: let it please him to take my tartness in words, upon the like commendation, even for some sharp effectual ingredients, to give him a purge for his loathsome opinions, which make him sick to death, that so he may recover health, and return back from Se-baptisme to Brownisme, from Brownisme to Reformatisme, and abide in Protestancy: and what if he be a religious Conformitant, must he needs fall to Papistry? God forbidden. Mr. Smith, let me turn my speech unto you: remember yourself, pity yourself in the Lord, if not yourself, other poor and simple hearted Christians miscarrying in judgement, undone in their outward estates through you. Consider what discord is among you, how God in his justice hath divided you, that you are not of one heart among yourselves, that you run on from all, to all, and yet hold with none: is not this extreme singularity? but you glory in this your great weakness, you esteem it your credit: O, let others judge of you, & rest not in your good liking of yourself. Think it as much credit to come again to your old way, as you hold it credit to go on and on from one Sect to another, you well know not whither. If you intent first to see all religions (as a resolute travailer) all countries, before you return, it is another matter: yet I wish it otherwise, & you with us before, if not till then, yet if then, though not before; we shall be glad to see it, and in the mean space pray for it. Now to the reply. A CONJOINT REPLY both to Mr. Ainsworth, and to Mr. Smiths Answer unto my Book, called the Separatists Schism. The first Probability or Likelihood, that their way The first Likelihood, that the way of the Separatists is not good. of Separation is not good, nor to be approved, Is the novelty thereof, differing from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendom. IN my former Book, Page 21. First I show, why I made this my first Probability, whereto Mr. Ainsworth saith nothing: he happily thought my words idle, as his own be, and that I did run into bymatter, when he either doth not, or will not understand me. This Likelihood, I set down to prevent, what I observed, did endamage the Why this Likelihood was propounded. misleading of the people. Mr. Smith and others, urged the Reformation in other Churches, and lay that as a bait to catch silly fishes, and went about to persuade the people, that the way of the Separation, and other Church's reformation was all one; which is untrue. Which if it had so been, nevertheless the Separation from us is not good. First, saith Mr. Smith, now they be unnatural children for His Book of differences and Character. their Separation, and their way also an Antichristian way. Secondly, It is plain that the Scripture teacheth no Separation from a true Church, with condemnation of it, as a false Church. Thirdly, no example in Scripture given of any separating from true Churches for corruptions; but either for gross Idolatry, visible Pictures set up to be worshipped, as among the Israelites; or for open blasphemy against Christ's very Person. Act. 19 9 Secondly, I showed how their way was Novelty, in differing How the Separatists way is novelty. not only from us, but also from all reformed Churches, to set forth that singular difference was the drift of my whole book, as also to show that that singularity is Novelty: which scope, both those Answerers either not perceiving, The Scope of my former Book. or not regarding (albeit in the Epistle to the Reader, I admonished them of it,) they trifle in answering: Mr. Ainsworth also beating withal and hammering upon his old They dare not set out their singular course by itself, but overshadowes it with other things to deceive the simple. staff, which I purposely avoided, to bring them to give answer unto the singularity of their way, differing from other Churches as well as from ours, that so the newness of their way, might be of all discerned plainly. Thirdly, I proved that they * They differ from all the reformed Churches. differed from the reformed churches: first, by not joining with them: secondly, by Barrows railing on their manner of government, and he also approved herein by these Brownists now living: thirdly, I also add the Excommunicating of such as go but to hear sometime the Ministers of the reformed Churches, if they were so minded to continued. To this Mr. Ainsworth saith little: Mr. Smith (who deceived the people with a pretending of agreement with Reformed Churches) nothing at all. Lastly, I concluded therefore this section from the first It is levity, dangerous and proud presumption, hastily to entertain that way. probability, that it was both Levity, dangerous, and proud Presumption to entertain that way so suddenly, as they do which go into it: the reasons of all three are set down: of which these two Answerers speak not a word. If this be to Answer sound, and thou Reader, so judge, I do commend thee over to Brownisme, as one fit to run of affection, then guided by judgement, to do what thou dost with laudable discretion. These two Champions mock at my likelihoods; but ere I conclude, they shall find them of more moment, then to be laughed out of countenance, and hereby themselves caused to change colour with shame of their own folly. A Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 153. this first Probability. Answer. He answers, first, generally, and would overthrow all my likelihoods, and make them unlikely, and he thus reasoneth: If such likelihoods as these have been objected by the Papists, against the Church of England: and the Heathen enemies the like against the Church of Christ, with as much colour and truth, as now these same be objected against them, then are all the likelihoods unlikely. But the former is true, to wit, the Papists and Heathen objecting the like likelihoods, the one against the Church of England; the other against the Church of Christ, and with as much colour and truth as these be objected against them. Therefore are all my likelihoods unlikely. Reply. The Latter part of the Mayor follows not, except the likelihoods be all one: it is not enough to have such like, but the same: for things not the same, but like, are not so every way like, but that there is some difference to discern one from another, which difference may force a differing conclusion. The Minor is most false, and set down without any proof from him: In this he justifieth the wicked words of Heathenish & of Antichristian enemies against the Church of Christ, against his Mother, to grace him and themselves for strength in error. Had the Heathen as much colour and truth, to condemn Christ's Church, and the Papists us of Novelty, Schism, etc. as we have herein to condemn you? Mr Ainsworth either bring good proof for this, else men will condemn you as foolish and forlorn, and that deservedly. Secondly, he answers particularly to the Likelihood after his discoursing manner, and would free themselves from Novelty. First, because Kelison the Papist, would bring the Reformed His first reason why their way is not Novelty. Churches within the compass of Novelty, which they seek to remove by looking for antiquity by the Scriptures. Answer. Belike he reasoneth thus; If we do remove the Papists imputation of Novelties from us by the Scriptures, proving Though the Papists cannot justly condemn us of Novelty, yet may we condemn these Separatists of Novelty. our antiquity, then do they the same also. This consequence rests yet to be proved by Mr. Ainsworth. Will it follow because we can free ourselves from Novelty against the Papists, (between whom and us, is evident matters of difference plainly recorded in Scripture, and wherein we with the Reformed Churches, do accord fully against them) that therefore the Separatists can acquit themselves of Novelty, whose conceits (wherein they differ from Reformed Churches, in this matter of Separation) are strange from the Scriptures, and unheard of in Orthodoxal Churches? Let him defend the singularity of their way from reformed Churches, and their own so standing from Novelty, and Mr. Ainsworths' tax to be performed. then doth he writ to the purpose: but herein is he and all of them mute; he thought belike that the very naming of Scriptures would manage their Separation, and fray the simple from condemning them of Novelty. Secondly, (saith he) If it be Novelty to differ from the reformed His second reason. churches, than the Church of England is to be blamed, because it differs in many things from them, etc. Answer. First, what is this to the purpose for clearing themselves? it seemeth this Answerer is content to be killed himself, so that he may run an other thorough with the same sword. A guilty party to accuse another of that whereof he is faulty, saveth not his own honesty, but he is still one and the same. Secondly, I do not mean, that to differ in some or more things, any way from the reformed Churches, (as it seemeth he taketh my words) is matter of Novelty, but first, such What differences make Novelty. differences, as the word doth not warrant, neither any Orthodoxal Churches have ever practised, nor any approved Histories made mention of, in and from the Apostles times hitherto: but have been only among schismatics, these differences are Novelty: such are not our differences from Only schismatics have so separated themselves from churches, as these do from us. the reformed Churches: but yours (Mr. Ainsworth.) Show us, what approved true Church of God ever used your course of Separation, from such Churches as you separate from, for the same causes: bring forth your Records and Stories of times for it: if you attempt it, you shall find yourselves of kin to Lucifer, Donatus, Andius, Schismatics first, & afterwards Heretics: if you boast of Scripture it's vain boasting, for it helps you not; it approveth a Separation, but not your Separation upon such grounds, as you forsake now all Churches for: If you have faith in this point, and truth in you at all, quote any practical place of example for Separation, and let the world see, if you be able to show it, your separating from all Churches now, only so, and no otherwise; if you cannot manifest this, cease to trouble God's Churches with your Novelty any longer. Again, I understand such differences, as unjustly 'cause the Authors thereof, to make a division from the Churches of God, to rend in sunder brotherhood from the true people of God. But such is not our differences with reformed Churches, for they do acknowledge us Brethrens, & do give us the right hand of fellowship, as a true Church of God with them, they accounted not us either Antichristian, or false Churches, but we hear them: and they us, as occasion serves in the several congregations. Yea, which is more, Reverend Beza, and Learned saddle, In their Epistle to the Lord Archbishop. Septemb. 15. Anno. 1589. Letter. Mar. 8. Anno. 1591. do give our chief Church Governors honourable titles, and style the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury thus: To the most reverend man and Father in Christ, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Counsellor to the Queen's Majesty, Primate of all England. And Beza saith thus to him, my Reverend Lord, and speaketh much to clear him, and the whole Church with him, of suspicion of arrogancy, as he calleth it, if they should accounted otherwise of them (he meaneth our Bishops) than their godliness, and dignity, and mutual brotherhood doth require, so far off is that Church of Geneva, from making division from us, for this cause for which the Separatists so much condemn us. In the conclusion of his answer to this first Probability, His Answer. he blameth me for standing upon the hard words which some of them have uttered against the Presbytery, and tells me, (if I had not a partial and evil eye) I might have seen many more hard, and reproachful terms used by some of us against the same, etc. Reply. Still (mark Reader) that this Answerer doth not clear himself, but accuseth us to be guilty with him, a miserable defence of himself: they are Novelists, his defence is, so are we: they are Railers, his defence is, we do rail also. If he clear himself thus, then belike he disputeth after this manner: If the Church of England be in some things Novelists, and See the vanity of his own reason. some of them do give hard words of the Presbytery, and accuse us to be Novelists and Reprochers of the Presbytery: then are we no Novelists nor Reprochers of the Presbytery. But (saith he) in some things the Church of England are Novelists: and some of them use Railing speeches against the Presbytery. Therefore are we no Novelists, nor Railers of the Presbytery. Our Church useth no railing speeches against the Presbytery, but those of most eminent note among us who have written against it, use reverend speeches of the chief supporters thereof, and if any particular persons of our Church have been over sharp in their invectives against the Presbyterians, I am not to justify every particular man's proceeding herein. I acknowledge Reproachful terms become none, the devil may not be railed upon: and therefore Mr. Barrowes outrage herein is detestable, though you cannot find him worthy of reproof: and yet doth he rail upon the Presbyterians. You approve the Reformed Churches constitution, you will be also in it, pretend it to the simple, and yet rail upon them, and speak evil of that you allow, because every way they square not to your Rule. Your weapon still sticks (Mr. Ainsworth) in your own bowels: all you have said, hath not pulled out of your sides yet my thrown dart of Probability, that your way is Novelty. A Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to Page 125. this first Likelihood. THis man in his answer to them, frameth forms of my supposed Reasoning, only to make my Likelihood (to the simple Reader) frivolous, but he neither frameth my Arguments right, neither overthroweth them, whilst he would show in me folly, he very much therein befooleth himself. He frameth my first Likelihood thus: Answer. Novelty is not the truth: the Separation is Novelty. Ergo not the truth. Reply. He taketh the Mayor for granted, as he may well, for all divine truth is Antiquity: though for the manifestation of some particulars thereof it may seem to be new. The Minor he would deny, for that I might so condemn (saith he) Luther and Caluins' opinions, because they were new, and so commend Popery, which had a thousand years prescription against Caluin. But his consequence follows not, and it is also untrue which he saith, that Caluins' opinions were new. For Histories show, that the Protestants opinions have been maintained from time to time against the Papists, till Luther's days, and the prescription of a thousand years, were only the dark time of Antichristianisme, overshadowing the clear light of Caluins, or rather Gods truth, which shone in the Churches Apostolical, and in the times after, till Antichrist arose and prevailed. Again he erreth; First, in making new opinions & Novelties New, and Novelty, are not one. all one, when Opinions may be called new, in respect either of late manifestation, or recalling of them again to mind, which were utterly forgotten, and yet be ancient truths: but Novelty is never truth, as ever contrary to true Antiquity. Secondly, by supposing that I take Novelty to be the publishing of true opinions a fresh, after they have some long time been hid, which is far from my thought. But Novelty is that, which is contrary to the truth, and true Antiquity, where and whensoever it be set abroach: and this I affirm their way to be, and thus I frame the reason: The Separatists way is Novelty. That which is contrary to the truth and true Antiquity, is Novelty. But the singular way of the Separatists, from all the Churches, is contrary to truth and true Antiquity. And therefore it is Novelty. The Minor will appear to be true, if men will weed out their differing way from all Churches, and show that way distinctly from the same, and try it by Scripture, and true Antiquities, they shall find it not practised in, or by any true Church of God. And thus we see that his framed Reason is against himself, though he made it against me, and to show therein my simplicity, which he saith he pitieth in me. But in deed he frameth not my Reason aright, as every understanding Reader shall judge, which therefore I thus set down: And let me see what both the former Separatist, and this strange Se-baptist, Se-baptist. withal their best Associates, can say to the same. Such a Novelty devised in divine matters, as causeth a difference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendom, is likely not to be the good way of God. But the way of the Separation, is such a Novelty as causeth a difference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendom. And therefore the way is likely not to be the good way of God. That it is a Likelihood cannot be denied. First, because Likely reasons that their way is Novelty. New ways from all Churches, are a probable conjecture of affected singularity, & also contempt of other Churches, and therefore likely not to be good. Secondly, because the holy Scripture commendeth the good way of God, from the Antiquity of it, to be the old way. jer. 6. 16. Deut. 32. 7. And therefore a new course from all other, affords a likelihood against it not to be the good way. Thirdly, because the word commendeth to us the custom of God's Churches. 1. Cor. 11. 16. and therefore it is a Likelihood, that a new way which overthrows the Custom, and breaketh peace with all God's Churches is not the good way. Can it be less than a Likelihood to be in a new differing way from all? The Minor is granted of them, and proved here before, and in my other Book against them. Is it not likely then that their way is not the good way of God? Now Mr. Smith, pity not me, but lament your own instability and folly. Make hereafter your own Arguments, let me frame mine own. Your labour shall be rewarded with small thanks at my hand. You offer me a counterfeit weapon, and too blunt to cut: give me leave to make mine own, I can set an edge upon it to smite with, though you think far otherwise. Be not too highly conceited of yourself, yield to truth, and study to be quiet, & endeavour as much to see your own errors in running on, as you gave yourself to find out corruptions whilst you were here: be indifferent, and we doubt not of your return from yourself, as some now be returned from you: blessed be God. The second Likelihood. THeir way singled from all Churches agreeth so much with The second Likelihood of the evil of their way. the Ancient schismatics, condemned in former ages, by holy and learned men. This is set down in my other Book: and I showed, first, The sum of that which is in my former what Ancient schismatics I meant: secondly, by way of prevention, I showed the good things in those Schismatics, by which they were not inferior, to these now, in any commendable Book touching this likelihood. Page 24. good in them. Thirdly, I noted wherein they were Schismatics, not in their Heresies, the fruit of their Shisme, whereinto they after fell, but for separating themselves from true Churches, with condemnation for some corruptions, and holding themselves the only pure Churches: So through pride, contention, and hatred of other men, without charity, and meekness of spirit they, as these do now, upon the same causes, broke out from all Churches, and became schismatics. Herein have I showed that their Schism did stand in my former Book. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this. Page 155. Reply. THis Answerer, first saith, that I do not name any agreement of them with the old Schismatics, but that I do only quote Mr. Gifford in the margin to prove it. This Doctor cannot see the wood for the trees, this which I have said may now show it him. I cannot writ against him a Book, and find him eyes too, to see into it. Was it his ignorance or carelessness, or both? he despised my labour, and therefore he oversaw, what others may see there plainly set down. That which was first set down by way of prevention, darkened his sight, that he beheld not the rest following, nor answered the first. Yet if he think that my reasons prove them no schismatics, or that the Ancient schismatics were not such, for the forenamed causes; let them, to clear this point, set down truly by the Word, what is properly a Schism in the Church: who are Shismatickes: wherein was the Schism of former Schismatics: & why the Ancient Churches did condemn And us, Donatus, and others for schismatics. Epiphanius doth speak otherwise Heres. 70. much good of Andius, to be one upright in life, in faith, and full of zeal towards God, and yet held a Schismatic. So Optatus, speaking of Donatists', saith; we believe and Lib. 3. teach the same things, we are baptized, and do baptize after one sort; yet for dividing themselves from other churches were Schismatics: from whose judgement I thus reason: Those, though otherwise never so godly, that separate from Who are schismatics by the judgement of ancient Churches. true Churches, like Novatus and Lucifer, for a stricter course of discipline; like Donatus for some bad ones in the Church, as they supposed; like Andius for some lesser corruptions & abuses, they be schismatics. This is the judgement of ancient Book transl. page 35. Churches, for which see at large, Morneus, de Ecclesia. But our late Separatists do divide themselves from us upon like grounds: for a more strict discipline with Novatus, and Lucifer; for that good and bad are mixed together, with Donatus; and from lesser corruptions among us with Andius. Therefore are these also schismatics. This is also learned Zanchius judgement, and Saint Augustine's Zanch. lib. de Ecclesia. opinion is, that they who do break the bond of Fellowship are schismatics. Zanchie setteth down what a In Esai cap 2. ver. 3 pag. 119. 120. Schism is, where are schismatics, with the reasons they pretend, as just causes of separation, and thus he writeth: There is (saith he) a departing and falling away in Charity, and the Simbols of Charity, that is, in the receiving of the Sacraments, partaking of public Prayers, in the collection of the Alms of the Church, and other such like Ecclesiastical exercises; to wit, when any man, albeit he doth agreed with the rest of the Church of Christ, in the chief heads of Christian doctrine, nevertheless I know not for what light causes (saith he) he withdraweth himself from the rest of the Church, will not communicate with it in the Sacraments. Such are called (saith he) by a proper word, Schismatics, and such a departure What Schism is. Schism, as one should say, a cutting off, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for that they cut in sunder the unity of the Church, by this their departing, and as also, saith Augustine, under the colour of faith, they break in sunder the bond of fellowship. The causes (saith he) which schismatics pretend when Page. 121. 122. Five causes pretended for Separation by Schismatics. they withdraw themselves from the communion of the Church, are five: Some difference in doctrine; variety of Ceremonies and Rites; some vices of the Ministers; the more lewd life of them that live in the Church; and the coming of all sorts, hand over head, to the Supper of the Lord: all which he proveth to be no lawful causes to forsake a Church of Christ, from the page 122. to 133. And jest any should object the want of Ecclesiastical discipline in a Church to be a sufficient cause to make a Separation, in Page 224. he saith: Though Princes and Magistrates will not let Ecclesiastical discipline be restored into the Churches under them, yet may not we forsake that Church for that cause: Read this worthy learned man: he may give any man, not wilfully forestalled, sufficient satisfaction; he doth not only give barely his judgement, but sets down his reasons, and answers objections. For this see also calvin's judgement in his Institutions. lib. 4. and on Psal 26. 5. Answer. Secondly, for Answer, Mr. Ainsworth saith, that this Likelihood is an objection of the Papists; and look what we can say for ourselves against the Papists in this Point, the same also will as well, if not better, clear them against us. Reply. This Answerer saith of me, page 163. that I make a woeful Objection, and am rather to be pitied, then answered in my idle (as he supposeth) Repetitions: for which, he some two or three times taxeth me, but by an utter mistaking. Would not any think that he should be free of that which he condemneth in another? and yet what he judgeth in me lamentable, in him is pitifully miserable. He is altogether idle in often objecting the Papists to us, before, now here, and after in the next answer of his: and as frivolous, as idle. Is this a good Reason, the Papists hold us schismatics, but falsely; therefore may not we accounted them schismatics, and that truly? The Reason is good (saith he) for that they are not more truly condemned of us for schismatics, than we be so judged by the Papists: because our defence against the Papists, is the same for them against us. How vain is this man's imagination, to think that we can say nothing for our departing from the Romish Synagogue of Satan, but that the same will clear them as well, if not better, for separating from us. A pitiful Doctor truly, that believeth and teacheth his Scholars in this sort. But let him know, and all his associates, that we forsake not the Church of Rome, for that they are not in a true Constitution, or for external Government, We forsake not Rome for the same causes, for which the Separatists do forsake us. simply considered, or for some light Ceremonies, or for set Prayer, and for the Church maintenance by Tithes, or for commixture of bad with good, or for defects of a Church not fundamental, or for corruptions of a less nature, as these men do from us, without all warrant from the word: Except they will with Mr. Smith, expound the old Testament after his fantasy, and so become Anabaptists. But we leave (as the Levites did the ten Tribes in jeroboams Why we departed from the Church of Rome. time) the Church of Rome: first, because the head of that Church, is the very grand Antichrist, the man of sin. Secondly, because it hath a false word, for Canon of faith; their forged unwritten verities, and human traditions, equalized with the holy Scriptures. Thirdly, because they have not, neither do allow the Word of God so much as to be read in a known tongue, or to be had privately so in the people's hands. Fourthly, because they make Ecclesiastical Laws, and impose them as the divine pleasure and will of God, upon men's consciences, to be done, as true worship to God. Fiftly, because they have many false Sacraments. Sixtly, because they do commit gross Idolatry to stocks and stones, their worship is all in an unknown tongue. seven, because they do teach most damnable Heresies, as necessary doctrines of faith and salvation, of which see for many Doctor Willets Sinopsis, and for one and twenty specials in Mr. Parkins Reformed Catholic. Not one of these in our Church, but all of them, are detested in word and deed, as all of the Devil, and his grand Son, the man of sin, Antichrist, and are all evidently and plainly condemned of us, as being against God's word in the old and new Testament. Now (Mr. Ainsworth) if these will as well, or better, clear you from Schismatical Separating from them, as they do us, in just Separating from them, then must you prove these self same to be in our Churches, for which Mr. Ainsworth, an intolerable abuser of the Church of England, except he can prove what he saith. you so departed from us, else have you in this your answer spoken very unadvisedly, I might truly, say, most slanderously. If you attempt to make the silly Creatures misled by you, to believe that either these or the like in equal Evil, is in our Church maintained and practised, thereby to maintain your Separation, as lawful from us, as ours is from Rome, you are worthy of that which you deserve. Thirdly, and lastly in his Answer, as he foolishly would clear himself from Schism, by our Chuches' departure from Rome: so would he make me a Schismatic in the Church of England. He blameth me in his first Fore-speech, as one rather offensive to others, then defensive for ourselves, and what is he (judge Reader) in his Answer to these Probabilities? doth he clear himself from Schism? or doth he not only rather seek to make others as bad as himself? He is a miserable Physician, that would suck out like corruption (if any such were) from others, as he and his are infected with all, to cure themselves. What if our Church were in Schism, and myself a Schismatic? to find us out to be like himself, is he and his the less sinful? but the folly of such Reasoning in this Doctor is before discovered. Touching the Covenant pretended, so he calleh it, because he understandeth, that it was not for them: thus may I say: Mr. Smith taught, that a true Church should make a We are a people in covenant with God, and have renewed our covenant also. covenant with God, and when they fall, renew the same again: he denied us so to have done, but I showed the contrary. As first, that we had covenanted all of us by Baptism, when we were thereby received into the Church. This covenant, after we were come to years of discretion, and admitted to the other Sacrament, we did renew, and still so do, at that time, which is manifest from the order established The Book of Common prayer setteth down an orderly and an Apostolical proceeding to receive the Lords Supper. in the Administration of the Lords Supper; wherein three things are performed. First, an Exhortation is made by the Minister, to the Congregation to repent of sin, to bewail their estate: if any have done amiss in any thing, he forewarneth them not to come to that holy Table. Secondly, the Minister inviteth the repentant, whose properties he setteth down, and how they aught to come: Namely, first, with true and earnest Repentance towards God: secondly, with love and Charity towards their neighbours: thirdly, with an intent to lead a new life, following the commandments of Almighty God: & fourthly, with a purpose from thence forth to walk in his holy ways. Thirdly after all this, the people freely do offer themselves and do make a general Confession voluntarily, with one voice & consent: in which, they first do confess their sin: secondly, crave pardon: thirdly profess amendment, with a desire to continued in well doing ever after; whence I thus Reason: The Churches which voluntarily, after admonition given, The reason framed to prove our Covenant renewed with God. do come, and make open confession of sin, crave pardon; promise' amendment ever after: they do visibly renew their covenant with God. I say visibly, for who at that time can judge the heart, but God alone? And what is the renewing of the Covenant What is the renewing of the covenant. with God, but this? viz. the acknowledgement of sin after the offence committed, craving of pardon, and promising amendment? the performance of the thing after, is the declaration of the truth thereof, which for the present is not seen. But our Parish Churches, both have done, and do so, even as often as they do receive the Lords Supper. The Proof of this is our common practice, set down in the Common prayer Book. And therefore our Parish Churches, have reneved their Covenant with God. And then these of the Separation for want of this, cannot condemn us: as I did show at the receiving of the Sacrament, upon the occasion afore named: and this is that covenant pretended, saith he, and not intended, say I, at all to further them; whatsoever some ignorantly, other maliciously, have imagined to the contrary. I expounded the words of the Book, declared plainly our former practice, and our present purpose to be a Renewing of our covenant with God. Which Mr. Smith not perceiving and denying, did take advantage to lead away the people, which by the manifesting of this covenant with an earnest Exhortation thereupon, I endeavoured to prevent, as it hath so rightly fallen out, since then: Some will peradventure object and say: Objection. Obection 1. That the Minister doth speak the words. Answer. Answer. And so do the people after the Minister, and do say thereunto, Amen: which is a consent to what the Minister speaks; also the Minister is their mouth unto God in Prayer, Esdr. 9 as he is God's mouth to them in Preaching. Objection. Objection 2. That is made in general of all, & not in particular of every one, with particular mention of their sins. Answer. Answer. 1. A general Confession of a particular person is acceptable, as David's was, then much more the general Confession of a whole Congregation. 2. Let them show an example of a whole Church together making particular Confession of the sins of particular persons, or any commandment so to do in the Churches, in the renewing of their covenant with God. Objection. Objection. 3. Perhaps they will say, that all this is done in our Assemblies upon a Book. Answer. Answer. 1. The Minister reads upon a Book, but the people receive his words by voice into their minds, and from their inward apprehension give consent to the Minister confessing, praying and promising for them, and they for themselves, by saying the words and answering Amen. 2. Though it be in part from a Book, this maketh it not, either to be no Confession, Prayer, and Promise', or false, so it be with understanding, agreeable to the word of God, for the matter, and done from the heart. 3. To the people it is all one to hear their Minister pray from the Book, as from his brain. For it is the matter agreeing to the words rightly conceived, and in heart affected, which maketh the thing to be approved of God, and not words uttered by the Minister's mouth, from either his own invention, or a Book by the Church's appointment. Objection. Objection. 4. And lastly, If exception be taken but against this, because it's in part from a Book: Answer. Than the thing is granted which now we pled for: But a dispute riseth only about the manner of doing, which is not now the point in hand here, neither needed to be disputed upon. To conclude this with Mr. Ainsworth, his alleging of Canons, is as his and their quoting of Scriptures, brought out to condemn others, but prove directly against themselves. For Mr. Ainsworth and his Company separate themselves from the Communion of Saints: he and they combine in a new brotherhood: he and they accounted the Christians, who are conformable to the Doctrine, Government etc. of the Church of England, to be profane and unmeet to be joined with in Christian Profession, so do not we here that remain with our Mother the Church of England. A Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this second Likelihood or Probability. MAster Smith frameth my Argument thus: They that Mr. Smith's answer, page 126. in some things agreed with ancient Heretics and schismatics, are Heretics and schismatics. The Separatists do agreed in some things with ancient Heretics and schismatics. Therefore they are such, etc. Reply. Making this my reason: his answer is, that thus might he prove me an Heretic and Schismatic, because Heretics & Schismatics have held the doctrine of the Deity, Trinity, the fall of Adam: in which things I do with them agreed. And by this Argument may Mr. Smith prove himself a jew, a Turk, a Papist, a Brownist, an Heretic: for in some things he agreeth with them all, and with Arrians and Familists his next neighbours in his Anabaptisme. The Argument he rejects as vain and light, and so do I; if it be vain as it is, let the vain framer of it take it to himself, mine it is not. This second likelihood I thus form: whereto let him answer. They that differ from all the best Reformed Churches of A likelihood framed into the form of reasoning, to prove them probably to be schismatics. Christ, and in that difference agreed with, and walk in the steps of ancient schismatics, it is very likely they be Schismatics. But the Separatists differ from all the best reformed churches, and in that difference agreed with, and walk in the steps of ancient schismatics. Ergo, it is very probable they of the Separation be schismatics. The first part needeth no proof: their so walking can be no less than a Probability. The Minor is evident: first, that they differ from Reformed Churches, and secondly, in that Separation are agreeable to the Ancient schismatics, as is before declared in this Reply to Mr. Ainsworth: and therefore the Conclusion follows necessarily. The third Likelihood. THey in so bad a manner defend their cause, as it cannot The third probability. likely be the truth: first, by strange expositions, because they be so differing from the general and constant The sum of that which is in my former Book. Page 25. 30. opinions of Divines both old and new. Secondly, by impertinent allegations, pulling and writhing the Text of Scriptures to their purposes, which in my former * Page 26. book, I have showed to be done four manner of ways, necessary to be observed of such as would see their deceit in their allegations. Thirdly, by Sophistical conclusions, deducting upon a false ground one thing out of another, inferring this thing upon that thing: by which they lead the simple into a labirynth, out of the which they cannot wind themselves, but run farther into errors and Sects of Religion, from Brownisme to Anabaptisme, from this to Familisme; one Sect concluding for the grounds of another, as manifestly appeareth among them at this day. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 156. this third Likelihood. IF it were not to show this man's folly, and to lay open to my own people his vanity, with the falsehood used in answering, I would cease to make Reply unto him, but would let giddy heads run, that would with such an answer be carried away. In this Answer he abuseth intolerably Mr. Ainsworths' idle Answer unworthy of Answer. the unadvised Reader, that compareth not my Book and his answer together. First, he changeth my Probability in the Text, and takes the Marginal Note: see and read both. Secondly, he passeth over my three proofs of the Likelihood; the Exposition of the first Proof, the second wholly, and the third; also the four ways plainly laid down, showing how they do abuse the Scripture: of which not one word, but he snatcheth at two Instances given. Reader, I pray thee read, observe well and judge. In his Answer he is as idle, as deceitful in his overskipping of my reasons. First, saith he, I walk in the Papists steps, which is idly repeated of him now three times. It seems this man thinks every thing to be hateful and to be avoided, which the Papists do, we may not eat, wear clotheses, we may not reason in that form, and also use those Arguments truly, which the Papists use Sophistically and falsely. He is much beholden to the Papists, for I see not how he could have made answer to my Likelihoods but for them. If it See Osiander against Anabaptists. be ill for us to use Papists arguments, why do they the arguments of the Anabaptists. I say they use strange expositions, which also I have declared in my former book, to be such as are contrary to the general and constant opinions of Divines, Orthodoxal Writers, such as the Church of God never received: the instances I omitted, but showed that they were confuted by many under hand writing, and were in the hands of Mr. Smith, whom I expected should have been the first Answerer to my Book. Besides this Answerer and his Fellow, is by one challenged for this point, and twenty Positions set down, which are in some of their hands, this I avouch in my Book; besides Doctor Allysons book against them. To all he answers, that those to whom their expositions seem strange, are (saith he) themselves strangers from God: Alluding to Eph. 2. 12. as it seemeth: whether so or Noah, this is an accursed proud speech. It is most uncharitable so to censure all, not approving their expositions: it is high arrogancy to appropriate such singularity to themselves in expounding, as who so hold them strange, are strangers from God, that is, without Who are strangers from God. the true God, without Christ, hopeless of heaven; for such are strangers from God. He leaveth to the Godly wise, to discern of their expositions; and so do I his Answer here, except he mean by his Godly wise, such as be of his own stamp, as I suspect. My instance given Acts. 20. 21. he first Cavils at, suspecting my faithful dealing in citing it truly, as one doth allege it: but the place is a proof to an answer made to a question in a Catechism of Mr. Clifton's; whom in pity and love to his person I was loath to name: and yet sorrowing for him, whom I truly and entirely loved in our way, as a man devoted to God, and every way worthy of love, for his unreprovable life and conversation: I have dealt truly with his labour herein, as the place with question and answer compared doth show. Let this uncharitable Answerer suspect and suppose what he pleaseth. Secondly, he falls from the matter into a by-point, and would prove that we, whom he in contempt calls Priests, teach not all the truth of God in England, by our practice, and by our Laws and Canons. He finds fault with me, but not understanding me, for impertinent discourses, but who doth rove now? I do prove that they do misalledge Scripture: he takes occasion from the Scripture to tell us that we teach not all the truth of God. When this is the question between us, he shall receive an answer from us fully: this now shall suffice, I say that we do teach all God's truth known to us, if he mean their conceits, we do no● teach them, we approve not them for truths. Thirdly, he runneth upon us for misalledging Scripture, by which, as is showed before in another case, he respecteth not to grant themselves abusers of Scripture, so that they may have companions in evil. He refers the Reader over in some other things, to the former Treatise, The former Treatise is an answer of his to Mr. Spr. and so do I, there to receive his answer. To the places by me brought forth in my Book, page 82. which he cavils at in his book, Page 167. I answer, that first, he confuteth them not, but doth ask a question, why Page 158. he may not misalledge Scripture out of the Psal. 106. 39 jerem. 23. 15. 21. against us, which are misalledged? to which I say he may not: albeit I had mistaken any place, he may not do wickedly, because others do ill. Perverting of Scripture is great impiety against God: Is this a Doctor to ask such a question? Secondly; he changeth in the end my position, which he first rightly set down, and for which the places were brought; I say we are God's people, We are God's people. and I prove it: first, because he hath given us his word and wrought effectually by the same, and by that effectualness of the word in converting, I say it is the voice of the Son of God: for all which I quote Psal. 147. 19 20. jer. 23. 22. john. 5. 25. Now he would make the Reader believe, that I say, that England hath God's word, because Israel had it: and for this Page 157. purpose do bring these Scriptures. Is it not woeful, that the man will needs be blind? Wilfulness deserves correction. If he were so ignorant and silly as he seemeth, he should be more worthy pity; then an answer. The other place which he would make answer unto, is in 1. Peter 2. 9 Lib. de Eccles. q. pr. pag. 80. 125. which I say is properly meant of the Church invisible, as Doctor Whittakers' understands the first verse, and urgeth it against Bellarmine, and saith it cannot be understood of visible particular Churches. The Apostle writeth a Catholic 1. Pet. 2. 9 is understood of the invisible Church. Epistle to the dispersed Christians, of whose Election he was persuaded; he speaketh also of a Generation chosen, Elect, of a kingly Priesthood, a holy Nation, a people set at liberty, such only are those which are in Christ truly, and visible Churches are not such; experience showeth, and the Scripture in all Ages, that the Apostle speaks thus unto men professing Religion, the Reason, for that in charity he persuadeth himself that of all men, those which openly profess Christ, in a care to please him, are the likeliest to him, to be the Elect of God, & of the invisible Church, & the rest in the visible church not so reform, he hopeth well of, that they are the Elect before God, though not yet so manifest to men. All the Elect, holy, living stones, spiritual house, are invisible, and not discerneable to the Eye of the body, but Titles belonging to the Catholic Church, as Doctor Whittakers' saith, and only seen by the Eye of Faith. If it were meant of the visible Church, then may the Elect utterly perish; a holy Nation be profane, people set at liberty, turn again to bondage: yea, Christ's body, which is the true spiritual House, a royal Priesthood perish, contrary to his word. Again, men are so called in respect of Christ their Head, and not in respect of their outward holiness. Answer. 1 Now to his reasons why it is meant of the visible and sensible Church. First, because (saith he) the Apostle writ to the visible Christians. Reply. I answer, it follows not by this Reason to be meant of the visible Church: for so he would conclude no mention at all in the Scripture of any Church invisible, because all, All the Scripture was written to the visible Churches, and every thing therein; yet not all therein spoken, spoken of it. It speaks of the Church Triumphant, of heaven and of hell, doth it speak therefore of the visible Church? This Reason is altogether without reason, let his wise Reader judge. Saint Paul writeth Ephe. 1. 4. He hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world; this was spoken to the visible Church: was it therefore meant of it, or rather of the Elect members supposed to be in it? If he say, of the visible Church then in Ephesus, it must needs then follow (which is contrary to the truth) that a people chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world may perish; Ephesus became no Church at length. Answer. 2 Secondly, Because (saith he) Moses so spoke to the Israelites: Exod. 19 6. Reply Where unto I answer, first, again as immediately before I to the place of Moses. Exod. 19 6. have said to his other reason: secondly, the place expounds itself to be meant of the invisible Church, though spoken to the visible; it is with a condition of true hearing, and obeying the Lords voice, verse 5. Now such as truly hear and do Gods commandments, are only the Elect saith Doctor Whittakers', Lib. de Eccles. Pag. 80. towards the end: thirdly, these titles might be spoken of the jewish Church typically; the high Priest was a type of Christ, and the people of the Church of Christ, it cannot be therefore said now so of particular visible Churches, though it was then so. Answer. 3 Thirdly, for that saith he, the Apostle mentioneth their calling to that dignity. Reply. But this end proveth that the Apostle doth mean the members of the invisible Church, in the visible. He saith, they are a chosen generation and so forth: this is his charity, but he doth not say, that they show 1. Pet. 2. 9 forth the virtues of Christ, but that they should show them forth. Declaring the end of Christ's calling, and withal, giving them a token, to know who they be indeed that are called effectually, and are of the chosen Generation, royal Priesthood, and holy Nation: not all that are called are Elect, not all in the visible Church, are of the invisible, but only such as truly show forth the holy virtues of Christ our Saviour. Now whether this place appertain properly to the invisible Church or not, though spoken to the visible in charity, I leave it to every sound Divine to judge. He puts it over to every member of the visible Church to judge: this man (it may seem) supposeth every true member of the Church able to judge of that wherein he himself is greatly mistaken: great humility in esteeming well of other men's good parts, but great seelinesse with all. Doctor A●ison is answered in a word; in their judgement, his labour is unworthy a Doctor of Divinity, saith he, and so have they thought best to pass him over: good cause why, if they could they would have made answer to him. His course is a death to their cause; he pulls off their See Ainsworth, Page 116. 124. vizard, shows of Scripture, the abuse whereof by them is intolerable. If they would but explain their Scriptures, and show how thence do arise their singular opinions, no more need to be required of any understanding Reader to descry the falsehood of their way, and vain (if not impious) shows of Scripture which they will muster in the margin, if they allude but to the phrase in Scripture. See the places alleged by them in the Preface to the Reader, in their Book to his Majesty. Page 6. 7. mark the matter, and the Scriptures, and see how little they accord. This I profess for myself, that there impertinent allegations of Scripture wrought in me a just suspicion of personal ill intents, and after by due trial a rejection of their cause, as the forgeries of their own heart, which by abuse of Gods most holy word, they would make him Author off. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to the Pag. 126. third Probability. HIs Answer is only a framing of what I say into this syllogism. That is not the truth, the teachers and professors This is not my reason. whereof sometimes do give strange Expositions, and thereby do wrist the Scriptures. But the teachers and professors of the Separation, do strangely expound and wrist the holy Scriptures: Therefore the Separation is not the truth. Reply. He that deviseth an Argument of his own, in stead of what another maketh, if thereby he would overthrow an Adversary, he is much conceited of himself, that any thing may pass from him as currant, or he judgeth him whom he opposeth, to be exceeding simple. What Mr. Smith thinketh of himself, or of me, I let pass. But my reason from the third Likelihood, is thus framed. The way which is defended by the teachers and professors thereof with strange Expositions, impertinent allegations, and Sophistical conclusions, is likely not to be the truth. I understand not sometime, as he saith in his proposition, but usually, if not always, whether it be of ignorance, or wilfulness I dispute not; it is probable, that such a way, being also a singular way differing from all, is not the good way of God, and the way of truth. But the way of the Separation is defended by teachers and professors thereof, with strange Expositions, impertinent allegations, and Sophistical conclusions. By the way of Separation, I mean not any truth which they hold with us, or with Reformed Churches, but only that, wherein they do walk apart from all Churches of God in the world, as schismatics, and in the Brownisme which they maintain so as is aforesaid. Therefore the way of the Separation is likely not to be the truth, and good way of God. The Minor, I have partly showed to be true in my former The Separatists four ways principally do abuse Scripture: See my former Book, Page 26. 28. Book, by setting down four several ways of their abuse of Scripture, to uphold their cause: by which (as general Rules) the particular places may be tried: partly in this Book, in giving answer to several places alleged falsely, by Mr. Ainsworth, in defence of his way: If Mr. Ainsworth require special instances, I refer him over; first to Doctor Allison, who handleth this very point, and only this, in a good big book, it is not yet answered, and therefore he herein shall save me labour. Than to Mr. Smith himself, who expoundeth the places brought by Mr. Ainsworth & his company, to maintain their threefold Presbytery, otherwise than they do, & condemneth them as false. Also to Mr. Bradshawes' challenge, which is not yet publicly by them set forth, if they could answer him in this, they be not sparing of their labour. Lastly, I set him over to the places by him alleged, and of me answered in this book afterwards. If Mr. Smith do require (as he doth) that I produce particular places, I refer him over to answer Mr. johnsons company, condemning him in their judgement, as an Heretic, for the opinions which he holdeth by Sophistry, and abuse of Scriptures: So also I will him to look unto the Rejoinder of divers Ministers, who have showed him his false exposition upon Math. 23. 2. 3. and many other out of the New and Old Testament: to all which he hath made no answer, that we know of; I may therefore save my pains, either to add more, or repeat what others say, sithen they be not answered. The fourth Likelihood. THey have not the approbation of any of the Reformed Churches for their course. They published their Confession but not openly by the The sum of my former Book. Page 30. Reformed Churches allowed: They writ to learned junius, but he allowed not of their so proceeding, and though they remain as tolerated, yet are they not in their way by them maintained. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 158. 159. this fourth Likelihood. Reply. He passeth by the proof of my Likelihood, which is, that it is a property of the Church of God, to be able A true Church can judge of a true Church. to discern of a true Church: else none can. The proof of this Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth, for he saith; that men endued with God's spirit, can discern the Church, 1. Cor. 2. 15. Now all the Churches beyond the Seas acknowledge us for See Page 125. true Churches, but allow not of them so standing: it is likely than we be in the true Churches, and they in a Schism, forsaking us as false Churches. For this see more in my book, Page 177. lightly passed over by this Answerer, and his fellow helpers. His reasons given to refel my Likelihood are none at all: yet what he saith let us see. Answer. 1 First, he maketh this Likelihood much like the first, and so supposing the first to be answered, he concludes this to be answered also. Reply. But they be nothing like, neither as thou mayst see (Reader) hath he answered the first, and so this remaineth unanswered. Answer. 2 Secondly, he saith, that this is a main prop to uphold our Church of England, and that we love to make flesh our Arme. Reply. He is wicked in imputing such an idolatrous affection to the Church of Christ, contrary to our doctrines in writing, and daily preaching. Neither make we it a main prop; it is denied plainly in my book, Page 177. And in this place I accounted it but a likelihood, or probable conjecture: what an ill spirit is this man led with, who will needs make us believe we hold that which plainly by word, writing and practice we disclaim. Answer. 3 Thirdly, he refers his Reader over to his Answer in his former Treatise, and so do I, to expect thereto a Reply: Reply. if he had dealt particularly with me, I would have answered him in particular: other men's labours, best understood of themselves, I leave to themselves; not that I cannot make answer to what he there saith, but I know the party with whom he dealeth, is every way sufficient to encounter a greater Adversary than this Answerer, though he help himself with Answer. 4 all the power he can with his confederates. Reply. Again, he refers men over to junius Letters. so do I: for they be Letters published to their disgrace, if they were capable to apprehended shame. Answer. 5 Lastly, he puts me over to the Church of England, because we there say, that the truth of the Gospel of jesus Christ, dependeth not upon counsels; nor as S. Paul saith, upon the judgement of mortal creatures. Reply. This is true, it is worthy to be acknowledged: but it is nothing to this our purpose in hand. The Apostle speaketh of the truth of the Gospel itself: we here of a Church professing the Gospel there, whether the Gospel depend on man's authority: here, whether it be not a probable conjecture and likelihood, that the Church is a true Church, which the best Reformed do acknowledge so, and that particular persons opposing all their judgements therein, be not in a Schism by so departing with condemnation. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this Page 126. 127. fourth Likelihood. AS before, so first here he frameth a reason of his own head, making his disciples believe the same to be mine, his Argument is thus set down: They that are not approved, by the Reformed Churches That is not my reason neither, but he abuseth me, and playeth with his own shadow. have not the truth. But the Separation is not approved by the Reformed Churches. Therefore the Separation is not the truth. Next he giveth an Answer thereunto. First, to the Minor denying it, by proving that the Reformed Churches do approve of their Separation. But the reason brought to prove it, is not sufficient: which is because the Universities and junius have not disallowed, but being silent, have consented to them. It seemeth that he thus reasoneth: Whosoever do pass over with silence men's published writings, Mr. Smith's weak reason, to prove themselves to be allowed of the Reformed Churches. wherein they have been desired to show their judgement, they consent and allow of such writings. This is silly and weak: Men may keep silence, not for that they approve, but disallow the matter propounded, which sufficiently doth condemn itself: and for that they see the Publishers to be men of a contentious spirit, and will not be satisfied, neither will see what is amiss, though it be showed unto them. And this is the cause of many men's silence in this matter among us, and why not the cause also in others. But the universities of the Reformed Churches pass over with silence the published writings of the Separatists, wherein they have been desired to show their judgement. And therefore they consent and allow of their writings. Reply. A suspicious cause, which can get no better approbation of so many famous Churches, and learned men, but bore silence for consent. A mere conjectural approbation from fancy, because the Universities be silent, yet some Churches speak & show their dislike: let Amsterdam itself witness this against them. If it be a good reason to conclude By Mr. Smiths own Argument, the Scripture doth approve the Baptism of Infants. a consent where the matter is with Silence passed over, I demand of Mr. Smith, why he disalloweth the Baptism of children, sithen by this his reason, the holy Ghost consenteth unto it? if with all he consider the general commandment for baptizing all, Christ's allowing of children to come unto him, the Circumcising of Infants under Many reasons summed together for Baptism of Infants. the Law, the Analogy and proportion of one with the other, the largeness of the Covenant to the Father and his seed, as to Abraham and Isaac after the promise, so to the believing Christian Father, and to his child after the promise: As Faith in Abraham begat Isaac his child, after the power of the word of Promise to be a visible member of God's Church: so Faith in a Christian Father begetteth a child, after the power of the word of Promise, to be now a visible member of Christ's Church: Isaac was not the seed by natural Generation, but Ishmael, he was of the word of Promise; so jacob, and such as came of him, were accounted the children of Promise, because he was promised, and Abraham believed against Nature and reason of hope, and so had him. Add hereto, that the grace under the Gospel extendeth itself as far and to as many, as God's favour did under the law. If therefore a child was by the parent's faith, in the covenant under the Law, much more the children of Believers now under the Gospel. Examples there be of whole families baptized, & the Scriptures do not disallow Infants; Children of believing Parents are holy by their parent's Faith: yea, God hath out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings made perfect his praise: David hoped in God hanging upon his mother's breasts: john Baptist believed, and leapt in his mother's womb for joy. If children then be holy, if they may believe, if leap for joy, if laud and praise God, if they be in the Covenant, if God be their God, and all Histories show it to be the Churches practise to baptize Infants, & not any man's inventions, can Mr. Smith justly condemn it? If the Scripture be silent in it, God alloweth and consents unto it, by his own reason, whereby he condemneth himself in that he alloweth. Secondly, he answereth to the Mayor, to wit thus. They that The Separatists regard not the judgement of any Church. though they be not approved by the Reformed Churches, and have not the truth in their judgement: yet he supposeth, first, that they may have the truth, though no church approve of them: and secondly; that they may have the allowance of God's Churches, planted by the Apostles, though not the approbation of the Church now: and thus they soothe up themselves with suppositions, to be wiser than all Churches, to know more of the Apostolical Churches than any, or else to have more conscience to follow them then all: one of these they must needs imagine to be in them, if they chose either, it is pride and folly. Lastly, he telleth me that the Reformed Churches do utterly disallow our Church, in regard (saith he) of the Prelacy. He may in this be answered, first, with his own answer to us, sufficient to turn his own weapon upon himself: but secondly, it is not true, he saith, as the Epistle of Beza and Sadeel, in the name of the whole University at Geneva, manifestly declareth, as elsewhere is showed. And thus much for his answer, and reason framed as he listed, which I renounce: this is my Argument: Whom the Reformed Churches approve not of in their way, The reason from the fourth Likelihood. but allow rather what those deny, it is likely that such are not in the right way. But the Reformed Churches approve not of the Separatists in their way: but allow us for a true Church, which they deny. Therefore it is likely they are not in the right way. It is a special property (as hath been said) of the true Churches, to have the Spirit of discerning who are true Churches, who are not: the Spiritual man discerneth all things; 1. Cor. 2. 15. Amongst these, all things, must be comprehended the knowledge of a true visible Church. For if all these Churches of God, cannot discern a true Church, but so far should err, as to approve the Church of England for a true Church and yet be none, and not allow of the Separatists who challenge so to be: & I say, approve us for a true church, whom the Separatists condemn, how should a true Church be known, if a true Church (nay so many true Churches) can judge no better of a true Church? If it be granted that the Churches have this spirit of discerning, then as it is likely that we are God's Church, because they approve of us; So is it likely, that the Separatists way is not good, or that the Reformed Churches approve it not. The fift Likelihood. THe condemnation of their way by our own Divines, men of godly life and sound Doctrine, to wit, Doctor Whittakers', Doctor Willet, Doctor Allison, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Smith Mr. Rogers, Mr. james, with many other: yea, Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Fenner, condemned their way. Page 31. 32. In my former Book I have showed their several judgements of these men. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 159. this fift Likelihood. HIs answer to this Likelihood, containeth only a Answer full of contempt and uncharitableness. showing of the light estimation of these Divines, and an uncharitable conjecture of me, how I would have dealt with Christ, if I than had been living: where he compareth themselves to Christ, and these reverend Divines to the Priests, Rabbins, and Divines in Israel, condemning Christ and his Doctrine, holding the judgement of these our Divines, to have no more Likelihood against them, than the judgement of the jewish Rabbins and other were Mr. Ainsworth answers not to the point, and the force of this Likelihood he passeth by. against Christ and his Doctrine. I supposed he would by good reason have showed, that these men's learned judgements could not be so much as a Likelihood to reprove them in their way, but he having not done this, he saith nothing. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to the Page 127. fift Probability or Likelihood. Answer. FIrst, he frameth an Argument for me, but ridiculously thus: Whatsoever Mr. Whittakers', Mr. Perkins, Mr. Willet and the rest say of the Separation is true. But they say that the Separation is not true. Ergo, it is not true. Secondly, he maketh answer by another Argument thus: Whatsoever Herod, Pontius Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas, the learned Scribes and Pharisees, Teriullus the Orator, and all the learned men of the jewish Church say is true, that is true. These persons all of them with one consent, say that Christian Religion is Heresy and Schism. Ergo, Christian Religion is Heresy and Schism. Reply. The first I reject, as no reason of mine: what I have said I thus frame: Whatsoever these godly and learned Divines, say and writ of considerately, in a point of Divinity concerning the visible Church, it is very likely to be true. First, because these men were better learned, and no less Reasons to prove the force of the Likelihood. godly than these which do condemn them: secondly, because they herein speak in a matter belonging to their calling: thirdly, because it is to be thought that they had studied the controversy, and spoke not rashly, it is to be supposed that so godly & learned men, would not rashly condemn under their hands to after Posterities what they knew not: fourthly, Because these be many in number, and generally approved of the Churches of God. Is it not probable that such as be learned and godly, having studied a cause, being approved men, and many in number, do judge rightly of a cause? Can it not be a likelihood? Let him that can disprove it. But these godly and learned Divines, say and writ considerately, that the Separatists course (which is a point of Divinity touching the visible Church) is wicked and Schismatical. This I have proved in my former Book, Page 31. Therefore it is likely that the course of the Separatists is wicked and Schismatical. To conclude; he reasoneth thus for the Separation, and against us: Whatsoever Christ, the Apostles, the holy Scriptures, and Mr. Smith's reason to prove themselves right, and we to be out of the way. the Primitive Apostolic Churches, collected of the jews and Gentiles, do allow or disallow: it is to be allowed or disallowed. But the Separation is allowed, and the Church ministery, worship and Government of the English Assemblies is disallowed by the aforesaid persons. Therefore the Separation is to be allowed, and the Assemblies of England to be disallowed. Reply. For the proof of this Minor, he saith, it is proved in his Book: so he brings himself to witness for himself, which is a weak proof, if he were a man ever himself. But sithen he is not always himself, neither in judgement nor practice, his defence is childish: he should let that which he hath written be approved of other than himself, and his company, before he make it authority to confirm so false an Assumption as he affirmeth to be true, by his own book. But sithen he hath no more proof but his own saying, I return his Argument thus against himself: Whatsoever Christ, his Apostles, the holy Scriptures, and the Primitive Apostolic Churches: yea, and all the Churches after Fathers and Counsels do allow or disallow, is to be allowed or disallowed. This needeth no proof. But the Separation is disallowed, and the Church, ministery, worship and Government of the Church of England is allowed by these persons. Ergo, etc. If Mr. Smith deny that they disallow not the Separation, And his late Book, against Mr. Clifton. than I refer himself to himself, in his book of differences where he condemneth the way of the Separation, practised by Mr. johnson and his company for Antichristian (out of the Scriptures) as he supposeth: and if the scriptures condemn it, than Christ, his Apostles and the rest, except he can show what Church, what Counsel, what Father ever allowed of such a Separation. He may read Zanchie de Ecclesia, against such a Separation, and Morneus in his Book of the Church, in divers things opposing the Separatists judgement, with Caluin and others; to whom I refer him, as my witnesses against him. Besides, the Scripture against his cause. If he do affirm, that they do condemn our Church, the ministery, Worship and government, than I demand whether wholly or but in part: if but in part, so may any Church of God in the world, as he himself doth the separation, by him sometime so much approved: if he say wholly, let him bring out his evidences from Christ, from the Scripture. In the mean season let him answer for this matter, Bishop Bilsons' perpetual Government: Doctor Sutcliffe of eccelesiastical Discipline: Mr. Hooker: Mr. Bells Regiment of the Church: Doctor Downehams' Sermon, who have taken the defence of these things in hand, in which if they err, let these Separatists confute them, and cease to call for new and more opponents, till these be overthrown by them: till than I conclude from the premises, that we are to be allowed, and the Separatists to be disallowed. The sixth Likelihood. THe Lord's judgement orderly following the Principals ever in that way, and God's blessing upon us with spiritual favours, whilst as one saith, God's Legible curse hath been upon the leaders that way, and in part upon others of them also. How this is true, I have in some sort in my former Book In my former Book. Pa. 33. showed from Page 33. to 42. First, how God hath been with us in the ministery of the word, in converting many from Popery, in drawing many to sanctification of life, whereto I add his bestowing of many singular gifts of utterance and courage for the truth, upon th●se which he useth as instruments for the same: his adorning of our Church with the martyrdom of Reverend men: in giving us Kings and Queens, nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers, for a defence of the Church: So also Pastors, which feed the flock with knowledge and understanding: his defending of us, and confounding the enemies which have risen up against us at all times, and that with an outstretched arm. All which are Gods mercies promised to his people. Whence I now thus reason: Upon whom God bestoweth such great mercies as he hath A great probability that we be gods people. promised only to his people and Church, it is very likely that such are his people and Church. But God hath bestowed upon us such great mercies, as he hath only promised to his people and Church. The particulars have I mentioned, which the Lord hath promised to his Church and people only, if he deny them to be promised of God to his Church only, let him show the contrary if he can to these Scriptures, for the word and ministery. Psal. 147. 19 20. jer. 23. 22. and 3. 15. Mat. 28. 20. For Kings and Queens, nurses unto the Church. Esay. 49. 23. and for protection with blessings of peace and prosperity. Deut. 28. Esay. 41. 10. 11. Psal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. And therefore it is very likely that we be his people and Church. Secondly, I have set down the contrary of them: God Page 34. blesseth not their Ministry, they work upon other men's labours, their chief men have fearfully miscarried, and that as they arose in order one after another. First, Bolton hanged himself: Browne renounced his way, to say no more: Barrow was possessed with a most fearful spirit of railing, as never any scurrilous mate was ever more; the two johnsons were filled with a rage and furious fire of contention, one cutting off another, the Son excommunicating the Father and Brother, the Brother publishing in Print the shame of them all, and the Father direfully cursing the Read George johnsons Book. Page 6. Son, that all plagues of a disobedient Child might light upon him: Bornet was taken away with the plague: Mr. Smith now an Anabaptist, and as they call him and judge him, a condemned Heretic: Mr. Robinson (one yet nearest the the truth unto us, as I hear, and not so Schismatical as the rest) with Mr. Clifton have been divided, so is a kingdom at discord within itself. Discord may be in a true Church, but not to the division of body from body: that is, an assembly, from an assembly, so as there can be no spiritual Communion held among them. Of this is no example in the Scripture, nor in true Churches, but only amongst schismatics and Assemblies of Sectaries. I have showed In my former Book. page 39 also how God's hand falleth upon some of the members, if not upon all in that way, diversely, whence I do thus reason: Whom God hath and doth follow particularly with spiritual A reason framed to prove that the Separatists in their censorious way please not God. judgements in order as they arise one after another, and generally all more or less, in a way only which these so punished have taken upon them to walk in, it is very likely that neither those persons so walking, nor the way wherein they walk is approved of God. Is it probable that God will follow continually a people with his hand, one after another, only in one way, and yet approve them in that their way? did God so ever with any? doth not he promise' the contrary to his? But the chief of the Separatists God hath and doth follow particularly with spiritual judgements in order as they arise, one after another, and generally all the members more or less, in the way of their Separation, which they have taken upon them to walk in. Thus have I showed, and also Mr. Sprint in his Considerations; which neither Mr. Ainsworth nor Mr. Smith do deny: the judgements they acknowledge, but the argument they would make for all that nothing worth, but how good a probability it is against them, now appeareth. And therefore it is very likely, that neither these Separatours, Ringleaders, nor Separatists their Scholars so walking, nor the way wherein they walk is approved of God. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 159. this sixth Likelihood. Reply. THis Likelihood, which I have propounded and confirmed in my former Book, from Page 32. to 42. and have prevented many objections, alleged some testimonies of it, and especially George johnsons Book, he wholly (in a manner) passeth over with silence, only under pretence of his Answer made already unto Mr. Sprint, urging more prudently, as he saith, this same Likelihood; to which he putteth over his Reader, who must go seek an Answer to what I say, and as I do affirm it, where it is not to be found: a pretty evasion if he could so escape. The truth is my Likihood, and Reasons, are not so set Mr. Ainsworth passeth by the instances given of God's judgement against them, for that he can not answer them. down in Mr. Sprints Considerations, as I here urge it. So although Mr. Ainsworth answer him, which is questionable, yet he hath not made answer to what I say. But he is wise to pass that by, which he well knew (being so laid open, as it is in my Book) he could never make particular answer unto, but with great and public shame in the particulars. I desire the Reader to peruse my former Book, and consider, whether it be not very likely, that God hath been offended greatly with their course: and with the chief of them from the very beginning of the first known man, to the last principal Ringleader of the latest out-road of such Separatours. Objection. If he should say unto me, as he doth unto another in Page of his Book 38. that we do bring in men's persons against the Cause of Christ, Answer. I would answer him, that I bring not man against Christ, but God's fearful hand, that is, even God himself against men running in a bypath, which by his judgements he disclaimeth to be his: Gods punishments are not man's work or word, but God's witness and testimony against them. Reply. But he would make my Likelihood nothing, for that His Answer. (saith he) page 38. A Canaanite, and a Philistim might have so reasoned against the Israelites; yea, saith he, with as much truth, and more colour than we against them. A very wicked and irreligious comparison, to hold that a cursed Canaanite and Philistim had more truth thus to reason against the true Church of God, than we God's people have to reason against schismatics. See his reason: they had God's judgements among them, saith he, Ergo, the Canaanites and Philistims might condemn their religion. The consequence is unsavoury salt, but worthy of such a Doctor in Schism. If his Argument be nought, then perhaps, he will say, our reason is not good against them. This I deny; This reason is forcible against them, and his weak against us: the reasons why. and mark Reader, wherein we differ: first, he bringeth in Canaanites, against Israelites, and we are a Christian church against Schismatics: secondly, he bringeth in a fit comparison for them, notorious offenders punished for personal transgressions in a holy way amongst God's people, and we bring in their chiefest and holiest persons, their Guides and Ringleaders punished, not for personal faults, which we do not object to them, but for their way in which they Page. 34. 42. do walk from among God's people, as my reasons why, and how, in my former Book manifesteth: thirdly, he bringeth in judgements upon certain members, as they fell to sin now & then, but we do allege God's displeasure against their chief Leaders, with a continuing hand upon them, as they rose up one after an other to seduce people from us into that way: as we show that God's hand was on Bolton, then on Browne, then on Barrow, and Green-wood, then on the two johnsons, then on Bornet, then on Mr. Smith, who is become in their own judgement, and in ours too, a fearful Heretic. So he should have showed the like by succession upon Moses and Aaron, then on josua, then on Othniel, Ehud, etc., If he dare make the like comparison between these & themselves, for their persons and for their cause; if not, he hath said nothing to overthrow this Likelihood. His inserting of Moses and Aaron amongst the wicked Rebels, as if God's special wrath did light upon them, is both foolishly and wickedly done. They died with honour and renown; though it pleased God to call them away for some sin, before they entered into Canaan, they neither died by Pestilence, nor were consumed with the Sword, nor burnt with fire, nor destroyed of Serpents, nor were swallowed up of the earth, as others were: that Mr. Ainsworth in his Canaanitish conceit, should muster them among the wicked, to march under God's wrath to death and destruction. Again, herein God would by them teach us an evangelical truth, that not Moses nor Aaron, no Law, either Moral or Ceremonial, Why Moses and Aaron did die before they came into Canaan. but josua, that is, jesus our Saviour, should bring the Israelites, that is, every true Believer into Canaan, that is, the Kingdom of Heaven. He adviseth me to beware of delivering positions tending to Atheism and judaisem; I accept of it: let him consider that he teach no doctrines tending to Anabaptisme, Brownisme the ground of Anabaptisme, familism, etc. familism, and Arianisme, the fruits of their Brownisme, upon the principles whereof others have built these Heresies. The Anabaptists city the same places for their holy walking from all the world by themselves, which these Separatists do against us. Read Lucas Osiander, against Anabaptists, and see how this way of Brownists helpeth the Anabaptists. Lastly he maketh a comparison between Bolton and He falleth into that which he finds fault with in me. judas, and maketh in part judas case better than Boltons': idle and to no purpose, except to help a jew to disgrace our Religion, by judas miserable end. But he will say, that this ariseth from my speech, who said, that such an end the Lord letteth not his special instruments come unto, which he denieth, and bringeth in judas, one foreordained to that end, and foretold off: of whom I myself did make Page 34. mention by way of prevention, describing also what I meant by special instruments, & gave instances of the same, that I might not be mistaken, to prevent wrangling: but who can restrain contentious spirits that love to be wrangling? Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this Page 128. sixth Likelihood. Reply. AS before, so likewise here, he frameth for me my reasons; but so as I should affirm that they have not the truth, that are judged of the Lord, and that they have the truth, who are prospered by the Lord: when he hath fashioned them himself, for his own advantage, than he maketh nought of them, as if they were mine, and accuseth me of false Doctrine. But as I reject them, as none of mine, (which any one may well perceive by that which is here before set down) so what he inferreth there upon nothing at all toucheth me, but his labour is a fight with his own shadow. If what I have said will not serve, I thus again reason: It is more than likely, that such as be judged of the Lord, An Argument to prove that the Separatists have not the truth. for the way wherein they walk singularly from all other, have not the truth in that way. But the Separatists are judged of the Lord, for the way wherein they walk singularly from all other. Therefore it is more than likely, that the Separatists in their singular way have not the truth. My labour in my former Book, from all the instances delivered, is my proof of the Minor. Now by the Lords judging, I mean not only temporal afflictions, poverty, banishment & such like, as Mr. Smith would insinuate to his Reader, that I do as appeareth by his quoted Scriptures, What I do understand by God's judgements upon them. Eccles. 9 1. 3. 1. Pet. 4. 17. for these may befall the best I acknowledge; but I understand the judgement of God upon the soul, as almost the examples given do clearly prove: and therefore mistaking me, he hath not made any answer unto me, nor proved my Doctrine false. He frameth also another argument from all the instances, to show the weakness of my reason, but as in the former, so here he doth me wrong still; but for answer, I thus amend him, and let him answer what he can to the same. If Mr. Bolton before had peace within him, and through An argument to prove that God is displeased with them. the way of the Separation came to hung himself: If Mr. Harison and Browne before carried himself honestly, but in this new way by Mr. Harisons testimony, behaved himself very lewdly: If Barrow with Greenwood were before temperate, but in this way immeasurably raging and railing: If the two johnsons lived before like brethren in love to themselves and to their Father, but in this way one hated another, one persecuted another, one brother labouring to shame another to the open George johnsons book witnesseth this at large. world; one Son excommunicating the Father, and the Father bitterly cursing that Son: If Mr. Burnet before was of God mercifully preserved, and in this new way, whilst he was prisoner for the cause, was by the stroke of God cut off with one of his severe judgements: If Mr. Smith was before in good reputation with godly men, more stable and constant, but in the inclinanation to this new way, was given over to hold false and absurd opinions, and very unstable, sometime liking, sometime in prayer thanking God for preventing him, before allowed of us, but now disallowed and condemned of the very Separatists for an Heretic: If some before did walk not dishonestly, but in that way became filthy persons, and of unclean conversations: If all of them before were charitably disposed, meeker spirits, more temperate, less censorious, and not despisers of the good in others, but in this way the contrary; than it is very likely that God is displeased with them for that very way, in which God so forsaketh them. But all these things have so fallen out to these foresaid persons in this their new way, as I particularly have proved in my former book. Therefore it is very likely that God is displeased with them for the same. He saith he is able to say as much of the Officers and Leaders in the Church of England. When he is able so to produce instances successively from the beginning, and in such a manner, he is better to be believed, but in the mean space, his bore word getteth herein no credit, but with the foolishly credulous. As for his examples of judas, then of Christ, with others, and of the Apostles they be unfitly matched, and are not as those, which I have brought out against them. The last part of his answer, seeking therein to clear himself of particulars laid to his charge, is answered before sufficiently in the Preface. The seventh Likelihood. THe ill success it hath had these very many years, being no more increased. This in my other Book have I spoken of, to wit, Page. 42. that God advanceth and prospereth, whom he sets on work, and to them he giveth power, with extraordinary men he dealeth extraordinarily, as we may see by his dealing in all ages, either in the planting of Churches, or reformation of them, let them show the contrary if they can. And therefore it is likely that these new Reformers having so ill success; both abroad, and at home, by division among themselves, are not set on work by the Lord, as instruments for his glory in his own cause. The contrary may we see in the Lord's cause by Moses in planting; by Eliah in reforming; by john Baptist; the Apostles; by Luther, and others his fellow helpers. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page. 160. this seventh Likelihood. He passeth over, as his manner is, the reasons and instances given for the Likelihood, and what is spoken of their voluntary running out of England, drawing people in danger of a Statute against Fugitives, from under the authority of their Sovereign into a strange Nation: these things objected, he hath not answered. That which Answer. he saith to the Likelihood in sum is, that if the ill succeeding of their cause be a Likelihood to condemn it, than might the cause of God, professed by Noah, and by the patriarchs, be disallowed, because it prospered little for many years, when the wicked did flourish. Reply. I answer first, the consequence follows not, the case is not alike. Noah and the rest had no new way from the Church of God being then it themselves. Noah was in the declining age of the world, and was by lincall descent and successively a Preacher, not one that broke out from God's Church extraordinarily, as these would be held to do, to plant new Churches, and make new Covenants, wherein, as I have said, God doth give an extraordinary blessing. The place cited to prove that there shall be few in the Church, He allegeth but falsely, the place of S. Luke. 17. 26. as in Noah's time, is misalledged: it showeth the security that shall be in the world; but not the fewness of persons in the Church: and at this time it helpeth not them, when we do see before our eyes that it is the time of confounding We live in the time of Antichrists consumption. Antichrist, who must decrease, and the Church increase, till the fullness of the Gentiles come in, and the jews be brought to the truth, as the Apostle doth foreshow. The increase of the Church now hath the ground from God's promise, and it is a greater Likelihood from thence, that we, that is, all Reformed Churches, which have forsaken Antichrist, and do multiply greatly in number against him, since Luther's time, should be God's Church, than a few out-goers nothing prosperous in their way. Again, the not increasing of the Church in time of the Why the Church in the old time could not increase as the Church of the new Testament may. patriarchs, was no cause of stumbling then, for that it was kept in families, and stood upon such as came by natural generation, from the stock of Abraham; and therefore could not so increase by Abraham begetting one, Isaac two, jacob twelve, as now under the Gospel; one may beget to God at once three thousand souls as Peter did: and for that then there was not come in the time of fullness to call the Gentiles. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer. Page 129. THe truth (saith he) increaseth in short space into a multitude. The Separation doth not increase but is kept under: Ergo, the Separation is not the truth. Thus he reasoneth for me, but I frame my own argument after this manner: That which from the beginning for many years, in the time My likelihood framed into an argument. of reformation, had ill success, and that by the opposition of the godly, is likely not to be good, and approved of God: First, because God hath promised success unto his truth after the revelation of Antichrist, to the consuming of him, as we find 2. Thes. 2. to be true since Luther's time: And secondly, because it is probable that godly men will not so be left continually to oppose so great and essential a truth to salvation, as these men pretend their cause to be, to keep it so ever under, but either God in mercy would reform them or correct them. But the Separation from the beginning for many years, in the time of Reformation hath had ill success, and that by the opposition of the Godly. And therefore is likely not to be the good and approved way of God. Answer. His answer is, (to that argument which he framed for me) that Christ's flock is but a little flock: Reply. but I say yet it is not like his, of some forty or fifty persons, nor yet so few as five hundred, little it is in comparison of the world, but yet in itself great. But what if it be little; ergo, every little company is Christ's flock; a weak reason, than the Arians, the Anabaptists, the Familists are Christ's flock. And on the contrary, if they be many and a great number, those should not be the Church of God. Answer. But he tells me (if he may be believed) that the Separation hath had infinite increase ever since Luther's time: and what is his reason, for that the Separation is the same with Mr. Smith acknowledgeth the Separatists and Reformed Churches the same in Essential parts. Reply the Reformed Churches, in the main and essential parts, and therefore look how the Reformed Churches have increased, so much hath the Separation increased. By this reason we and they are come to be one also; I would have thought, that they and we should never have patched in one: If he can make themselves one with the reformed churches and we also ourselves one with the Reformed Churches, upon the same ground, then as they be one with them, so are they with us, and if they judge them true Churches, so must they esteem of us. Now that we and the Reformed Churches are one, I thus argue from his reason: They that agreed with the Reformed Churches in the main and We and the Reformed Churches agreed in the main truth, and therefore are one true Church in the constitution. principal points, are one with them. But we do agreed with the Reformed Churches in the main and principal points: as the Harmony of Confession, and the 39 Articles declare. Therefore are we and they one. If they be a true Church, we cannot be a false: if Mr. Smith herein say true, and his argument be good, than the Separatists, the Reformists, and the Church of England are one, and the same in the main and Essential points of Religion, and therefore cannot we be separated from, for either false or no Churches of Christ, more than they separate from other Churches; Let his brethren of the Separation answer this. But for the cause of the Separation, considered by itself, it hath no agreement with the Reformed Churches, The Separatists considered in the sole causes of their Separation agreed not with the Reformed Churches. but is a bypath, and a Schismatical way, from all the the Churches of God in the world. His taxing of me for abusing the place of Ezechiel cap. 3. 6. arose from his hasty misconsturing of my quoting of it, which was but partly an allusion to the phrase, and partly to show, that to go and to devil among people that speak what words they understand not, is not so great a favour, as to remain where we understand, and are understood what we speak, where therefore we may do the more good though with affliction, then to run to a strange country, to speak in the a●re. Answer. The last of his answer is, whereas I say, that the Separatists leave a Curse behind them, he gathereth thence an Argument to prove that they have the truth. Reply. A fearful defence, from a curse to conclude themselves blessed. It may seem he doth thus reason: They that leave a Curse where they come, have the truth. But the Separatists leave a Curse A strange Argument of Mr. Smiths, to prove that the Separatists have the truth. where they come. Therefore they have the truth. The Minor he granteth, and I put him to prove his Mayor. Though the word of God to the Reprobate be the savour of death to death, yet every doctrine that is so, is not the word of God. The word of God is but so accidentally, but false doctrine, Heresy and Schism are so in themselves. These be a curse to others, and to the authors and bringers, so is not God's word, & therefore to allege what the word is by occasion, is no proof for his exposition to uphold Schism. And this much for Mr. Smith's froth, that is, his idle and deceitful answers to my Likelihoods, which he calleth my froth: whether so or not, let the reader now judge between us. To all that hath been said I will add a reason, drawn from their dissensions among themselves: & I thus frame it: They that daily rend themselves a sunder, so one from another into divers parts, yet being all of one constitution, as they renounce all spiritual communion together, & live as several bodies it is very likely that such apeople are not the church of God. For the Church of God are of one heart, and live in Spiritual communion with one accord, Acts 2. and 4. and to be contentious is not the custom of God's Church. 1. Cor. 11. 6. But the Separatists daily rend themselves so one from another into divers parts, though they be all of one constitution, as they renounce all spiritual communion together, and live as several bodies. This is apparent by their daily practice, and by instance of these companies lately departed from us, as is showed before. Objection. But they may peradventure say, that contention hath been in the truest and best Churches of God, and therefore by this Likelihood, those Churches might not be the Churches of God. Answer. It is one thing to have contentions, and another thing to be rend a sunder so, as there be partake to make several bodies, & then so to live without brotherly communion, as they do: Mr. johnson and his Church, Mr. Smith and his company, Mr. Robinson and his flock; all professing Separation, and yet to stand in a plain division without a holy communion together visibly, yea, so far are they in discord, as one will excommunicate and cast an other to the devil: let them show whether the true Churches of God do so contend, and tear one another: it will not be found but among Schismatics. Though we have contentions, yet we hold communion, because we are of one constitution. Therefore the Separatists are likely not to be the Church of God. Now before I end my Likelihoods, that they may not so lightly be regarded, I hear muster them together, that though one seem to be weak considered by itself, yet all of them together may be a strong reason, and motive to persuade them to look unto their standing, and to keep others from hasty running unto them. Conjointly I therefore as one Argument urge them all against that way, thus: The way which differeth from all best Reformed Churches A Summarie reason of all that hath been said. of Christ in the world, which agreeth with ancient condemned Schismatics, which is maintained by great abuse of Scripture, which no other Church of God in the world approveth of, which godly, learned and famous Divines do condemn, which the Lord by his hand of judgement disclaimeth, which hath ill success, in which one sort of it rends another in sunder, hatefully renouncing all Spiritual communion one with another, it is very likely that such a way is not the way of God but Schism. But such is the way of the Separation, as the particulars which have been proved do declare. And therefore it is most likely that the way of the Separation is not the way of God, but Schism. It is Reader, the sin one the right hand, as there is a sin on the left hand, as Solomon teacheth, Pro. 4. 27. But pray and harken after the word of God, which Esai saith, Thou shalt hear it behind thee, saying, this is the way walk Esay. 30. 21. in it, when thou turnest to the right hand, or when thou turnest to the left. This grace God grant the Reader: Amen. And thus much for my most likely Likelihoods. Now follow Reasons, after the Probabilities, which I will first set down, and then make a Reply unto both Mr. Ainsworths', and Mr. Smith's answer. The Reasons alleged against them are threefold: taken first, from the evil of the entrance into their way: secondly, from the persons grievously sinning in the way: and thirdly, from their opinions erroneous and false. Of the Reasons drawn from the entrance into their way: the first I thus frame. THat way which causeth in the entrance thereinto, a breach of a lawful union and fellowship, is not to be embraced. Because it is against godly peace commended, Rom. 14. 17. Commanded, Psal. 34. Heb. 12. 14. And against love commanded: Heb. 10. 24. 25. and commended, 1. Cor. 13. But the Separation causeth in the entrance thereinto, a breach of a lawful union and fellowship. First, that it causeth a breach, it is out of question, for it Their way causeth a breach of a lawful union and peace. is a forsaking of our Christian professing: in communion with us; it is a casting off of the effectual preaching of God's word here delivered, by what Minister soever in our standing; it is a renouncing of all spiritual fellowship with every one here, live he never so Religiously, their Writings witness this, and their practice also. Secondly, that it causeth Reason's proving the same. a breach of a lawful union & fellowship is also an evident truth: first, it is lawful to hold communion in profession in that whereunto men are come. Phil. 3. 16. though there It is lawful to hear the word preached among us. be defects: secondly, it is lawful to hear God's word among us, being found to be the truth, and powerful by God's assistance, preached by men publicly authorized. First, because the commandment is, to hear and seek with out restraint of person. joh. 6. 11. Secondly, because here it is the voice of Christ, being effectual upon their consciences; that is, his voice by which such as be dead do live. john. 5. 25. Thirdly, because the hearing of his voice, is a mark of Christ's Sheep, and no mention of the persons preaching. john. 10. 27. Fourthly, because the Lord pronounceth them blessed that hear the word. Revel. 1. 3. Fiftly, because the godly in the primitive time inquired not so much after a constitution or perfection of a calling, but the truth of doctrine. Act. 17. 11. So did Aquila and Priscilla, and other Christians entertain Apollo's for the truth of his ministery, though he knew not so much as they. Act. 18. 24. 27. Sixtly, because any may preach that have gifts, by their own confession out of 1. Cor. 14. Page. 132. and if by Princely authority they be permitted, they may preach, (as Mr. Smith also acknowledgeth,) therefore they may be heard out of his own confession. seven, because S. Paul did joy in the preaching of such as preached Christ, of envy, not purely, under a pretence to vex him. Phil. 1. 16. 18. Now if he did joy in the preaching lawfully, he did rejoice in the hearing as lawful; these be relata one to another. Eightly, because God doth countenance the word here preached, making many able Ministers, not 2. Cor. 3. 6. of the letter, but of the Spirit, which giveth life; And the truth of this Mr. Smith acknowledgeth, that here he received the Page 131. Note Reader, what Mr. Smith doth acknowledge. seeds of true faith, and invisible conversion, as he calleth it, effectual to his justification and Salvation in Christ, if he had known no more: and this power of God here the rest cannot deny. Than let them show whether it be unlawful to join with that which God himself approveth, witnesses are theirowne hearts: Is not the Word in the mouths of many, the word of Reconciliation, and can their preaching be so, but 1. Cor. 5. 19 by the blessing and favour of the Lord, who is the spirit which giveth life? 2. Cor. 3. 17. with 6. Ninthly, because as the Corinthians were to hear the Apostle, upon his reasons, for that he begat them, he their Father, they his Children. 1. Cor. 4. 15. he the Lords Ambassador, they the Seal thereof. 1. Cor. 9 2. 3. They the Epistle of Christ ministered and written by him and others, with the spirit of the living God. 2. Cor. 3. 3. So upon the very same grounds may many, if not all of these Separatists hear diverse of our Ministers, who may truly speak as the Apostle, (touching the effect of their ministery) to these and claim them as his children, by the work of the Lord, in their reformation of life. Tenthly, because our Saviour Christ allowed men to hear the Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Mat. 23. 2. 3. false Teachers, and his very enemies, who said and did not. Eleaventhly, and lastly, because there is no Scripture which teacheth, that it is a sin to hear God's word preached of such as do preach the truth, and as they that heard it have received thereby God's spirit of grace by their own testimony, nor any place forbidding to hear such: and therefore it is lawful to hear the word so among us. Thirdly, it is lawful to have spiritual communion with It is lawful to have spiritual communion with such as be Godly. such as be godly, that is, such as profess godliness, and do live honestly. David will have fellowship with such. Psal. 101. 9 there is no warrant to part fellowship with the godly, nor any example for it. This will not be denied, it may be, but if they should perhaps deny any of us to be godly, as Mr. Smith doth, as before is showed, then to persuade them that visibly here be such, it is thus manifest: first, by the shining graces of God in many in whom may be found the marks of Saints, set out by M ●. Ainsworth: secondly, In his Book of communion. of Saints. by wicked persons mocking and abusing such men as have left to walk with them in the same excess of riot: thirdly, by the judgement of godly learned men beyond the seas, testifying so much in their writings of us, and in their Dedicatory Epistles to special persons: fourthly, by Mr. Ainsworths' own words in his book against me, who Page. 66. with Mr. johnson doth think, there are true Christians and heirs of salvation among us, by the appearance of knowledge, faith and fruits thereof. If any have so hateful an opinion of us as Mr. Smith, let them by the word prove us all to be without the true fear of God, and then may they deny this Minor, which here is proved to be true. And therefore the Separation being the breach of so lawful an union and fellowship as is here declared, is not to be embraced. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to Page 161. 162. this Reason. MY answer thus framed, he giveth no answer unto, but that which he saith, is: Answer. 1 First, a complaint taken up against me for cursing and deceit; alluding to the Psal. 10. 7. he saith, he may so complain truly: Reply. but I say, he doth it most unjustly, let him next time show my cursing and deceit, for yet he hath not set it down. Answer. 2 Secondly, he saith, they protest their consent with us in all holy doctrines which we profess, Reply. what they mean by holy doctrines I know not; but it appeareth not that they consent in all, when they acknowledge not particularly our What true doctrines the Separatist condemn as false. doctrines; but some holy doctrines they do condemn, and will not justify them with us: as namely, that the visible Church is a mixed company of good and bad, and that in it may be not only Hypocrites, but some of lewd conversation, and yet be a true Church. This they deny by word, writing, and practise, contrary that estate of the Church of Corinth, those in Asia, and contrary to the judgement of the best learned Word and Sacraments infallible marks of a true Church. Divines commenting upon the place of Math. 13. Secondly, they deny that the true word of God preached, and the true Sacraments administered, are unfallible and convertible marks of a true Church, else why do they deny our church to be a true Church, having these true marks? Doctor Whittakers' against Bellarmine in his Book of the Church, Quest. 5. Page. 390. and 413. 415. bringeth in twenty places of Scripture to prove this, and confirmeth the same in Page 425. 435. by many arguments. Thirdly, they deny it to be lawful to hear any in their own constitution, differing in a published opinion, which themselves disallow, and the parties persisting therein, they do condemn, as also the hearing of any in the Reformed Churches, and in our Assemblies utterly; Mr. johnsons Book His Book against the hearing of our Ministers. showeth this, and their excommunicating some for it, is proof sufficient: which doctrine is contrary to the judgement and practice of all the Churches of Christ in Christendom. Many other holy doctrines we hold, which they consent not unto, neither in those which they consent unto, will they have with us spiritual communion. Answer. 3 Thirdly, to this he answereth, and saith, they cannot The Separatists reasons why they cannot keep communion with us. keep communion, because they cannot enjoy them without partaking of three evils: first, is Antichristian abominations imposed: secondly, Idolatry publicly set up and maintained: and thirdly, Ministers making concord between light and darkness, under shows of truths, seducing men's souls to destruction. Reply. What he meaneth by the first, he shows not, let him set down, first, what are Abominations: and then secondly, what are Antichristian Abominations: and thirdly, whether every Abomination be sufficient to make a separation from the true Church, and by the Note these three as necessary to be known. word convince us of them, and if so he do, and we yield not, they may condemn us of obstinacy therein. The second thing is very false, and a mere slander: if he and all his company can prove from god's word, but this one thing, that here with us, public Idolatry is set up, maintained, and every one thereto enforced, they may spare labour in other points, and make an end of this controversy. It shall therefore much avail them, and be much for his honesty, and free him from the accusation of an impudent slanderer of his country, and the Church his mother, to prove this point: and therein first, to show what is Idolatry by God's word: secondly, that that idolatry there condemned is here among us Three things necessary for him to prove. committed: thirdly, that it is in our public worship, and every one by Law thereunto enforced: thus shall he clear the cause and give full satisfaction. If he do not this, I dare tell him he cannot, and if he cannot, he is to be held an unjust Calumniator in a high degree, both of his Prince, state, and church. His third evil as he accounts it, is an evil surmised, and he never shall be able to prove it; that all our Ministers (if he mean not all, why speaks he without exception?) under show of truths, seduce men's souls to destruction; his heart knows better, though it sand forth such bitter water. Answer. 4 Lastly, he demandeth whether we forsook all former profession among the Papists, when we left them. Reply. I answer we did, in respect of any open communion we held with them: but we forsook not the truths of God, which they hold, neither any private person abiding in there constitution, if so be we perceive, and he profess sorrow for the abominations, and declare his desire of a better estate, walking as purely as he can in so corrupt an estate, though he stand a member of that constitution. And I see not what word of God is against this, but that in private such so qualified may be joined with in prayer, and other godly exercises, if they so affect and desire them, even in that standing, as is aforesaid. Such a one may be said to be in that constitution, but he cannot be judged to be a lively member of it: in his soul the best part of him is, he came out from it, though not wholly in body as were to be wished: I say in body not wholly, but in some part, in that he doth avoid some of the grossest evils, and declineth the rest as he may, for of such a one here I speak. If you Mr. Ainsworth can show this to be against saith, love, and sound Divinity, I will disclaim my thoughts herein. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to Page 130. this Reason. HE frameth a reason for me: but compare mine and his, and thou mayest see much more in his heaped up together, then is in my reason, and the weight of my reason left out. What I have said to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer, may suffice to give satisfaction to Mr. Smith, for the first part of his Answer to this. His affirming our faith, repentance, and Baptism to be false visibly, is his bore word, which I reject as being no divine Oracle, but as both false and absurd, as is the similitude of the mingled seed of an Horse and an Ass, to prove our Church essentially corrupted. I leave this beastly conceit with him; fit for a Horse and an Ass, then for a man to utter against the Profession of Christians, and a Christian Church. The second reason, drawn from the entrance, In my former Book pag. 46. I thus frame. THat way which upon the entrance thereinto, forceth on The way of the Separation forceth untruths upon the receivers of it. them that do enter many untruths, is not to be approved. But the way of the Separation, upon the entrance thereinto, forceth on them that enter many untruths. This I prove by these particulars, which are untruths, which every Separatist is to yield unto, and to hold as truths. First, That their way, in their singular walking from all (so I understand ever their way) is the way of God, when it is a proud Schism, as before I have showed. Secondly, That their definition of a Church, is a true definition and sound Doctrine, to which all Churches must agreed, or else are not true Churches: the definition is their third position in their Book to his Majesty, if they deny Page 44. that to be sound, than they strive for a Church, and yet cannot tell what it is; if they hold it currant, than I will show it to be false, thus: A true description of a Church giveth not God, his Prophets, and Apostles the lie. But the Separatists description of a Church, giveth God, his Prophets and Apostles the lie. And therefore it is not true, but false and blasphemous. The Minor I prove from the Scripture plainly, and I will show the description in three respects to be false, in saying that it is a company separated from all false ways in the world. First, for God called Israel his people, and so his church A people standing in corruption may be a true Church. in the days of Ely: 1. Sam. 2. 29. yet were they then not separated from all false ways, and Elyes Sons wicked livers remaining among them. 1. Sam. 2. 12. Moses calleth the Israelites Gods people when he was upon the Mount: Exod. 32. 11. and yet they were not a people separated from the wickedness of the world, but at that time were in their act of Idolatry. ver. 1. 6. In Sauls time, Samuel calleth the people God's people: 1. Sam. 12. 22. and yet had they grievously rebelled against God. In Esayes time were they called God's people: chap. 1. 3. yet exceeding great wickedness among them: Magistrates wicked. Chap. 1. 10. 23. and 3. 14. 15. and 5. 7. and 19 16. and 28. 14. 15. The state of the Churchill. Chap. 1. 21. 22. 29. and 2. 6. 8. & 65. 11. So Teachers. Chap. 3. 12. and 14. 16. and 29. 10. Women. Chap. 3. 16. 18. 23. Rich men. Chap. 5. 8. The Chief. Chap. 10. 1. 2. and 36 3 And all the people in general: Chap. 24. 5. and 25. 13. and 29. 11. 19 21. 22. and 48. 4. 8. and 57 3. 4. 5. and 1. 2. 6. and 3. 8. 9 and 5. 11. 19 and 28. 7. they were sunk deep in Rebellion: Chap. 31. 6. yet Gods Church and people; which this definition denieth. So in Saint Paul's time, the Corinthians were called the Church of God. 1. Cor. 1. 1. 2. and yet at that instant time were some in an Heresy, some in incest, some that had not repent of their filthiness. 2. Cor. 12. 20. 21. So the Churches of Asia. Reu. 2. and 3. which title of true Churches could not have been given them, if this definition of the Separatists were true, and agreeing to every true Church of God at all times, as it aught: else it is not a general definition, but only for the Church at some time, which to affirm is ridiculous. But what need I prove this further, that a true Church may at that very time be a true Church when in the general estate of it, it is idolatrous, and therein obstinate? sithen Mr. johnson himself acknowledgeth so much, contrary In his answer to Mr. White. Page. 15. to his own defining of a Church, which yet he would salve with a double answer: First, that such a Church yet may be God's people by a former calling: from which then this followeth, that such as once have been called, though Mr. johnsons words yield us a proof to be a true Church. they after become Idolaters, and live therein obstinately, may be God's people. If God's act hold them in, when their own casts them out, what lets us to be a true Church, seeing we have had a former calling of God, when he brought us from Gentilism, having cast off Idolatry, and recovered from Popery the true word, and the true Sacraments, the Covenant of God, and the seals thereof, given in the first constituting of it? If this his answer be true, he must acknowledge us a true Church of God. Secondly, he thus answers; that by God's mercy to them, and in respect of his own Name, which is called upon by his Church and people, such may remain a true Church. This answer also is for us still, except he can deny us Gods mercy, and that God respecteth not his name, which is here called upon: Thus his answering for the corruptions in the old Church, grants us to be a true Church by the same answer. Secondly, I prove the description false in this, that the Second reason to prove his description false. Church by it must be a company called only by the word of God, as excluding all other means; and yet many strangers came out of Egypt, and joined themselves to God's people, not by any conviction of heart by the word, but through the wondrous works of God, for any thing we can tell, and yet were not rejected, but allowed to be of God's people. Ezod. 12. 38. 48. So many in Mordecaies time became jews for fear, and so were accounted. Est. 8. 17. And many in Ezekiels' days, brought by posts, as it 2. Chron. 30. were by sound of the Trumpet. Thirdly, the description is not true, because it requireth Third reason against it. only such as join themselves voluntarily to profess the truth: by which is secluded the Church of God in josias time, for that josias did compel many to serve the Lord, 2. Chron. 34. 33. that were found in Israel, and yet a true Church. And thus we see their principal doctrine to be an untruth. Thirdly, they that enter must hold that we here are false Another false doctrine of the Brownists. Christians, for so they judge and censure us; and with this condemnation they leave us. But they that profess the true Christ, and his truth, and have received true Baptism, are true Christians. For such be either true Christians or no Christians; no Christians they be not, and therefore true Christians, though in many things otherwise corrupted. But we do profess the true Christ, (even jesus the Son of Mary, the jews Messiah,) and his truth, and have received true Baptism. Therefore are we true Christians. Again, I thus prove it: Saints are true Christians, but we are Saints. Therefore true Christians. Such as have on them the outward calling of Christianity, and have put on Christ, are Saints: for so the Corinth's were called. But we have on us the outward calling of Christianity, and have put on Christ by Baptism. Gal. 3. 27. And therefore are we Saints. Lastly, false Christians are no Christians, but no Christians are we not, and therefore not false Christians. A false Christ is no Christ indeed; so is a false Christian no Christian at all: A jew and not a jew, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 2. 28. 29. Called jews and are not, but of the Synagogue of Satan, as john saith, Reu. 3. 9 It is not said a true jew, and a false, no more can it be said, a Christian indeed, and a false Christian, but no Christian. Thus we see some untruths, besides what after shall be manifest in them to be falsehoods and errors, which those that enter into the way of the Separation, must of necessity maintain. Therefore the way of the Separation is not to be approved. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer hereunto. Page. 162. Answer. FIrst, he denieth that they retain any untruths; Reply. now I have here proved it, and it shall be further confirmed afterward. Answer. Secondly, whereas I say that our Church is not a false Church, because they say the difference between us and them are but certain corruptions: now corruptions do not make a false Church, but a corrupt Church, as corruptions in a man maketh but a corrupt man, and not a false man. He answereth, first, and saith, that it is gross to say no corruptions can make a false Church: the word no, I used not, Reply. but I affirm that the corruptions which they mention (in the end of the Book of their Confession) if they be Page 68 corruptions on our part, do not make a Church (otherwise sound) to be a false Church: because they in some things are disputable, in some true; but not evident in all particulars: and are rather of circumstances and manner, then of matter; and concern some outward order and form, with privileges for the well being, and are not of the very essence and being of a Church; and therefore a Church may be a true Church without them, as far forth as we and they differ, but especially without some of them, which are false doctrines, as the third and fourth, the fift in part, the seventh, the latter part of the eight, the tenth, as they understand faithful: and therefore the want of these cannot make us a false Church, if withal, that be true which Mr. Smith averreth, that there may be a false ministery, Page. 14. Worship, and Government in a true Church. Answer. Secondly, he endeavours to prove that corruptions make a false Church, from Zeph. 3. 7. and Moses, Deu. 32. 5. which places show they corrupted their ways, and were as no Children, or worthy to be no Children; Reply. but they confirm not what he saith, that corruptions make a false church; for what is true cannot ever be false; but good, by corruption becometh nought; but that which hath been a true Church, what corruption soever in any degree be in it, is ever a true Church, but corrupted, till the Lord remove the When a Church becomes no Church. Candlestick, and give a bill of divorcement, and it become no Church of Christ, but the Assembly of Antichrist, the Synagogue of Satan. Answer. Thirdly, he answereth my Simile, that the similitude of a man is not fit in this case, and his reason is, A man is a substance, but a Church consists in relation or reference to Christ, as a wife to her husband: but if a wife play the whore never so often and openly, she may be (by Mr. Bernard's distinction, saith he) esteemed a corrupt, but not a false wife: Such a distinction (saith he) may I carry to the stews. Reply But this business I leave for him to do, he dwelleth nearer the place where stews be, than I. It is a marvel how his pure piety could admit so foul a thought of so filthy and stinking a place, being employed in this his holy defence. But are not Mr. Smiths Horse and Ass engendering, and Mr. Ainsworths' Stews, comely separatistical Meditations think you? I wish them to writ hereafter their more cleanly See George johnsons book and Mr. Whites. thoughts. Let Mr. Ainsworth know, I make no distinction to uphold bawdry, nor to cover Incest, nor Buggery, such speeches occasion their own shame. But to his Reason. My Similitude fits not, why? because a man is a substance, Page 136. but a church consists in relation to Christ. He should have said more directly and plainly; A man is a substance, a Church is not a substance, but consists of relation only to Christ; so had the vanity of this answer better appeared as evidently, as if he had said, a Church without a substance, a wife without a woman; for the truth is alike in both. I ask him, is not a Church a relation with substance also? if a substance, than the similitude is good and fit; if not a substance, but a mere relation, without respect unto the persons and their conditions, between whom and Christ the relation stands; then I demand why they leave the consideration of the relation (which as they say, maketh a people the true Church and Wife of Christ) when they speak of us, and other Churches, and do consider of our persons, that is, of our substances, and our walking in our profession? The ideacal reference between Christ and a people his Church, holdeth them holy in every man's sight, though in themselves considered many be very profane. In the relation, they be Saints, the body of Christ without sin, in their own persons beholden, sinful. Therefore if the Church be always in relation, and so ever to be considered without the persons as they walk in themselves, there is no pollution, let them hold to a mere relation, and they shall answer for their fanatical separation, as others shall for their anabaptistical inspiration. But because my similitude fits not his purpose, he bringeth The Similitude of Husband and wife fitteth well to set out Christ & his Church. in another of a husband and wife: this he holdeth a fit Simile, and so do I: and because he may not afterwards start from it, I will show that it is a most apt Similitude, used by the holy Ghost himself, to set out thereby Christ and his Church, as Husband and Wife, with the circumstances of marriage making. First, a man chooseth a wife, and taketh liking to her, as did Samson: so doth Christ. john. 13. 18. Secondly, Parents take the woman for their son, as Sampsons' Parents did: so God the Father giveth the Church unto his Son. john. 6. 37. Thirdly, the parties are betrothed as joseph and Mary: so is Christ and his Church. 2. Cor. 11. 2. And making a covenant declared by words, the man giveth to his Spouse tokens of love, as Isaacks Servant did to Rebecca: So jesus Christ giveth his word unto his church, Sacraments as pledges of his favour and the graces of his spirit, the earnest of his love, Ezech. 16. 8. 14. Fourthly, the parties do marry, and are full man and wife: so doth Christ marry his Church. Osea. 2. 19 20. Fiftly, they do devil together: so doth Christ with his Church. john. 6. 56. and 14. 23. Reu. 21. 2. 3. Sixtly, the husband loveth his wife, as Isaac did Rebecca; comforts her, and defendeth her: so doth Christ his Church. Eph. 5. 25. john. 13. 1. Cant. 2. 6. Psal. 110. Act. 9 4. 5. Eph. 5. 23. Thus have I declared the truth of the aptness of this Similitude, for that it is most fit to overthrow their cause. If we be the wife of Christ, then are we the Church of Christ. But that we are his Wife, (if any particular Church may so be called) it is evident, The Church of England the Wife of Christ, as well as any other particular Church. because he hath betrothed us unto him, by giving us his Word, his Sacraments, and hath bestowed the graces of his Spirit upon this Church, and in other things hath showed himself a husband unto us, in dwelling among us, and mercifully defending us, as he did his people Israel: if any deny these things, the spirit of madness is upon them, and they are deprived of sensible apprehension. Here, from this Similitude, I propound these questions, to make evident the cause which we hold against them. Question. Question 1. Whether a woman disobedient, may be for all that her disobedience, a true wife. Answer. Answer. Yes: Michol mocked her husband: Zephora was raging: the Levites wife run from her husband: judges. 19 jobs wife vexed him: yet all true wives. For a woman is a wife, not because she is obedient and loving, but because Disobedience makes not no wife, but an ill wife. she is betrothed and married: her obedience or disobedience argueth either the goodness or badness of a wife, but maketh not her more or less a wife: a bad woman married, is as truly a wife, as a good woman. If the husband command his wife to do his will, to see to the family in his absence, to educate his and her children well, to correct offenders, and so forth; if she be careless of all this, is she not a wife? If they say no, and can prove it, many bad wives will curse them; but some husbands that have them, will be glad and thank them, for finding out such an over-sea crotchet to make a riddance of them. If she be a wife for all this, as indeed she is, than disobedience and rebellion disannulleth not the marriage. Thus also it is with the Church. As what before hath been said of the Church's wickedness in Esaias time doth prove: nay, though the wife continued obstinate, yet is she a wife; so is the church, God's Church, though she will not hear. Psal. 81. 11. 2. Chron. 36. 13. 14. 16. and yet verse 15. he calleth them his people, though he did severely punish them. Question. Question 2. What if a wife play the whore openly and often, is she then a wife? Answer. Answ. Such a one deserveth a divorce, and hath lost her power of her husband's body: but even then she is a wife, so long as the husband will so accounted of her; as David did his wife Mychol, married to another; which marriage 2. Sam. 3. was adultery, especially if she did voluntarily live so: Bethsheba after h●r adultery, is called the wife of Vriah, and 2. Sam. 11. 26. Mat. 19 9 a woman married that may be divorced for adultery is called a wife, and so is, until the husband renounce her, and give her a bill of Divourcement, as none of his wife. If she were not his wife, he could nor retain her. Thus is it between God and his Church; which, though she commit Idolatry, (which is spiritual Adultery, and is so called in the Scripture. Ezech. 23. and 16.) and that she commit it openly and continued in it, yet is she the Church of God, whilst the Lord will stand to his Covenant as he saith, Ezech. 16 60. and will acknowledge them his people, Ezech. 23. 5. as he did when they lived in adulteries: until he give her a bill of Divorcement, of which, read Esay. 50. 1. & that he doth remove the Candlestick out of the place, as he speaketh, Reu. 2. And therefore, albeit we were an Idolatrous people; yet that maketh not us no wife of Christ, nor Church of God, until they can prove that God hath divorced us, We are to be accounted God's Church, till they can show that Christ hath divorced us, & removed the Candlestick. and taken away his Candlestick from us. If they will judge us to be divorced, and the Candlestick to be removed: then let them show, first, what is God's divorcement, and what is the Candlestick: secondly, that that Candlestick is taken away, and the divorcement made: thirdly, how these be done; that so we may take true notice of it: let them by God's word teach us plainly these things, and if they do, we have cause to harken unto them; till then, we must hold ourselves the Church of God, being neither in Constitution nor public practice Idolaters, entertaining no other lovers, but do hold jesus Christ, our only head and husband, and therefore are his wife by his own word, Sacraments, and holy graces bestowed upon us, and not yet taken from us: blessed be his holy Name. Amen. Question. Quest. 3. Whether a lawful married woman, through her misbehaviour, disobedience, rebellion and adultery, can be a false wife? Answer. Answ. False, is taken two ways: first, for deceitful, or fraudulent, or lying, or corrupt: secondly, for the counterfeit of a thing, not the thing, but only in semblance like it. In the former sense, a wife wickedly disposed may be called a false wife, but yet is she a wife, and truly and rightly as a woman a wife well disposed: as in this sense may a Church be called a false church, and yet be a church of God. In the latter sense a woman seeming to be married, and yet by reason of immovable impediments not truly married, cannot be called a false wife; but indeed, is all one with no wife: for in this sense a false wife and no wife is all one. A woman that is a wife, is not a false wife, in this sense, how disorderly soever she be, but is a true wife, disorderly living. When I say a true wife, I mean only a woman that is indeed a wife in lawful marriage, & a false wife is the sergeant woman not married lawfully, but going under the name of one lawfully married as a true man in this sense is one verily that is a man, having the lively essential parts & properties of a man: a false man is one but in semblance like a man, a portraiture of a man; yet indeed is no man. Thus may we learn what to think of a Church, when it is called a false church: corruptions in the first sense maketh it a false church but cannot make it no Church. But an Assembly, We must note the distinction, of a false church and no church. in the latter sense, called a false church, is all one with no Church. This distinction must be diligently observed, to overthrow their condemning of us to be a false church. If they understand it in the first sense, yet are we then nevertheless a Church of Christ, for all the corruptions which they falsely lay to our charge, and can never prove such corruptions to make an nullity of a Church. If they hold our Church a false Church, in the latter sense, then must they prove our Church, to be no Church of Christ at all. For in this sense can we call a Church of Christ no more a false Church, than a woman married lawfully and living honestly no wife. The word, Church, (as is well known) is used for the Assembly How the word Church, is taken. of wicked, called the malignant church; this howsoever it is called and shows itself, is a counterfeit, a false church, that is, it is no Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Satan, as it is termed by the holy Ghost, in Reu. 3. 9 The word, Church, is also taken for such as profess jesus Christ, which in the first sense by corruptions may be called a false church, but not so in the latter sense: for a true Church, that is, a Church of Christ indeed, can be no more a counterfeit, that is, no Church of Christ, then true Christ may be termed a false Christ. A true Christian is the sincere professor, one so indeed, like Nathaniel before God, as he shows himself to be before men; the false Christian is the Hypocrite who resembleth the true Christian before men, (for before God there are none such) but indeed is no Christian at all before God, but a very devil; as judas was, before he was revealed to man, as Christ called him. To john. 9 conclude this, The Church (saith Mr. Ainsworth) stands in relation to Christ. Than, say I, that which hath right reference to Christ is true, as he is true; as he is verily Christ, so is that Assembly which hath true relation to him verily his Church. And if we do call it a Church, and dare not call it the Church of Christ, but a false Church, than we speaking plainly, we hold it no Church of Christ at all. As a false Christ, is not Christ but a devil, so that Church, which is a false church, and cannot be called truly the Church of Christ, is the church of the devil. If therefore they dare not call our Church, the Church of Christ, then let us see their impudency, if they dare call it a Church of the devil. In the end of this his answer, he teacheth three things: First, that corruptions may be in true Churches, and instanceth Corruptions may be in a true Church. Pergamus, and Thyatira, which I confess to be true; and in these two churches greater corruptions, then in ours, which I wish him ingeniously to confess: for there was the Doctrine of Balaam, of the Nicolaitans, a woman jesabel, teaching and deceiving the people, to make Idolaters and fornicators: which doctrines our Church abhorreth. How then are we a false church, with less corruptions, and they true, with more and greater? Secondly, that some corruptions make a true Church false, as he calleth it: but indeed, the scripture alleged by him out of Re. 17. 2. & 1. 8. 2. prove not his Assertion, but evidently show the Church of * So it is, as it is considered in the Apostasy and Idolatry thereof, but not as it was or is in the Constitution. 2. Kings. 17. 27. 28. Rome to be the Synagogue of Satan; the habitation of devils; & therefore the church of Antichrist. Thirdly, that a church may from the first constitution, by corruptions, be a false church, though it embrace much truth: his instance is in 2. King. 17. 27 28. etc. But this church was no church of God, but a congregation of Infidels in the first constitutution; a people brought from Babylon, from Cuthah, Avarice, Hamath, Sepharuaim, and placed in Samaria in steed of Israelites, God's people; they worshipped devils, and no Gods, Succoth-Benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adrammelech, Anammelech, and knew not at all the God of Israel, in their constitution; afterwards a Levite was sent to teach them to know and fear the God of Israel, as if a Christian Teacher should besent now among Pagans', would yet any for that call that people from the first constitution a false church, or rather no Church of God at all? He speaketh of much truth held, & corruptions in the constitution, & that church false in that constitution. Here let Mr. Ainsworth deal uprightly with his people, and with all the world: first, show by God's word plainly, what is A tax for Mr. Ainsworth and h●s company, by which the truth will be more fully laid open, then yet hitherto it hath been. a Constitution, secondly: what is a false church, a true church, and no Church; and withal, the evident difference between a false Church, and no Church by Gods written word: thirdly, what truths in the constitution a Church may hold, and yet be a false Church, and what corruptions may fall into a true Church in the constitution, and thereby become a false Church: fourthly, when it becometh a false Church, and whether then it may have relation to Christ, and be called a false church of Christ, or else no Church of Christ. The true manifestation of these things, will fully lay open the error where it is, and will demonstrate to every one, whether we or they have the truth in this point; to wit, whether we be a true Church of God or not, better than any thing which hitherto they have said and written against us. If he and they love the truth in sincerity, let them manifest these things plainly, but not by bore quoted Scriptures, but by explanation of the Scriptures brought, and then drawing their arguments from thence, show how such places of Scripture prove what they hold. I do profess, if God will be merciful unto me, that the truth I will embrace with my heart, if herein I should stand in error. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this. MAster Smith hath gathered up my two Reasons into one, and giveth such an answer as it is, unto both; which I have before replied unto. And thus much for the reasons from the entrance into the way. The third Reason. AN other Reason is drawn from their persons grievously In my former Book. Pa. 47. sinnin in their way, and is grounded upon a principle of their own doctrine and practice, which is, that they may not join with men openly wicked, obstinately maintaining their corruptions, either in life or doctrine: whence I thus reason, and frame my argument. Those that openly transgress, obstinately maintaining their The Separatists are not to be joined unto. corruptions, are not to be joined unto. This proposition is their own, whether strong or weak it is not material, a weapon of their own making, is of force enough to smite themselves. The Separatists openly transgress, and do obstinately maintain their corruptions. And therefore not to be joined unto. The Minor proved, the argument overthrows men's allowing of them: three things I lay down and am to prove: first, that they do transgress: secondly, openly: thirdly, obstinately. That they transgress, I have showed in my former Book The sins of the Separatists. by six particular instances, as: First, by separating from every one of us, and condemning Pharisaical Separation. Pharasaically the most godly men, whosoever they be, as too polluted, and unclean for them to join with, contrary to Acts. 10. 15. To this Mr. Ainsworth saith, I beg the question, and make an idle repetition, and so deserve rather pity then answer. But whether the question be begged, see what I before have said, of their thus departing. In saying that it is idle, he may in so judging find himself idly conceited: one reason may be brought for divers ends, and be to good purpose without idleness. Seven times brings he this reason, the Papists do say, the Papists may say, yet he judgeth not himself to be idle. He so much despised me, as he omitted to answer unto the place in the Acts. 10. 15. his term of pity, is but a word of mockery, but I let it pass, as Mr. Smith doth my words wholly here. Secondly, by unthankfulness, as I have showed, first, The Separatists are unthankful. unto God by denying here their conversion, or by calling it a false conversion: secondly, to the Church of England their mother, by desiring to make her a strumpet, by forsaking her before the Lord refuse her, by accounting her a false Church, and so none of Christ's, and by holding us bastards that remain with our mother. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer. Page. 163. 164. MAster Ainsworth answers not to the proofs of their unthankfulness, but saith they are thankful; yet shows not how they so be, as I show how they be not, and do now further confirm it out of his own answer: first, he will Mr. Ainsworths' answer condemneth him of unthankfulness. not confess any good he hath received in particular: secondly, he cannot speak in general but with clipping of his speech, with an (as is meet:) thirdly, he acknowledgeth they received good from Instruments, but Ministers he nameth not, he will not afford the power of God by them, so much honour; his thanks to them is to call them in scorn Fellow Priests, and in his bitter zeal, dangerous Seducers, accusing us of blasphemy, persecution, etc. Mr. Ainsworth belike reasons thus; because he saith they be thankful, though they abuse us, and will acknowledge no particulars received, yet therefore must they be judged of us thankful. A goodly reason, if his bore word were witness enough in his own cause. His Similitude of a Papist enlightened and forsaking Popery, is unapt: first, he brings in a Papist converted, leaving Rome a Church of Antichrist, as if it were one with their leaving of us: secondly, one converted in the Romish Church, when they themselves were converted, if they be yet converted, by our Church: one may be converted in a Church of Antichrist, but not by it. In may be extraordinarily, and yields nothing to that where the conversion is wrought: but, by giveth something to the Church, as God's instrument, with which he worketh. Men may be extraordinarily converted in the Church of Rome; but not both in and by it, as here they were, and others ordinarily are converted to sanctificaton daily, by the public authorized ministers of the Church of England. Mr. Smiths Answer replied upon. Page. 131. MAster Smith, as afore maketh a syllogism, but therein frameth only an imagined reason of mine; his own indeed, and none of mine, as now the Reader may fee. But to this unthankfulness he answereth more directly Mr. Smith's Confession. and plainly, than Mr. Ainsworth. He confesseth he received here the seeds of true faith invisible, effectual to justification and salvation in Christ. But this he abateth diversely: first, with an though; if he had not known the Separation: belike then, where it comes to be known, except it be embraced, all hope of salvation is lost. I demand of him what is now his estate, that knew it, was in it, and now is departed from it with great contempt of it? Is it not alike, not to embrace it, and having embraced it, to overrun it, as he hath done? Secondly, that this estate he stood in to salvation, was invisible and known only to himself, by the inward feeling of his heart, but not visibly to be so judged by others according to the word. Here he acknowledgeth an inward conversion, but not an outward. But if God afford the greater, he will give the lesser: and can there be true grace inward, even effectual to salvation, and for some long time, and not appear outward? But herein he affords not God his due praise, in denying what is true, and hereby accuseth himself to be outwardly wicked, suppressing grace (for true and effectual grace will not be kept secret but by violence) which he confesseth he had in himself inwardly. He also averreth a manifest untruth, in saying that others outwardly cannot judge of one so qualified here inwardly: the contrary appeareth by such as see men reform, and out of judgement from the word, do behold the conversion of others by the fruits of amendment of life: as also by wicked persons, who do see such and do mock and so persecute them. Thirdly, he confesseth his unthankfulness, in not thanking us, nor acknowledging any thanks due for any visible conversion, in which respect (saith he) our Church is barren. As he is hereby unthankful, so untrue; as both experience and what I have declared doth show. If Mr. Ainsworth, hold not with Mr. Smith, in this opinion, to wit, that here with us is only invisible conversion, let him tell me what in this case, he esteemeth of the judgement of Reformed Churches? If he hold neither inward nor outward conversion, why dealeth he not plainly, as doth Mr. Smith? if he hold both inward and outward, why is he so unthankful as to conceal it, and to deprive this Church of her due, and God of his glory manifested among us? Thirdly, they sin in Uncharitableness: and thereof be Separatists be very uncharitable in censuring. three degrees. The first degree is, unjust censuring the ignorant, as blinded by the God of this world, and that those which have knowledge, and come not to them, do sin against their own consciences, and remain so for fear, favour, profit, and other worldly respects: also that those See my former Book. Pa. 51. which have tasted of their way, and seeing at length the same to be a Schism from God's people, so leaving them, to be Apostates, and then what not? that they will grow worse and worse, till God be avenged on them. Thus hath Mr. In his Book against me. Smith written, and this censuring hath passed from the mouths of many, and written in private Letters of some. Thus to judge is a sin, being against Mat. 7. 1. 2. and against the holy properties of true love. 1. Cor. 13. which thinks no ill, ver. 5. and hopeth all things, ver. 7. and doth nothing contumeliously. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer Page. 164. 165. to this Degree. FIrst, he saith, my accusation is an old Popish cavil against the Protestants: I say it is no cavil, but a just accusation, for they have so censured us, and this so censuring, to be a sin, is also proved: again, though Papists cavil like Cavillers, this is no cavilling. For we accuse the Separatists not falsely, but of what is done, and we do show also the same to be sin. Secondly, saith he: they pray for us, wish us well, speaking what they believe and know, to convert us, and so to cover a multitude of sins. Thus would he be held charitable: Good words: but let them love in deed and truth. They pray for us, so, if they do as they aught, do they for One being asked of some, whether he thought them Gods children, whom before he held very virtuous? He answered, A Turk may be God's child: and would give no other Answer. Mr. Fr. Ies. Turks, jews, and Papists, with whom they yet will have as soon spiritual communion as with us. What is then their charitable judgement of us, in their so praying, with such a separation from us? We pray for them, yet for all this, he saith, we are uncharitable. They speak (saith he) to convert us, and to cover a multitude of sins. Their conversion pretended, is plain * Nothing more against charity then the overthrow of faith. perversion of Faith, than which, to wit, to spoil Faith, the root of Charity, is nothing more against charity: to offer poison for nourishment, conceits for verity, Schism for sincerity; judge this, by what is here laid to their charge, and proved in this book against them. Their covering of a multitude of sins, is nothing less: for their way being evil, they increase sin upon their followers, and for us, they labour to found all, and more than all, making indifferent things sins, and truths falsehoods, as doth appear here by what is both laid to their charge for errors, and defended against them for truths. Thirdly, He denieth that they censure us, &c: If their writings, and ordinary course of speech did not contradict him, his word might stand with those that would believe him herein: read Barrowes works, yea, and Greenewood against Mr. Gyffard, and judge whether the persons be censured or not. I nominate certain speeches, whereto he makes no answer, as was meet to have done; and not barely to deny, what by proof is avouched. Fourthly, He accuseth us Ministers of uncharitableness, and our Church of innumerable abominations and Idolatries, which do abound: but the best is, he names not one. First, this man's reasoning still is thus: They are not uncharitable, because we are so; else why answers he thus? Is it not to remove the censure of uncharitableness from them, which is the matter laid to their charge? Secondly, If any of us use reproachful speeches, I confess it is a fault, as also to give any terms to men in hate, choler, malice, & for revenge, otherwise then in love, by those terms to discover their sin, as the Holy men in Scripture have done: men by private passion, in private conference may slip in words, which is not good, and we aught all to be far from the same; but be it much more far from us in public, and in handling God's cause, in speaking from God to the people, so also in writing: for that is deliberately to sin, to see it before hand, and yet to let it pass, and with will to do wickedly: o, that all of Barrowes vein would see this, and consider. Thirdly, for the sentence of some Ministers, (which he so much excepteth against) who say, That such Page of my former Book 163. as separate themselves wittingly & continually from the church of England, cut themselves off from Christ: he applieth this to themselves, which the Ministers spoke in general: but as he will needs take it, let him hold it as a just sentence against themselves. The judgement of these Ministers is Such as do forsake the true Church of Christ, do forsake Christ himself. just upon this ground held, that our Church is a true Church of Christ. If the true Church be the body of Christ, do they not in forsaking the body forsake Christ? And albeit a particular Church be but a member of the whole, yet the case is all one. A finger forsaking the hand, therein forsakes the communion with all the rest of the members, and of the whole body, and so also with the head of that body. If this be not so, then, why is a man (in their judgement) justly excommunicated, held to be one cast out to Satan, a Heathen, and a Publican, as one not of the Church of God, though he be excommunicated but by one particular true Church? If then our Church be a true Church of Christ, as is in this Book proved, these Separatists have cut off themselves from Christ, and are (as Mr. Perkins saith) Excommunicatours of themselves, and to be held as Heathen and Publicans. Lastly, for his bore accusation of us, for innumerable abominations, and abounding Idolatries; I say, it is as false, as idle; here in his own defence, and against himself, proving still his uncharitableness, in thus accusing their mother so falsely. But these speeches flow not from any just cause in us, but from the innumerableness of his imaginations against us, and the abominable superabounding gaulie bitterness within themselves, from which the Lord once free them. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to Page. 131. to this first Degree. HE saith, their censure is but the censure of the holy Ghost, and what the Scriptures do teach. It is great wickedness to do evil and defend it, but horrible blasphemy, to make the holy Ghost, and holy Scriptures abettors of men's cursed passions, railings, and outrages. Let him justify by the Scriptures his Barrowish railings, and reviling terms, and so acquit himself of blasphemy: till then let him consider and fear, that God will reckon with him for it, except he repent. Saint Paul never dealt so with Alexander the Coppersmith, nor with Hymeneus, 2. Tim. 4. 14. 1. Tim. 1. 20. 2. Tim. 2. 17. nor with Philetus, nor with false Apostles, neither did Michael so deal with the devil: but these men can give themselves dispensations for any thing. Is not this Antichristian pride, and a sign of a presumptuously daring spirit? judge by this man's writings, by his Actions. The second Degree of Uncharitableness, is their desire Separatists uncharitable in their desires. to have the preaching of the word extinguished among us, and so Egyptian darkness to come upon us, rather than it should be taught by any Ministers of the Church of England: which appeareth by their persuading, first of Ministers to leave their ministery; then of the people to forsake them: and by their despising and scoffing at the diligent endeavours. of any of us, in teaching the people. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer, etc. Page. 165. MAster Ainsworths' Answer, is not a direct denial, but it is an overthwart accusation, full of bitterness against us, though covered with fine and smooth terms. Who saith; First, That Egyptian darkness covers our land. Mr. Ainsworths' vile report of our people, Church, and Ministers. Secondly, That the true light of the Gospel is not yet risen among us. Thirdly, That our land is Vr of the Chaldees. Fourthly, That we walk in the light of the fire and sparks which men have kindled to themselves. Moore specially touching the the ministery, he saith; 1. It is an Antichristian Clergy, to be sent back to the bottomless pit. 2. Thorns and thistles, that can yield no grapes, nor figs. 3. A false Hierarchy and Priesthood. 4. That it upholds idolatry, profaneness, human traditions, pleads for sin, and against the truth. Particularly of the Ministers without exception, thus he saith: 1. that they be false Prophets; 2. their Vision night, their Divination darkness; 3. that they deceive the people, and preach lies in the name of the Lord; 4. that they be Falsers, not sent of Christ: 5. he compareth them to thieves coming in to steal and kill. All this he only saith, but brings no proof: It is enough to answer him that he slanders the people of God, speaking openly evil, and belying the Ministers of Christ. If a false accusation be charity, he hath herein well acquitted themselves from uncharitable dealing with us. He saith nothing to my proofs, touching the hearing of God's Page 52. 53. 54. of my former Book. word even from us. These he aught to have refelled, had I erred therein, else hath he answered nothing, but turned only his pen to slandering. I expect that the next time, he should take up my words better, and answer more to the matter, else learn to be wisely silent. Reply to Mr. Smith his Answer to Page 132. this Degree. IT is in substance a grant by necessary consequent unto that which I lay to their charge, and yet would he in words seem to deny it, and so accuse me for a slanderer. But Reader, mark what I say: They wish the word not preached among us, rather than it should be preached by any of us in the ministery. I say not that they wish it simply, but respectively, this he yields unto, by wishing the dissolution of our ministery. The reason by which he would deny, what I lay to their charge is, because he desires that the Word might by the King's commandment, or allowance, or permission, be preached throughout his Dominions, by men fitted thereunto. But this takes not away what I have said: for Mr. Smiths answer untrue, and against himself. here he means, that the King would grant some of them leave to preach in his Dominions. But herein observe, what he holds partly against himself, and partly false by insinuation. Falsely he insinuates that the King's Majesty allows not fit men to preach the word, for if he do, why wisheth he it, as if it were not? Against himself, because he here grants, that if the King command or allow fit men, they are to be heard: but such have we, and allowed by his majesties authority, and therefore are such among us to be heard. Let him answer himself, and the Separatists him herein also; except they will deny the King's authority. The rest of his answer also in some things is still partly against himself, partly bore affirmations in untruths. Against himself, for that he acknowledgeth: first, that the word may be preached without a true Constitution: then say I, may it be heard, where there is no true Constitution, Ergo, now among us, though we had no true Constitution. Secondly, that Preaching is more necessary than a true Constitution: Why then say I, is the preaching of the word rejected, for want of a Constitution? Thirdly, that men must be converted and brought to the Faith, before the Church be Constituted, and they be established in the new Testament of Christ. Than may there be a people converted, and believing God without a Constitution, and before they be in Christ's new Testament. A Paradox; Can there be Faith and conversion to Christ out of the new Testament, and without covenantting with God? These men will teach any thing. His bore affirmations in untruths are: 1. That we Mr. Smith saith, but proveth not what he saith. have established an Antichristian Communion and constitution: 2. that we jumble all the people of the Land together, of what Religion soever they be: 3. that over us is set an Antichristian ministery, worship and Government: 4. that we do maintain it, and refuse wholly all Reformation offered. All said soon, and only said; he proved none of these things, neither confuteth such as have publicly defended our ministery, worship, & Government. Let him confute Doctor Downham, his late Sermon. Doctor Scutchffes Book, of Eccles. Discipline. But it is not material what a wavering Reed saith of his bore word: What, have we not renounced Antichrist, and his power over us? doth not our Profession and Laws separate a Protestant from a Papist? And how can we be called a Church Reform, if we have refused all reformation? Is it true then, which here he avoucheth against us upon only his bore word? The third degree of Uncharitableness is, that they envy Separatists are envious and proud. and are sorry for the prosperity of Ministers and good things amongst us, contemning and condemning the best, for the best graces of God in them: for the more religious and painful men be in our way, the more they censure In his discovery. them, and rail against them, as Barrowes book doth witness; contrary to our saviours practice: Mat. 12. 20. against his Commandment: Luke. 9 49. against Barnabas rejoicing: Acts. 11. 20. 21. 23. and Paul's joy. Phil. 1. 18. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer. Page 166. MAster Ainsworths' answer is, that they rejoice at good Mr. Ainsworth equivocates in his rejoicing. things among us; but he means his own good things, their Schism, where he answers not me to my meaning, and takes his schism and their errors for good things; the thing in question. I never doubted, that they woudl be sorry or envy the success of their way; this his joy, so understood, is idly conceived to be the good things which I mean. Than he guesseth at what good things I mean, but without my thoughts. I understand neither sect, nor Schism, nor any humorous conceit of parties partaking this way, or that way, but the preaching of God's Word; What good things we rejoice for. the effectual power of it; the increase of Preachers; the many godly exercises with us; the honest conversation of many; and that their schismatical way is more and more discovered to many; and as Schism rejected of some, which did entertain it, and now have returned, to the joy of many; that the Gospel is yet upheld, and Laws made against Popery: these and such like, are the good things which do prospero with us, and for which we are to rejoice and praise God. What sorrow some men, as he saith, have at the prosperity of Prelates, as he calls them, they best know: for my part, I profess with Reverend Beza, long may the church enjoy them if at would please God, that as they have government in their hands by Authority, so every one would execute the charge committed to his trust diligently: for then more envious then truly zealous were they that would sorrow to see them in prosperity. Prosperity advanceth the credit Advancement of learning is good for the Church. of authority, and hinders not goodness whereas is grace and true fear of God. It is madness to dislike the advancement of Learning: it is not approved wisdom to despise ancient general Customs of Churches, not against the Word: or not to allow good order of Ecclesiastical Superiority in Government, without which, men run, we see, as many ways, as they have imaginations: and no end is of out-roads, if the power of authority restrain them not. My heart's desire is, that what amongst us is allowable, may by good usage become more laudable, which by abuse in personal miscarriage doth grow contemptible. And therefore touching the Book he mentioneth, which I writ, and would have printed, it is a false report received of him. The Author thereof I challenge here, therein to have slandered me. Indeed I gathered from their works, what possibly might have been said in the worst manner against us, only to see what could be said, better to arm myself against them; and by that and other means, I did not a little satisfy myself. Reply to Mr. Smiths & Mr. Ainsworths' Answer hereto. IT is a denial with railing on me, but what is said already, what his practice is, what here he hath uttered before witnesses, is proof enough to contradict him herein, that denieth daily his former self in doctrines and deeds. I lay to Mr. Ainsworths' charge, that is, to him and his Company, their woeful abuse of Excommunication: and do produce witnesses for the same, which he wholly in silence passeth over, as neither having any conscience able to defend it, nor grace to confess the same; to show the spirit of humility, & impartiality towards themselves. Mr. Smith denies their rash Excommunicating any, and yet a Tailor among them was Excommunicated for taking seven shillings, for making a Doublet and Hose, and standing in the lawful taking of it: because another Tailor said, he aught to have had but five shillings. Again, he and they (before The Cap. at Gains. they went over) Excommunicated one for hearing the word preached by our Ministers. Is not this abuse in Excommunication, to cast a man off It is an abuse of Excommunication, to Excommunicate any for hearing of the word. to the devil, for hearing God's word, which is a thing commanded of God? there is no precept, no practice of this in all God's Book; where is hearing the word of God made a sin, deserving Excommunication? Indeed Pharisaical Hypocrites threatened Excommunication for men following our Saviour and believing in him: but our Saviour forbade not his to hear them. Mat. 23. This is therefore to be rather of a proud Pharisees spirit, then of Christ's. But he saith, that it is lawful to Excommunicate one for hearing us: first, because we be false Ministers. I answer, that if it were so; yet it follows not, that we should not be heard at all: for so was some of the Pharisees, yet our Saviour did give leave to hear them, so it be with a take-●eed, and a wariness: secondly, because or Church is a false Church, and so an Idol, and to commit Idolatry deserves Excommunication. I answer: he takes two things for granted, which we deny, and he cannot prove: first, that our Church is a false Church; and then, that a false Church is an Idol: the contrary I shall manifest afterwards, by answering his reasons for the same: thirdly, he asks whether I will hear a Popish Priest preach, and pray. I answer, that I would, so be he preach the truth of God, and pray as we do, only to God, in Christ, let him show Scripture why not? fourthly, because he saith, the Lord forbids to hear false Prophets, etc. Deut. 13. 3. 1. Tim. 6. 3. 5. Tit. 3. 10. 2. joh. verse 10. I answer, that these places be nothing to us, except he can prove us false Prophets, and Heretics. He can easily call us so, as he is audaciously bold, to call S. Augustine an Heretic, which no Church of Christ ever so did name. It is not the quoting of scriptures; but the true sense, & right application, which convinceth an adversaries conscience: let him prove that these are spoken of us, and there an end of this. And thus much for the third sin, and the degrees in sinning. Fourthly, they sin in abuse of holy Scriptures, ill expounding, Separatists abusers of Scripture. misapplying, idly alleging, and crookedly wresting them from their true meaning. For the truth herein, I commend the serious examination of their quoted Scriptures in their confession, to any indifferent understanding Reader, and by him herein to be judged, and their cause upon this one point, if so they please, to be adventured. If they ask particulars, they are too many to recite; some are answered here in the Reply to their answer to the first error, which the Reader may consider of; as also of others else where, as he finds them, and in my Reply by his reading shall meet with them. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' and Mr. Smiths Answers. Page. 167. 168. MAster Ainsworth only refers the Reader over to my third probability, & to their Books, and so do I Mr. Smith denies not this, but excuseth himself by ignorance, Page. 134. if he have so done, by not remembering the places, and would have them produced; as if he neither knew any, neither I knew to produce them; but he hath a Rejoinder of divers Ministers to a Reply of his, wherein they show him evidently his grievous sin herein, by many instances. He kept this their labour close, which is so much against him: and doth discover fully his audacious dealing with God's word. And thus have I proved that they sin in practice and in doctrine, as shall be more manifested afterward. The second thing is, that they thus sin openly; which is also evident, by their ways known far and near, so as this needs no proof. Fiftly, they sin in their obstinacy, which is the third thing Separatists be obstinate. to be proved in the last argument: this is proved by me in my former book, from, Page 65. to 70. in which discourse is also showed, how they do manifest their obstinacy. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer. MAster Ainsworth with all the help he hath had, cannot Mr. Ainsworth not able to clear themselves of wilfulness. wipe off their wilfulness. He cannot I say, because he doth not, for that he would do herein what he can. He toucheth not one reason, nor answers a word to the divers instances which I give, and whereby I show them to be wilful. If the next time, he answer not to what I have said in the other book, and he now hath passed by, he is judged more wilful and perverse, for that he will not see nor now acknowledge their wilful perverseness, so plainly made manifest unto them. But saith he, we are no schismatics, nor our way Schism, and therefore not wilful in persisting in a good way. By this it appears, prove their way Schism, and then they yield themselves to be wilful. Than for this, see my Reply to his answer made to my second Probability, where their Schismatical course is made manifest unto them: and also consider what after I say, to manifest our Church a true Church, from which to departed with condemnation as from a false Church, or for some particular corruption to avoid spiritual communion in holy things, is a proud Pharisaical and damnable Schism. He saith that the Papists as easily call us schismatics, as we do them. I grant as easily, but not so truly. The folly and falsehood of this objection is showed before at large. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer. MAster Smith his answer is: First, that we persist in our Schism from the Church of Rome: belike he reason's thus; if our departing be lawful to be persisted in without condemnation of obstinacy, then may they persist in their Schism from us, and not be justly held obstinate: but I answer, that our departing from Rome is no Schism, for that Our departing from Rome, is no Schism, & yet the Separatists are in Schism from us. jesus Christ in plain words commands us to come out of her; Reu. 18. 4. There is no Schism in forsaking that Antichrist: neither are we condemned of any, but only of the Papists themselves for Schism, as the Separatists be of all: and we say, that the Papists condemnation of us, is nothing in the partial defence of themselves, and unjust censure of us. Secondly, to uphold their departing from us, to be as lawful, as ours from Rome, he dare avouch (for what dare he not teach after his own conceits,) that the difference between them and us is more, then between us and the Papists. Mr. Ainsworth before equalled the causes of their departing from us, and our departing from Rome, but this man makes our corruptions greater between them and us, then between us and that Romish Synagogue of Satan; but how false this is, remember what is said of this in the second Probability. Sixtly, they sin in their * Separatists are railers. If any particular person be free from this, and other evils, I here do not understand him nor any such. railing, scoffing, and blasphemies, etc. This have I set forth at large in my former Book from Page. 70. to 78. and by the word have manifested the same to be great sins. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer. Page. 168. MAster Ainsworth his answer to this is: First, a doubting, with an though such things be, they themselves condemn them. They be loathe to see their sins, and to confess them: humble spirits sooner confess their own evils, then sit proudly taxing their neighbours. Secondly, he Mr Ainsworth imputeth sin and blasphemy to the holy Ghost. saith, what I accounted railing, scoffs, and blasphemies, are no other speeches, than the holy Ghost hath used and applied to like persons. If he will not be justly condemned of impious blasphemy, let him prove this, else most accursedly imputes he sin in and by them to the holy Ghost. Let him tell me where ever the holy Ghost called set Prayer the smoke of the bottomless pit; singing of Psalms harmonshing some ballad; The Lord's Supper a twopenny feast; that such Ministers as with us preach painfully, and live religiously, are called by the holy Ghost, ravening wolves, Angels of hell, and that upon such, are the uttermost deceits, and effectual delusions of Satan. A woeful man if that he dare charge the spirit of God with such things. He that dare say this, is bold enough. Thirdly, he seems to make their outrage herein less, by alleging Martin Marprelates course. Martin's course was cursed, and condemned justly of all sober spirits, yet was not he so bad as Barrow, that Rabshakah: no scurrilous Mate answerable to this man, his pen was full of venom, as his head of violent rage, his writings witness it, as I have at large declared in my other book. If this Answerer will justify him, let him bear his iniquity: Had his cause been good, yet his manner in handling it was devilish; what excuse soever may be made for him. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer. He speaks for his fellow Barrow, and tells us, that first, he approves of Barrowes Scripture-phrases, as fitly applied against us: secondly, other Phrases also, because he knows not what particular motion of God's spirit guided him; for it seems, he dare not but think, what he wrote was of God's spirit: thirdly, he dare not censure his mocking, for that he followed therein Eliah. Thus can they gloze with themselves, and justify any thing, & all under colour of piety; the more damnable their iniquity. Let this man do his best for Barrow, or rather work wickedness for him, he cannot prove before God all his Scripture phrases to be aptly applied against us. And what motion of the spirit can railing, rage, or mad frenzy be, that such a one cannot therein be judged of? His following of Eliah against Baal and Baal's Priests, was beyond his warrant to mock and taunt the preachers of the Gospel, from any authority of God. He that sinneth is worthy of death; so he that consents and justifies the wicked, deserves to die, and a woe by Esay is pronounced against him. Esay. 5. I allege against this man, his published writings: first, Page 71. 73. 75. of my former Book. against the Separation: secondly, for his allowing of Bishops: thirdly, for his justifying of set Prayer, and saying of the Lords Prayer. He answers me thus; that I may as well allege against S. Paul his pharasaical practices, persecutions, & blasphemies, before he came to the truth, as evidences to confute christian religion, which afterwards he embraced. This answer set down, is enough to manifest him; and sufficient it were not to regard what he writes: for as new conceits arise, so In his Epistle of his book of Differences. will he every day deny himself; and of late in effect he hath published so much of himself. If therefore he had not adjured me before the Lord to answer him, I had just cause in every man's indifferent judgement to have been silent, and to have let him fly without pursuit. He hath outrun himself with us, and now also what he was with the Brownists; whose assembly he condemneth at this present, to be In his Book of Anabaptistry called, The Character of the Beast. as very an Harlot as the Church of Rome. So then, such as here suffered imprisonment, and now are with him, suffered due punishment for their wickedness, and for being in love with an Harlot: may they not by this have sweet comfort of their troubles for their Brownisme? Note this, Reader, well. Now follows the matter of Brownisme, the opinions of their own way, errors arising from their own heart; which being proved, I may conclude that they are in that their way not to be joined unto, but to be avoided as schismatics. The first Error of the Brownists. THey hold, that the Constitution of our Church is a false Constitution. This Mr. Ainsworth confesseth to be their opinion, Page 169. This is an error, it is manifest, for that the Constitution of our Church is a true constitution: which thus I prove: Reason. 1 First, an Apostolical Constitution, is a true Constitution, That our Constitution is Apostolical and true. such a one is ours: for first, the people of this Nation was converted to Christ as true Stories do witness, by either Apostles, or Apostolical men: neither is it to be doubted, but that in their days the Gospel was far spread, as may appear by Saint Paul's testimony. Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. It is a Popish error to avouch the contrary, as learned men with us have maintained against the Papists. Secondly, because we yet hold and maintain the same things Apostolical, whereby both we and other Churches were made Christian Assemblies, that is, the Word, external profession of jesus Christ, and the holy Sacraments; by which, and for which, the people in the Apostles days were accounted Christians. The Word makes Disciples to Christ. Mat. 28. 9 Mark. 16. 15. And it is the word reconciling men to God. 2. Cor. 5. 19 by this, wrought the Apostles. Act. 2. 14. with 37. 38. and 16. 32. 33. This word given to a people, is Gods covenanting with them: for so the declaration of his will, by his word is called his covenant. Leu. 2. 13. Deut. 29. 11. and he takes such to be his. Deut. 26. 18. The people's receiving this word, and professing their faith to God, is their taking of God to be their God, and covenanting with him: Deut. 33. 3. and 26. 17 of such hath hath he received a reconciliation. job 33. 23. 24. And such Professors the Apostles admitted into the Church, as those that had covenanted with God, and were not to be denied the seal of the covenant. Acts. 8 12. 37. 38. The Sacraments combine and knit us together. Mat. 28. 19 1. Cor. 10. 16. Therefore unless they will deny that we have Christ's word and Sacraments, and that we do not profess that Christ to be our Saviour, they cannot with any face of truth deny us both to have had, and now to have one and the same Apostolical constitution; suppose there be now corruptions, they take not away the nature of a true constitution, so long as we hold no other word of life, than Christ's; no other Sacraments than he instituted; nor any other Saviour, or means of salvation, but only himself. Reason. 2 Secondly, if they be a true constituted Church, then are we We are as truly constituted as they. so: but they so think of themselves. The consequence is necessary: because wherein they be Christians, by the very same be we such also: they profess Christ; and preach they any 2. Cor. 11. 4. other jesus, whom we have not preached? They say. they have the Spirit: If they mean God's Spirit, where had they it? not here? Have they received another Spirit, whom we have not received? They have (say they) the Gospel: What Gospel? Have they received another Gospel, which we have not received? I then say with the Apostle, we might suffer them: If they can prove it, than we must believe it. Lastly, they are baptized, and so be we: If we be truly baptized, then are we in a true Constituted Church; which thus appeareth: First, true Baptism puts on Christ; Gal. 27. and a company having put on Christ, can they be denied to be in Christ? and if in Christ, than his Church. Secondly, true Baptism admits men not into a false Church, but into the true Church; if our Baptism be true, then are we a true Church, except we have after forsaken our Covenant. Thirdly, true Baptism is Gods true Seal, to the persons so baptized, that he hath covenanted with such, and they with him, and therefore he saith, such were borne to him as were in Israel, even, for that they had upon them Izech. 16. 20. the seal of Circumcision; the like may be said of such, as have upon them Baptism. And if we be God's children by Baptism, and he thereby doth testify his Covenant with us, then are we his people and true Church. This cannot be denied, unless they can show that God hath reversed his Covenant with us, though we be baptized: but this they cannot, so long as we do profess jesus Christ, and hold his word, which is his covenant with us: though some do break with him in many particulars, shall the unbelief of some, make the Faith of God of none effect to all? now God forbidden. If they say that our Baptism is Rom. 3. 4. false and no true seal, as Mr. Ainsworth saith, Page 195. I answer; If it be Christ's baptism, then is it true Baptism, and a true seal: for Christ's baptism is but one, he hath not a true and a false baptism in his Church. Ephes. 4. 5. If it be not Christ's, than it is no Baptism at all, and so should we need to be baptized, because we are not baptized: and then why herein agreed they not with Mr. Smith. The judgement of Divines here, and beyond the sea, hold our Baptism true. The matter and form are true, and therefore it is true. If they can show any other matter and form of Baptism instituted by Christ, then whereof our Baptism doth consist, they say something: a true Minister is for the well being, but a Minister is not of the essence of a Sacrament. Reason 3 Thirdly, The people gathered together in Christ's Name, for the Constitution. that is, by his authority and ordinance to profess him, are a true Church, and so in a true Constitution, for Christ is among We are gathered by Christ's power. them. Mat. 18. 20. But such are we, by the power of Christ are we conjoined: first, in the time of Reformation in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, were many by God's Word and Spirit, joined into the Profession of Christ; which Word and spirit is Christ's power: now that this power did conjoin them, is evident; for her Majesty (with many other) in Queen Mary's days professed freely the Gospel, after whose death they also did uphold and continued it: this is most evident; and cannot be denied. Than others were by her majesties blessed Rule, brought to the outward obedience of the Gospel. Now, that her authority was also Christ's power, is manifest; because Princely authority is his ordinance, & the same hath the Lord used to to reform his people, and to join together his people, as is to be seen in the Example of Ezechias, and josias; and therefore are we a people gathered together in the Name of Christ, that is, by his power and authority to profess his Name, and he is among us, and in many powerful to Sanctification of life; and therefore a true Church, and in a true Constitution. Lastly, we all now living cannot be said to be gathered by the Magistrate, but have been brought into the Church by the Faith of our parents, & the Churches charitable judgement of us in our infancy, to have belonged unto Christ, and by his now gathering do we stand a people of God, confirmed by the word, and upheld by the authority of the Magistrate. Fourthly, Our Constitution agreeth with Mr. Ainsworths' Reason for our Constitution. definition of a Constitution, Page. 170. The Constitution, saith he, of the Commonwealth of Israel, is a gathering and uniting of a people into a divine policy. If this definition be Our Constitution agreeth with Mr. Ainsworths' description of a constitution. true, than we agreeing unto this, our Constitution is true: the form whereof is, saith he, Order. First, than we are a gathered and united people by the word, into the profession of Christ; and knit by Baptism, and the Communion, and thus, first, under one Sovereign authority; and secondly, tied to this honour of Christ by wholesome Laws. Secondly, they are gathered into Order, as was the Common wealth of Israel, for in that policy, persons were gathered into Families; Families brought into Cities; Cities united into Tribes; and Tribes subject all under one Supreme power; under whom were others, both in the Church & in the Common wealth in this order also of Superiority, one over, and an other under an other; the Church and Common wealth, being one commixed body in policy, under one King; so as the offices of the several members might be distinguished in their special ends, and manner of working, but not be divided bodies altogether one from another in matter of Government, in which the high Priest Deut. 17. did intermeddle about civil affairs, as well as others, not Churchmen, as we say. Mr. Ainsworth acknowledgeth and teacheth, that all are Church men, though employed in civil causes; for the distinction of Clergy, and Lay-men (saith he) is popish. He holds also that the people have authority to meddle in Church government, to appoint Tradesmen to sit with their Pastor in cases of Excommunication; why then may not the authority of Princes be as sufficient to allow Clergy men, as we speak, to meddle in Common wealth matters, if they be held fit, upon occasion, not neglecting thereby their ministery, no more than the high Priest did omit his Priesthood, though he sat now and then in other causes? Hath a Lay-man more liberty for to meddle in matters of the first Table, than a Minister to have to do in matters of the second, being called thereunto? Is matters between man and man any thing but righteousness? and is not a Minister to teach that? and if he aught to teach it, may he not see the same put in execution, even by authority given unto him? an Elder, that is, a Church man, a Minister, is commended for ruling well, 1. Tim. 5. besides his labour in the ministery. And thus is the commonwealths Order in Israel here observed: persons are gathered into Families, Families into Parishes, Parishes into Dioceses, Dioceses into Provinces; and all under one Supreme regal authority: under whom in church & Commonweal are other in superiority and inferiority one to an other, for well ordering this body knit together, as was the same in Israel. If all things were answerable to this Order, were there any better, or more exactly agreeing with the Order in Israel? Thirdly, I say, this is also divine uniting of us together: first, because it so agreeth with God's Order under the law: secondly, because the King's authority, which is God's authority, hath so united us, by his established laws. This Order is more order, than that confused meeting of straggling private persons, who under pretence of Christian liberty, will live under no law, but do what to themselves seemeth good; of which the holy Ghost complains, and renders a reason, judg. 17. 6. & 18. 1. & 19 1. because there was no king in Israel. He cries not out for the want of an Ecclesiastical Constitution, the Order of Aaron appointed by Moses was then among them, but he laments the want of a King, without whom men did what they listed. Such a complaint may be justly taken up against these, who do what they list; now Brownists, now Anabaptists: one allows that, another this, a third would have he knows not what. One half Excommunicating another half; they be full of variety, instability is their Christian liberty. Ask some returned from them, what troubles for every trifle, what carping and censorious spirits arise up in them? They be a disquiet Sea, never without some storms arising; they be a very Babel, for that they have no King in their Israel: that is, of their Constitution, to keep them in obedience. The Holy Ghost complains three times for the want of a King, to show what a good thing it is to have a King in Israel; without whose authority, though there be the word, and a constituted Church, yet will men do what they list. Mark and consider; the happiness herein, and their misery. Fiftly, We are a true constituted Church, if their description Reason for our Constitution. of the Church: be true: for though I have showed how false it is; yet sithen they maintain it for true, it is enough to prove by their own judgement against themselves, that we be a true Church. Now that the Church of England agrees If their description of a Church be true, we are a true Church constituted. fully with their description, it shall appear by the particulars, of this definition of theirs, set down in their Book to the King's Majesty, Page. 44. in the third Position. Every true visible Church, is a Company of people called, and separated from the world by the word of God, and joined together by voluntary profession of the faith of Christ in the fellowship of the Gospel. 1. That we are a Company of people none deny. 2 We are Called, We are called. Some internally, as the fruits of the Spirit witnesseth, and all externally, as the general profession of every one declareth. 3. Separated Separated. from the world; in that we by Profession, Laws, and Public meetings, are severed from jews, Turks and other Heathen: also from Papists, Anabaptists, Familists, Arians, Brownists, and all such Heretics, and Schismatics, which is further manifest by our Public condemnation of them, & also by infliction of punishment upon them, for their wicked practices: thus are we five ways separated from false Religions and Assemblies. Objection. Now if it be said, it is not a perfect separation from all corruptions, and from all men of ill conversation. Answer. I answer, not to come to perfection of a thing, takes not away the true being of it in that whereto it is come. There is in no man perfection of sanctification, nor any example of any Church free from all corruption, and all corrupt men of the world, but either in public or private were somewhat short of this perfect separation in practice. It is enough for the present purpose, that we can, prove that we have made a separation, for in their description they only nominate simply a separation, without mentioning any degree how far, their mind in that is not manifest herein yet unto us. 4. By the word of God. Thus also have I proved, that our Church was called: whether hereby be meant, the ministery of the word, or Magistacies lawful power commended and blessed in reformation of the Church by the Word: for that may be said to be done by the Word, which is done by the allowance thereof. 5. joined together. Thus is also our Church, as also I have proved and declared how. 6. By voluntary profession. For Profession it cannot be denied, but perhaps they doubt, We be voluntary professors, and how. how it may be held a voluntary Profession. But if they consider these things: first, our Sovereign's voluntary Profession with the Honourable Counsel; for who compels them? secondly, the free proceeding of the Honourable house of Parliament, where it is allowed for every one to speak freely, and the good Laws made to establish Religion, and to punish offenders with free consent: thirdly, the Commonalties free choosing of Parliament men, who are their * Neh. 10. 29. Leu. 4. 13. 15. mouth and heart in their proceed: fourthly, if to these generals, there be added, the free contributions of many Congregations, for the maintenance of the ministery of the word, the many thousands that seek abroad for instruction, without enforcement of law, there is no reason to judge our Church unvoluntary Professors. What if some dissemble? who knows it certainly? what if some come for fear? yet so long as they are at a choice of two things, either to suffer punishment, or to profess Religion, can they be said not to come therefore voluntarily, sithen that where there is a chose, there is a kind of freedom? They may see then that we are a people voluntarily professing, this cannot be denied, except they can prove, that for some, the profession of most and the chief are not to be esteemed. 7. Of the Faith of Christ: they here show not what Faith, neither the kinds, nor degrees of Faith: now We have Faith in Christ. certainly can any think, but that we all do profess the Faith of Christ; that is, either, that Christ is Hystorically, or that Christ is a Saviour, and such to hold on temporarily, or else, that he is, to so many as certainly believe in him, to salvation, a blessed Redeemer? If in but some of these we have the Faith of Christ, we do answer to the description, sithen they mention only a Faith of Christ: but we having these faiths, all Historical, some temporary, & some justifying Faith among us, we herein by their description are a Church of Christ. 8. And lastly, in the fellowship of We have fellowship in the Gospel. the Gospel: first, the truth of the former doth infer this necessarily, for we cannot be a company voluntarily gathered into the profession of the faith of Christ, & not be in fellowship of the Gospel: secondly, because we are all one body, & all more or less partaking of the doctrine of the Gospel, and of the Sacraments of the Gospel: As he that in some thing doth join with men in ill, though he be not absolute with them in all things, hath fellowship in darkness: so on the contrary is it true, touching our fellowship in the Gospel; there may be a true fellowship in the Gospel, though such as be so therein be ignorant of very many truths, else were not the Apostles in that fellowship before Christ's Ascension, who were ignorant of many things, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets had said; so Luke. 24. the Hebrews after much teaching; and if corruptions should hinder, than the Corinthians had not been in the fellowship Heb. 5. & 6. of the Gospel, whether we respect the Doctrine of some in a main point of Religion, touching the resurrection, or the ill lives of some among them. I see not therefore how they can deny us fellowship in the Gospel, more than these, or all the Churches of God in the world. Lastly, if the Church of Rome, be in a true Constitution, Reason that our Constitution is true. then much more may it be concluded truly, that our Church hath a true Constitution; being in a state reform much from all the grossest errors and absurdest corruptions thereof. Now whether the Church of Rome be in a true Constitution or not, I leave it to the Reader to judge upon these Reasons. First, in respect of the time past, and first planting thereof by Apostolical authority, in Saint Paul's time, Rom. 1. and thus I reason after Mr. johnsons own fashion; In his answer to Mr. White, Page. 15. who useth the like defence for the Church of Israel, committing Idolatry in the Wilderness; and saith, that they were in that Idolatry God's people, by a former Calling. If the reason defend them in the very act of Idolatry, why may it not be a reason for the Constitution of the Romish Church, though it be Idolatrous and Antichristian? Secondly, in respect of the time present, because Antichrist, that is, that Head with his body sitteth in the Temple of God. 2. Thes. 2. 4. which must be understood visibly in respect of the truths of God in Doctrine, & truths in ordinances of Christ held there (how foully soever they be corrupted) of which Gods people among them partake in his mercy to their salvation, & others from time to time have Se Catal. Testium. veritatis. maintained openly to the preservation of some fundamental points of the Apostolical Constitution. Now the Temple of God, in which he sitteth, hath a true Constitution, in which respect, that Church is in a true Constitution. Thirdly, If the children of the ten Tribes, in their Apostasy, through jerobeams idolatry, might be called the children of God by circumcision, the visible seal of God's covenant; then why may not the little ones in the Romish church, be called Christ's, for that they have received true baptism? If so; it hath a true Constitution by true Baptism in their children, who are Christ's thereby, as the children of the Israelites were the Lords by Circumcision, till by education they be made Antichristian, and by that offered up to Antichrist, as the children of the Israelites became Molochs, by the Father's offering of them up unto him, as Ezechiel speaketh. Fourthly, Popery or Antichristianisme begun not out of Christianity, as taking unto itself truths from true Christianisme, but was and is idolatrous and heretical corruptions brought in by Satan upon the profession of Christian faith, and into the Church of God; in which, as is said, Antichrist sitteth: So as it doth not disannul wholly Christianity, but corrupteth it, and covereth it over with corruptions, as jobs body was with sores: of which simile touching this point, see more at large following. Fiftly, if that Church need only a Reformation, than it hath not made a nullity of Religion, and so hath not lost the first Apostolical constitution totally, but it needeth only reformation, which ever presupposeth truths held which are sufficient to judge men to be Christians, the corruptions being taken away. There is required either only a reformation, or a new plantation; but not this, and therefore only the other; for so we and all other Christian Churches which are come out of Babylon, do hold it sufficient that we are reform from her corruptions, and do not need any primary covenanting or baptizing as in the first Planting; which would follow, if we needed more than a reformation. This Romish Church must be dealt with only as the Church of God was in judah: It fell often to gross and Heathenish Idolatry, and so brought upon the true Constitution an Heathenish worship; of which, when God raised up good Kings, they were reform, which was thus: First, what good the Church held in her fall, that was retained, as being of the true constitution: Secondly, what evils were brought in upon the Constitution were removed and cast out: Thirdly, the good things, which for these evils brought in, were either laid aside, or cast out, the same were again brought in, and used as at the first. These things are apparent in the days of the good Kings of judah, when Religion was reform, especially in the days of Hezechias and josias. 2. Chron. 29. & 30. & 34. & 35. And thus was the Church reform, and not newly again constituted, for that they held the constitution in some sort, by a profession of truths, and by Circumcision, although Idolatry was committed of them: So is it with the Romish Church, which standeth in a true Constitution by profession of very many main truths, which are truly of the Apostolical constitution, as also by Baptism, which we do hold true in the substance, which if they do retain, and therein agreed with us, laying aside their glosses and corruptions, even their Antichristian abominations, and bringing in what good things they have laid aside, what doth let, but that by such a reformation, we may judge them a true Church, as now justly we do condemn them for Antichristian, not in respect of their Constitution, but in respect of their abominations, brought upon the constitution, and of the good things cast out by them? for which Antichristianisme we do separate ourselves from them, as others may in the like case. And thus by these six reasons have I proved, that our Church is truly Constituted. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this first Error. WHat Mr. Ainsworth can say hereto I know not; what he hath said to my former book, let us see: he denieth us to have a true constitution by two reasons: first, because (saith he) all profane, worldly, and wicked persons are received, as the matter whereof the Church is builded, contrary to Leu. 20. 24. 1. King. 8. 53. Acts. 2. 40. and 19 8. 9 john. 17. 16. 2. Cor. 4. 14. 17. 18. I answer, first, these words insinuate, as if we were receiving A difference between admitting into the Church & retaining of men already in it. in strangers into the Church, as if the Church were in planting; which is deceitful dealing with his Scholars, we cannot be said properly to be receiving such into the Church, as be already in it, but we retain them that are in. It is one thing to receive wicked men into the Church, and another to retain the members that are in it already. He speaks therefore improperly of us, if not absurdly, especially if he understand the speech of the Church of England, as he should, and as I do in this point in hand. Secondly, his accusation is false, for we make not men matter How men be matter of the Church. of the Church, as they be wicked or profane; but we retain them, because they hold the same profession of Christ with us, though in conversation they do serve from it, which ill demeanour we condemn in them, by our Profession, by Laws: and this is manifest by punishment inflicted upon many, when they be lawfully proceeded against, and till than we retain them, hoping of their amendment. Thirdly, his argument is of no force: what though some wicked be retained? will a false constitution thereupon Though the wicked be not cast out, yet the constitution is not false. follow? First, I demand, is an honest society of Tradesmen, a false society, because some be retained among them who are unhonest? secondly, I demand, was the constitution of Corinth's Church false, because they had among them wicked men? why then did S. Paul call it a Church of Christ, and a company of Saints? what may also be said of Thyatira, which suffered jesabel to teach, deceive, and to Revel. 2. 20. commit fornication? what is to be thought of the Church of the jews, in Esaias, and ●eremies time, when the people as is before showed, were wicked in a high degree, and the evil spread among all sorts. Fourthly, a people are matter of the Church by their Outward profession maketh men matter of the Church. profession, though they err in conversation; men covenanting in word, are in bond of society, though performance fail in many things among them: He was a jew that was circumcised, whether he was borne of a jew or otherwise, howsoever his life was; were not Elies Sons. Saul, Doeg, Nabal, joab, Absolom, and such wicked ones, Israelites outward by birth, by profession, by circumcision? And what hinders men borne of Christian parents, professing Christ, and baptized to be Christians, though they be of ill conversation? If such jews were not denied to be true matter then, what lets these Christians to be true matter now? I say true matter, for there is a difference between true, good, bad, and no matter. These by being so borne, so professing, and baptized, be true matter, though not good: of this distinction have I spoken before in my other book. Page 112. 115. Whereto Mr. Ainsworth saith almost nothing, let him either answer now directly hereto, or else cease to deceive in this point. Fiftly, what is the reason, that a mixture of good, and A mixture of good and bad in conversation are not false matter of a Church neither before God nor men. some bad in a Church, should more make that Church a false Church, than a mixture of thoughts, holy and unholy, flesh and spirit in a man, striving one against another continually, should make him a false Christian? But as Rebecca was a true wife of Isaac, though she had two contraries, an Elect and Reprobate within her; so is the Church of England a true wife to God; though she have within her Esau's with jacobs. Sixtly, and lastly, If wicked men intermixed make a false matter, it is so in respect of God, or in respect of men: if they say of God; I answer, first, that God in his word doth acknowledge the mixed Israelites his people, and therefore is not he to be made Author of this their error. Secondly, if it were so in respect of God, who seethe all men, as they be, then should there be no true matter of a Church ever; except they will say, that no Hypocrites are in a Church, which though before men they be holy, yet before God they be devils, and so he holds them, as he did judas, before he was manifest to be a traitor before men. If they say, it is a false matter in respect of men; I answer, first, that God by his word calls not a people his Church, because men so judge of them, nor for any of their upright walkings Deut. 7. 7. 8. with cap. 9 5. and compared with Esay. 1. & 5. etc. with men, but because he hath taken them to serve him; hath covenanted with them, to hold them his people, though they do provoke him to wrath often, and before men be in some things as the very Heathen. Secondly, the Prophets and Apostles, who were men and saw how it was with the Churches in their times, do not so judge Churches false Churches before men upon this ground. Therefore this position of his, is neither true in respect of God, or in respect of man, if either God, or his Prophets or Apostles, may have credit with them. His alleged Scriptures do not prove his position. Now to his alleged Scriptures, I answer, though he say, they be plain and manifest for his assertion, yet they do not afford him this assertion, that a mixed company, is a false Church. The first place is in Leu. 20. 24. where it is said, Leu. 20. 24. expounded. that God separated them from other people. The place is miserably wrested from the sense, and falsely applied, for by separation there is meant, a setting a part Abraham's posterity to a special service of God, and therein to be a people differing from all the world. And by other people, is meant such as worshipped not the true God; what is this to us, who worship jesus Christ, and are also a people separated from other nations, such as is there understood? so the place maketh much for us, and nothing to his purpose. Let him produce a place to prove that Israelites were to separate from other Israelites for their corruptions, as false matter: else his proof is nothing, but if he would endeavour it to deceive others, let it be before noted, that the contrary is plain from the word: for even when Moses spoke from God of this their Separation from others, even then spoke he of the Israelites as a corrupt people among themselves, Deut. 9 6. 7. 8. and Num. 14. 22. 33. 35. And yet he tells not the godly of any Separation, to be a body from that mixed Assembly. Moses was no Brownist, nor any other Prophet of God, to teach this Schismatical Donatisme. God separated them from Heathen, but he separated not one part of them from another, because some bad ones were among them. I separate them from the Heathen (saith God) doth it therefore follow; Ergo, separate one from another? from one kind we cannot conclude an other, for this is a special separation, and as it is meant, so is the place to be urged, and not otherwise, for if it be, it is but abused. The second place, is 1. Kings. 8. 53. This place is the very 1. King. 8. 53. same with the former; and so hath the same answer: this Answerer would seem to affright men with number, because he wants places of weight. The third place is in Acts. 2. 40. If it be observed, to Acts. 2. 40. expounded. whom S. Peter speaks, the Answer is soon and truly made. He speaks to the jews, and of such jews as opposed Christ, and denied him to be Christ: How follows this to us, from jews, who renounced the very foundation, even jesus Christ, whom we do profess to be the true Messiah, and so hold him? The holy Ghost saith; forsake those that deny Christ; Ergo, saith this Brownist, forsake such as do profess him to be Christ Let him show me by what rule of reason this can follow. If conscience of holy use of Scripture were in them as they pretend, thus would they not make it a nose of wax to frame it to their vain fantasy, as they here wickedly do. The scope with the true sense, applied to a like case, is a true allegation of Scripture, else is it but a wretched abuse thereof. The fourth place is, Acts 19 8. 9 Why the 8. verse is alleged Acts. 19 8. 9 answered. I see not, except against themselves: for first, the Apostle went into the jewish Synagogues, to condemn our scrupulous Separatists, who refuse our Churches: secondly, he desputed openly and boldly, these run here into corners, or else voluntarily fly their Country to speak and writ there their pleasures. Thirdly, the Apostle taught, only the things appertaining to the kingdom of God, and no other than what before had been taught by Moses and the Apostles. Acts. 26. 22. 23. when these teach in their particular way, their own conceits, as is proved, and shall be after further manifested. The ninth verse carries only a show as they look upon it: a show I say, only in their eyes; but not indeed so to any judicious Reader. For if they allege this to maintain their Separation from us, than it proves not their purpose, unless we grant ourselves to be a people hardened, disobedient, and speaking evil of the way of God before the multitude, and that their way is that way of God, which is the whole matter in controversy. Secondly, if their way were God's way, yet this place is not against all, but against certain that were hardened; and therefore unless they have spoken to all our Church, and disputed with us, and so have made their way known to all, and that all are found hard hearted, this place helps them not. If they allege it, to prove that in the true Church there are not a mixed people, let them draw an argument from it, and show how it follows from thence. The place teacheth that the members of the true Church are to separate from the obstinate wicked, who will not be won to the Church: so here is of some true members of a true Church, departing from such as be not the church, but not of members of the true church forsaking members of the true Church, or one true Church forsaking another for some corruptions, and therefore it is not to the purpose. This may be retorted upon themselves, for these Brownists speak evil, yea, and with obstinacy blaspheme our holy exercises, the preaching of Christ's word, the administration of the holy Sacraments among us, as I have in my former Book sufficiently declared. And therefore are we rather to fly from them, than they should hence conclude to departed from all us. The fift place is john. 17. 16. This is understood of the john. 17. 16. answered. elect only, such as are so not of the world, as Christ jesus himself was not of the world; the whole prayer of Christ teacheth this exposition, and he evidently shows what he means by such as are not of the world, such as he saith, he sanctifieth; such as he prayeth to the father for; such as are one in the Father and in the Son, in whom Christ is, and to whom he gives his glory, they behold it, and are where he is, and the love of the Father unto Christ, shall be in them. Therefore these words are understood only of the Elect, that are ordained to life. Now then to urge this place, thereby to teach such a separation in the visible Church, as here is meant, is to seclude all reprobates, all hypocrites, out of it, and to establish it only of a people ordained to eternal life, which who they be, man knows not, therefore the Apostles admitted of Simon Magus, of Demas, for their profession, not because of their election, which they knew not, as appears by the story. Thus therefore is this Scripture egregiously abused being understood of the invisible members, to be applied to the visible members: but this is a common deceit among them, which the simple see not; but swallow up every text unchewed, as serving their turn, if it smell but of a separation, or forsaking of the world; they never regarding how it is to be taken If this answerer should childishly object that our Saviour speaketh of his Apostles, who were visible members, and of such also as were to be called by the word, which they should preach, verse 20. I answer he speaks of visible members indeed, but not of all visible members, but of the elect in the visible Church. These two differ much, sometime, a visible member, and one also Elect in the visible Church; even as much as a Reprobate, and one ordained to life: the person of the man may be seen, but his election cannot. So than though here Christ speak of such as be in the visible Church, yet he speaks not of them, as they be members thereof before men; but as they be endued with heavenly graces, and holy before God, as is evident by that which is said, and proved from the text. The sixth and last Scripture is 2. Cor. 6. 14. 18. This place 2. Cor. 6. 14. 18. expounded and answered fully. is one of their common places, to which they do run upon every occasion, as their special weapon to fight for Separation, and to defend the same. But this is very like the former, a flourish to deceive the simple: and for that it is so much urged by them, I will the more stand upon it, to clear the same from their wretched abuse of it, in the judgement of any judicious and learned Reader: in which let these things be observed. First, the Occasion: The Corinthians were a people converted The Occasion. to Christianity, and yet lived in civil society among Infidels, called Gentiles; of which some perhaps being their friends and kinsfolks after the flesh, would invite them to their Idol feasts, as may seem. 1. Cor. 10. 27. to which some would go, and eat of the things sacrificed to Idols, even in the Idol Temples, as is manifest, by 1. Cor. 8. 1. 10. which some held as an indifferent thing, because they had heard the Apostle teach that an Idol was nothing. 1. Cor. 8 4. and so they made no conscience of things external, but thought any thing lawful therein in that respect. But the Apostle shows it to be a defilement by Idolatry, which he commands to fly from. 1. Cor. 10. 14. and here dehorts from. Now the occasion here with us is not alike, we devil not in civil society with Idolaters, but under a Christian King, and with a people professing Christ: here is no public Idols set up, nor any feasting in honour of them, whereto we are invited. If any secret Idolatry be committed, and any enticed thereunto, than the occasion being the same, the place is of force against such, but no defence for these men's Schism, from our public Assemblies. Secondly, The scope of the 14. 15. 16. verses is set Scope. down in the verse 17. that the believing Corinthians professing Christ, the true God, should separate and come out from among the Gentiles, Infidels; which separation and coming out, is expounded in the words following: that is, touch no unclean thing. By touching, is meant a partaing with them in their evils; according to that in the Ephesians chap. 5. 11. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but even reprove them rather: these last words showing what it is to have no fellowship with them, it is by words to reprove them, in judgement to condemn them, in affections to hate them, and in conversation to avoid them; so touch we no unclean thing. Now here see this Answerers' Scope, why he allegeth this place, to wit, to prove, that none of lewd conversation are true matter of the visible Church. How agrees the Apostles Scope, and this man's drift together? If Christians must separate from Gentiles, then are not men of ill conversation, professing jesus Christ true matter of a Church: or thus; If true believers must avoid sin, and every unclean thing, than the wicked and profane are not of the visible Church. What a mad Argument is this? Here is Tinterton Steeple, the cause of Goodin Sands. Object. But it may be they will say, that Gods commanding the believers to separate from the wicked, is his rejection of them, and if all the godly would perform the Commandment, there should be no wicked among them: and thus by the Lord's rejection they be not, and by the godly men's obedience, they should not be of the Church. I know not how possibly they should defend this Scripture for themselves, but thus. Answ. But hereto I answer; they force more from the words, than the Lord gives them, if they happily should make this Objection: for God commands not his to separate wholly from all the wicked, but from wicked Infidels, Gentiles, Idolaters, jews, Turks, Papists, the very Societies of these are to be left as no people of God; so all the Church falling into that state of Infidelity, and so judged of the Church, and therefore such are to be separated from, and hereto tends this place: but for other wicked, which live in the society of the godly, another course is to be taken; to separate only from their private familiarity, and if they will not be reform, than other courses are to be taken with them, as their sin of obstinacy deserves. For these differing things are to be ever observed: first, a differing between, a separation public of the godly from among such as are no Church, and a private separation of the best members of a true Church, from the worst sort in it: secondly, between the wicked remaining among the godly, & the godly being of the fellowship of the wicked; thirdly, between the wicked in life, holding the public profession of the Church in the Church, and wicked out of the Church, denying the Faith: fourthly, a difference between separation in private from the wicked in the Church, and a separation from God's ordinances in the Church, for such wicked men's sake. Lastly, between the godly separating the wicked from among them, and themselves breaking society with themselves, because of some wicked persons. These things mistaken, Separation is disorderly performed, and wickedly practised, and such places as this hereby misalledged, to the upholding of an ungodly Schism, and breach of true and lawful peace. Thirdly, The matter found fault with here, is the being The matter entreated of. of such together one with another, as aught not to cohere in one, which being together is set out, first, in the matter, manifested in these terms, Unrighteousness, Darkness, Belial, Idols: secondly, in the manner of the being together; to wit, as being one with them, which is noted in these terms, Yoked, Fellowship, Concord, Partaking, Agreement, which is in sum thus much, believers are not to be with the wicked in their unrighteousness, in their state of darkness, as they be under Belial, the Devil, and are Idolaters, as if they were yoke fellows in one Society and Communion, living therein at one, and partaking with them in their evils, and so agreeing together. What now is this to help the way of the Separatists, who do forsake here not Darkness, but light; the preaching of the word with us and among us: not unrighteousness, but the godly fellowship of many fearing God: not Belial the Devil, but God, whom they have found even powerful among us and us: not Idols, for what Idols are here set up in our Assemblies to be worshipped, but God's worship and divine exercises? If the matter hereserue their turn: Mark Reader well, they must prove us all to live; first, in darkness: secondly, in unrighteousness: thirdly, to be in league with the devil: fourthly, that we be Idolaters, and Idols set up among us, and that we all do as one body cleave together, as couples yoked in that fellowship and communion, living so, partaking in evil with concord and agreement: If he do not prove this against us, he gets nothing by this place but condemnation with God, and shame with all wise and understanding Readers, for so urging this place against our Church. The persons spoken of. Fourthly, The persons to be separated from, here mentioned do nothing fit his turn to produce this place against us, for he speaks here of Infidels, such as were no members of the Church: Gentiles, that had not entertained any Profession of Christ, so as the Argument is from no members of the Church, to members of the Church, in which kind of reasoning there is no force of consequence. Because Infidels, Heathen Pagans', Idolaters, led by the devil, are no matter of a true Church: Ergo, Christians professing jesus Christ, yet not in life answerable to their professing, are no true matter of the Church: I leave him this consequence to prove, if he cannot, let him lay his hand on his mouth. Fiftly and lastly, The persons to whom the Apostle speaks, show that he allegeth not the true meaning of the place; for even then, when this doctrine of Separation from the Heathen was taught, there were of the Corinthians, who herein did in some sort partake with the Heathen, they were a mixed company; there were among them dissensions and divisions; 1. Cor. 1. 10. 11. 12. Envying, there were men carnal: 1. Cor. 3. 3. there was open incest; 1. Cor. 5 1. 2. there was a great abuse of the Sacrament; 1. Cor. 11. drunkenness; contempt of the poor; one going to law with another under Infidels; 1. Cor. 6. giving of offence to the weak; 1. Cor. 8. partaking with Idols in eating in Idol Temples: 1. Cor. 10. vainglorious abuse of gifts in the public Assemblies; 1. Cor. 14. Heresies, some not believing the doctrine of the Resurrection. 1. Cor. 15. Yea, matters were so out of frame, as the Apostle beseecheth them to be reconciled to God. 2. Cor. 5. 10. They suffered evil men unrepentant among them, guilty of uncleanness, Fornication, Wantonness, Strife, Backebitings, Whisper, Swell, etc. 2. Cor. 12. 20. 21. Can worse be said of any in our Church? do any of us receive the Sacrament drunk, or deny the Resurrection? yet note for all these things in Corinth, how well in general he speaks of all, for the graces in some, read these places. 1. Cor. 1. 2. 4. 9 30. and 3. 23. and 4. 15. and 9 2. and 11. 2. and 2. Cor. 7. 11. 12. 13. Secondly, how he teacheth not the godly to hold the wicked a false matter, neither to gather themselves together from among the other, but to admonish one another, to avoid private familiarity, as Caluin expounds the 1. Cor. 5. 11. and to cast out some. He never taught the better sort that they were polluted, except they separated. This Luciferian Schism, and Pharisaical pride was far from his thoughts, and God's Church then. If this place be good against us, and sufficient to prove bad livers to be false matter, a mixed company no church of Christ, and that the Separatists Schism is hereon grounded, the same had been also as good against the Church of Corinth, and the Apostle would have urged them to this Brownistical practice, but neither doth the Apostle so apply it, neither did the better sort so practise, either there, or in any of the churches in Asia, in which was given as just cause of Separation, as they can take against us here. And thus much for his first reason, that the matter of our Church, as he supposeth, is not true. His second reason against our Constitution is, the order Mr. Ainsworths' second reason against our Constitution confuted. of our gathering, and the cause; to wit, constraint of authority: for the Order, I have already spoken of it: and if they like not my answer, I refer them to what Doctor Willet hath written, in his fift general Controversy: also to Doctor Downchams' Sermon upon Revel. 1. 20. which they have not answered. Reason. 1 For the Constraint; I answer, that first in the planting Our Constitution was of voluntary professors. of Christian Religion, in King Etheldreds' time, King of Kent; he and innumerable others voluntarily embraced it, as this Answerer confesseth, Page 231. therefore at the first we were not constrained. Reason. 2 Secondly, at this last time of Reformation we were not constrained: for first, her blessed Majesty, with many others begun a voluntary Reformation, they were not constrained then; for who could but God? so if he speak generally of all, it is a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid. Secondly, the Supreme power gathered, they made Proclamation of her majesties godly intent, which was a kind of teaching, whereto the people yielded voluntarily, for any thing that any man can say to the contrary, and howsoever it be, that the inferiors came not to consent, yet if all the chief did it voluntarily, it is accounted in such a case the Act of all. Exod. 19 3. 7. 8. Josh. 4. 2. 8. Hence it is, that when God gave Princes to rule his people, their People are judged to be according to their Governors. Actions are specially recorded; the state of the people in them commended or disallowed; and the people in respect of the Governors scarcely mentioned; thereby giving us to understand, where Kings and chief Rulers do voluntarily receive the truth, there the people are to be judged so to profess, as Princes do, and as their Laws command to be done. Thus we may see how Asae 2. Chron: 14. 2. is commended, that he took away the Altars of strange Gods, ascribing all to him, as the principal; who did lead and command the rest; to whose godly Commandment when the people did yield, though by his power some obeyed in fear, yet is it said, that the people sought the Lord, verse 7. And therefore the people are accounted voluntary professors in their chief Governors, because they obey their Sovereign's voluntary Commandments made in their Profession, for the advancement of Religion. Reason. 3 Thirdly, We may be said to be a voluntary people, in respect of Baptism, to which Parents do bring their children, and these children, from time to time, bring freely their children, to be made members of particular Congregations: so though the first were constrained to a Reformation, yet the children of such stand in the free Act of their Parents, and so are to be judged voluntary; because when they come to the years of understanding, they approve of their Parents act. How we be otherwise by Parliament voluntary Professors I have showed before. Reason. 4 Fourthly and lastly, grant that the people be constrained to worship God, it overthrows not the Constitution A great difference between planting and Reforming. in Reformation, between which and the planting there is among other this difference: that in conversion, at the first the Word must be preached, and by that means must men be brought to a voluntary profession without complusion; to which purpose tend all his Scriptures alleged: but in the time of Reformation, Compulsion, the authority of godly Princes, is an approved means to bring and settle the people in order to the worship of God: A master cannot compel a man to be his servant before he be, but when he is, then if the servant fall from him in the time of of his service, he may bring him again by force: God useth to call at the first by a free means, but in Reformation after Relapse, he useth other means. As Proclamation of Princes: so in Hezechias time, by which many returned Prince's may compel their Subjects to Religion. from Idolatry. 2. Chron. 30. neither were any rejected by so coming, as false matter of a Church, though they were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary then: so than the Lord blessed Compulsion; and afterwards in good josias time, who compelled the people, 2. Chron. 34. 32. 33. It is not unlawful for Princes by this example, to compel their Subjects to Religion, in reforming the Church; yea, and to bind them some way, for better performance of the duties of Religion: as by taking an oath, 2. Chro. 15. 12. Neh. 10. 29 by urging some writing, whereto all must seal; Nehe. 9 38. by offering a subscription; Esai. 44. ●. by taking and giving of hands; Esdras. 10. 3. 9 Thus the Scripture records the Lords means used to recall men back to the truth, and to confirm them in their standing, that they may not fall again. I demand, whether Religious Fathers may not force their children by threats, and correction to a religious Course: which if hereby they attain unto but in show, is the family less Religious? If not, then why is a Church (less a true Church) because Princes, the Fathers of our Countries; yea, nursing Fathers to the Church, do by their authority, cause many to join unto the Church, in outward show subjecting themselves to the truth? When many became jews for fear of Mordecai, it was noted, as a prosperous success befalling the Church then, rather than a disgrace and disparagement to it, as Brownists now take it. The authority of Princes is great in these things, when God bestows them upon the Church; and it hath pleased him to use them, as great instruments for his Churches good, which here to declare how, I think it not amiss, both to magnify their power herein, to free it from contempt, and to show that by Prince's power used for to bring men to Religion, the Church is more honourable, and not less true, as these Separatists do dream. 1. He Princes have been special instruments which God hath used for his Churches good. planted a national Church, by a Prince and Prophet, Moses. 2. He Reform it by Kings, josias, Hezekias, and others. 3. He made it more glorious by Kings, as by Solomon. 4. He set orders among persons by kings, as by David, and by the judge and Prophet, Samuel; 1. Chro. 26. 22. 5. He placed and displaced Officers by them, as by Solomon: who put down Abiathar, and preferred Zadoc. 1. King. 2. 35. 6. He makes Princes and Nobles the deliverers of his people, Guides and Defenders of them; as the judges, josua, Gideon, Ehud, Othniel, Samson: yea, Cyrus though an Heathen, Zorobabel, and Nehemiah. 7. The holy Ghost complains, as the greatest want in the Church, that a King was not in Israel to bridlemen, to keep them in order; so great a good is such authority to the Church, both to further good, and to prevent mischief, if it please God to bless his people with godly Princes. Therefore it is strange, that these men should so disannul Prince's care for the Church bettereth the estate of it, and makes it not worse. a Church, because Princely authority binds many to obedience, who otherwise would break out; sithen God hath so employed them in Church affairs, hath so prospered them, and commended their endeavours to compel men to Religion. They aught to pull down Idolatry; they may restrain men from a false worship, and punish such as therein transgress: if so, then let this Answerer tell me, why their authority stretcheth not as well to force men to the true worship, sithen josias zeal is herein commended? Indeed, Faith cannot be compelled, but yet men's bodies may be brought under; and unto the outward means: by which though such benefit nothing towards God, yet is the act of Princes herein laudable, and to the Church very profitable: if so, than the people obeying by constraint, make the Church nothing less true; for if it were so, the actions of Religious Kings should not be allowed of God, and so praised in Scripture, for the imitation of the other godly Princes now. Lastly, let Mr. Ainsworth show, why people compelled by Prince's authority should be therefore the more false matter of a Church, than some of their Company held in through fear of their censures, to abide with them? can it be worse to compel men in the time of Reformation, then to hold men in after Reformation? Mr. Ainsworth proves not how a constraint, maketh Page 169. such a breach in the Church, but that he passeth over with silence, and would disprove our order, and that by two reasons. First, because it is not found in all the new Testament. I answer; How the old Testament may warrant the order of a church established in the new Testament. first, it is enough, if it be found in the old Testament, and not condemned in the new, nor any order prescribed absolutely by precepts and rules to tie men to one, and so to exclude all other, without variation of any circumstance of place, or person at any time; which to prove, I suppose passeth all his, and all his companies cunning. If then there be no binding Law, there is no transgression: General Rules are for things indifferent, they guide, but impose no particulars to a perpetuity. Occasioned practices arising, as time, place, and persons require, even in Apostolical examples do not bind as precepts: let them consider of these things. Secondly, if this reason of his be good, than it follows, that His reason overthrows their manner of making Ministers. among them is no true Minister made according to the Law of the new Testament; because it is not there found, that any, but such were Ministers, as Apostles, and others, ever made Ministers, which Apostles, or Evangelists, or the Eldership only, laid hands on such as were made Minister, so they were public persons; and this is the constant order of making Ministers, by such in the new Testament, and no one instance can be given of any called and ordained to a pastors Office by a company of private men, as they be; and therefore their course not being according to the constant and perpetual order of the new Testament, without alteration in this point, it is disallowed, and they no Ministers by his own argument. Let him herein answer me to every reason as I do him, and if he prevail by a lawful fight with the weapon of God's word, I yield him the victory, and let him hold it. Secondly, because this order was received from the Church of Rome. I answer; first, that the argument is not good; because we have it from Rome, ergo, it is to be disallowed: this can he not maintain; It is not material whence order is, so it be good. Secondly, this order one over another, was before this now-present Rome, if Histories may be credited; and if this answer overthrow not his reason, once again I call upon both him and his associates, to confute Mr. Downhams' Sermon on Reu. 1. 20. And thus much for Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this first Error: to which Mr. Smith saith nothing at all, but as it may seem, answers this and the next Error as both in one. The second Error of the Brownists. Our Church's Constitution (say they) is a real Idol. Page 79. My former Answer to this was, that the Scriptures mention no such Idol, neither take an Idol in this their sense. And to confirm this, I showed my diligence in searching the Scripture touching this, and also noted the great labour of Marlorat, who sets down a perfect Catalogue of all the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and numbereth some 47. and yet none of them in this sense. And therefore this their real Idol, is but a real idle conceit of their own brains: Lastly, I conclude, that if a constitution may be an Idol, they make theirs an Idol; for that, as unto God, they make it the sanctifier of all things, and without which, no word of God, no Sacraments of Christ, no prayer, no preaching true out of such a constitution as theirs is. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer Page 172. to this second Error. MAster Ainsworth at first boggles at it, as if he durst not challenge it for the gross absurdities of it, but after bethinking himself, he defends it, but very seelilie. His answer consists of two points: first, that I have said nothing to disprove it, but that it may for any thing I have said be an Idol, as he thinks. For that he makes my reason to be this, because I see it not, and Marlorat names it not, Ergo, no Idol; but the Reader may see, that my argument is, the Scripture makes it not an Idol, neither is the word Idol, in the Scriptures so taken: therefore it is not an Idol. He saith I do not see all that the Scripture teacheth: I confess it, and if he do not the same, he is arrogantly proud; but I speak of my sight in this particular, and if I be overseen, The word Idol, is not used in Scripture for a constitution. he should have given some instance where the word Idol, is taken for such a Constitution as ours is; but this could he not do. To Marlorats' pains he answers, that both he and I Mr. Ainsworth a Caviller at my words. may as soon number the hairs of our heads, as reckon up all the Idols in the world. Mark Reader, I say Marlorat numbers up the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and he supposeth that I speak of his reckoning up all in the world; so he puts the word World, for the Scriptures: what a cavil, or blindness, or wilful mistaking is this? three times in eight lines, I nominate the word Scripture, and not at all the word World and yet he puts one for the other: but he that is so blind to take the World, for the Scriptures, no marvel it is that he takes Schism instead of the sincere truth, and their invented constitution for God's order in religion. Secondly to prove it an Idol. If it be a false constitution, as before is proved (saith he) set up instead of a true, what is it better than a very Idol? I answer, here is a weak proof, for such a confident cause on their behalf, and in their judgement of so great moment: he shows not what is an Idol, nor proves a false constitution to be an Idol, by either reason or scripture: but first comes with an though, supposing to be what is His reason is ridiculous. not: if our Constitution be false, then is it an Idol; this is ridiculous; for his argument is the very question: as if he had said if our constitution (as he calls it) false, be an Idol, than it is an Idol. Secondly he asks a question; a false constitution being set up instead of the true constitution, what is it better than a very Idol? I answer that first, his ground is weak, for our Church's Constitution is not false; see what is aforesaid for this. Secondly, I say, that an Idol is falsely defined by the term Constitution, without warrant of Scripture, as in my former book I avouch, which he hath not refuted, nor given yet thereto any reason to the contrary. Thirdly, I say, that he himself, it seems, dare not call it an Idol, but demands of others what it is, and saith, what is it better than an Idol? he durst not say; what is it but an Idol? Well then, our Constitution is no Idol at all, for aught this man hath said, but this their error remaineth upon them. He calls me in the end of his answer a vain man; but Vanity itself is upon him, as his Answer shows, which the Lord remove from him: this is my recompense for his railing. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer Page 9 15. to this second Error. MAster Smith here falls to the matter, but withal after a discoursing fashion, holding some truths, but teaching many errors: but two things he avoucheth touching this second error? first, that a false Constitution is a real Idol, Page 9 Secondly, that it is greater and more abominable Page. 14. than any Idol that can be in a true Church. Touching the first, he tells us; first, what is a false Constitution, a mixed company, because it is a false matter, and so a false Constitution; this he proves not, but sets out his erroneous thought, by a beastly Similitude of a Horse and an Ass engendering, bringing out a third thing, a Mule: so good and bad conjoined, produce a third thing, that is, (saith he) a false Church. I answer; first, that a mixed company is no false matter, as is before showed: secondly, he speaketh only of the matter, and omitteth the form, which also is in the making of a constitution: thirdly, he proves nothing by a Simile, much less by this filthy one: fourthly, his simile overthrows himself; for a true Horse and a true Ass do produce a true creature, though not like either, and not a false one. Again, good and bad men are not substantially intermingled, as the seed of an Horse and an Ass, to bring out of themselves a third creature: if they do, that, so brought out is a true creature, and cannot be called a false one: and if the qualities be noted, good and bad in one third, the same third cannot be called good, nor bad; but good bad, or bad good; because it consists Mr. Smith doth put a beastly simile in his Catechism. by mixture of both: but thus much, and two much of a beastly simile; wherein he compareth the godly, either to an Horse, or to an Ass, but us all to Mules. And for the holiness of this Simile, it is also in his Catechism, to be learned belike as one of his principles of Devilitie. Secondly, he proceeds to prove a false Constitution Page 9 an Idol: first, he saith it is Idolatry, and against the second Commandment. What then Mr. Smith, is it an Idol? Is Idolatry an Idol? you miserably are deceived, and would deceive. But a mixed assembly, is neither Idolatry, nor an Idol, nor condemned in the second Commandment: for no word condemneth such a company for Idolatry, if otherwise they be not Idolaters. Secondly, he would seem to have the Scripture for him, and his first place is, 2. Cor. First Scripture. 2. Cor. 6. 16. 6. 16. of which much is said before: his reason is fetched from these words: what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? He else were is full of his syllogisms, so framed as they be, but here he is only in exposition, because else his absurdity would more have appeared. God's true Church is his Temple: Ergo, a false Church an Idol, for here (saith he) they be opposite. I answer, first, if any such opposition be, it is between the Temple of God, that is, the true Church, and the Temple of Idols, for he speaks figuratively, and puts Idols, for a people worshipping Idols. Secondly, if this exposition be true, that a company mixed be an Idol, who are the Idolaters? This is ridiculous foolery. Thirdly, I answer, that the holy Ghost intendeth not to set out an exposition of a true and false Church, but rather a Church and no Church; the believing Christians, and Heathenish Idolaters: which is the true sense of this place. Fourthly; if there be an opposition, it is between God and Idols; as if the Apostle had said, you Corinthians are such as worship the true God, and among whom he will be, as in a Temple, therefore ye cannot give worship and honour to Idols; so contrary is God and Idols, as if indeed you be the Lords people, you cannot agreed with them: for the godly hate Idols, as utterly against the honour of the true God, whom they do worship. Thus his false exposition being overthrown, whereupon his argument doth stand, his ridiculous reason falls also to the ground. His second Scripture is, 1. john. 5. 21. Babes keep your 1. john. 5. 21. selves from Idols. Here first (he saith) Antichristian Idolatry is especially meant: but this is most false; he only saith, it is enough for me to deny it: but who knows not that john writ to the faithful dwelling among Idolatrous Heathen? which Idolatry is chiefly here meant, and so being general, may be applied against Idolatries of all times. Secondly, he saith, Antichristian Idolatry is means invented to worship the true God in or by: but this is another falsehood, if he mean that it stands only in such means: for Antichrist with his, do worship Angels, Saints, and the breaden Idol to be very God: and if he mean not only, than he defines his Antichristian Idolatry falsely: thus two errors appear in his exposition, for usually, what else are his cursed glosses but perversion of Scripture, and false interpretation. But how proves he from this place, our Church's Constitution a real Idol? Even as he falsely expounds, so he ridiculously proves it thus: Whatsoever means is devised out a man's brain, and used as a means to honour God in or by, is an Idol. A devised Constitution is of that nature: Ergo, an Idol. I answer, first, that it is no argument; his third term is the same with the first term in the question. His position is; A devised constitution is an Idol: and his reason to prove it, is; Whatsoever is devised, which is thus much, whatsoever is devised, etc. is an Idol, but a devised constitution is so devised: Ergo, an Idol. He befools his Scholars, with his Mr. Smith foolisieth his scholars with childish Sophistry. Zach. 11. 17. childish Sophistry. Secondly, I deny his mayor as an Elench of a false description of an Idol. He proves it not, but examplifieth it, from a false Minister called an Idol, Zach. 11. 17. where he useth another deceit; for Zacharie means not that such a one is an Idol; but speaketh by way of similitude, that he is as an Idol. In calling a devised Constitution an Idol, this man means simply, and the Scripture is understood comparatively: so he doth reason a dicto simpliciter, ad dictum secundum quid. Thirdly, I also deny the Minor, as he understands a constitution devised, to wit, that it is a mixed company; for it is not a devise of a man's brain, as before is showed; and let him show, what he means by worshipping God in or by it. Fourthly, he maketh a flourish with Col. 2. 23. Mat. 15. 9 and hence Col. 2. 23. makes a proof thus, that will-worship, and vaine-worship, Mat. 15. 9 is forbidden there; and it is a transgression of the second Commandment, and therefore Idolatry, and so the church wherein it is offered is an Idol. So then he thus reasons; in what Church vaine-worship is that Church is an Idol. Not all his deceivableness of unrighteousness, nor all Satan's Sophistry can ever prove this. He saith, that he is blindfold that seethe not these things manifest, so say I, but to wit, manifest folly in him, and manifest falsehood in the things. In Page 11. and 12. he discourseth fair in show, but partly without truth, partly ridiculous, but wholly full of deceit; as may appear by what is said, and the things themselves considered of a wise Reader will show: I Mr. Smith's Argument full of folly and also falsehood. come therefore to his other syllogism. That which is contrary to a true Church, is an Idol: But a false constituted church is contrary to a truly constituted Church: Ergo, a false constituted church is an Idol. I answer, first, that the proposition is a fallacy of a false description of an Idol, as is before in the former Argument declared, so the proposition is falsely constituted: which stands in need of proof. Again, it is full of absurdity; if every thing contrary to a true Church be an Idol, than every ungodly man, that lives disorderly, contrary to the holy orders of the Church, is an Idol. Who worships his Idol? who do hold in him a divine power, as Idolaters hold in Idols? An Assembly of jews or Turks, is contrary to the true Church, they disclaim Christianity, is such a Company an Idol? Where ever, either in Scripture, or other writings, is a company of men knit in one, called an Idol? Idolaters such may be, but not an Idol: they worship an Idol, and if they be an Idol also, than an Idol worships an Idol. Brownists in Schism, and Anabaptists in their Heresies are contrary to the true Church of God; therefore Idols by his reason, and such as do esteem them are Idolaters. The Churches of Asia, were against the Church of Rome in the observation of Easter, were they therefore Idols? Secondly, I answer to the Minor, that it hath overthrown the Constitution of his syllogism, by altering the term of the Proposition, putting in for a true Church, a truly constituted Church, which is against the rules of right reasoning: for there may be a true Church, which may not be truly constituted; for true respects the matter, but truly the manner also; in which there may be some error. Again, in the term falsely constituted is an ambiguity, it is not certain whether he mean wholly false, or but in part: if he say wholly, than he takes it not here, as he did before, Page 10. line. 8. for an assembly of unfaithful men, with some faithful among them, and then the question is changed: if he say but in part, it makes the proposition the more absurd, and the Minor deceitful, which must only be understood respectively. And thus his reason is without reason. He brings in again, 2. Cor. 2. 6. But thereto he hath 2. Cor. 2. 6. his answer already. Yet hence he now frames an idlement, I should say, an Argument: That which is contrary to the Temple of God, is an Idol. But that which is contrary to the true Church, is contrary to the Temple of God; for the true Church (saith he) is the Temple of God: Ergo, that which is contrary to the true Church is an Idol. This silly schism is without a proof, there is no tertium argumentum; for the proof & the subject of the question are both one; and his own words, which he brings for the proof of the Minor, show it, that to be contrary to the Temple of God, is to be contrary to the true Church: so then frame his reason after his own exposition, putting for the Temple of God, the true church, it is this: That which is contrary to the true church of God, is an Idol; but that which is contrary to the true Church, is contrary to the true Church; therefore that which is contrary to the true Church is an Idol. Having thus ridiculously reasoned (if I wrong him, look upon his syllogism, thou that hast reason and judge me herein) he Thrasonically with scorn calls upon me, and saith; Now Mr. Bernard, with all your learning avoid this place, and I will yield, etc. I beseech thee Reader, now judge between us; and if I have showed him his extreme folly, to abate his pride herein, mark whether he the next time show himself a man of his word, and yield unto me. Truly God confounds the proud, whom he ever resists. Not having done with this, he adds one reason more, to cloy me with; and thus he frames it: A false Christ is an Idol; a false church is a false Christ, Ergo, a false church is an Idol. Here again is Sophistry, for false Christ is taken in the Mayor properly, in the Minor figuratively, which aught not to be in right arguing, which is ever without Equivocation, ambiguity, & variation in the three terms. And thus much touching his first position, that a false constitution is a real Idol; for if it be not at all an Idol, as reason shows, and his reasons prove not, than it is no real political Idol; which is a new Idol of his devising, never heard of before. Touching the second assertion, that it is a greater and a more abominable Idol, than any Idol that possible can be in a true Church, Pag 14. I answer; first, that it is no Idol, he hath not yet proved it, but by ridiculous shows of reasons, and therefore his ‛ Predicates perish where his subject vanisheth. Secondly, If it were an Idol, yet may a greater and a more abominable Idol be found than it; as Moloch, which was brought into the true Church: A mixed people professing Christ, do honour to Christ, the better sort truly: but Moloch is no God; it thrusts out the remembrance, the worship and service of the true God, and makes the worshippers cruel murderers of their children, in offering them to be burnt for his honour. Is a mixed Assembly of Christian Professors, such as the Church of England is, a greater and more abominable Idol than Moloch? He is See Zep. Page 164. abominably idle brained that dare avouch it. Thirdly, further to prove it, he brings in another gross Error; one falsehood to maintain another; to wit this, for that a false ministery, worship, and government may be in a true Church; but a true ministery, worship and government cannot be in a false Church. Strange Paradoxes; the latter should be otherwise then he affirms, by the Argument of contraries, and in the first he insinuates most grossly that contraries may agreed, and each keep their proper nature: that is, a ministery, worship, and Government false, in a Church that is true, and yet he denieth a true Church to be where some men be lewd in conversation: as if some men in private conversation wickedly behaving themselves, did more take away the truth of a Church, than a false ministery, false worship, and a false government. He will say any thing, that will publish this for a truth, yea, and hold it as a principle to defend other Errors withal. The third Error of the Brownists. THat such as are not of a particular constituted Church (to wit, such a one, as theirs is) are no Subjects of Christ's Kingdom. In my former Book, I gave four Reasons, against this Page. 81. their Assertion; I now add further, that first, this secludes all invisible members from Christ's Kingdom: secondly, this denieth the Catholic Church to be Christ's Kingdom: thirdly, all that are ignorant of their visible constitution, to be none of Christ's kingdom: fourthly, that their constitution is the only visible Circle of Christ's Dominion; in which if men be not, they be not under Christ: a heavy condemnation to all that either have been, or now are, or shall be, and yet not of it. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this third Error. MAster Ainsworth to this saith; first, that I set it not Page. 173. down in their words. What then? I therefore, saith he, do cavil, for that they grant many of Christ's Subjects; for want of means do not live in a true constituted Church. The position was Mr. Smiths in his Brownistical way, which Mr. Ainsworth disclaims, and acknowledgeth many out of their way, by his disclaiming of this, to be Christ's Subjects visible; for of a visible Constitution I speak. So then with me he holds this an Error, and the Error remains upon Brownistical Mr. Smith the Author; who defended the Brownists Constitution, (which is only meant in this position) to be the only entry into life, as the only true Constitution of Christ's Church. But now anabaptistical Mr. Smith, hath renounced that Constitution, for as very a harlot as Rome, in his last book, called the Character of the Beast, published, Anno 1609. And so herein we all agreed: I say it is an Error, Mr. Ainsworth disclaims it as an Error, and now Mr. Smith renounceth it, though before his Anabaptistry he did defend it; so hath he herein prevented my reply to him, and eased me of great labour. The fourth Error of the Brownists. THat all not in their way, are without, and do apply against 1. Cor. 5. 12. Ephes. 2. 12. us, 1. Cor. 5. 12. Ephes. 2. 12. Against this I have set down divers reasons in my former Book, Page 82. and how it is to be understood, as Col. 4. 5. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this fourth Error. MAster Ainsworths' answer, first is, that they hold Page 173. that all not in the way of Christ are without. So it is Mr. Ainsworth dare not call their way the way of Christ. nothing to the matter here; but hereby (mark Reader) that he showeth plainly, that there is a difference between their way, and the way of Christ, else why doth he put the way of Christ in steed of their way, and dare not hold to the words? If their way be the way of Christ, sithen also Christ's way, it is but one, he might have held to the words; and if their way be not Christ's way, as he dare not here avouch, why is he yet a seducing false Teacher to their way, under colour of the way of Christ? Secondly, he justifies (but yet only by his bore affirmation) the application of Scriptures against us, as a people without, till I and my brethren can prove us a true Church: Surely then, at this present must he disallow the application, for we are a true Church of God, as is proved, and what he hath said to the contrary is disproved. Thirdly, he excepts against my first reason, as insufficient to disprove the application against us; Doctor Whitakers, de eccles. Page. 12. my reason is, that the places are meant of such as never professed Christ at all; he saith it is childish, and asks me why I except not against the holy Ghost, for applying against the Romish Church, words & speeches meant first of Heathenish Babylon? Yea, Mr. Ainsworth, must I needs except against God's Spirit, because I except against you? Not proud conceit. I answer first, the holy Ghost cannot err in expounding or in applying Scripture: but Mr. Ainsworth and all the Brownists in the world, both may and do err. Secondly, the reason of the Holy Ghost, so doing is manifest, for he rightly applieth the places literally spoken of the type, spiritually to the thing signified; and in so doing, there is both truth and soundness, in the application, from heathenish Babylon, to Antichristian Babylon, the Romish Synagogue, it follows well; for that the Holy Ghost calls Rome Babylon; but what is it to us, that are come out of Babylon? or how can that which is spoken against Heathen Idolaters, be brought against us, that abhor and fly Idolatry both by profession of God's word in that point, and by laws enacted against the same? My second reason is an urging of them to expound the Phrase, without, by any Scripture, and manifest if they can that it is spoken of such a people as the Church of England consists of: but in this was he wholly silent, because he was not able to give satisfaction. For my third reason, and the particular branches, which is this, that God witnesseth that we are his people, by giving us his word, Psal. 147. 19 20. by the effectual blessing thereupon in bringing men from a bore profession to a godly sanctification of life: by God's gracious protection of us, and mercies upon us with fatherly chastisements. To all which he answers; that it is but a boasting: so here then he denies that God hath given us his Word, that any are effectually called, or that God's gracious protection is over us. The Ravens of the wilderness will pick out the eyes of all such forlorn bastardly children, as do so deny God in his so evident works, and their mother to be as barren of children, and disfurnished, as an Harlot, of her Lords ornaments. Blame me not Reader, if I herein be sharp; for let the latter Scripture be considered, and that they hold it, as fitly alleged against us, and thou wilt In what account we be with God, in the judgement of the Separatists. think that I say too little; the place is Ephes. 2. 12. In which place the Apostle speaks of the Ephesians before their profession and Baptism, that they were, 1. without Christ; 2. Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel; 3. Strangers from the covenants of Promise; 4. without hope; and 5. without God in the world. If this place be aptly applied against us, as he judgeth, than he holds us, the Church of England, as a people out of the profession of Christ, without Baptism, without Christ, Aliens from the people of God; Strangers from the covenants of Promise, without hope, without God in the world: and what then; but as Idolaters and devils? And herein their judgement is worse, for that they will needs have the holy Ghost to avouch thus much against us, which if it were so, should be more, than the condemnation of all men and Angels: but herein (as in many other) they wretchedly abuse both God's spirit and us. Reply unto Mr. Smiths Answer to this fourth Error. MAster Smith to this first, answers two things: First, That all members of a true Church are within: speaking generally, as Mr. Ainsworth doth; but not particularly of the Brownists Church, as the position is meant: so it is an answer, and no answer indeed. Secondly, He saith, that all members of a false Church are without: and so they accounted our Church, & therefore without: But sithen our Church is not a false Church, as is already proved, his argument is lost, and we are not yet without. In Page. 23. 24. he defends the Scriptures, as truly alleged against Antichristian Churches, which in my answer to Mr. Ainsworth I deny not: but it rests for him to prove that we be Antichristians, which in that section he doth not. He answers my second Reason, which Mr. Ainsworth durst not meddle with, and there he will prove, as he saith, that the Scripture Phrase, without, may be applied against us, and thus he proceeds. The first Argument; Churches that are in condition equal This proposition is false, for though in some respect the true church may be worse than Pagan's, yet it followeth not that that church is without, that is, no church of God at all, for that is to be without. or worse than Assemblies of Pagans', are without. Revel. 11. 2. Antichristian Churches are in condition equal or worse than Assemblies of Pagans', Ergo, Antichristian Assemblies are without. The second Argument; false churches are without; but Antichristian Churches are false churches, Ergo. The third, Dogs, Enchanters, Whoremongers, murderers, Idolaters, etc., are without. Antichristian churches are such, Ergo. The fourth, The habitation of Devils, etc., are without. Antichristian Assemblies, or Babylon, are such, Ergo. The fift, * Mr. Ainsworth hath confuted his Exposition of this, in his book against Mr. Smith. The utter court etc. is without: But Antichristian churches are the utter court, Ergo. The sixth, The serpent and his seed, etc., are without. Antichristian Churches are the Serpent, and his seed and Angels, Ergo. All these be easily answered; not to spend time about the syllogisms, and the falsehood of some parts: I say, they conclude not the question. For the question is, Whether we, that is, the Church of England be without. See the truth of this by my second reason in my former book, page 82. and by his own words in his book, pag. 25. line 2. Now he concludes, that Antichristian churches are without: if we be not Antichristian, what is that to us? This here he proves not, but refers the Reader to the tenth Section of his Book; and if there he say any thing, the Reader shall there found a Reply. In the mean space, note here; that he takes for granted all the Minors of these syllogisms be true, as if we were an Antichristian church; whereby he avoucheth all the Propositions or Majors to be as true of us: to wit; first, that in Mr. Smith's ungodly censure of the Church of England. condition we be equal or worse than Pagan's: secondly, that we are a false church; thirdly, that we be Dogs, Enchanters, Whoremongers, Murderers, Idolaters, etc. fourthly, that we be the habitation of devils, the hold of all foul spirits, the cage of every unclean and hateful bird: fifthly, the utter court cast out: and sixtly, the serpent, his seed and Angels; for thus holds he an Antichristian church to be. How he proves us Antichristian, in this section he shows not: but what an accursed judgement he hath of us, may here appear, to be both odious and detestable. The fift Error of the Brownists. THat only Saints, that is, a people forsaking all known sin, of which they may be convinced, doing all the known will of God, increasing and abiding ever therein, are the only matter of a visible Church. My reasons against this in my former Book are many; from page. 83. to 88 Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this fift Error. MAster Ainsworth disclaimeth the position, and saith, Page 174. that they do hold that Saints by Calling, are the only matter of a true visible Church. He shows not what he meaneth, when he saith, Saints by calling; it had been fit, He expounds not what is a Saint by calling. to have explained himself, for if thereby he mean, that Saints by calling, may be any other people, than such as forsake all known sin openly, & do all the known will of God: what difference make they of their Saints by Calling, & ours by profession? belike they may be Saints, who forsake not all known sin, openly committed in the face of the Church, and do not obey the known will of God, & then, what an idle stir have they made to condemn us for some of ill conversation among us? sithen such may be Saints, else why denies he this position? If he mean Saints by calling, to be only such as live unblamably in a holy conversation before men, without open taint. I answer, that God's visible Church consists not of such Saints only, but also of other, even a mixed company. First, the Church is a mixed company of good in appearance, The true Church doth consist of a mixed company, and not of Saints only outwardly holy. and also of bad persons in outward show: this I proved in my other Book, Page 87. whereto he answers not a word. Secondly, because no Church of God in the old or new testament, after the very planting, in any space of time, can be showed to be such: but had openly lose of life, mixed with the rest. Mr. james his Retreat proves this at large. Thirdly, because the Scripture defines not so the visible matter of the Church, if any place show it, let them the next time produce it. Fourthly, because there could then be no conversion in the Church to Sanctification, for all keep in the state of Repentance, which is contrary to jeremy. 23. 22. Ezech. 18. 30. Fiftly, because the Apostle to the Corinthians had erred, in calling all Saints without exception, and yet many among them had not repent of evil. 2. Cor. 12. 20. Sixtly, because the jewish Church should not have been Saints for that so many wicked lived among them, bloody joab, cruel Saul, false Prophets, and others. seven, because this holy conversation, which is but one way, by which men are called Saints, condemneth all the other respects by which men are so called, and if otherwise, they be Saints also, than not only Saints by a godly life, are matter of a true Church. Men are called Saints being in one Assembly: first for Why men are called Saints. conjunction with the better part: See Page 86. of my former Book. Secondly, because of birth, borne of believing Parents. 1. Cor. 7. 24. Rom. 11. 16. Thirdly, in respect of the thing whereto they be called, as to the profession and worship of Christ, which is an holy calling. 1. Thes. 4. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 1. Rom. 1. 7. Fourthly, in respect of Baptism, by which they are said to put on Christ: Gal. 3. 27. to be partakers of Christ's death: Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. to have remission of sins. Acts. 2. 39 Fiftly, in respect of the covenant made with God, and worship performed to him: Psal. 50. 5. and reverend hearing of God's word. Deut, 33. 3. Sixtly, in respect of Gods visible presence, as Exod. 3. 6. Mat. 4. 5. Seventhly in respect of God's mercy, who will not see the evil of his people. Num. 23. 21. jer. 50. 20. If by any of these ways men be Saints, they are allowed to be matter of the Church, and so the better sort with them, and they with the best are Saints; and so all are Saints. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this fift Error. MAster Smith, he avoucheth the exposition, as true, Page. 27. 28. that a Saint is one, first, forsaking all known sin: secondly, doing all the known will of God: thirdly, growing in grace: and fourthly, continuing to the end. For an Hypocrite, saith he, is no true member of the visible Church; because it consists of an inward and outward communion. All this would he prove by a company of quoted Scriptures: Rom. 6. 4. 5. 8. 11. 22. 1. Pet. 3. 11. 2. Pet. 3. 18. 1. john 2. 19 Revel. 3. 5. compared with Rom. 1. 7. Eph. 1. 4. Revel. 11. 2. and 22. 14. 15. and 18. 2. compared with Deut. 14. 2. 3. 11. 2. Cor. 6. 16. compared with 1. King. 5. 12. It is his manner where he can make any open show, though but Sophistically, to deduct reasons from his Scriptures, but here he but musters them, and sets them in battle array, but shows not how either they fight for them, or against us; this is the trick of the older Brownists and only hereby to deceive with show of Scripture. Let any understanding and indifferent Reader carry this his position to these places, to wit; That a visible member is no Hypocrite, but a Saint, and such a Saint as forsaketh all known sin, doth all the known will of God, groweth in grace, and continueth unto the end, and he shall see no truth in his allegation. Rom. 6. Rom. 6. showeth what men be, that are truly in Christ; and not what they be, that are in the visible Church. 1. Pet. 3. and 2. Pet. 3. 1. Pet. 3. do show what men aught to do and be, but not what they 2. Pet. 3. are. 1. john. 2. 19 is directly against him; for it speaks of 1. john. 2. 19 the apostasy of some visible members, who were Hypocrites, and had not these four properties: and when he saith, they were not of us, he excludes them not from being of them visibly, but for not being of the Elect number. So the Reader may judge of the rest, as impertinently alleged: these have I mentioned as a guide to the rest; mark but his Position well, and his deceitful abusing the Scriptures may be soon perceived. After this he comes to answer my objections against his assertion: I said, that by his defining of a Saint and a visible member thus, as is above said, that he defines not a visible member, but one elect, and of the invisible Church. His answer is by a question, whether I think one so qualified with the four properties before men, are saved before the Lord? I answer directly, as he doth will me, that I believe so, and all men are bound to think they are saved before God: and who dare think otherwise, but only Mr. Smith? If we may not be persuaded, that he which leaves known sin, doth Gods known will, walks and grows in grace, and continueth to death therein, is before God saved, whom may we not think to be damned? He threats to show me my folly for thus thinking; but in the mean space, he may be judged worse than mad, for his thinking otherwise, and for writing that it appeareth not to us, what Steven, the blessed Martyr was in God's counsel. To my second Reason drawn from the Saints of the old Testament, who did not answer to these four properties; he answers by a discourse of the difference of the nature and constitution of the old Testament from the new, only to blear the eyes of the simple. When he cannot avoid the argument, (to wit, that David, Hezechias, Asa, and other Saints did sin openly, and in some things were not wholly reform, (see my other Book for instances, Page 83. 84.) and yet were true visible matter of the Church in the old Testament; and therefore men not qualified like his devised visible Saints, may be now also true matter, and so his opinion grossly erroneous,) than he falls to strange expositions, and unheard of paradoxes, uttered from his own brain, without proof, as here Page 29. 30. he tells us; first, that the Israelites were a holy people literally: secondly, no true holiness was required in that constitution: thirdly, that all was typical only, as typical Constitution, Worship, Ministry, Government: and fourthly, that a Saint, was a typical Saint; an Hypocrite, a typical Hypocrite; and a wicked man, a tipical wicked man; so as there might be the Sons of Belial; yea, and the best might live in open sin, and yet be Saints; to wit forsooth, typical Saints. And his ground is his own conceit, (he brings no Scripture for what he thus monstrously avoucheth) because saith he, their moral communion was only invisible, and no true holiness required of them visibly, and True holiness required in the old Testament, contrary to Mr Smiths brutish imagination of it. none were morally polluted in their communion. All which is against the manifest truth of God; for the covenant made between God and his people is the ground of the church's communion and fellowship. Now the covenant in the old Testament was also moral and spiritual, and true holiness required by it: first, the sum of it was, that God was their Exod. 20. God, and they his people, which is spiritual, and a holy covenant. jer. 31. 1. Secondly, at the making of the Covenant with Abraham, God did require sincerity, Walk before me, and be upright: Gen. 17. 21. and that covenant was spiritual also. Gal. 3. 17. Acts. 3. 25. Thirdly, the moral Law is called then God's Covenant, which moral Law, is true holiness. Exod. 34. 28. Fourthly, the Lord required in plain terms true holiness. Psal. 51. Thou requirest truth in the inward parts. read Deu. 10. 12. Fiftly, the Sacraments were in and of their visible Covenant, and so communion for circumcision is called the Covenant: Gen. 17. 10. now a Sacrament is a Sacrament, for that there is a visible sign and seal of an invisible grace, the consideration whereof is required of all that do receive the outward signs. Sixtly, there were promises made to the old Israelites, even in the very constitution: now the apprehension of promises require faith, which is an inward grace of true holiness. Seventhly, every doctrine commanded to be taught openly to that Church, as then to be received, and for which the true worshippers were commended, was part of their Covenant; but true faith was taught Heb. 2. and commended to be the grace, for which they were approved, as is manifest, Heb. 11. which doctrine of faith is a doctrine of true holiness: so also fear and love. Deut. 6. 2. 5. 6. 7. Eightly, there were Sacrifices appointed for moral transgressions, as well as for ceremonial uncleannesses. Leu. 6. 6. So Aaron made often an atonement by Sacrifice, for the moral transgressions of the people, and not only for typical pollutions: now these Sacrifices for such moral offences, were of their constitution. Ninthly, the word shows they were defiled by moral uncleanness, bloodshed defiled the Land, and they polluted it by that sin: Num. 35. 33. and also God's name by Idolatry: Leu. 18. 21. and themselves and the Land by moral uncleanness. ver. 24. 25. Tenthly, and lastly, there was open rebuke and threats for moral transgression, and the Transgressors were said to cast off God in so doing, which argues it to be a part of their visible Covenant; yea, their typical service was abhorred, when men sinned morally against God: see Esay. 1. 9 15. and 58. 2. 10. And David speaking comparatively between true holiness, and outward service ceremonial, he saith, God required then not this, in respect of the other. Psal. 51. 16. 17. Away then with this dreamers anabaptistical frenzy, of typical wicked men, and typical Hypocrites, and literal holiness, without true holiness: in which he makes the God of Israel to delight then only in an outward slaughtering of of beasts, and the godly in those days to be in their visible communion carnal, and brutish, contrary to the evident truth as is declared manifestly. But to stop my mouth, that I shall not once mutter, as he saith, (o the admirabilitie of the man!) he reads me as he thinks a riddle, to the amazement of all his intoxicated Disciples, and frames his argument both against the truth and me thus. If in the Old Testament their visible typical Mr. Smith's Riddlement. communion was tipically polluted by typical and ceremonial uncleanness uncleansed: then in the new Testament our spiritual visible communion is really polluted by moral uncleanness uncleansed; that is, sin unrepented of. But in the old Testament, their visible typical communion was typically polluted by the typical and ceremonial uncleanness uncleansed: Ergo. Surely, such of his as were blinded with his Heresy, and affected with his folly, were too-tooly moved with a merry conceit at this riddlement, as not to be answered; through the obscure profundity of his reason overreaching our poor apprehensions: which made him say, he would stop my mouth for muttering; but let us see how I can mutter against it. What, a Goliath? then see the strength of a pebble stone in a sling; have at a Goliath, let him save his head; for by his contrarying so daily himself, it seems his brains be already cracked. But ere I answer, I read him again this riddle: If in his last old years, their separatistical communion was Brownistically polluted, by a Schismatical rending of themselves from the Church of England, for some supposed ceremonial and Antichristian uncleanness uncleansed: then in this his new year, their anabaptistical Communion is Smithically polluted by their but half Anabaptistry, new unheard of Heresies, even spiritual and moral uncleanness uncleansed, that is, their sin not yet repent of. But in his last old years, their separatistical Communion was Brownistically polluted, by a Schismatical rending of themselves from the Church of England, for some supposed ceremonial and Antichristian uncleanness uncleansed: Ergo. And now to his argument. His Mayor (saith he) cannot be denied, for it is a just Analogy and proportion from the type to the truth, from the shadow to the substance. Observe Reader, that the proof stands upon his own coined Analogy and proportion, he saith it is so, but doth not prove it by any evidence of holy writ, not one syllable brought for it. But his then follows not: for first, mark what he proportioneth, visible to visible, typical to spiritual, communion to communion, typical pollution to real pollution, ceremonial uncleanness to moral uncleanness, uncleansed to unrepented: if this be so, why is not a like proportion from Circumcision to Baptism, from their Order of Government, to our Order? Which he denies; and if this Analogy cannot stand, neither can his. His wit, is no more a warrant to make a proportion in some, than men's understanding here is to make an Analogy in other some. Secondly, it is utterly false, that their typical pollution, did represent any real pollution in our Communion: for there is not taught in the new Testament, that any personal pollution really pollutes the Communion of Saints; this Brownistical Heresy, and cause of all the Separations, should have been proved, but is not, for indeed it cannot. If therefore there be not such a pollution in the new Testament, it is frivolous to tell us of a type of it in the old Testament. Now to manifest to all men, that in the new Testament One man's sin pollutes not an other. there is no such real polluting of our spiritual communion, these reasons show it: Reason. 1 1. Neither Christ nor his Apostles were polluted by judas in their Communion. Reason. 2 2. The Apostle Paul reproved corruptions among the Corinthians: the Angel the Asian Churches, and never 1. Cor. 11. taught pollution. 2. Cor. 12. Reu. 2. & 3. Reason. 3 3. The holy Ghost commendeth some living well in places where corruption was, and puts no charge upon them of Separation, for any pollution, but to hold what they have: Reu. 2. 24. 25. yea, this censure of holding them polluted who live in a polluted estate, as righteous Noah in the World, or just Lot in Sodom, is reproved. Acts. 10. 15. Reason. 4 4. Our Saviour allows the hearing of lewd Teachers, in which is a spiritual Communion: Mat. 23. 2. yea, and to communicate in other things, so men do look to themselves. Mat. 5. 23. 24. So the Apostle. 1. Cor. 11. Read my former Book, Page 106. Reason. 5 5. This was the Pharisees pride, who separated themselves, as the name of Pharisee imports; and this pride is condemned, Esay. 65. 5. Luke. 18. 14. yea, and the Lord justifieth the poor publican before such. This is also the Luciferian pride of the old Donatists': Caluin, Instit. 4. 13. 16. Osiander against Anabap. Page 140. 142. Reason. 6 6. Moral pollution did not pollute in the old Testament, this he grants; therefore not in the new; sithen sin is not now since Christ's coming more contagious than before. Reason. 7 7. Ceremonial pollution did not pollute that Communion, save only particular persons, who did touch, and were touched with any thing unclean; and therefore no such polluting of communion now: the truth of this reason shall be further confirmed, when I come to answer his Minor. Reason. 8 8. If the religious communion be polluted, why not the fellowship in civil society? and if this, then must we go out of the world. Reason. 9 9 I demand whether the holiness of the ordinances of God, by which men are made holy; and godly men's graces, by which these ordinances are declared to be holy, be not of more force to preserve pure the Communion, than some wicked to pollute it: sithen in the word it is recorded, that for some godly men's sake, God hath pardoned many wicked? Reason. 10 10. If the Communion be polluted, than the holy things of God, the use whereof are part of the Communion, defile and pollute such as come with reverence unto them: for things unclean maketh unclean, but they do not pollute any, but rather makes men holy. Reason. 11 11. To hold the Communion, that is, the whole society polluted, for some particular persons, is to cast the sins of one upon the back of another, contrary to Ezech. 18. 14. 17. 20. and 14. 18. 20. and 23. 9 Tit. 1. 15. Reu. 3. 4. and 2. 24. 22. 23. Gal. 5. 10. and 6. 5. One man's conscience, saith Mr. Perkins, Revel. 2. 2. is not polluted by another; yea, ignorance of other men's sins exempts such as know them not, from the punishment which the offenders receive for their transgression. Deut. 1. 39 Reason. 12 12. The godly are never reproved for being at the Ministration of holy things, though others did communicate that were wicked: but on the contrary, it is accounted a sin to leave the holy things, for other men's offences. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17. Reason. 13 13. This were to make the dignity and efficacy of the word of Covenant, and of the Sacraments the seals of it, to depend upon the worthiness of man: contrary to the judgement of the word, yea, and all worthy Divines. Rom. 3. 3. Reason. 14 14. If this were true, then were we not only to admonish others, but to examine their lives also; which the Apostle in a great pollution of the Sacrament never thought of. 1. Cor. 11. 28. neither is it any where imposed as a charge belonging to every one. Reason. 15 15. Every one must live by his own faith, Hab. 2. 4. and answer for what he himself hath done in the flesh; now if it were, as he saith, then is he to answer for others, & live in a society unpolluted by the grace of others, as well as his own, sithen, except others live well, he is polluted. Reason. 16 16. Saint Paul saith, that the unworthy eat condemnation to themselves, he saith not, to another. Reason. 17 17. Mr. Smith himself, if ever he were himself, teacheth the contrary on the Lord's Prayer, Page 88 Reason. 18 18. Communion is a common union, many partaking of and defending one thing, wherein they do agreed: now the Common union of the good and bad in one society, is not in evil, but in profession of the word, in receiving of the Sacrament, & other holy ordinances, and exercises: when therefore some do ill, the Communion in spiritual things is not polluted, because evil is no part of the union in common one with another, but the error of man by himself, out of the communion, for which he himself shall answer, and such also as have fellowship with him in evil, by which they have a common union, that so agreed therein, How men may be guilty of the sin of an other. by counsel, consent, commandment, provocation, neglect of duty, flattery, excuse, or defence thereof: but if a man do none of these, then is he not of the evil in common with the wicked, though the wicked be in the common union of good with him, in which communion he is, not as a wicked man, but as one agreeing with the godly in the best things. Reason. 19 19 Not one Scripture speaks of such a general polluting of all by some particular offenders, but only as by partaking some way with such, and those so partaking do make the sin of an other thereon, and then they be polluted of themselves. Reason. 20 20. As this position is altogether false, so is it pernicious and breeds Schism, and such Brownistical and anabaptistical out-roads, as now be in practice among our late Separatists from us, also among themselves, one from an other. Thirdly, I answer to the Mayor, and demand whether the visible typical communion, did not represent the invisible Communion of the Elect: and as the typical unclean were not cleansed till they were washed, and offered up sacrifice by the Priest; so the spiritual member offending should not be cleansed, but by repentance and by offering up, by the hand of Faith, hearty supplications to God, in the Name of Christ our high Priest, who hath sacrificed himself for us? If it be so, than their visible typical communion, did not prefigure a visible communion of men, but the invisible communion of Saints, the Elect of God. Now to his Minor, which I deny to be true, that the typical Answer unto the Minor. Communion was polluted: persons were polluted, and others touching them were polluted, but their communion was not: First, because there was no sacrifice appointed The Communion in the old Testament, was not polluted by the sin of one. for any such pollution, as came upon all for the sin of one or more. Secondly, though the Prophet reprove the Priests, for not separating the clean and unclean; yet he teacheth not, that for neglect thereof, the Communion is polluted. Ezech. 22. 26. Thirdly, the Prophets cried out of the people's uncleanness, but never took the Communion to be polluted, and therefore held with the Church in spiritual Communion. Fourthly, because particular persons were for their particular uncleanenesses to offer up sacrifices themselves for themselves, and not all for them and themselves, as polluted in their Communion, though the polluted abode in his uncleanness, for some time: let him produce evident Scripture for this particular if he able. His Minor, he goes about to prove by three Scriptures; Num. 19 13. 20. Num. 19 13. 20. Hag. 2. 14. Acts 21. 28. 29. The first place proves not that the Communion was polluted: But that one polluted, and wickedly persisting and not purging himself, defiled the Lords Tabernacle; (to wit) to himself; for the punishment is threatened only against himself. The place in Haggai, is of ceremonial pollution, but yet speaketh Haggai. 2. 14. of what one unclean toucheth, making it unclean thereby, and not of one living in uncleanness, thereby polluting the whole Assembly. Again, he speaks not of polluting the holy ordinances administered in the Congregation, as the sacrifices in the Priest's hands, which yet appertained to all, but of what the polluted party touched himself. As if it were said in like case; a wicked profane man comes to the Lords Supper: he pollutes not what the Minister is performing, nor what others receive, but what he himself doth touch▪ and receive, eating to himself 1. Cor. 11. judgement, as the Apostle saith, and not to the rest. The last place, Acts 21. 28. 29. was but a speech of a furious people, Acts 21. 28. 29. falsely accusing Paul, and supposing a pollution where none was. And let him show me, where it was forbidden any Stranger without exception, to come into the Temple: In Deu. 23. 3. is a forbidding of the Israelites to admit the Moabites, and Ammonites, for a long time, into the commonwealth of Israel: but what is that to this matter? another exception which I take against his position is, that they take places of Exhortations, admonitions, Commanments, etc. which are only effectual in the invisible saints, the Elect, among others of the Church, to describe every visible member by; as if they did reason thus: God exhorts and commands his people to be such and such; if not, then are they none of his. If they be not (saith he) what Mr. Smith's comfortless Assertion. God commands, they are none of his people. What child is his fathers, what subject his Princes, what wife her husbands by this reasoning; for who are as they be commanded? Again, the Lord takes a people to be his, before he command them; commandments are for his people to rule them, and to 'cause them to obey, not to make them his people. A man's commandment maketh not a servant, but declares a power, that such a one is a servant already, that is, under his power to be commanded The rest of the Section is but wrangling a confident avouching of his own will, but not an evident and plain answer to the rest of the particulars of my former Book, and therefore I pass them over to the Reader, to compare them, and come to the next Assertion following; being the sixth error, which he stands upon so confidently, as if it be confuted, he will acknowledge the cause of Separation to lie in the Mr. Smith's hazard of all upon one stake. dust, and they must disclaim their Schism which they have made, and the Heresies they hold; yea, he will acknowledge the Churches of England, etc. to be true Churches of Christ, etc. Therefore seeing he hath jumped all upon this point, all the rest may be passed over, as idle expense of of time, the victory being in this particular either won or lost. I had purposed once to have come to this, and omitted the rest before and after, but that it would have been thought of his Scholars, that what was omitted, was unanswerable; for their Molehilles, are in their own eyes huge mountains. The sixth Error of the Brownists. THat the power of Christ, that is, authority to preach, to administer the Sacraments, and to exercise the censures of the Church, belongeth to the whole Church, yea, to every one of them, and not to the principal members thereof. I have in my former Book showed this position, to be Reasons against popular government. an Error, Page 88 Reason. 1 1. Because it is a mere popular government, disorderderly therefore, and full of inconstancy, like the unstable multitude: yea, full of pride and contention, for that every one is made equal to his fellow: it is partly the enemy of unity, and it brings contempt to the ministery. Reason. 2 2. Because this is the ground of that wretched schism, of rending members from members, & walking one from another, so far as they differ in opinion, as is now the practice of Anabaptists: hence they conclude a pollution of public communion by private persons, contrary to the truth, as is aforesaid: other absurd Errors arising from hence, have I noted in my book, Page 89. Reason. 3 3. Because if it be contrary to the welfare of a Commonwealth; to wit, this popular government, * See Bell, in his last book of the best government. page 6. Monarchical being by a common consent approved as the best, then why not so in the Church? Reason. 4 4. Because it is contrary to God's order established; first, before the Law, for it was in Adam, in Noah, in Abraham, Isaac, jacob, joseph, and not in the body of their Families: secondly, under the Law, the government lay upon Moses, then distributed in part to the seventy Elders; the charge of the Temple to Aaron: this continued all the old Testament, after the levites were chosen for the first borne, and Princes given also by God to rule in Israel; in which time the people were subjects, and had not dominion over them: and this power bestowed upon special persons, was not conferred unto them by the people's authority, but by the Lord's choice and commandment; whereto the people were to assent: and note also, how the Scriptures were committed to the Levites and Elders for all Israel, and not to the multitude to give to them, Deut. 31. 9 to which Chief, he gave the charge to see to the rest, verse 28. Reason. 5 5. This popular government was not in the Apostles days; For first, the people attempted nothing without the Apostles leave, guidance, and direction; the Apostles themselves ordained officers, not the people without them. Act. 14. 23. Secondly, because the Apostles called for the Elders, as the chief, and conferred with them, without the people, Act. 20. 17. Thirdly, the Elders did (as it may seem) sit in a Consistory, with james their Bishop at jerusalem, without the people, Act. 21. 18. and did decree a matter from their own judgement, without ask the people their voice: verse 23. Fourthly, the Elders are preferred before the people, as superior to them, and therefore set before them. Act. 15. 22. 23. The Apostles and Elders made the people acquainted with the matter here, A prevention. who consented, but it therefore follows not, that they had power and authority, without which the Authority of the Apostles and Elders should be nothing. Experience shows us, that superiors do sometime require an Assent of such as have no authority with them, only for peace and love. Reason. 6 6. It is against the Commission given by Christ unto his Apostles, and to such as should succeed them. Mat. 28. 19 and 16. 19 john. 20. 21. 22. 23. Mark 13. 34. And against the Apostles substituting of Timothy and Titus; not under, or in equal state, but over the Church. Of this see more in my other Book, Page 92. Reason. 7 7. Because, if a sort of persons professing Christ together, without officers, have the power of such officers in themselves; they have a charge from God, to do all that which the officers may do: but the whole multitude were never commanded to go & preach, nor to administer the Sacraments, but only special persons qualified and called of God, for that purpose. Reason. 8 8. The place of the Ephe. 4. 11. 12. is against this popular government: first, because it is said, that Christ gave officers to the Church, not power to the people to make them, ere they be: secondly, because the officers are first nominated; as called of God, to gather a Church and repair it, and to build it up, all this charge laid upon some, and not upon all: thirdly, because the Church there is compared to a body, now a natural body hath special members receiving power from the Creator, to rule the body, which faculty and power is preserved in the body, but not given of the body; as seeing, is given to the Eye: hearing, to the Ear, and that from God to these members for the good of the body, but they receive not seeing, and hearing from the body, for then all the body should see and hear, because it cannot give that power to another, which itself hath not: Even so is it with the Church. Reason. 9 9 In the old Testament, which shows the practice of established Churches: the people were not reproved for the disorders in Church or Commonwealth, but the Princes, & the Priests; on whom the charge of Reformation lay. So Revel, 2. and 3. the Angels, that is, the chief in the Churches, are reproved, (not the people) for the abuses suffered: and according to the general course, must that particular place, 1. Cor. 5. be understood; and not so, as 1. Cor. 5. it should oppose a constant course in all other: that one place must yield to many, and not many to it. Reason. 10 10. This is against that of the Rom. 12. 6. 8. in which we see the gifts and power of governing, to be bestowed upon some, and not on all, and also against these places; 1. Tim. 4. 14. & 5. 16. 17. where Rule is evidently taught to be in some, and not in all. Reason. 11 11. This is against the truth of received and approved witnesses, sithence the Apostles times, that the Supreme power should be in the people. Reason. 12 12. This overthrows the power and authority of christian Magistrates in the Church, when God gives them Of Authority of civil magistrates in Church-matters, see Bells Regiment of the Church. to the Church, as being subject themselves to a common multitude in matters concerning the Church; contrary to the evident witness of the old Testament, to which we must go, to see how the government was in the days of their Kings and judges: for in the new Testament this is not clear, for that in the Apostles days God gave no Christian Magistrates to the Church. Reason. 13 13. In the new Testament there be plain Commandments to the people to be subject to authority, and to obey supreme power, as Magistrates: Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. this understood of Magistrates then, much more now being Christian: So 1. Pet. 2. 13. 14. Tit. 3. 1. So Ecclesiastical persons Overseers. Acts. 20. 28. Heb. 13. 8. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Reason. 14 14. There can be no instance given in either Testaments, either of Precept, that the people should rule; or of Practice, that they did rule over their Teachers: let the Adversary bring but one Precept or one practice to satisfy his Reader; I profess I can found none. The place in Mat. 18. 17. is expounded, and that exposition confirmed by many reasons in my former Book, Page. 94. 99 Reason. 15 15. It is against reason that the Fathers should be subject to their Children; the work rule over the workman, the seeds-man to be ordered by the Corn: for thus are the Pastors and people compared. Reason. 16 16. This is against the office and dignity of Christ's Ministers, who by office represent Christ's person, and so do not the people: and therefore we read not that the people made Ministers, but Ministers made Ministers, and such as stood in God's stead removed them from the ministery, as Solomon did Abiathar, but the people did it not. Reason. 17 17. It is full of absurdity; if the body govern, who is governed? belike itself is both Lord and Servant, Prince and Subject: of whom the Proverb is true: Command, and do it, itself. Reason. 18 18. Because the people are never termed by any name which might so much as insinuate any Sovereignty, but subjection; as the name Sheep, Brethrens, Saints, Household of Faith, the Wife or Spouse, Children: but Ministers are called Overseers, Elders, Fathers, and such like; declaring authority over the people. If any stumble upon Reu. 1. 6. where the faithful are called Kings; I answer it is not understood of any outward power to rule among and over men, of which we here dispute; but of an inward power of God's spirit sanctifying the Elect, by which as Kings they rule over their own corruptions, to which by nature they be in subjection. Reason. 19 19 The speech of Christ is plain, that the Ministers are to rule over the people, which is his own ordinance: Mat. 24. 45. where mention is made of a Servant, that is, the Minister ruling; and the household, that is, the Church ruled. Reason. 20 20. We do read of power and authority of Servants, that is, Ministers; Mark. 13. 34. but not given to the household or House, which is the Church: So to Apostles; 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 12. 13. and in them to godly Churchmen, but not to the people. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this sixth Error. MAster Ainsworth first disclaims this, as unjustly laid to the charge of his Company: Surely it was the opinion of Smithean Brownists here; and who would think so main a point as this, should among themselves be so rend, as one will deny it, and another sort will hazard, all the rest they do hold upon it, as truth, and do maintain it as a most infallible verity? If they be thus at discord in their Principles, they will never agreed in circumstantial points: who would join to them, who neither agree with any other, nor yet among themselves. I am glad that Mr. Ainsworth renounceth it as an error, I wish he so would do in all the rest, than should we soon agreed to our comforts. Secondly, he very badly insinuates that the Protestants and Reformed Churches do affirm the ruling power which is proper to Christ, and only inherent in him, to be in the Bishops, in the Presbytery: which is most false. They hold no Popelike and Antichristian power over men's consciences, to do as they like, without the word: but that such an external power they have, as thereby they may rule in the Church according to God's word, in setting men in order, in causing them to keep it, and execute the offices, in which they be placed, in punishing the wicked, and in giving encouragement to such as walk in God's ways peaceably. Thirdly, he denies that all may preach, but yet some private men may prophecy publicly: which they would maintain out of 1. Cor. 14. but to this I say; first, let them show that 1. Cor. 14. the word Prophet in that place is not an office. verse. 29. Secondly, that prophecy was ever used out of an office in public, Reasons against their prophesying. that is, by one not a Teacher or Pastor in an established Church. Thirdly, what expositors do so expound that Chapter: Beza is against it in his Annotations upon verse 29. 32. Fourthly, what Church did ever so practise? Fiftly, they say, in an article of their faith, 34. that Prophecy is a public teaching of God's word, according to the proportion of faith, for the edification, exhortation and comfort of the church. I would know what difference between this and preaching? He saith that one is in office, the other out of office: and quotes in the margin for this, Rom. 12. 6. 7. but the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. 7. speaks there of gifts in office, for he speaks of offices: ver. 4. and then of gifts, which he exhorts to employ well for the Church, and includes himself, saying; we have received gifts, verse. 6. as noting thereby, what persons he speaks of, even of such as were in office with him. Sixtly, if such Prophecy be, it is either by virtue of a general calling of a christian, or by force of some special vocation; but not by any particular function say they: and I say, not by the general calling as they be Christians; for then be they not tied to wait the special call of their company, because that shows that such do it not by virtue of their calling to Christianity, but by special authority. seven, If they may teach, they may also by that very authority administer the Sacraments: these two are coupled by Christ, and to whom Christ gave the first, it is evident he granted the last: Mat. 28. 18. Mark. 15. 16. and the contrary can no where be showed: and yet herein have these men made a Separation; so in love are they here-with, that as they separate men from men, so do they one ordinance of God from another. If this Reply be too short, let him answer Mr. Smith, who answers to him at large, and condemneth him for a new kind of Antichristianisme never heard of before. Page. 67. Reply to Mr. Smiths Answer to this sixth Error. MAster Smith, he taketh up as a truth, and as true Page. 40. owner hereof, what Mr. Ainsworth let's fall to the ground as false; and avoucheth that the power of binding and losing is given to the body of the Church, even to two or three faithful people joined together in Covenant: in confidence of truth herein, he calls upon the King's Majesty, the Nobles, the whole Parliament house, and all the learned, to consider of the supposed truth herein, and if he prove it not, to hold him a Schismatic and an Heretic; and the way of the Separation to be naught; and the Church of England to be a true Church, yea, the Church of Rome too: So than beat him out of this, when he hath run Anabaptistry out of breath, as he hath done Brownisme, ten to one, but the new anabaptistical Se-baptist will prove an Antichristian Papist. And his order in handling this point is thus, first, he would prove no Ministerial power by succession: then, that the same is primarily given to the body of the Church: and lastly, he answers some reasons alleged by me in my former Book against his assertion. But it may appear that the ministery ordinarily is by The ordinary ministerial ordination is by Succession. 1. Reason. succession. First, at the world's beginning, God himself preached unto Adam, whom he ordained in his place, to teach the succeeding age; after him God raised up one after another, in order unto Moses, the persons are recorded in Scripture. Gen. 5. Henoch, Jude ver. 14. was a Prophet: so Noah a Preacher: 2. Pet. 2. 5. After the flood succeeded Abraham, Isaac and jacob, who are called Prophets. Psal. 105. 14. 15. The next was joseph, 1. Chron. 5. 1. with Levi, Coath, Amram, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam a Prophetess. Exod. 15. 20. After the Law given, then was chosen Aaron, after him Eliezer, than Phinees, Abishua, Bukki, Vzzi, Eli, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar, Zadoc: and so one succeeded another to the end, as may be plainly showed by Scripture: so for four thousand years this succession continued in the ministery in the first borne before the Law ordinarily, and in the tribe of Levi, and posterity of Aaron under the Law. Secondly, as God in the creating of the World became Reason for Succession. the Teacher, and then raised up others in his stead: So in the new creation in the last days came God again to preach, even jesus Christ; who ascending, appointed Apostles to succeed him: the Apostles had with them Evangelists, and before they departed, they ordained Elders, which succeeded the Apostles, and the other extraordinary men, and so are ranked: Eph. 4. 12. with whom God promised to be to the world's end; Mat. 28. 20. which must needs be understood of the Apostles successors, because the Apostle continued but a while. Thirdly, in the Scripture of the new Testament there is Reason for Succession. none allowed to ordain a Minister, but a Minister; I mean an Ecclesiastical person, as we for distinction sake do speak: as Titus in Creta: Chap. 1. 5. and Timothy else where, to whom the Apostle speaks, and in him to only Ecclesiastical persons, as a matter only concerning them, to lay on hands. 1. Tim. 5. 22. And there is no mention of any which laid on their hands and ordained, but only the Apostles, Acts. 14. 23. Evangelists, Tit. 1. 5. Prophets and Teachers, Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3. and the Eldership: 1. Tim. 4. 14. which Eldership was of all Teachers and Ministers, as is showed before at large. Thus we see in the new Testament all the Apostles time, that the ministery was by succession: Ministers, as it were begetting Ministers by ordination, and laying on of hands: let one instance be given to the contrary. Fourthly, after their time the like succession hath been Reason for Succession. kept from time to time, Bishop after Bishop, and Ministers ordained by them: the Catalogue of them do witness this, and the Stories of times avouch it; on which we must rely, where the Scripture ceaseth to make further relation: & especially may we easily believe succession out of men's writings, when we see the same verified by Scripture, to have been from the world's beginning, till Christ, and after, as far as the Story of the Scripture makes mention, it also promising the same to the world's end. Mat. 28. 20. And thus by plain Historical narration both of God and man, we see a succession of the ministery, from one Minister to another: and not one instance of any made and ordained a Minister by the people, but when there were Churchmen, as we speak, to ordain them. Mathias was not chosen, but when other Apostles were there: Acts. 1. 15. the Deacons were not appointed, but when the Apostles were there to ordain them: Acts. 6. 2. 6. Paul and Barnabas, when the holy Ghost commanded to separate them, had no hands laid upon them but when there was in the Church Prophets and Teachers present to do it. Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3. And it is apparent, that the Churches did wait the Apostles coming to ordain Ministers, acknowledging thereby no such power to be in themselves. Acts. 14. 23. This I speak to show that Churchmen ever ordained Ministers, and not the Lay-people: Caluin in his Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 2. saith, that before the Papacy, there was a Bishop in every City, to whom belonged a certain Country, which should take their Priests from him: and if the Country were large, then were appointed Country Bishops, Suffragans, as we call them, to perform the office for him: by which it is evident, that the Churches held this Succession, and was not Antichristian, howsoever the same be abused now by a popish pride and tyranny. But now to his arguments, whereby Mr. Smith would refel this. 1. Argument. If Christ's Ministerial power be given Page. 42. by Succession to the Pope, Bishops, or Presbytery primarily, than the ministery is before the Church: But the ministery is not before the Church: Ergo. Here mark (Christian Reader) that I have avouched Succession affirmatively, and my proof is evident, even an Historical narration of it from time to time, and no one instance to the contrary: This man comes with a contradictory speech, but gives (as was meet) no instance, wherein my general assertion should be proved untrue, but only frames reasons sophistically, making absurd consequences upon this Antecedent. Is this a refelling of an evident story of the truth? will an imagination of absurdities overthrow a true Narration? What clear History might not thus be overthrown? But to his Argument. The Consequence is false and absurd, the Antecedent The Consequence false. proves it not: for make the Consequence the question, and the Antecedent the tertium Argumentum, and frame this compound Syllogism Categorically, and then the absurdity will appear. Whatsoever is by succession, is before the Church: but the ministery is by succession: Ergo. The Mayor is false in this generality, and as absurd, as to say, that because there is succession in Propagation, therefore Adam's posterity may be before Adam. If the ministery did at the first arise out of the Church, and not from God immediately, the first Teacher to the Church, than had his Consequence been true. His reason to confirm his Consequence is a begging of the question, he maketh a ministery without Christ's power, which is most false, for where the ministery is, there is Christ's power. The Minor I deny, first, for form, by his adding of a The Minor denied. second term in the Minor, which was not in the Mayor, then for the falsehood: for the ministery is before the Church. It must be known that there is a twofold raising A twofold raising up of the ministery. up of the ministery; the first, by God at the first, to beget a Church: so God made Adam a Minister, to whom he gave a wife to begin the Church, and as Adam was before his Wife, so is the ministery at the first before the Church, the Spouse of Christ, which God wins to him by his Ministers, Ambassadors, who bring the word to beget the Church, the word is before it, than such as bring it also: and it is said, he gave some not only to confirm the Church, but to gather the Saints to make a Church. Eph. 4. 11. 12. The second is when the Church is once gathered, out of which the Ministers are taken: the former is before the Church, the latter is with the Church, in respect of the Ministers persons, this or that man ordained in this or that particular Congregation, but in respect of their office and ordination by succession from the first they be before the Church also: therefore his argument is nothing worth; this let him know, that succession takes not away relation between the Minister and the Church: for he being sent to win people is a Minister to the hidden number, not yet called out, and is God's Instrument to make the invisible members visible to men, as far as man can see them: so he hath no flock actually till then, but potentially. Yea, Ministers sent of God, may be the Church in this respect, that they be Christians, and so one edify another, till others be added, and they be Ministers in respect of an office bestowed upon them in their state of Christianity, so as if there were none left in a country but Ministers, yet there in them may the Church be said to remain. Hence it is, that a Minister administereth as a Minister the Lords Supper to himself, as a Christian, with others. 2. Argument. If Christ's ministerial power be by succession Page. 42. to the Pope, Bishops or Presbytery, than the ministery of Rome is a true ministery: but this is false: Ergo. I answer that the sequel is very absurd, the Antecedent The Consequence denied. proves it not. He is to know that by succession here is meant that true succession, which is personal succession, with succession in sound doctrine: for not ordination by succession serves the turn, but to be ordained to the office of true Ministers; now the Romish ministery is Idolatry and Superstition, and the men appointed thereto are ordained sacrificying Priests. Neither doth it follow, that because all true Ministers come ordinarily by succession, therefore all that have succession, are true Ministers, for there is required with succession a true office and true doctrine, true Sacraments and Prayer, about which Christ's true Ministers are exercised. The rest of the Arguments are mere verbal, and never a Consequent proved. His third Consequent is, that then men are bound absolutely to sin, in joining with the sins of the ministers. This man takes a principle of Brownisme unproved, to overthrow a truth, cannot a man receive the holy things of God, but he must needs sin with others? Again he avoucheth, Page 76. that men were bound in the old Testament necessarily to the Kingdom, Priesthood, and Temple for worship and service to God, what sins soever were committed, and yet men belike did not partake then with ohter men's sins: why then now? are God's Commandments and ordinances less able to keep a man pure now, than they were before? His fourth Consequent from succession is, that then the Lord hath made the ministers Lords over God's Church. How follows this from succession? May I reason thus, the Priests were by succession: Ergo, they were Lords over Israel; who is so silly, as not to see, that here is no Consequence? Succession infers no more, than the true use of it may rightly afford, if men abuse what they have by succession, doth that arise from the thing, or the corruption of the person? His fift Consequent from succession is, that then the Pope may excommunicate the whole Church universal, and the Bishops their whole Dioceses and Provinces: I leave him this Consequent to prove, for he gives no reason at all of it; he shall do the Pope a great favour to prove him to have an universal power, by his personal succession, and that by personal succession he may claim Christ's power, as he would infer by this his absurd reasoning. If Excommunication be a casting of men out of the Church; how can he conclude, that simply by succession a Bishop in authority may cast out all the Church? so than he casts out the Church out of the Church, or maketh a company no Church, and sets himself without a Church, by this sequel; whence we see, if his absurdity were true, others more gross would arise from thence: let therefore absurdities overthrow an absurdity. His sixth Consequent from succession is, that then the office of the Deacons and widows are lost. He reasons thus: if succession be interrupted in any part, then is there no succession at all. All his skill cannot save him from shame in so reasoning, if he be not grown shameless. But how proves he the offices lost? Forsooth, because, saith he, (O, profound conceit of the man anabaptistical!) as a Priest, under the law, came of a Priest, & a Levite of a Levite; so an Elder makes an Elder; a Deacon ordains a Deacon; & a widow must ordain a widow; which hath not been. A Smith's forge! A Priest came of Levy at the first; and though Elders may ordain, may Deacons too? it is beyond his skill to prove: no place in the new Testament in the lest syllable affords him the lest conceit of it. The Apostles Acts 6. ordained Deacons; so to them which succeed in the ministery belongeth ordination, and the same is among us hitherto: but that there should be imposition of hands upon widows; who ever heard to this day? His seventh argument, by which he thinks he may cry Mr. Smith's strongest argument in his own judgement, is yet from the question. victory, is, That doctrine which destroys itself is false. The doctrine of succession destroys itself: Therefore the doctrine of succession is a false doctrine. My answer to this is, that the man here hath lost his question, for he should conclude, that Christ's power is not given to the principal members, this is the position in question, and he concludes that the doctrine of succession is a false doctrine. May not we think that he is wild in wandering? we see neither Religion, nor the law of right reasoning, can keep him within the bounds of right and truth. His proposition he proves not, and yet determinatiuè and accidentaliter, a doctrine may destroy itself and yet be a true doctrine; and so till he expound it, it may be denied as false. The Assumption he would prove, because Election is interposed; by which (as he supposeth) succession is overthrown. A silly reason: is there not a succession in propagation? yet also an election when men chose women to maintain this succession: the one overthrows not another, but either upholds other. In the old Law was succession, yet also Election, as may appear by the Law of rejection ordained, if any man were deformed, defective in his parts and so forth, such were not allowed, therefore others were to be chosen in their room; and yet the succession good. Mathias Act. 1. succeeded in judas stead, and yet was he chosen; so succession was with Election. But here, as in other places, he deceiveth his affected associates to his own will, like Pythagorean Scholars, cleaving to his ipse dixit; for he reasons, as if we spoke of a succession of persons only: as Eliazar succeeding Aaron, Phinees Eliazar, Abishua Phinees, as in the old Testament. But the succession here meant, is of a continuance of God's ordinance by persons Elected thereto from time to time, being only of spiritual kindred, by the faith of doctrine, by which the ordinance is upheld, and true succession maintained. After these his Arguments, he frames objections, but none made by me; and therefore I leave him as fight with his own shadow. In the next place we come to his Arguments, set down affirmatively from undeniable groudns of Scripture (as he saith) if he may be believed, who never believes himself, but gives himself the lie in print twice or thrice in one year. His first Scripture, Mat. 16. 13. 20. Hence he frames Page 51. Mr. Smiths first Argument for popular government. Answered. his Argument thus: Christ's disciples are Christ's Church. Christ's ministerial power is given to Christ's Disciples. Ergo, Christ's ministerial power is given to his Church. In this Argument he doth change the copulative, which aught not to be in a true syllogism; but this man may as well break the rules of Art, as the faith of Truth. Again, he useth deceit in the word Disciples, which he expounds by this Argument to be other, than Apostles, or such as were Disciples sent forth to preach, when the place of Mat. 16. 13. 18. is evidently against this. He cannot prove at this time any to be with him but the twelve, as may appear by Luke. 9 18. Neither doth the place say, that these disciples are Christ's Church, as he maketh show, by quoting it for a proof but rather the verse 18. in that place of Matthew, manifesteth that Christ himself made a difference between the disciples in the person of Peter, & the Church: both which are there distinctly mentioned: at the most they be but part of Christ's Church, and not the whole Church, and then so meant, he gains nothing by this Argument. For the copulative, is given, it is to be taken two ways, primarily and immediately; or, secondarily, and mediately: if it be taken in the first sense, and the word Disciples, also for the Apostles, then is it for me, and against himself; if in the second sense, and the word Disciples taken for the whole Church, than I grant all, and yet never the worse: for I confess the power of Christ to be given to the Church mediately, that is, unto others for the Church's behoof and benefit: If he understand it to be given primarily to the whole multitude, I deny it, as utterly false, till he can prove, that by Disciples in Mat. 16. 13. 20. is meant the multitude, which he calls the Church, and not only the Apostles. If he here say, as in an other place, that here must needs be meant the common Disciples, called the brethren, the multitude, because the Apostles were never called Apostles, till after Christ's ascension: I show him the contrary out of the word in plain terms, Luke 6. 13. where our Saviour called his disciples, and of them, he chose twelve; which also he called Apostles, and this am I sure, was before his Ascension; and yet is not this man ashamed to avouch the contrary, Page 39 line 10. All that which follows dependeth on the proof of his Exposition of Mat. 16. 13. for all learned Expositors that I can read, or hear of by others, do interpret it of the Apostles. What is Mr. Smith then to oppose all? and what levity is it to believe him before all, who above all is most unconstant, confidently to day avouching that for verity which to morrow he will disclaim, as Antichristianitie? His second Scripture is Mat. 18. 15. 20. and 16. 19 Page 52. His second Argument for popular government. whence he reason's thus: That which is given to two or three of Christ's disciples, is given to the body of the Church, though many in number. But Christ's ministerial power is given to two or three disciples of Christ. Ergo. The Mayor is deceitful through the homonymy, of the Answered. word, Disciples, it signifying either Apostles, or other private persons believers: In this Mayor, it being understood of Apostles, than the Argument follows not, that though two or three Disciples, Apostles, have Christ's power, therefore much more the multitude, the body; for so two or three such are not considered simply as a number of two or three, but respectively, as selected men to a special calling, in which regard they have the power of Christ. And therefore his Mayor, which he makes to stand of an Argument, drawn from the less to the more, is altogether mistaken, and so his whole argument is of no force, except (as before) he can prove that two or three Disciples, are rightly understood two or three ordinary Christians: if it were so, it would follow that two or three women should have Christ's power, might preach, administer the Sacraments, for they are called Disciples, Acts. 19 30. Now this is contrary to the Apostles speech 1. Cor. 14. and never heard to be practised in the Church of God: yea, by this, any two or three by themselves may use all Christ's power without others: so a Congregation may be as many Churches, as there be two or three persons Disciples, and upon every conceited opinion, walk, after the anabaptistical fashion, by themselves, as goodly Churches, separated societies. But what greater confusion? If here be not Babel, one speaking one thing, an other an other, none agreeing; where is Babel to be found? It may seem that he would have Mat. 18. 15. 20. with 16. 19 to prove, that by Disciples is understood the brethren, the Common Christians, believers. For the chap. 16. I have spoken of it before, which is nothing for him, no more is this 18. chap. of which also have I spoken in my other Book, page 94. 99 And further I here avouch that by Disciples in the first verse, is meant the twelve Apostles so called, as is said, by an excellency above others, as being first and the best: compare this place with Mark. 9 35. where the Holy Ghost expounds what is in Mat. meant by disciples; which Exposition is more than all the idle words of many Mr. Smiths, expounding it otherwise. His third Scripture is Mat. 28. 16. 20. whence he doth Page 53. Mr. Smiths third argument for popular power. thus reason: To whom preaching and baptizing is committed, to them the power of binding and losing is given: The power to preach and baptize is given to the Disciples of Christ, or to the brethren, or to the body of the Church: Ergo, the power to bind, etc. He frames not his Argument rightly, neither Answered. concludes immediately the question; but I let this pass as usual with him, who but prevents Art, as he doth Divinity, to overthrow reason and Religion: I deny with Moses his Corahs' Assumption, for he in all these Arguments doth pled rebelliously, like Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron, principal Governors, to make all the Num. 16. 23. people holy, & thereby to have equal power in governing: these he calls here Brethrens, or the body of the Church, or Disciples, and this he grounds upon Mat. 28. 16. 20. But is not the man determined to sin wilfully, to hoodwink his followers, and to abuse God himself, who out of this place will hold, that the words in verse 19 Go and teach, etc. are spoken to Disciples, common Christians, and not to the Apostles, and in them only, to such as succeed them in the ministery; when first, in verse 16. he nominates only the eleven, which are called Apostles, Act. 1. 26. Secondly, it is the universal opinion of all the Church of God, (excepting such anabaptistical schismatics) that Mat. 28. 16. 20. is understood of the Apostles and their successors; and none take there the word Disciples for the brethren or body of the Church, as this man in his impudent audaciousness doth. He would prove his Minor by this reason, because God hath promised his presence to be with his Church, as he promised to be with the Apostles to the world's end. If this be a good reason, than an Infant Elect hath the power of Christ to preach, to baptize, for God hath promised his presence to such; yea, to women: and by this, one man may be a Church in himself, (as this man absurdly once avouched) for God is with a good man, as well as with the Church: if the presence of God promised to all his ever, may conclude to all, what is properly given to some, what might not men assume unto themselves? Truly his Arguments are childishly framed, his reasons grossly absurd, his alleged Scriptures shamelessly abused, and his audaciousness in avouching what he pleaseth intolerable: let the Reader in God's presence judge freely of what I here lay to his charge, whether I speak the truth or no. His fourth place is Mark 13. 33. 37. whence he thus Page 53. His fourth Argument, for Popularity, Answered. reasons. Christ's servants have Christ's authority; Christ's visible Church are Christ's servants: Ergo, Christ's visible church hath Christ's authority. He expounds Christ visible Church to be two or three faithful people; which words he puts in his Assumption unlogically, still not concluding the words of the question. But who seethe not a double signification to be in this word, Servants, which aught not to be in sound reasoning, neither is ever, but among jangling Sophisters, and Heretical deceivers: Servants, in the proposition is to be understood, as the word servant, Ro. 1. 1. for one that is servant in special office, & in the Assumption for Common Christians, who be all Christ's servants. His place quoted is a simile, which is not to be wrested from the scope, nor the parts of the simile taken beyond the intent of the place. In this place the Lord intends nor to set out any government of the church, the scope is plainly noted in verse 33. & 35. which is this; that every one seriously employ themselves in what task the Lord hath set them to, watching, by well doing therein, for the coming Christ, to take an account of us. What is this to Mr. Smith's imagination? Surely, if any thing about government may be drawn out thence, it is flat against himself. For first, the Master is jesus Christ; then secondly, the house must needs be his Church; thirdly, the Servants, the Officers; to whom it is said, he giveth authority, not to the house then, but to servants in the house, who are to look over others; for to every one hath the Lord allotted his work: fourthly, the Porter may be God's spirit, who watcheth in the Church, to preserve it from the enemy. Thus then out of this (if it afford any thing for government) it is plain that the Church, the house, is governed by servants (who receive authority from Christ) but itself doth not govern: for so it should be the Governor, and the governed. His fift place is, joh. 20. 18. 24. with Luke 24. 35. Page 54. His fift Argument for popularity. whence he thus maketh an Argument: If Christ's ministerial power of binding and losing be given to Marie Magdalene and Cleophas jointly, with the rest of the disciples of Christ, than it is given to the body of the Church. But the former is true; Ergo, the latter. The minor is denied; for neither Answered. Marie Magdalene nor Cleophas, had given to them Christ's Ministerial power: he hath gotten authority now for women Preachers, belike to overthrow the Apostles inhibition. It is enough to set down his argument, the folly of it sufficiently confutes it: but is his reason of force to make good this his mad Paradox? harken to it, and consider; for sooth he thinks it is just so as he saith, and why I pray you? because (saith he) Marry Magdalene and others, besides the Eleven, were all together when our Saviour gave this power to his Disciples mentioned in Mat. 28. 16. 20. john. 20. 21. 23. and such speeches else where, as concerneth the Ministerial power of Christ. So then his reason seems to be this: Whatsoever Christ spoke, when all his Disciples, men and women, Apostles and multitude were together, that was jointly alike spoken to all of them that so were then gathered together. This proof, wants Reasons against Mr. Smith's women Preachers. a proof, and is at no hand to be taken of his bore word: first, because he is so strange a broacher of opinions, and so inconstantly confident. Secondly, the argument and reason are both so absurd. Thirdly, because this bore reason would uphold what is plainly forbidden by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. 34. 35. Fourthly, for that the assertion underpropped herewith is so contrary to the judgement of all Divines, Counsels, Fathers, Churches, and practise of any womanish authority, in either preaching, or using the Church censures publicly. Fiftly, because it greatly diminisheth the estimation of the holy men and women in the Apostles days, whom we never read of did put in execution any such authority, which surely, as they aught, had it been imposed upon them, so would they have at one time or other showed this their equal Authority with the Apostles. Sixtly, because it is against that place of the Ephesians, chap. 4. 8. 12. where the holy Ghost mentioneth how Christ gave gifts unto men, ver. 8. whom he made Apostles, etc. to gather Saints, but no mention is made of gifts to women, for to preach and gather Churches. His sixth Scripture is Acts. 2. 39 and 3. 25. compared Page. 55. with Rom. 4. 11. 12. and Gal. 3. 7. 9 14. 15. whence he thus reasoneth. Unto whom the promises, the Covenant, the blessing His sixth argument for popularity. is given, unto them the Ministerial power of Christ is given: But the Promises, the Covenant, and the blessing is given unto the posterity of Abraham, according to the Faith, that is, to all the faithful, who are indeed the true Children of Abraham: Ergo, the Ministerial power is given to the faithful: that is, to two or three faithful people, which are a body unto Christ. This argument is diseased with an homonymy of Answered. words; for Promises, Covenant, and Blessing are either general appertaining to every Christian; or special, which concern particular states of men. Again, there be Promises, Covenants, and Blessings, only comprehending things external, and common favours, whereof the very Reprobates may partake: and there be Promises, Covenants, and Blessings of internal spiritual graces, proper to the Elect people of God. All his Scriptures quoted do speak of these things either appertaining to all, or of such as be proper to the very Elect: let the places be read and judged of. How then follows the Conclusion hence to a special power of government appointed to some? By this argument from these Scriptures, he may as well conclude that little Infants have the Ministerial power of Christ, sithen the Promise is made to them: Acts. 2. 39 the Covenant made with them: Deut. 29. 14. 15. The Blessing is given to them. Mar. 10. 16. I answer further, if this argument be now good, then was it so in the Law? for to all Israel was the Promise, the Covenant, and Blessing given; and therefore belike therewith the power of jurisdiction; but we see then the Church never took so much upon them; never did ever any Prophet gather thence so much: indeed rebellious Corah attempted as much, but the Earth gaped with wide mouth to swallow up so wretched a Smithean Spirit, as not worthy to live longer on the earth. Lastly, this maketh Simon the Saddler, Tomkin the Tailor, Billy the Bellowes-maker, and such like to command equally with Sovereign Authority in Church matters, and to live, if they list, lawlessely: for it is forsooth their Christian liberty to be tied to nothing. Ah wretched Corah! who art thou that darest breed such Confusion, elevate base spirits, suppress Suprioritie Anabaptistically; and bring a Familisticke Community, even every man's will to be his warrant; his erring mind his guiding master; and affection the rule of his actions, as appears among them all at this day? but I hope Mr. Smith is but in his new Moon, stay to the months end, and we shall I trust find him changed. His seventh Scripture is Esay. 9 6. john. 3. 16. and 13. Page 56. His seventh Argument for popularity. 13. Acts 2. 36. and 3. 22. 23. Luke. 2. 11. whence he frames this Argument. Unto whom Christ is given to be King, Priest, and Prophet directly and immediately, unto them is Christ's ministerial power given. But Christ is given as King, Priest and Prophet, directly and immediately to two or three faithful people, wheresoever living together in the world: Therefore Christ's ministerial power is given to such two or three. He hath nine arguments, and this only is in the right Answered. form of reasoning, in all the other he playeth Childishly the Sophister, and also in this his best manner wickedly a Deceiver. The sequel of this Argument is silly; he would here infer a Ministerial power, which is visible in the external government of the Church (for of this we speak, and do wholly and ever in all this dispute understand it, else he doth still play the Sophister,) from inward and spiritual partaking of Christ's Offices by the hand of faith, through the spirit. If he thus collect a right, directly and immediately, to descend to every one in outward government, because they have Christ their King, Priest and Prophet, then would it follow, that every Christian man, yea, and woman, may directly and immediately take upon them, that which is so directly and immediately given them, even as well, as they partake so of Christ, and are in him Kings, Priests, and Prophets. If they have the Ministerial power given, as they have Christ given to them, then may they assume (without leave or liking of any, when they please,) that power to themselves, even as without man's leave, they take Christ given them by God the Father: what a groundwork is here laid of all disorder and confusion; yea, and of intolerable insolency and swelling pride in every particular person? God is the God of order, and not of such a popular proud confusion. He would prove his Consequent from Rom. 8. 32. The Rom. 8. 32. words are, He gave him for us all to death, how shall he not with him give us all things also? so in these words all things, he includes, this and that thing, from a general, he concludes any thing: why may not by his thus absurd reasoning any Christian challenge to be a King? the unlearned to be exquisite in all Sciences? the poor man to be rich? for what lets us more to understand in all things, Richeses, Wisdom, Learning, Regality, and what not, as well as he to include Ministerial power; sithen every Christian by having of Christ, hath as much right in these things, which are also his gifts to his Church, as in the outward government of it? If he hath given us these things; why are not all learned? why take we not possession of riches where they be? and if these be not here meant, than all things is to be understood with a restraint; and so then it stands upon an exposition, what is meant by all things, which he yet hath not done: but till he do, he may see his folly with impiety in so alleging Scripture. Yet for all this, thus far I yield the Consequent true; that Christ's ministerial power is given for them, to whom Christ is given, in respect of the efficacy, also the free holy powerful use of it; because Christ's Ministerial power is for the Church's benefit, to rule it, and to order such as be in it, and not for others to censure them: for the Apostle saith; What have I to do to judge them that 1. Cor. 5. 12. are without? but this is far from the right of Authority, to execute that ministerial power which Mr. Smith pleads for. Touching the minor, I demand whether he hold that Christ is given to no fewer than two or three, if he say no, the whole Scripture disclaims his heresy; if yea, than one having Christ given to him, that same one by his argument hath Christ's ministerial power in him, and so Mr. Smith may Monopolize to himself the execution of all offices, and may bind and loose as often as any new toy comes into his restless brain. But what doth this man with his six places of Scripture? they prove not his Consequent of the Mayor; do they confirm the Minor? nothing less, for in none of the places is it said, that Christ is given to two or three. In Esay is meant all the Elect: so in john. 3. 16. in john. 13. 13. & Acts. 2. 36. is expressed no number at all any way, the other places are meant of many; why then abridgeth he the Lord's number? and why so perversely goeth he still on thus to make the out-road of two or three idle brains Schismatically meeting, to imagine themselves to be that which they are not? His eight Scripture is, Mat. 18. 15. 20. compared with Page. 57 His eight Argument for popularity. 1. Cor. 5. 4. 5. Mat. 6. 12. Luke. 17. 3. Whence he thus reasoneth; If one Brother hath power to retain the sins of an impenitent Brother privately, and to remit the sins of a penitent Brother privately: then a communion of faithful men have power to retain the sins of an impenitent member publicly, and to remit the sins of one that is penitent publicly: But one Brother hath power given him by Christ to retain, etc. Ergo, a communion of faithful people, etc. The Consequent follows, I grant, being understood Answered. as the Antecedent of remitting and retaining sins of the same kind; for than it follows, a minori ad maius: for if one man may forgive injuries offered, there is no question but the whole Congregation may so do also. But as he here takes the Consequent, and intends it, as by his drift may be easily granted; that is, for an Apostolical power of retaining and remitting; I deny it, and so must stay for a Confirmation; for it seems he took this as granted, as he doth many more of his conceits: but who can grant a necessary consequence from one thing to an other of divers natures? The Antecedent is of a private remitting and retaining of injuries; and so a man hath a right, in respect of himself before men, to forgive the wrong, as the man offending shall humble himself, or else to claim his own, after a lawful and charitable proceeding. But the Consequent is understood not of injuries to man, but sins to God, which the Ministers of God in God's stead hath the Ministerial power to remit or retain, as the party offending is penitent or remains irrepentant. The places of Mat. 18. 15. 20. Mat. 6. 12. Luke. 17. 3. are so to be understood as Col. 3. 13. & as I have expounded the Antecedent: if my exposition barely set down content not some, let such as doubt, read Bishop Bilsons' Book of perpetual government, Page. 29. 37. and Doctor Sutcliffe of Ecclesiastical Discip. Page. 124. and also a Book entitled, De ritè gubernanda Christi Ecclesia, without name of the Author: in which this exposition is defended at large, and other expositions refelled; of which see more in this Reply afterward. Therefore here is no Consequence, he taking the latter part as he doth, and falsely interpreting the former part in his misunderstanding the Scriptures, where he seems to ground it. The Minor is denied, for these places prove not, that a private man hath power given him of Christ to remit sins committed against God, but wrongs done against himself. His ninth and last Scripture is, Eph. 5. 30. 32. and 1. 22. Page. 58. His ninth Argument for popularity. 23. Reu. 21. 2. and 22. 17. from whence he thus reasoneth; The Wife hath power immediately from her husband, and the body hath power immediately from the head: the visible Church or a Communion of faithful people are Christ's Spouse, the wife of the Lamb, and Christ's mystical body: Ergo, the visible Church or Communion of faithful ones have Christ's ministerial power immediately from him. There is more in the Conclusion then in the Premises, Answered. for he puts in the word Ministerial, which is in neither of the former Propositions, as in right arguing it aught to be. It is no Syllogism, and the argument is but a similitude: which may illustrate an approved truth, but proves not, nor gives resolution to a doubting mind, much less decides this cause in hand. And thus having ended a number of ill shapen arguments to defend a cause worthy no better either Mood or Figure in reasoning, he tells his Reader, that by all these put together, it appeareth plainly, what? that the ministerial power of Christ is in the body of the Church; nay rather, that, o what? that, I say, he is himself fearfully seduced by Satan, beguiled, and seeking to beguile by his childish Sophistry and impious abuse of Scripture such as be given over with him to believe lies. All men may see what a conceit this man now hath of himself, and of his own opinions, who dare so boldly call upon the King, the house of Page of his book 41. line. 7. 8. Parliament, and all the Learned in the Land, in a confident persuasion of the truth which he holds, and that only upon such silly reasons, so childishly framed, so without true form, full of Inconsequence, ambiguous terms, and false Positions, and some of them altogether sometime without any proof, and yet he calls it, their Faith, and most evident truth of God, Page 54. The undoubted Truth, Page 36. Wherein he is so confident, as he puts all on hazard upon this one point, thus makes Proclamation, Pa. 40. line 30. I profess before the Lord, and before the whole world, that if I prove not evidently my assertion: first, I will acknowledge the Churches of England true Churches: secondly, * Behold the vanity of the man, who can keep no mean. the Church of Rome so: thirdly, the Greek Churches also to be true Churches, and all to have a true ministery: fourthly, that the whole cause of the Separation lieth in the dust: fifthly, that they must disclaim their Schism, which they have made, and Heresies which they do hold. Therefore he failing in this, it is needless farther to spend time with him, in any other of his singular opinions, wherein he differs from Brownisme. And therefore this point concluded with him, I need not reply largely upon any other of his answers to the positions following, which Mr. Ainsworth shall deny to be the common cause in Brownisme. For it is altogether vain to stand in refutation of any thing, which this man held the last year, he having of himself left this cause, and is got out of a Schismatical whirlpool of fantasies, and is fallen into the anabaptistical gulf of Heresies, in which he layeth all upon an other point, viz: Of the lawfulness to baptize Infants, Children of believing Parents; which his present standing he hath baulified, I should say beautified, with the like garnishments as here, and speaks as confidently as he hath done in this: for this is apparently to be observed What a manner of man Mr. Smith is in his conceits. in him, great boldness to attempt any course more than a common confidence in every present opinion: affected singularity from all societies in protestancy, in Brownisme, in Anabaptisme: Audacious justifying of his so singular courses, with Sophistry, with perversions of Scriptures; contemning the judgement of all others: Using Protestations of the evidence of the truth, which he imagineth to hold in these, and such like terms: I am verily assured it is the truth: It is as clear to me as the noon day: It is the undoubted truth of God: the truth of Christ that it is justified out of the word, with calling God to witness, protesting before the Lord, and before the world, if this or that be not thus & so; then judge after this and that manner his cause, his person: thus hath he done in our Church, so in Brownisme, thus in Anabaptisme: read his works, if you can spend time so unprofitably, and judge the truth of that I say; with this also that he often disclaims the way which he so peremptorily avoucheth for truth; and because his unheard of Inconstancy may not disgrace him, he puts shamelessness upon him, and professeth inconstancy, and His Book of Differences in the Preface. desireth that his last writings over may be taken as his present judgement. I appeal therefore to thee Reader, whether it be meet for any, otherwise better exercised, to spend time to answer any thing, which he saith, who in time answers himself, and no time is ever himself certainly? Necessity laid upon me at this present will excuse my misspent labour herein on him, but I hope not lost in respect of others, for whose sake, I thus lay him open truly, as he hath manifested himself, that if God so please he may see himself by himself, and some whose persons I yet hearty wish well unto, may take heed betime to leave him, and others to keep from him as an instrument of Satan, raised up to deceive the simple hearted. Now it remains to reply upon his answers to my Reasons, given against popular government; but for that his Answers may easily be overthrown, by any understanding Reader: to prevent tediousness, I commend both our endeavours to the judgement of the wise, only thus much I entreat them; first, to compare my former Book with his Answer; for he puts in his Answer more than I say sometime: secondly, take heed of his paralogisms, and inconsequences: thirdly, judge rightly of my words, that the sense be not wrested: and fourthly, beware of his false Analogies which he makes from the old Testament to the New. As in his first Answer, he would type out by the Levites, the Priests and Kings in the old Testament, the body of the Church in the new Testament; so as, look as they had the government then, so have the people now. This his proportion overthrows the Rule of Kings in Office, and makes the people a King: and if this be so, why then doth not the superiority of Aaron, and degrees among the Priests, type out superiority now? Suppose not (Christian Reader) that I pass him by, as not able to answer him, for I protest unto thee, I find no such cause in his answer, why thou shouldst so think, either touching this, or what remains to be answered; neither, I thank God, find I altogether such weakness in myself, as not to be able to manifest his fraudulent dealing, though I see (in his pride) he attempts greatly to vilify me, and my labours: but it is, that his Answer and my Reply, both to him and Mr. Ainsworth, might not grow to a tedious Volume. The seventh Error of the Brownists. THat the sin of one man publicly and obstinately stood in, being not reform nor the offender cast out; doth so pollute the whole Congregation, that none may communicate with the same, in any of the holy things of God, (though it be a true Church rightly constituted) till the party be Excommunicated. I have given many Reasons against this, in my former Book, Page 102. 109. and much here also before, have I spoken touching pollution upon the fift Error, which may serve to the further overthrow of this. Reply to Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this seventh Error. MAster Ainsworth disclaims this, as none of theirs either in practice or judgement; therefore Mr. Smith in his Brownisme here did wrong them, in defending it, as an opinion of that way, and not I, in laying it to the Brownists, whom here I knew did defend it: that the Brownists on this side, and yond side the sea differed, I knew not; but now I well see, how little they be themselves, in their several companies. But let us see what he saith: Reason. 1 First, he professeth, that none is to separate for faults and corruptions, but by due order to seek redress thereof: his reason is, because faults and corruptions will fall out, and arise in the Church, so long as it consists of mortal men. And sithen he delivers such a truth, which I gladly embrace, I We may not separate wholly from true Churches for Corruptions. will to his reason as the first, add more for confirmation; as a main truth against themselves: viz. that we may not separate for Corruptions. Reason. 2 Secondly, because the contrary is the condemned schism of the Catharists, Donatists', Anabaptists. Beza on Cant. 1. 6. Cal. Instit. 4. 1. 13. 16. Reason. 3 Thirdly, because corruptions are made matter of reproof, but nocause of separation from the church, but only of private unnecessary familiartie with particular offenders. In what cases a total separation may be, see my other Book, page 108. Reason. 4 Fourthly, because the godly is rather to mourn, then separate, Ezech. 9 4. Mat. 5. 4 Psal. 119. 136. 139. 158. Reason. 5 Fiftly, because if we should separate upon every corruption, we should never join to any Church, or not continued in it; not nor in ourselves, but live alone, or go out of the world. Reason. 6 Sixtly, because by separation, there should be no practice of patiented forbearing and teaching the untoward, to see whether at any time God will give them repentance. 2. Tim. 2. 25. Cal. Instit. 4. 1. 16 19 Objection. 1. Object. It is lawful to separate from a Church for ill government. Answer. Answ. Not; the Government was ill in the time of the judges, when every man did what he listed, when there was judge. 18. no King in Israel, and much abomination then committed. So in our saviours time, Heretics and Sectaries had Rule and Government, false high Priests, Symoniacal, and temporary, contrary to the Lords Institution. Corruption in government also in the days of Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose. In the days of the Apostles Diotriphes' used tyrannical pride, usurped authority, and yet neither Prophets, nor Christ, nor Apostles, nor the Ancient Fathers did teach or practise any such separation, as is made in these days. Objection. 2. Object. But we may separate because of a mixed Company, openly wicked, living with the godly. Answer. Answ. Not; first, because the Holy Ghost saw this in the old Testament: Ezech. 22. 26. Mal. 1. 7. 8. and reproved some for it, but never taught Separation upon it: secondly, the Apostle saw in Corinth, and the Angel in the Churches of Asia, a mixed company, and never either commanded the godly to separate therefore, nor left any practice for example to us: thirdly because it makes not a true church, either false or no church: fourthly, because the godly are of more force to sanctify one another, than some wicked to pollute all in there standing considered simply in itself: fiftly, because such as mourn, as privately avoid familiarity with wicked, labour in their place to reform them, so continuing are not, nor cannot be polluted by others. Objection. 3. Object. But we may separate, for men's unworthy coming to the Sacrament. Answer. Answ. Not; first, because some uncleansed came with the godly in Hezechias days unworthily (2. Chro. 30. 28.) to the Passeover; yet the Lord healed the rest at the prayers of the godly; so let men pray now: secondly, because this was among the Corinthians, yet the Apostle prescribes not separation for a remedy; but exhorts every man to examine himself. 1. Cor. 11: thirdly, judas was at the Passeover, and some think, at the Lords Supper; and Christ knew him to be a devil, and yet permitted him without pollution to himself, or the rest: yea, though openly he told them, that one should betray him; and saw that the devil then had put it into judas heart: fourthly, because this is only a blemish in the Church, greatly to be bewailed and a defect of Discipline, but no overthrow of any of the true essence or any Doctrine, which is the life of the Church. Objection. 4. Object. But we may separate, when men are let alone, and sin not punished. Answer. Answ. Not; first, impunity makes not a nullity: sesondly, it is only (as is before said) a defect in Discipline, which is a hurt to the well being of the Church; but is no cause of Separation: thirdly, because sin was unpunished, among the jews, Jude 21. 25. Among the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 5. and yet no separation for it: fourthly, because punishing of sin is not every man's office, but theirs to whom it appertaineth: is their neglect, the sin of private persons? fifthly, because we are rather to use means to such as are in authority to get sin punished, rather than to fly and run away: by the one may we do good, by the other do mischief: sixtly, because by our godly conversation, in being among them, we may win them. Objection. 5. Object. But we may separate, from such as cast off the external government of Christ. Answer. Answ. Not; First, because some part of government, besides the word is not of the essence of the Church: secondly, because many may be ignorant of that government, and so reject it; is such ignorance a just cause of separation? thirdly, because it is a great controversy which is Christ's external government, & therefore in such a case, a Church may not be forsaken: fourthly, because the jewish Church cast off God's government, & yet no separation taught, but the people exhorted to amendment. 1. Sam. 8. 7. 8. jere. 3. 13. 20. fifthly, may children leave their father's house because their mother his wife is rebellious, and will not be governed by him? Objection. 6. Object. But we must separate from that Church, where be false Ministers. Answer. Answ. If all be so, we may; but if some only be so, then may we not, but we must follow the godly Sunamite, leave Baal's priests, jeroboams Calves, and Idol shepherds; and get us to Elisha the Prophet. First, because there was false Prophets in Israel; secondly, Heretical Saducees, hypocritical Pharisees, false teachers and evil livers, and yet our Saviour commanded no separation from the Church, but permitted to hear them with wariness: thirdly, A false prophetess in Thiatira tolerated, and yet no separation taught, but an admonition to the godly to hold what they had: Re. 2. 24. 25. fourthly, It is to be noted whether the Church approve them or not; and also it is to be certainly known who are false Ministers: the spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; it is not in the skill of ordinanarie persons to judge and give sentence: every one hath authority to try the spirits, but it is meant of such as can try and so judge, and yet not upon their own head, but by holy conference with the Church, and Ministers of God, to proceed to a definitive sentence within themselves, as out of God's word, by God's spirit, and the voice of God's Church in such a case. Objection. 7. Object. But surely we may separate from that Church wherein the worship is corrupted. Answer. Ans. Not so: first, because under the law there was corruption in worship reproved, Esay. 29. 13. but no commandment therefore to leave the Church, neither did any leave it: secondly, the like in Christ's time: Mat. 15. 9 Thirdly, so in the Apostles days among the Galathians, & else where; yet no separation from the Church for it: Fourthly in S. Augustine's time complaint was made of human Ceremonies burdensome, yet no separation: fifthly, because the godly men did oppose them, and suffered patiently for omission of these when authority did press them; but fled not away for fear of trouble: peaceable withstanding corruptions, is a means to reform, and not a Schismatical rending of men's selves from the whole church, pretending a Separation, to lead away simple people captives, and to avoid thereby affliction for righteousness sake. And therefore as Mr. Ainsworth saith, we may not separate for corruptions, but must labour in our place to seek a redress of them; except the Church become no Church, full of either Heathenish, or Israelitish Idolatry, as in jeroboams time, when the Lord hath removed his Candlestick. But if this before set down, be their judgement indeed, then let Mr. Ainsworth tell me first why do they not stay with us, and seek redress, if any thing be amiss among us; by due order, waiting the Lord's leisure in raising up his own means to reform disorders, which is the authority of the Magistrate: for this see the judgement of that wise, holy, learned and moderate, yet truly zealous spirited man Zanchie, upon Esay 2. in his Book De Ecclesia, page 225. Secondly, I demand, why then do they fly the Communion of the Dutch Churches, and the merchants Church in Amsterdam, excommunicating such as occasionally join unto them? if the differences between them be considered, which are very small, and whether they be corruptions or no is very disputable: it may be concluded, that the Position here set down by Mr. Ainsworth, either is not their judgement, or else they practise contrary to their judgement: so like Scribes and Pharisees, that is, Separatists Hypocrites, they teach and say, but do not; and are guilty of that which they would blame in us: And if this Position be true, then be they schismatics; for to break peace with the Churches, where we may and aught to hold communion, is Schism: See Zanch. ibidem, Page. 119. 120. etc. Reply. Secondly, he tells us, what they hold, in brief it is thus The Separatists judgement touching pollution. much: that if one convict of Adultery, Blasphemy, etc. be by the whole Church let alone; not rebuked, but pleaded for against such as call for judgement, all such are sinners themselves, and such an Assembly is not God's Church; neither can it be said, that any holy thing is lawfully administered in such a society, for the sin of them all pollutes them. Mr. Smith answers him Page 71. and saith; this affirmation, and his denial of the Position are contradictory, so there is a lie in the one. And my answer hereto is, that he hath affirmed more than he hath proved, or can be able to prove, if such a Church were as he supposeth: but he is herein his mere imagination; for what Church of Christ is so given over, that all ever did, or do pled for Adulterers, Blasphemers, and such like? And I ask him what be those that do call upon the Church for judgement, are they members? then all the Church doth not defend the wicked man: his absurd supposition hath in it also a contradiction; for he supposeth the whole Church to pled for the wicked man, and yet supposeth also then there to be some pleading against the wicked man: he cannot tell what he saith. I entreat him, the next time to teach his Scholars better, to speak more wisely, and if he can, let him show first, an instance of any such church of God as he supposeth: for grant false conceits and idle suppositions, a man then may conclude any thing. His instance of the Tribe of Benjamin succouring judges. 20. Gibeah is very unapt, were they the Church of God, or but some members of the Church? He supposeth a whole Church against some; and here he exemplyfieth it by some, against the whole. Secondly, that such an Assembly, where one is so tolerated, is not the Church of God. Thirdly, that the holy things are there unlawfully administered, so as the godly there who call for justice must needs separate as he by this doctrine intendeth, then hath he spoken to the purpose, and somewhat for his cause. In the mean space he tells us, that except the whole Church do agreed together Observe this speech. to maintain open iniquity, and do despise the word of the Lord calling them to repentance, he holds it not lawful to separate from them in any wise, in any thing, till all holy and ordinary means be used for their reclaiming. Page 181. And in Page 179. he saith, it is a sin to make a separation from a Church for matters controvertible and doubtful. And yet For what & about what do the Separatists most contend. for such matters do they make separation: for what and about what do they chiefly contend? is it not for and about matters of outward government; not about the substance of things neither, but about circumstances, more about the manner, than the matter, which maketh the controversy endless. I deny not but the thing commanded must be done, & also must be well done, & prudence is required to observe circumstances, that good things be thereby done seasonably and well, for the time, place and person: but this is ill, for circumstances not observed exactly, to deny the truth of substances, to hold them false, and to judge things done substantially, as not done; for that they be not perfectly circumstantial, especially where both the matter and manner of such things be very controvertible, as about the circumstances of external government and discipline of the Church: which herein I will make manifest to the understanding of every Christian Reader, and especially I intent it for this end; to stay the minds of many: first, of young A Caveat to young Divines. Students in divinity, who in a godly zeal desiring the glory of God in the amendment of all men's manners, are suddenly over the ears, at the very first onset, in the controversy of discipline, before they have learned in any small measure to speak rightly of the common principles of Christianity. Secondly, to stay the minds of Country people in many To Country people. places, who speak so certainly, so peremptory of this point, as if they were the profound Doctors of Ancient times, wiser than many of their deliberate and learned teachers. Both these mean well, their affections are for good and against evil; but herein is it amiss, that they do presume to be too soon ripe, adventuring boldly to run ere they can creep, much less go: and all this ariseth upon their erroneous conceit, that these points of discipline and Church-government, are supposed by them to be so easily discerneable, so apparent by scripture, as that silly men may judge rightly wherein the truth thereof doth stand. Therefore to let them see how far otherwise it is, I will It is not an easy thing for every one to judge rightly of Church-government and discipline. lay open the intricateness hereof, by the inconstant minds of learned men, their variety of opinions, some holding this, some that; even plain contradictories in somethings. What herein is the truth, and who do hold it, is not for me to determine: I leave every man to judge freely, and the Lord guide him to the best. First, some hold no government at all, which is but a familistical conceit, yet have they their reasons, making a distinction of a double person in one man, a Citizen and a Christian; these deny Ecclesiastical government, and the Anabaptists Civil government, to which they may easily draw some silly Brownists, as daily they do, and that from the force of their own grounds: the Separatists hold all to be voluntary professors; now voluntariness is taken away by being under any government: to be subject and ruled is an estate far from freedom; Christians lose thereby Christian liberty. Christian's Saints need no constraining power, they be led by the spirit; but what proceed I to speak further of the fanatical frenzy of these two generations of men: their reasons have been confuted long since. Secondly, it is held that there must be an external government There must be a Government in the Church. and that rightly, for the well ordering of external means of men's salvation among the professors of Christ's name, the reasons for it are: first, because Christ gave Governors to his Church. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Secondly, the Apostle exhorted some to rule diligently. Rom. 12. 8. Thirdly, he mentioneth such as were over the Churches in the Lord. 1. Thes. 5. 12. Fourthly, he allows to such double honour, that is, reverence and maintenance, even for their well governing. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Fiftly, for that in the Scripture is a Commandment for the preaching of the word, for the administration of Sacraments, and other holy exercises, and all these to be done decently and in order: 1. Cor. 14. 40. now of necessity there is required a rule and a government both to see things and persons orderly disposed and so also kept. Sixtly, the untoward nature of man, which resists order, and desires to wander loosely and at liberty, requires government: without which experience tells us, that the Church cannot remain in safety, but Satan would intrude his instruments upon the Church, and poison it with false doctrine, rend it by Schism, and pollute it wholly with profaneness of men's lives. seven, the Church of Christ is called a kingdom: Mat. 13. 41. 2. Thes. 2. 12. now in a kingdom is government. Eightly, if no society of men can be without government, neither in kingdom, City, nor Town, then cannot the Church be without it, so long as it consists of mortal men, though never so devout, yet always herein an imperfect state, and needs government. Ninthly, till Christ's time from the world's beginning, before and in the time of the Law, was there government in the Church of God: and therefore are we not to think, that our Saviour when he came, would make all that professed him Libertines, and free from all outward government. Tenthly, we read how the Apostle was, even in his time, constrained to use his power given him of Christ to rule, 1. Cor. 5. and did punish some. 1. Tim. 1. 20. Eleaventhly, the judgement of reformed Churches manifest by practice, all of them yielding to government. That there is government is certain, and this is also as certain, How Ecclesiastical Governors aught to behave themselves. that Governors aught to rule well: 1. Tim. 5. 17. with diligence: Rom. 12. 8. and without pride and tyranny: 1. Pet 5. 3. Mat. 20. 25. Luke. 22. 25. 26. But in this firm and most certain truth is very great uncertainty: for though it be generally held, that there is an Ecclesiastical government, and that there is a delegate power of jesus Christ for well ordering and ruling his people, called the Church, yet herein is great controversy, and very hot contentions arise on one side and on an other, as men are persuaded of a truth. Some hold not only a government, but also that in Christ's Some hold a perpetual government. testament is appointed a perpetual and an unchangeable form of government in particular, to which all particular Churches are bound to receive, and to subject themselves unto, as an essential part of the Gospel upon pain of damnation: of this opinion besides the Separatists have been others. Others hold that Christ in the new Testament appointed no Others, that it is not certain. certain kind, or perpetual form of government, but that the same is alterable upon just occasions; as may serve best to the Church's welfare: so as in some place may be the Presbiterian power; in others Episcopal authority, both indifferently lawful; as may best fit the people and state in every such place: of this opinion are not a few, and they have their reasons: thus do men vary about the very nature of government itself: so also is there much differing about the persons in whom that power of ruling is, next and immediately from and under Christ. Some hold it to be in the Pope with his Consistory of Cardinals: Papists. but this is held the devise of man, and condemned of all reformed Churches, which have forsaken the Romish Synagogue, to be abhorred as usurped authority, and Antichristian tyranny. Some hold it to be in the body of the Congregation, as may Anabaptists. be seen here before: others flatly deny it, as a confused popular government; all in government, and so none governed. How can this confused Chaos execute their government, and upon whom must they execute it? themselves upon themselves; or if they put it off to some, than belike a power is given to such as cannot perform it themselves, but ever by others; they have it, and others must execute it; Authority they have without ever ability to do the duties thereto belonging, but by Substitutes. If the Assembly do any thing, that must be in Christ's name; for that they have their authority from Christ; but Ministers must by this opinion, do all in the Church's name, preach, administer the Sacraments in the Church's name. But how this squareth with holy writ, let all judge. Some hold Christ's ministerial power to be in the Presbytery, Reformists. with the Church's consent: but here also is great variety touching the Presbytery: Some holding that it aught to be in every Congregation: others, in some special place, and the same to be over divers congregations. Some hold that this Presbytery doth by divine authority consist of Clergy and Laity: others deny utterly lay Elders, and that all Elders in the new Testament are, as we understand the word Churchmen, Bishops, Pastors and Teachers. Some hold these Church Elders all equal: others directly oppose it, and do defend Superiority Protestants. of Ministers in some men called Bishops, whose reasons briefly are; first, for that they do think them to have Reasons for authority of Superiority. See Bishop Bilsons' Perpetual Government. Doctor Fields 5. book. cap. 27 page 134. And cap. 28. and 29. and 30. been in and from the Apostles days, confirmed by Eusebius, who deriveth the succession of Bishops in the four principal Churches of the world: viz. in jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria: from james at jerusalem; from Peter at Antioch; from Peter and Paul at Rome; and from Mark at Alexandria; and the same continued from time to time: for further knowledge hereof, let any, that will, read Bishop Bilsons' book of perpetual Government, Page 260. and Doctor Field. Secondly, because the Scripture mentioneth a Superiority, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Teachers; and they be reckoned in order, by first, second, and third, 1. Cor. 12. 28. as degrees one over another. Thirdly, because God himself in the old Testament ordained a Superiority among Ecclesiastical persons: there were the high Priest, and chief Priests, and so forth; and this order is not forbidden in the new testament. Touching that place of Luke 22. 25. 26. see Doctor Downham and Doctor Dove of Church Government, by whom that text is expounded at large: If they err, let it be showed. Fourthly, because the ground for Superiority is alike in the new Testament, as in the old; to preserve order, as 1. Cor. 14. the Apostle commands to maintain peace, and to prevent Schism, which began in the Apostles days. For these causes was the superiority among the Churchmen with the jews, and not for to be types, though the high Priest did type out Christ, yet did not the other Priests so, in that one was set over another for good government sake. Fiftly, because God hath by instinct of nature in all societies, moved people to approve of a Superiority: yea, in his works there is set a supereminency of one creature above another: thus in the workmanship of the World, God approves it; in nature's inclination he confirms it; in the jewish policy he commanded it: what makes it odious in the Christian Church, sithen it is experienced, that men now are as proud, as affectionate to singularity, as opinionate to private courses, as unwilling to be in subjection, all which require a kerbing power, as ever heretofore at any time? Sixty, because such as would have an equality, do maintain an inequality in their government, and are thereto constrained to keep order, and to prevent confusion: they make the Pastor superior to the Teacher, when others hold them both one; and they have a Superintendent over many Churches. Thus we see the great difference among the best learned of all sorts, about the persons that should govern. There is also differing opinions concerning the punishment Differences about the punishment of offenders. of offenders; Some hold that no external power of reforming sinners belongeth to the office of Ministers, but only as by the word they can work through the spirit, upon men's consciences, by public admonition and reprehension; rebuking such openly as sin openly: affirming that other punishments whatsoever appertain to the Magistrate, when God bestows them upon the Church: Others think that Ministers may suspend, and superior Ecclesiastical Governors withal excommunicate. And again, there are which utterly deny any suspension from the communion; affirming that there is neither precept nor practice in all the new Testament, nor any place whereupon it may necessarily be gathered; but only an excommunication from all the holy things of God. Others peremptorily deny excommunication, and do accounted it but the Pope's painted power, an invention of man, without either Commandment or example in the new Testament: that it is first found among the Scribes and Prarises, Christ's enemies; that Heretics and Schismatics who despise the authority of Princes, make it their arm and power to conjure their Spirits in Communion with them: they say, the word is not in all the new Testament, as prescribed either by Christ or his Apostles, neither the thing intended by it, the delivering of a man up to Satan being an other thing, an 1 Cor. 5. extrarodinarie Apostolical power: about this matter Beza and Erastus are long and tedious. To conclude the 18. of Mat. verse 15. 20. and Leu. Mat. 18. diversly expounded. 19 17. are by some held to be the order to be observed in proceeding with an offender before sentence be given; but in this is as great variety as in any of the rest: for others avouch confidently that the places do nothing at all concern Discipline, and Beza is taxed of great oversight, for grounding his Discipline upon Mat. 18. which belongeth nothing to it. Read the book entitled, Theses de ritè gubernanda Ecclesia, the Author without name, and yet an over-sea Presbiterian, who proveth that discipline Ecclesiastical hath there no foundation, but it is meant, saith he, of private and personal injuries, which he proveth from the coherence of the whole Chapter one part of it with another, from the phrases and manner of speaking, from the absurdities which would arise otherwise from it, from Peter's question, and the last words of Christ's answer. Now because this place is so much in every silly man's mouth, so much exalted by the Separatists, by the Anabaptists, so troublesome to the minds of many, and so much desired to be put in practice by some who yet here see it neglected, and being persuaded that here the same cannot be put in practice, and yet aught to be observed as the true rule of Church Discipline, ordained by Christ, by which some run from us, others remaining yet dislike us, as careless of Christ's government: I will show the judgement of Divines, who endeavour by reasons to declare how these men are utterly mistaken, and are clean from the true meaning of this place; as they do think. Hear therefore what is, and may be said, touchign this 18. of Mat. verse 15. 16. 17. First, the Coherence with that before in the Chapter Coherence. is thus; Christ our Saviour tells of scandals and of offences that shall be given, and admonisheth his disciples of them, and teacheth to avoid them, verse 5. 6. 7. &c: Than comes he to injuries offered, and shows how men must carry themselves towards such as do offer them wrong, in verse 15. 16. 17. etc. That this is the order, the Text may show, and the matter fitly doth agreed together; for he first admonisheth his to take heed of offending others; and then declareth how they are to carry themselves towards such as do trespass against them. Secondly, the occasion of these words was (as is thought) Occasion. the state of those days in our saviours time, wherein the jews were in subjection to the Romans, having their authority of Elders greatly diminished by the Romans, who were Heathen, to whom some jews became servants: these were Publicans; of which was Zacheus, yea, and Matthew, one that sat at the receipt of custom; for which they were to the jews very hateful, but therein servants to the Romans, and so freed from the power & authority of the jews, with whom (as with the very Heathen & Gentiles among them) what jew soever would have to do for any wrong which they offered, that jew must call these publicans before Roman authority, and convent them there, and not bring them into any jewish Court; from which they were exempt by their service to the Roman state: which liberty was also granted to any other privileged jew, which would make an appeal to the Roman Governor, as did Saint Paul: to whom the jews might have recourse if they would to recover their rights, or redress wrongs offered them. Thirdly, the scope of our Saviour, is held in this case here The scope. to be a moderating of the jews passions, arising one against another for wrongs received, that so they might not run into extremities, as man's nature is both hasty and desirous of the utmost revenge at the first; he adviseth them therefore not to deal at the first one with an other, as they must do with Publicans and Heathen, men hateful to them, and exempted from all that power, which yet remained among themselves; and against whom they held it lawful to use all extremities to the utmost: but to proceed lovingly; first, after the rules of Charity, which prescribeth, first, all gentle means, and when these will not any way prevail, then to use extremity. Fourthly, the meaning then of the words is; if thy brother The meaning of the words. Here be three degrees of proceeding, and a threefold help in reclaiming the trespasser. 1. The rule of charity. 2. Moses order of policy, as much as then remained thereof. 3. And lastly, the Roman Sovereignty. a jew do injury against thee that art a jew, go thou to him, and tell him of it between yourselves alone; and if he acknowledge the wrong, and doth give thee satisfaction, thou art to cease further to call him into question, as being reconciled, and he won unto thee by this thy loving carriage: but if he do despise thee (as but one to one) yet use not extremity; but again go to him, and take with thee one or two, before whom thou mayest manifest the wrong received, that they may bear witness of it, as also of thy charitable proceeding, and may be a mean to the same party for thee, to consider of his evils, to make thee recompense for the same: but if he regard not their counsel neither; then complain to the authority of the jewish Synedrion, and let them persuade him to deal well with thee, to satisfy in what he hath done the injury in. But if he become so graceless and so wickedly obstinate that he despise it, and so no such means as these will do him good; then use (if thou wilt) the utmost remedy, deal with him, as if he were not a faithful jew; that is, bring him before the Roman power, and sue him at Caesar's bar, as if he were a Publican or Heathen. So then the place is understood of private and personal suits and quarrels between man and man jew and jew, as the state stood then, of which our Saviour did speak. Fiftly, this to be the sense, reasons are alleged: first, the Reasons to prove the interpretation. custom of our Saviour in speaking, whose manner was to speak according to the time, & to teach the jews than duties of love one towards another, as he before did, Mat. 5. 23. 26. In which place he speaketh Ecclesiastically and also civilly to the jews capacity, as they might reap benefit, and gain good by his doctrine, even so in this place. Secondly, the Apostle Peter's so understanding our Saviour, as appeareth by the words of his question, made upon our saviours speech, verse 21. Thirdly, our saviours answer agine unto Peter, in a Parable, in which he speaks of such causes as fall out between man and man, private matters and personal, in which one man hath right to retain or remit the offence done against himself. Fourthly, our saviours conclusion with a general sentence, concluding the whole matter. verse 35. Fiftly, the words & propriety of speech in the Text prove as much; for against thee, shows the offence to be private, and personal, and such as one party offended might remit: again, the word Brother, shows how our Saviour meant the jews then, for no jew, nor as yet any Disciple of Christ did accounted any other for brother but a Iew. Further more the speech, thou hast gained or won thy brother shows a private alienation of mind in the party, that doth the injury: which by the gentle dealing of the party offended, is as it were, recovered again unto him: besides our Saviour sending of the offender back again to the plaintiffs censure, after he hath complained to the Church in these words, Let him be to thee; by which Beza Annot. by this reason understands the very word Church, to be meant of the jews. is evident such a Church to be meant, as the offender might not regard, and the Plaintiff not get remedy by, but is dismissed to further proceeding: so the matter is still personal. Lastly, the words Publican and Heathen, words of reproach then among the jews, (who only of all Nations did then disdain the Gentiles) do declare Christ's meaning to be of the jews at that time. Sixtly, the place of Saint Luke, Chap. 17. 3. doth help also this Exposition; which place is the very same with this of Matthew, but that it is more briefly set down, than it is here. Objection: 1. Object. The word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is of a general signification, and is not to restrained to be a particular kind of offence, as to personal wrongs and injures. Answer. Answ. The word I grant is general, which maketh therefore great varying about it, some translating it sin, some trespass, some offend or scandalise: So as men cannot tell what is hereby truly meant; Snecanus saith, it hath a De dis. pa. 461. proper signification to sin; Beza saith, not all sins are B. de presb. p. 46. meant, but such as are called stumbling blocks to men's consciences; Snecanus saith, but all sins are here understood, Snec. pa. 460. as well against God, as injuries against man; Beza, Christ pa. 458. B. pa. 57 speaks not here of injuries committed: Gelasius contra Alex. Christ speaks here of common faults, and not of Inst it. l. 4. ca 12. sect. 4. most heinous: Cal. Christ speaks here of all sorts of sins, even the greatest that may be. And thus do they contrary one an other, and therefore the Objection being of uncertainties, is not of force to hinder what is said: sithen though the word be general, yet the Text itself restaineth it to a particular, even to personal wrongs: for it is said, not simply if he trespass; as understanding it generally of any sin to God or to men, but thus; if he trespass against thee, convince thou him alone, as a matter between two; thee and him. And the Apostle Peter useth these words, verse 21. sin against me, and I forgive him; as understanding Christ's words of personal matters, where one man had authority to forgive, as an offence done against his own person. And whatsoever Beza in his Controversy with Erastus, saith, yet his noted instruction out of this place is this; We must labour for Concord, not to revenge injuries: by which it seems in the general he delivereth the truth, and he understands injuries offered, and that our Saviour doth aim at concord, and suppression of man's desire of revenge herein. Objection. 2. Object. But the word Church cannot be taken for the jewish Synedrion, or the Assembly of authority among the jews, which was then as well civil as Ecclesiastical. Answer. Ans. First, the word Church in the holy Scripture, is not always so strictly taken, as men do now use it, but is used for the assembly of good or bad, Christians or Infidels, met together to consult and determine of causes, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, Psal. 26. 5. Where the Septuagint, do translate the word Assembly, by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Church: So in the Prou. 5. 4. In the new Testament the word is taken largely, Act. 19 32. 39 40. in which three verses the word translated Assembly, is the same which is here (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) translated Church. Secondly, Beza himself by Bez. An. the word Church, understandeth it as spoken here of the jews; that is, the Elders assembled, who exercised judgement in those days: which Assembly of judges as here they be called the Church, so in the old Testament, were they called the Congregation, which is all one. Num. 35. 12. 24. 25. Josh. 20. 6. 9 The Exposition therefore stands warrantable by the word, and this objection is also of no moment against it. Objection. The 3. Objection ariseth out of the ver. 18. where mention is made of binding and losing; as if Christ had before established a rule of Government to his Church, & herein declared the authority and power thereof, bestowed first upon the Apostles, and then upon the Ministers or Elders their Successors. Answer. Ans. First, the face of this Objection is from mistaking the application of the words, binding and losing, as properly and only to be understood of Christ's Ministers in this place, when yet we do see in the former words, a binding and losing to be allowed to private persons: for what is, thou hast won him, verse 15. but a losing, if the offender hear him? and what is, be he unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican vers. 17. if he will not hear, but a binding? and yet these allowed to one man or two, though private persons, if the sense were as the obiectour would have it, and not to Ministers only. Again here is no mention made of any Ministers; neither doth Christ in this Chapter speak of any particular office of public persons, but of such things as concerned the people of God, even the jews then, as Christians now: why then should the sense of all the rest be made answerable to this, and not this verse interpreted so as it may agreed with the rest? for although these words may carry such a show, as to draw this verse to the ministery only, by the foresaid mistaking, yet if it be observed: first, that the words are general: secondly, that therefore the exposition of a general may be brought to a necessary coherence of diverse particulars: thirdly, that our Saviour in some sort expounds this difficulty in verses 19 20. speaking of the agreeing of two or three; by which it may seem, he hath reference to verse 15. and 16. thereby to confirm the peace made between the two parties, either alone, or with their witnesses, declaring how acceptable it is to God, lest it should be despised: there is no cause why this 18. verse should make a jar in the apt exposition of all the former and latter verses, agreeing very fitly together. To conclude, it cannot be denied, but that to bind and loose, belong unto the ministery, which power our Saviour gave his Apostles afterward: john. 20. 23. which they did, and Ministers now do perform by virtue of their office standing in Christ's room and stead, and so do they bind and loose otherwise then do common Christians, yet it therefore follows not, that these Christians do not or may not bind or loose at all. Ministers do pray, teach and endeavour to bring men to Christ, and this is his office, and as public persons; yet others may teach also: so are Parents commanded, Deut. and every Christian man is bound to edify his brother, 1. Thes. 5. 11. but not by authority of special office, or as public persons, such as Ministers be. And therefore we see this Objection also doth nothing hinder the exposition. Sixtly, therefore hence may be concluded, that this place is not, nor cannot be a rule for discipline, though it be chosen as the foundation whereupon the government of Christ should be builded; to which purpose are these reasons. Reason. 1 First, the former exposition, which being true, this place doth not establish discipline. Reasons why the 18. of Mat. is no rule of Church-government absolutely. Reason. 2 Secondly, because Christ jesus never did intermeddle in any outward government, not not so much as to control the abuse which then was public through the high Priests Simony; much less did he erect a new government by public doctrine. Reason. 3 Thirdly, because it is confessed, that by the word Church is meant the jews Sinedrion, & therefore if Christ's government be here established, it should be answerable to the jewish Sinedrion; but the Apostles in no place ever set it up, or any like it, neither giveth the lest taste thereof in any of their writings; and saith a learned man, I rest secure that no ancient father ever made the government of Christ answerable thereunto. That no such thing was in the Apostles days these reasons show: the Apostles prescribe no order, nor give instruction to them: in Churches out of order there is no reproof of their negligence, nor in any other Church any commendation of their diligence, no mention by Luke in the Acts of any such proceeding to be in use; which with all or some of these things, should some where have been mentioned, if any such thing had been. Reason. 4 Fourthly, if here government be established, it is either 〈…〉 〈…〉. 18. Popular, E iscopall, or Presbiterian: but saith Beza not Popular, and avoucheth that such as do take here the word Church for the assembly of the whole multitude, do err very grossly: and say others, not Episcopal authority: and say we, not the Presbiterian power mixed, as we say of Lay men and Church men; and therefore if all these say true, there is here constituted no government at all. Reason. 5 Fiftly, if here be a rule of discipline from Christ, then is it either perfect or imperfect; if they say imperfect, let them declare where else is a more perfect rule for it, or any supply made else where to perfect it in all the new Testament. If they say it is perfect, then is all sorts of sin here brought in, subject to the Church's censure, wherein the Church may intermeddle; then also here is comprehended all the parts which they do make of discipline. But first, here a man is not to proceed against his Brother for any sin; as not for sin against God, for sin against the Magistrate, for sin against another: but for trespasses against himself, as the words be, trespass against thee, which in the Lord's Mat 6. Prayer, and in this Chapter we be taught to forgive: but Mat. 18. by what warrant can a man remit trespasses done against another? how can he pardon rebellion against God? or public crimes against the Magistrate? if a man commit murder, by the order here, the party which first seethe him, must tell him of it; and if the Offender show penitency, the other is to rest silent, contrary to reason and religion elsewhere; and therefore as before is said, here only is understood personal injuries to a man's self, and no discipline ordained to urge private persons to proceed thus for sins against God, against Magistrates and other men. Again, this is a rule for sins private and more secret, but not for public and open sin. Secondly, it is no perfect rule for the parts of discipline, not for suspension, if any such thing be, it is here wholly forgotten, as else where; as some say in all the new Testament. And how is excommunication here ordained? First, it is not said here as in 1. Cor. 5. either let him be delivered to Satan, or put out him from among you: but let him be as a Heathen and Publican; by which our Saviour doth permit the party oppressed to seek further remedy, as is aforesaid. Secondly, the Church here, whose office it is to censure and excommunicate, if any such thing here were intended, doth not proceed against the person obstinate, as the Church aught, but refers him over again to the plaintiff, the private party offended, which in the order of discipline is not so. Thirdly, our Saviour in all the degrees of proceeding, doth make the first party offended the principal; he must admonish, he must take witnesses, he must tell the Church, and to him must the man he as a Heathen and Publican. In all which is plainly a proceeding in a personal action between party and party. Fourthly, our Saviour saith not, when he speaks of the Church, that the Church should excommunicate the offender, and hold him as a Heathen and Publican: which in all likelihood and proper speaking, he would have done, had he herein intended to advance the Church's authority in disciplinary causes: but let it be noted, that here our Saviour makes not the Church Oyer and determiner, not nor to do more than the very witnesses, neither doth it proceed further than they, but only the party offended is allowed to go on. Therefore may it be concluded, that our Saviour herein did not intent to advance the Church's authority and government thereof, but a private and personal cause as is declared, and therefore here is no precept or rule of discipline. Reason. 6 Sixtly, if with all be added, that Christ herein decreed no public punishment, for he allows the Plaintiff to tell the Church, the delinquent despising the Church, she is not taught here to excommunicate him, but only to sand him back to the Complainant: but thus it is not in Church discipline. Reason. 7 Seventhly, if discipline were here grounded; then the Church must judge in every cause between party & party, and so intermeddle in civil affairs, and enter upon the bounds of Magistracy: which how well the same may be defended, is not yet manifested: albeit some have brought it into act upon their understanding so this place, allowing themselves under the name of sin, of offending a brother: to bring any matter, that may fall out between man and man before the Church; even to a Tailors making of a Doublet and a pair of Hose. Reason. 8 Eightly, if here be the rule of government, then cannot the Church of itself call by Summons any offender before it: but must stay till any offended will come & inform the Church of the person offending, for here is it only expressly set down. Now the Disciplinarian course altereth from this place, and therefore they err from their ground in this point, without warrant from hence. And thus it appeareth how little this place (as Divines do expound it, doth serve for Discipline in christian Churches. If any do ask, why I allege not the Authors of every Why testimonies of men are not alleged. Reason; my answer is, for that I see reasons to receive prejudice by the persons: a weak reason is by the countenance of a man of fame made stronger than it is; and a solid reason of one of no great note, is condemned through the mean estimation of the person: we do conclude by reason, and live by the faith of the word of God, which two are sufficient to guide every reasonable Christian man, though the parties alleging the same be not nominated. And thus have I evidently laid open, what variety of judgement there is in this matter of Government, as a What manner of government is to be wished. point undeterminable by mean wits: for my part, I wish government to be such, as may agreed with the general Apostolical rules of guiding particular actions, most for the furtherance of the Gospel, the people's salvation, the maintenance of sound Doctrine, the reformation of the ill disposed: that most may serve for the overthrow of Antichrists Kingdom and power, and for the preservation of unity in the whole Church, and in the particular members of the same, not neglecting for worldly policy the holy Scriptures, or lightly esteeming of the Apostles practices, or approved antiquity, an universal consent of the Churches of God; which he grant us for his glory and praise for ever. And thus much may serve for Reply, to Mr. Ainsworths' answer to this seventh Error: for touching that he saith, Where all sin, they be all subject to punishment: it is not denied; and is idle, and nothing to the matter in question: which is: Whether the sin of one notorious man, defileth the whole Congregation, though many therein lament it, and are vexed in their souls, for that such a one is not punished by lawful authority? He maketh one to sin, and all other to sin with him, and so to deserve the same judgement, which is a matter not called into question. But ere I end with him in this, let it be well observed, what a people he only allows men to separate from: first, an Assembly, What people only Mr. Ainsworth alloweth men to separate from. not God's Church; secondly, which with an high hand sinneth and blasphemeth the Lord; thirdly, whose sacrifice is abominable; fourthly, that wherein it cannot be said, that any holy thing is lawfully administered; fifthly, wherein all do agreed to maintain open iniquity; sixtly, which doth despise the word of God calling them to repentance: If they do not thus (saith he) we hold it not lawful to separate from them, nor in any wise at any time, till all holy and orderly means be used to reclaim them. Whence therefore it may necessarily be gathered that Mr. Ainsworth either doth censure us to be such a people (and if so, what more accursed diudgement can be given against us?) or else their separation, by his own mouth condemning it, is unlawful. Mr. Smiths Answer to this seventh Error, and a Reply thereunto. Master Smith would prove the position true, by one Page. 71. main Reason, that Christ's Ministerial power is given to the Church: whence he concludeth a pollution in every member, that liveth where any open known sin is suffered, as a consenter thereunto; if the party offending be not reform, & separation made for the same, after due admonition. Having thus laid his ground, he gathereth conclusions. But I have already showed else where before, that the Ministerial power is not given to the Church; and the chief proof for that is, Mat. 18. which how Divines expound it, is also showed: therefore his immediate ground for defence of this Error being very false, and the ground of that ground very uncertain, his Conclusions are vain, and nothing worth. For the place to the Corinth's. 1. Ep. chap. 5. verse. 6. 1. Cor. 5. 6. Answered. where a proverbial speech of the Apostle is urged: I answer, that the words be a simile, and must be enlarged no farther than the nature of the thing is: it is true that sin is as leaven, and the people in one Assembly is as a lump, in which a wicked man is as leaven; but we must know the Leaven leaveneth not the whole lump wherein it is put but as it is mingled with the whole lump, and as every part of that same taketh the Leaven, else it is not leavened: So is it with the Church, such as allow and any way communicate with the wicked man in his sin, they are leavened; but such as Cloe, reproving the offender, and complaining thereof, seeking as they may in their place Reformation, they are not leavened, because they do not take Leaven. Beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees (saith our Saviour) he willeth not his disciples to leave the Assemblies: but to take heed they take no Leaven of them: showing thereby, that a godly and careful Christian may be where Leaven is, and yet not be leavened with them. Again the Apostle doth not say that the Corinthians are leavened, but rather the contrary in the same place, Ye are unleavened: Verse 7. which the Apostle would never have said, if the incestuous man had leavened them Further more the Apostle no where doth teach men to draw this Doctrine of pollution, and so separation from it, though he had cause often speaking of sins and corruptions to urge it, had he ever intended it, as this man doth urge it. He citeth some places Num. 19 13. 20. in the old Testament, precepts ceremonial, which he applieth to the new (as he pleaseth) to which I have made Hag. 2. 14. answer before, and now I say only this; let him prove by God's spirit, that is, by the words of the holy Ghost in the new Testament, any such intendment of Doctrine shadowed out therein unto us, as he frameth to himself, and then he thereby neither shall be deceived, nor deceive others. If any such thing had been meant thereby, the Apostle who had just occasion to speak of it, in 1. Cor. 5. 6. where he speaks of Leaven, would not have forgotten such places to have urged them here; or in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or some where that the Church of Christ might not have erred from the true use thereof, nor have lost the great benefit which might have come to it thereby. His last reason is, because Kings and Priests neglecting their duty were polluted with the sins of such as they should have punished: and therefore saith he, so is the whole Church now. The force of this reason is, because he maketh the people, even all common Christians, now Kings and Priests, even in external government, as the Kings and Priests ruled in the old Testament. But how hereby he overthrows the King's Supremacy; how falsely he interprets the names of Kings and Priests given to Christians now, I leave for all to judge. This Error of Popular power is his groundwork also for his answers to my reasons, against this seventh Error, on which string he often harpeth in seeking to confute my arguments. In my former Book, Page 103. I show first what is not What it is, not to consent to sin. a consenting to sin, and so on the contrary what it is to consent: first not in judgement to approve of it, after the measure of his understanding: secondly, not in affection to like of the same: thirdly, not to be silent at it, but in place fitly to reprove it: fourthly, in countenance to manifest dislike thereof: fifthly in life to be contrary, and to practise virtue: sixtly, not to be careless of it, but to seek the reformation thereof in his place, as far as he is able; this I say, is not to consent to sin in others, though the party offending remain in the congregation, and though such a party not consenting, come to the holy things of God, when the other cometh also. Mr. Smith to this answers, that I do falsely interpret consent, Page 73. Mr. Smiths Answer. for saith he, a man may do all this, and yet consent: and he would prove it by Ely, 1. Sam. 2. 12. 23. who did all this (as he imagineth) and yet for that he did not to the utmost which the word required at his hands, to wit, to put his sons to death, he did consent to them, and so forth: In like manner (saith he) except men make a separation, they do not to the utmost of the word, and so do consent. Reply. Mr. Smith thinks I come short in setting out consent, Page. 73. and I think that he far over-reacheth: for though Ely did not all he aught, yet can it not be said, that he consented unto them This should he have proved, but he leaves it because he cannot prove that consent is when men show dislike of sin, as I have said, and yet do fail in some degree. Ely was not guilty of sin, for consent to their sin, but for neglect of part of his duty. Again, his example is not fit; Ely was a public person, and a judge, but our speech was of private men: Ely went not so far as he might and aught, but private persons can go no further to reform then in the degrees mentioned. Touching separation for personal faults I have showed it not to be lawful, but Schismatical. His alleged Scriptures to prove separation, the first, Act. 2. 4. is altogether idle, the second Act. 2. 4. and 19 9 Act. 19 9 understood of separation from blasphemers of Christ, and a people which thereby became no Church, and therefore is nothing to prove a private man to separate from a true Church, for the personal sin of an other: the last place, 2. Cor. 6. 17. is at large answered before. 2. Cor. 6. 17. In the second place, after I have showed what is not to consent to sin, I prove in the 104. of my former Book by Godly are not polluted by some wicked coming to the Sacrament. many reasons, that such as do not consent as is before declared, are not polluted by the sin of an other obstinately impenitent therein, though the godly come to the holy things of God, and that wicked party come also to the same. Reason. 1 First, I say, there was no sacrifice for such a pollution under the law, and yet for all other; and therefore this was not under the law accounted pollution, to wit, for a godly person to come to the holy things of God, when a wicked man came among them. Saul did come to worship God; so did joab no doubt, also the son's 〈…〉 lie, with whom were some fearing God; yet do we never read, that it was accounted a sin to the godly, neither did they ever offer sacrifice to make an atonement unto God for it, as a pollution, that we read of. But he saith there was a sacrifice appointed, & he brings Page. 74. Objection. the example of Beniamits consenting to sin, jud. 19 and 20 the Israelites fearing for the Altar made, Josh. 22. and Achans sins, for which wrath came on Israel. Josh. 7. Answer. But what of all these, Reader? is here any mention of any sacrifice for godly men coming to God's worship, because wicked men came too? He lost his wits as he did here the question when he alleged these. But he saith, there was a sacrifice for the sin of the whole Congregation. Leu. 4. 13. Ergo, a sacrifice for the godly being in God's service with some wicked. How the place proveth this and his reasonless reasoning maketh good his purpose I see not. Reason. 2 Secondly, I say, that godly people in the old Testament are never any where reproved for being at the administration of holy things, though wicked men were there. It is not mentioned by any Prophet to be a sin; there is no precept forbidding it; there is no example of punishment upon any for so doing: it is not therefore a sin. Indeed the Priests were reproved for not separating the clean from the unclean, Ezech. 22. 26. because it was their office so to do. Mr. Smith to this answers thus: first, that their communion Page. 74. Objection. then was typical, and their persons typically clean, though wicked in their lives, and so could not pollute one another: secondly, he saith, that the carnal Priests in the old Testament, were type of the Saints in the new Testament, who succeeded as spiritual Priests, and therefore are polluted by not distinguishing and separating the clean from the unclean now. Answer. But this typical conceit, is but a tipp of his fantasticalness: he doth not deny my reason given, only he would take it away by this his dream. My reason being most strong against him, and without contradiction in all the old Testament, he nor any of the Separation being able to overthrow it, this devise is coined from his forge, uncouth and unheard of heretofore, and now barely avouched without proof: when he doth prove his typical toying by any Apostolical exposition out of the new Testament, he shall receive answer answerable thereunto. He would make the people of God in the old Law a carnal generation, to be merely in shadows, as if the Law moral were not in their covenant, that wicked men than could not pollute, for only sacrificing some beast, and yet nothing now, no profess of faith in Christ, no ask pardon for sin, as men do, that say the Lords prayer, and in the Assembly, every Lord's day, confess their sins, and crave pardon, can prevent pollution, but either must there be a casting out of the wicked, or a making of a wicked Separation. He also would here make Saints by calling, and priests in Christ spiritually, to be one with the Priests in office in the old Testament: and citeth for it Reu 1. 6. and 11. 1. Reu 1. 6. & 11. 1 Jude ver. 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. Jude verse 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. The first shows we are called in Christ, Kings and Priests: Ergo, so outwardly in the church by office? Prove this Consequence. How doth it follow to reason from carnal, as he calls it, to spiritual; from an outward office, to inward grace? he is voided of wit and grace, who reasoneth thus to deceive the simple. The second place, by which at his breaking out here he deceived so many, is expounded and fully answered by Mr. Ainsworth in A book entitled, A defence of the holy scripture, etc. pag. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. his Answer to Mr. Smith's Book of Differences, in which Answer Mr. Ainsworth doth note in Mr. Smith, Dotage, blindness of heart in judging spiritual things; blasphemy in wretchedly expounding this place; that he was induced to this impiety by being deceived by Satan; and that he interpreteth Scripture after his own fantasy: all which he by reason manifests unto him, in confuting his false exposition, and giving a more likely sense of it himself, to which I incline, and so I commend it to him, as my Answer hereto at this time. The third Scripture is to no purpose: the last, which he brings in so often, have I answered before. He makes an objection himself, and answers it himself, so as it is out of his own brain; the sum whereof is, what before Page 30. he delivered, touching typical cleansing, though the party were morally unclean: to which Mr. Ainsworth in the foresaid book, Page 119. answers, and saith, that herein Mr. Smith is not only a typical but a real Seducer and deceiver of minds indeed: and giveth both reasons to manifest Mr. Smith's absurdities, and also allegeth many Scriptures to confute his folly herein. Reason. 3 Thirdly, I say, that the Prophets neither taught this doctrine, neither made separation from holy things, for the wickedness of other men, which they would have done had it been sin: for they mentioned many evils, rebuked both Priests and people; commanded also Separation where the Lord commanded; but such a corruption as is here supposed they neither mentioned by word, nor showed by practice. Therefore under the Law, there was no such thing. To this Mr. Smith answers principally to two things: first, Page 76. Objection. that the people than made no Separation, because the utmost means to reform abuses was in the Magistrate, and so aught to depend upon the Lord for redress of things, to wit, by the Magistrate. Answer. Mark Reader, how he passeth by one thing; that I say, the Prophets taught no such thing; so he leaveth the doctrine, the rule of practice, and babbles of Practice, before he prove the former: and yet what he saith is very much for us, who have christian Magistrates, whose authority cannot be now less under Christ, then under the Law; which if he deny, then must he recall his oath, which he hath sworn for the maintenance of Princely supremacy under the Gospel. A lawless man, in a lawless place may not say any thing against God and against his Sovereign. Objection: Secondly, saith he, in the old Testament the people were necessarily tied to the Kingdom, Priesthood, and Temple, for the worship and obedience of God. Answer. If this be true, then was it no sin that good men and openly wicked were mixed; for God doth not tie men necessarily to sin: and being no sin then, it is no sin now: all sin now is moral, and the sum of it is comprehended in the Law moral; if then it could not thence be gathered, neither can it now therefrom be collected. So as his reasons are good for us not to make such a Separation, and against himself. Reason. 4 Fourthly, I say, that the holy Scripture plainly teacheth the contrary: and that many ways. First, by acquitting him that is godly from the transgression of other men, though they be mixed together in the partaking of God's ordinances, as these Scriptures prove. Ezech. 11. 20. 21. and 33. 9 and 18. 14. 17. 20. and 14. 18. 20. Tit. 1. 15. Reu. 3. 4. and 2. 24. 22. 23. Gal. 5. 10. Let the places be What may be collected from these scriptures. read, and the understanding Reader may see, first, a difference between the godly and wicked: secondly, one man's transgression is not laid to the charge of another: thirdly, that God approves of the godly, though intermixed with the wicked: fourthly, that godly men may keep themselves undefiled, though many wicked be in the same Church and Assembly with them. And in all these places where these truths are warranted; the holy Ghost takes no occasion to speak of pollution by the sin of another, and yet if he had intended any such doctrine, in these places he had most fit occasion for the same. Mr. Smith's idle answer is thus much in effect, that the Page. 77. Objection. places do not acquit men, who are either principals or accessaries to other men's sins. Answer. This I deny not, neither is it my intendment in the allegation: for he that is either a Leader or an abettour of others in sin, is a sinner himself, not because the other sinneth, but for that the person himself counseleth to wickedness, or maintaineth it. But if a man do avoid sin in the degrees elsewhere mentioned, he is not polluted. And again he passeth by my drift to prove that by these places those that fear God may partake of holy things, though the wicked come thereunto, and not be polluted: he omitteth this, and tells us of men partaking together in sin, which is not in question. Secondly, by declaring it to be a sin, for the godly to leave the worship of God, for the wickedness of other men coming thereunto. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17. Where the place is plainly contradictory to his assertion, and the translation is good, as learned and judicious Divines do hold, and have so written unto him in private, answering him fully, what he could object against this place, by a Rejoinder of theirs unto his Reply, to which (ever since he fled from us) he hath been silent; and albeit the pride of his heart, will not let him acknowledge his false gloss; yet he lets his hold go, and runneth to his former, vain, and carnal conceit of the only Ceremonial cleanness in the old Law, sufficient, as Page. 78. he thinks, to keep them from all moral pollution of any son of Belial: of which enough is spoken before, unto so an absurd and unproved Assertion. Thirdly, (which is in my other Book my first reason,) the Holy Scripture admitteth men, and granteth them liberty to come to the holy things of God, though wicked men openly sinning be there, so be it that a man walk well himself, as it becometh him towards God, and without doing wrong to his neighbour, Mat. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. where Matt. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. the Apostle speaking of abuses among the Corinthians prescribes a remedy, every man to examine himself, and so to eat: he commands not to examine an other; nor to mark how others have lived, but how they have behaved themselves; he tells not that any coming unprepared polluteth the Congregation, but the offender eateth damnation to himself: he speaks nothing of pollution, nothing of separation, which had been very necessary upon this occasion to have taught, if God's spirit had ever instructed them therein: especially if we consider how after once or twice admonition, they did not amend. 2. Cor. 12. 21. Mr. Smith answers that of Mat. 5. 23. 24. by giving the Page. 78. Objection. Exposition of it; that a man not rebuking his brother, doth hate him. Answer. But who seethe not his abusing of the word, and therein God's spirit, by perverting his meaning: for the word Reconcile, and to win his brother again, importeth just cause of displeasure in the party to be reconciled, taken from the party going to sacrifice, which cannot be for not reproving him; for who is so offended because another man rebukes him not, as for it, he will be out with him? and for which the party omitting of his duty, is not to proceed on to worship God? It is meant of personal wrongs and injuries, and not of omitting the duty of admonition: none but a man compounded of santasies, and audaciously bold in his conceits, would ever understand the place so, contrary to the judgement of all men, the propriety of speech, and common reason itself. Our Saviour speaks before of ill terms, and railing, and then doth conclude this rule thereupon: neither are the words thus, if thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remember'st that thou Mat. 5. 23. 24. hast some what against thy brother; to wit, a duty of admonition to be performed, for his offending thee: but the words are, that thy brother hath aught against thee: so is it not an ill in him not reproved by thee, but an ill in thee, for which thou oughtest to give to him satisfaction. The place, Levi. Levit. 19 17. Expounded. 19 17. alleged to show, that such as do not rebuke another for any sin they see him commit, doth therefore hate him, is (as I take it) misalledged: for it is understood of hatred arising in man's heart for wrongs received by another. A man injured, naturally hateth the offending party, Example in Absalon. 2 Sam. 13. 22. and rather willeth to go on with hatred in his heart, then to come unto the offender lovingly to tell him in plain terms of it, to 'cause him to surcease to sin. Now the Lord here meeteth with this cankered corruption of the heart, & willeth even the party receiving wrong, rather to go and deal plainly with his adversary to win him, then to let him rest in his wrong doing, and himself still to carry hatred against him also for the same. The place is meant therefore of personal wrongs, as the very next verse 18. doth declare, where he speaks of avenging, and of mindfulness of wrong, which indeed are the fruit of the hatred of the heart, and a continuance of the same; and the words in the middle of the verse, is not to show that omission of our duty to rebuke, is hatred of our brother, but that plainly to rebuke him, is a means to win him, and so to remove hatred out of our own hearts. His answer to 1. Cor. 11. 28. is, that it is meant of such Page 78. 1. Cor. 11. 28. Objection. an examination, as hath regard of the rule in Mat. 18. 15. 17. wherein if we fail, we are polluted, and so cannot eat and drink without hurt and judgement. Answer. How he includeth this within the charge of examination, sithen the Apostle doth not remember it, I see not: and how little the 18. of Matthew is to this matter in question, I have showed what Divines do think. To the 2. Cor. 12. 21. he answers, that I must prove Page 78. 79. 2. Cor. 12. 21. Object. to make this good, that the Corinthians were impenitent in sin; first, that they despised Paul's second admonition: and secondly, that then the faithful did keep communion without sin. Answer. My proof is good enough, that they not amending, at the Apostles first rebuking, were for that time impenitent, and yet the godly keeping with them communion did not sin; neither had sinned, though some had not obeyed at the Apostles second admonition: for that (as I have proved) this doctrine of pollution is not warranted by God's word, though impenitent men remain in the Assembly of the Saints. And to stand upon their not regarding the second Admonition of the Apostle, it is needless: first, sithence it is likely they were rebuked of some of the house of Cloe, by whom the Apostle was made acquainted with the disorders in the Church: Secondly, because the evils were open, & not secret or private, which must not be therefore proceeded in after Mat. 18. Thirdly, because one Admonition of an Apostle, was more than two of private men; yea, not only equal, but greater than the admonition of the whole Church, so as to despise but once his Admonition was as much as if they had been admonished in the third degree, according to the rule in Matthew, as he would here ignorantly have it. Thus that which he held to be too hard a task for me, I have easily gone thorough, and how sufficiently to satisfy an indifferent Reader, I leave others to judge. Reason. 5 Lastly, I say, that this his doctrine of pollution by commixion with the wicked, dissolves the bonds of allegiance between God and his people. As if because another doth sin, I may not do my duty to God: He will come to the Sacrament, therefore may not I? he offendeth God, therefore may not I serve him? What Divinity is this? what King may have subjects, what Master his servants by this doctrine full of folly and confusion? Mr. Smith's answer is, that communion must be kept, Page. 79. Objection. but not with jews, Turks, Pagans', Papists, and that communion must be performed after a holy manner. Answer. All this I acknowledge, what is this to the Argument? he doth not apt it to the matter, when he doth his answer shall be thereafter. He tells us that the bond of allegiance is preserved by their doctrine, to wit, by their position, that is, this seventh Error before mentioned; because he saith they may not keep among impenitent sinners, and that their communion must be kept after a holy manner. The first of these understood according to his instances delivered, is not to the question, and understanding it of wicked in a true Church, is the matter in question, and so he would prove the same by the same. For the latter, it needeth also proof; that communion with God and godly men is not kept holy between them, because some ill disposed come in, and partake of that communion visibly. As if the guests at the feast had not been acceptable to the Master of the the feast, or they could not be decent and comely before the feast maker, because one was among them, who had not on his wedding garment: the rest were nothing less acceptable, and he only punished; so is it with the godly and wicked in the Church coming together to the Lords Table. In the third and last place, in my former book, Page, 108 by certain principal heads, to which all the causes of true separation may be reduced, I do show how men may see the dec●i● of the Separatists in urging scriptures for separation from us impertinently. Places under the Law are referred to these To what heads the places for separation may be reduced. heads. 1. Idols of false Gods: as Israel from heathenish Gods. 2. From Idols of the true God: as judah from Israel's calves. 3. From ceremonial pollution. Places under the Gospel are to be referred to these topic places. 1. From jews not receiving Christ, but railing on his very person. 2. From Gentiles without Christ. 3. From Antichrist and his assemblies, where he is acknowledged head, and whence all receive their power, as the now Church of Rome, and all in subjection to it. 4. From private familiarity with open offenders and excommunicate persons, in a true christian Church, unnecessarily; when neither Religion commands, Charity bindeth, nor our special calling warranteth us so to do. If all the Scriptures may be reduced only to these heads, and so intended, and not otherwise, than all places are perverted which be alleged, first, to separate from true Churches for personal corruptions, or for When places alleged for separation are perverted. some defects, or for some superfluous things: secondly, to separate ourselves from the holy word and Sacraments, because some impenitent live unreformed in the same: thirdly, for the separatists to abuse any of the places, speaking of separation to maintain their Schism, and to apply them against us, except they can prove us to be some such as the Scriptures intent, and that we be some of these. Indeed Mr. Smith saith, for what will he not say? that we Page 80. are Idolaters, and that we make Idols of the true God, etc. But sithen he but saith it, and what he saith is as very false, as foolish, and as absurd, as far from truth, I end this here with him, as unworthy answer, as the Reader may judge. The eight Error of the Brownists. THat, they say, every of our assemblies be false Churches. For the overthrow of this Error, I have spoken much at large in my former Book, Page 109. to 128. and albeit I have given many reasons for the true constitution of our Church, all which are against this their opinion, yet for that this is a most main point of controversy, and upon which all the rest do principally depend, I will confirm the contrary to this for truth: to wit, that we are a true Church of Christ, and our assemblies assemblies of Christians, as they stand by the laws of our land, confirmed by Acts of Parliament. What M. Ainsworth, and M. Smith have said to the contrary, I will in their due order bring in, by way of Objection, and answer them as I may, and many reasons which they make against us, I may well take the very same and return them back against themselves, and what they seem to confirm their arguments by, make it only as an objection, and so answer it, as occasion shall offer itself. If Reader I do confirm our cause, let not either the objecting Forewarnings to the Reader. of corruptions among us make thee believe without judgement that we cannot be a true Church: for turn thine eyes upon Israel in Esaies' days; upon Corinth, and the Churches in Asia in the Apostles days, upon the reformed Churches in other countries, and see whether they have been or are without their blemishes: or the orderly living of some few gathered together with a will and purpose to do well, as they do like best, dazzle thine eyes, and bring thee to an imagination that such only are the true Church: for consider, first, that there is greater difficulty to govern a commonwealth, a whole Nation, under one Supreme power, then for a hundredth, two; three, four or six hundred to Three necessary considerations. govern themselves, or to be governed by many overseers, whilst all do voluntarily incline one way, and be also under persecution, as they think. We read of small stirs in Abraham's family, while they were no more, and yet we see all went not well there neither, nor in Isaacks household, nor in jacobs': but when Israel became populous, what a do had Moses to keep the people in order? had not God put to his helping hand to destroy by extraordinary judgements many of them, Moses and Aaron, as mere men could not have governed them: let this be remembered. Secondly, consider how it fareth with those few, what contentions is among them, what Heretics do daily rise up from among themselves, what divisions, and out break there is continually, and thou wouldst never condemn so much the evils, which fall out in a whole Nation; it being withal observed, that there are not so many or great contentions in some whole large Parishes here in seven years space, as have risen up among them in one year, and less space. Thirdly, consider not only among us such as be lewd, but observe the lives of such, as make conscience of their ways; for why shouldest thou follow rather the spirit of Schismatics, than the Lord himself, and his Apostles? The Apostle saw the good things, which were among the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 11. 2. and commended them for that which was good as well as rebuked them for evil, so doth the Lord, Reu. 2. 2. 3. who also doth so much respect the good, as for their sakes, though few, he doth give that title to all; which is, the deserved commendation of some, as Deut. 1. 23. 24; where that which was the report of two is spoken generally of twelve: so for some Saints, all are so called, 1. Cor. 1. 1. compared with Chap. 5. and 2. Cor. 12. 21. He speaks good of them out of his mercy and love, who were in themselves far from it. Numbers 23. 21. What children are they who will not esteem of their mother, as their father doth, who will see her wants, with Cham, and publish them with bitter reproaches? but the good of their mother and brethren will they not see; but by vild and odious comparisons do obscure the same: this malignant spirit is of Satan and not of God. Weigh well Reader, what I say, and the Lord give thee good discerning of all things. Reason. 1 But now to prove that we be a true Church, I do thus Reason's further to prove a true Church. manifest it. 1. Because by the warrant of the word, they cannot call us a false Church. For let it be noted, why any were called false brethren; and consider them and us, and there shall not be found the same cause in us, to make our whole Church, to deserve that name. Grant that there be some false brethren, some false prophets: so were there some such crept into the Apostolical Church: yea & received of many to the hindrance of the Gospel: yet were not therefore the whole churches themselves called false churches: They boast much of the terms of Scripture: where do they found that the holy Ghost doth call a Church, either for some Error in doctrine, or for corruptions in manners, a false Church? they invent new terms to deceive the people. In all the new Testament, there is no mention of any false church, neither that there shall be such a one, in any such term: we are not therefore a false church. If they give us any other name, the same shall well manifest their Error, which is one cause, why I do stand upon the very term, as well as I consider of the matter intended by it. Reason. 2 2. Because we are a Church of Christ, in what degree soever: now a church of Christ, is a true church, because Christ hath no false body, no more than he himself is a false head. We be a church of Christ; first, because we profess his Name, Rom. 15. 20. where the Congregations & Churches planted by others, is only thus described by these terms: where Christ was named: secondly, because we have received Baptism, as the seal of his promise, and seal of grace, Book of differences, pag. 5. as Mr. Smith himself calleth it; Circumcision made the Israelites children to be called the Lords, Ezech. 16. 20. 21. why hath not Baptism the like force in God's mercy, that we should be called Christ's? thirdly, because we have his word, by which a people become Christ's Disciples, Mat. 28. 18. Mark. 16. 15. and is thereby preferred with God, before all other people. Rom. 3. 1. 2. and 9 2. Psal. 147. 19 20. fourthly, the testimony of Reformed Churches, who acknowledge us to be a true Church; which testimony of true Churches, and allowance thereof, is approved by the Apostles, alleging of them for the comfort of other. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Pet. 5. 13. Rom. 16. 19 1 Thes. 1. 7. 8. 3 joh. 6. 2 Cor. 8. 18. 19 23. 24. Saint Paul allegeth for the credit of his ministery, the approbation of three Apostles, Gal. 2. 9 though his authority was from God, and needed not the authority of men: of which more is said in my former book, Page 178. 179. 180. Reason. 3 3. Because, we be either the church of Christ, and so a true church, or the church of Antichrist: for in the new Testament, all churches professing the Name of Christ, are to be referred to one of these two: But we are not the Church of Antichrist: because our Church hath departed from the Pope and the Church of Rome, and is come out of Babylon, as God's people are commanded. Revel. 18. 2. in open renouncing of him, by Profession, by Doctrine preached and penned, by laws enacted against him and his religion; and lastly, by practice, in promoting the holy Scriptures above the authority of the Church; in advancing his majesties Supremacy, who in his own person with the whole Church's praise to God therefore, doth oppose that Antichrist, and under hand-writing doth justify the same unto all Christian Princes, and Kingdoms. And if all this will not manifest this truth to the wilfully blinded, let them consider the Papists condemning of us as Heretics, and as no church of God, because we have forsaken them, they excommunicate us, they rail on us, they seek our blood with deadly hate. Now as our Saviour speaketh of the world, and his Disciples, john. 15. 19 the same may be said of us, and the Church of Rome, If we were of it, it would love us as her own, but because we are not of it, but the Lord hath chosen us out of it, therefore it hateth us. Objection. Object. But they say, we hold and practise many things which that Church holdeth and practiseth. Answer. Ans. Be it so: but we neither hold them nor practise them, as they be the decrees of that Church, as themselves do; nor for that we yield in subjection to them, but for that we judge that such things may be allowed and practised so of us by the warrant of the word, though the Romish Church did not so: for our laws, our doctrine and Profession in the true intent and our right meaning is against all antichristianity. Objection. Object. But they say, though we become from that Church, yet was it not voluntarily. Answer. Ans. I have before said much to this, yet will I here say something more, to the further clearing of this point. Our Church made a voluntary departing, in the Beginners of Reformation, her late Majesty, with others, who stood out in Queen Mary's days: these professing in time of persecution, cannot be said otherwise to become God's Church, then by a voluntary inclining of the heart by the motion of God's spirit. This first Company, who and how many soever they were, were the Church of God, from which the other, which did adjoin to them, by what means soever, became one with them, to be called together the Church of God; and thus after Apostasy, began the Church of England to be reform. And it is here to be noted, that the Planting and and reforming are differing things. planting of a Church, is one thing and after one manner; but the recovering of God's people out of the hands of their enemies, shaking off spiritual bondage, and reforming of it from corruptions, is an other. This may be made plain by a similitude from the person A Simile to set out the difference between the first constitution of a Church, and the after reformation of the same. of job, who first by God's making, at his first constitution was clean and comely; but by Satan through God's permission, was job filled full, and covered over with botches and sores, as made him hardly to be known to his friends, and loathed of the nighest to him; yet was job there still under the scabs, and not utterly destroyed, but the very same essentially that was before; so as to exalt job again, God was not to make a new job, but these botches and biles which ouer-shadowed job, was to be cured, and he cleansed of them, that job might appear again like himself, as God made him, and not as Satan had defiled him. So is it with the Church; first, in the planting purely constituted, but Satan he cometh and pollutes it with the botches and biles of Antichristianisme; which doth not utterly destroy the Church, but covereth it over so as the true children of the kingdom can hardly discern the same; which Church is to be purged of these abominations, and made to appear, and to come out from under these scabs, but not to be made a new. For the first planting or constituting The differences between planting and reforming. of a Church, differs much from the reforming of a Church after backsliding. First, at the planting it is constituted of Christians, before no Christians at all: but in the reformation after apostasy, the Church is not re-establshed 1. Difference. of such as were no Christians by their fall, and made Christians by reformation, as if they before had lost their Christianity; but were Christians under great corruptions. Secondly 2. Difference. in planting, Infidels become outward Professors of Christ, who did not before acknowledge him: but in Reformation. Professors of Christ become outwardly more holy, and purer from corruptions; Apostates in corruption become Apostolical in Religion, and that which once they were before. Thirdly, in the first plantation is required a 3. Difference. profession of the name of Christ, and such as profess to believe in him are to be baptized, having never before been admitted into the Church nor baptized: but in reformation there is not required a profession into the name of Christ, nor that the parties returning should be baptized, because they held a profession of Christ, and lost not their baptism, but repentance and profession of amendment of life is only required. We may see this true for the planting of Churches by the Apostles; & for reformation of judah, after the great Idolatry of Achah; and the Israelites turning to God in Hezechias days, in which was no gathering again of the foreskin, for renewing of Circumcision, but after repentance, & submitting of themselves, though some of compulsion, as in josias time, yet were they admitted, as Israelites, & accounted the true Church of God. Either the not understanding, or the neglect of this, made M. Smith seek a new Baptism, as if the Romish Church had made an nullity of all Christianity, he might as well have betaken himself to a new God, and Christ. And the not making of this plain causeth the simple people to think that the Gospel in the last time of reformation, was only thrust upon us, and not received of the Church voluntarily. Fourthly and lastly, in planting, Paul must go before with 4 Difference. the word, but in reformation josias may compel with the fear of the sword; for in this the Authority of Kings is great, who are nursing Fathers to the Church: Fathers because they beget, as it were public Churches, which otherwise are more hidden in secret places: Nursing, because they uphold them, defend them, and do cause such as be under them to maintain them. Thus was, as is said, judah brought back by Hezechias, josias, and others, as we also were from Antichrist, by our Godly josias, King Edward, and by our renowned Elizabeth, that Queen of Sheba, who delighted to advance the wisdom of her Solomon, the word of jesus Christ. Miscreants do despise this grace, and cursed are those Caitiffs, which mock at these means, which the Lord hath raised up to us his people, who hath stretched out his arm for our deliverance, to the terror of nations: else had many of these censorious and condemning Separatists perished in the womb, or had been borne to dye, by an untimely death. 4. We be a true Church, for that we are a company having Reason that we be a true Church. Christ jesus for our head, and we of his body: him we hold, and no false head, and therefore can be no false Church. First, because we do all profess him, which is a token of Christ's jesus is our head. Faith in the heart. Rom. 10. 9 and the Apostles judged such worthy to be of the Church in their time, and thereupon did admit men, Act. 8. 37. 38. and 16. 31. 32. and 8. 12. 13. And it is a token that such in some measure have God's spirit. 1 joh. 4. 2. And the confession of his name, is a part of our praise, Heb. 13. 15. which he will honour in the day of judgement, and acknowledge such for his, if they continued to suffer for it. Objection. Object. Papists do profess him, and Anabaptists, and other heretics, yet hold not Christ the head. Answer. Ans. First, in that they profess him, so far they hold him, but in that they add to their profession such things as they do by consequent, they thereby deny him: secondly, we hold the head Christ, because many have the graces of his spirit, Rom. 8. 9 which cannot be denied, if the declaration of these graces before men, may witness the same: and this life from the head, in many giveth continuance of the Churches being, though many also be corrupt, and some dead. Mr. Ainsworth Page 127. contradicteth the main reason, and would prove the contrary, that Christ is not our head. Objection. Object. First, saith he, because our Church was constituted of the members of Antichrist. Answer. Ans. To which I answer, 1. That we were so reform, as is said, and that many were no Antichristians in time of Popery: and 2. that such as did join to our Church, became thereby of the body, and were then to be accounted no Papists, or members of Antichrist. He is a Separatist, who doth embrace that way openly, and leaveth other Assemblies, be it with what heart or inducing cause soever it may be. An Infidel is a heathen, but when he joineth unto Christians in professing Christ, though it be as many did become jews, for fear of Mordecai; yet is he not to be held a heathen, but a Christian. So though our Fathers were Papists, yet becoming Protestants for fear of Elizabeth, they were no more papists, but Protestants outwardly. 3. Grant they then were Antichristian members, yet we are not, who never knew Popery; must the Children be made guilty of the Parents sin, having been ignorant thereof, and yet do condemn it? It is contrary to these truths of God, Deu. 1. 39 Ezechi. 18. 14. 17. Yea the children of Edom and Egypt in the third generation might enter into the Lord's congregation. Deu. 23. 8. how much more may we be held to be of the Lords congregation? Objection. Object. Secondly, he would not have Christ our head, because that the Magistrate did compel men to the faith. Answer. An. I answer, first, that yet by their grant he was the head to such as did compel, though not to such as were compelled: so than her Majesty, and all that first voluntarily gave themselves to his name, had Christ for their head. Now let them prove by any truth of God, that they lost the head by some coming in by compulsion Secondly, I deny that compulsion by the Magistrate doth cut Christ the Head from the members of his body. The Magistrate's authority herein is commended: 2. Chron. 34. 32. 33. and their endeavour accepted: 2. Chron. 30. 20. and the people commended also for doing their duty towards God, though it was not before, but after the Magistrate had commanded the same. chap. 31. 5. Again, the urging unto goodness is no hurt unto it, neither maketh it men unholy, or less good, if they have goodness in them. Object. Object. But the Scriptures do teach that Christ's flock should be voluntary. Psal. 110. 3. Acts. 2. 41. Gen. 9 27. Answer. Answ. First, it is true of the members invisible, who as they be of the body of Christ before men, so are they also before God, who do voluntarily subject themselves by the spirit. Secondly, it is understood of such as come to Christ in the planting of Churches, who are voluntary: but these places are not against the authority of Magistrates in the time of Reformation; for than one Scripture should be against another: for in one place is allowed compelling by the Magistrate; in another, if it be as they would have it, is allowed only a voluntary people. Objection. Object. Thirdly, he would not have Christ our head, because there be so many wicked among us, who in man's judgement do not partake of his Spirit. Answer. Ans. I answer, first, that it is an ill censure to condemn all for some; or to deny the Covenant in Isaac, because of Ishmael; & to jacob, because of Esau. Secondly, the similitude from a body and the head, which the holy Ghost useth, overthrows this his fantasy. There may be in a body corrupt members; yea, some dead, and yet others receive life & motion from the head; neither do these lose their head, because the other have lost their life from the head: but so long as they remain conjoined to the body together, so long are they of it, & have all one head one with another. Do the living branches of a tree loose their right in the true root, because others be withered? then we see common reason and Gods work in nature might teach him to disclaim this error. Thirdly, he here makes no difference between the Elect and Reprobate; the uneffectual calling of the one, and the effectual calling of the other: to the one is Christ the Head, giving them his spirit, and is head as a redeemer to them: and to the other he is also a head, but only by his common graces, and in his sovereign power over them, as the Lord. Fourthly, the visible Assemblies professing Christ, are called his body, not for that all therein, are truly his members, not not in the judgement of men, in respect of some men's open impenitency for the present, but for the Elect sake, who are in the rule of Charity, to be held to be, as if any where else, so among such as do profess the Name of Christ; for whose sake the wicked are reputed rather of Christ's Church, than the godly because of them, held to be without Christ. Fiftly, by this the jewish Church in the days of the Prophets, and of Christ, had not a true head; nor Corinth, nor many other Churches in the Apostles days; for the good and bad were mixed together in one Assembly: if these for this cause were not without Christ, neither are we. 5. The true Church hath Christ for the Mediator and Page 131. 5. Reason that we are a true Church. 1. Reason. Christ is our Advocate. Advocate; this he acknowledgeth: but our Church hath Christ for Mediator and Advocate, & this thus proved. First, our Church doth teach this by one consent in public Records, which is the Church's mouth to the whole world, witnessing her faith, for as by writings we know, and are thereby led to believe the faith of other Churches, so must other gather our faith, and think we believe what we writ. Reason. 2 Secondly, this is manifest by our prayers, which be only made to God, in the Name of jesus Christ only. Reason. 3 Thirdly, we do condemn the Papists, for making the Virgin Marie, Saints, or Angels, mediators to God, and we do reject it, as Idolatrous. Reason 4 Fourthly,. because we do partake of the covenant made unto us by God through We partake of the heavenly covenant. Christ; which I thus make good: Reason. 1 first, because many of us, from the King's Majesty, with worthy Statesmen, many in Church and Commonwealth, of both higher and lower degree, have true knowledge of God's word, which is one part of the Promise and Covenant. jer. 31. 33. 34. Heb. 10. 16. and 8. 10. Reason. 2 secondly, the fear of God possesseth the hearts of many, which is an other part thereof. jer. 32. 40. Reason. 3 thirdly, God hath brought us out of Egyptian bondage of that Roman Antichrist, which is an other part. Exo. 6. 5. Reason. 4 fourthly, because we have the Book of the covenant. Exo. 24. 7. the holy Commandments and the Gospel, the words of the covenant. Exod 34. 28. and it is a special prerogative to God's people to have the word of God, as is showed before; from Rom. 3. 2. Psal. 147. 19 20. Objection. Object. The Papists have it, as well as we. Answer. Answer. The Papists have it not, as we have it: 1. We have it as the only rule of our faith and works, and the judge of all controversies, and so do not the Papists hold it. 2. We have it free for every one to look into, in a Papists have not God's word as we have it. known tongue, so have not they. 3. We have it expounded unto us in many places, so as to many it becometh effectual to reclaim them from a lewd conversation, superstition, and vanity, so have not the Papists it. 4. We have it in our Doctrines, in all the main and fundamental truths which we hold, agreeing to the holy Scriptures: but so the Papists have it not: and therefore the Objection preventeth not the face of the fourth reason. Reason. 5 Fiftly, because we have Preachers, by & with whom God's spirit doth work, which is also a part of the covenant, and of God's promise to his Church. Esai 59 21. jere. 3. 15. Reason. 6 Sixtly, we have the Sacraments, the seals of the Covenant. Gen. 17. 10. Reason. 7 Seventhly, because we make a profession of the true God, to be our God, which also is a part of the Covenant: for it is said in Osea, chap 2 that God will make with his a covenant, verse 18. and that he will say to them, thou art my people, and they shall say to him, thou art my God. And therefore do we partake of the Covenant, and so have we Christ our Mediator and Advocate; for Mr. Ainsworth confesseth that such as partake of the covenant have Christ for a Mediator and Advocate. Mr. Ainsworth on the contrary would prove, that we have not Christ for our Mediator and Advocate, whose reason is: Because we are not, as he saith, under the covenant: but Page. 132. the contrary to this have I proved. Objection. Object. He would prove, that we be not under the covenant: first, because of the exceeding evils that be among us, so as the Law cannot be written in the minds and inward parts of such. Answer. Answ. First, if he speak this but of some, than his consequence follows not against all: secondly, if of all, his own conscience shall condemn him for falsehood and lying: thirdly, by this reason, hypocrites are not under the covenant, because the law of God is not written in their hearts. The place in jeremy 31. 33. is not understood barely of a member of the visible church, but so of it, as withal he be an Elect Saint, for such only are called effectually, and have God's law by God's Spirit written in their hearts. Objection. Object. Secondly, we are not, saith he, under the Covenant, because we have no promise that our sins and iniquities Page 133. are forgiven: being with out faith and repentance. Answer. Ans. This is still general of all, as the Church is publicly and generally constituted; of which he saith, without repentance Page 132. no promise of pardon, without the promise no faith, without faith no covenant or testament, and without this no Mediator. So as he doth judge us an irrepentant and faithless people, without a Mediator, without the covenant, and without the hope of pardon. Can more be said of Pagans', jews, Turks, Papists, Heretics, or other miscreants? But the ground of this cruel censure is, that he judgeth the Church of England, Page 66. as it is by Law constituted, to be no true Church of Christ; which I have showed in part, & yet more fully will I manifest to be their Error, which is the ground of this outrage: for if we be in that standing the Church of Christ, we have the promise of pardon: though much should be amiss among us; because so we are of God beheld in Christ, and Page 196. not as we be in ourselves. If this his judging of us were absolute, as of all and every one among us, then hath he condemned himself by condemning Mr. Smith, who hath said as much: but being respectively, as we live in such a Constitution; he may except in his mind some particular persons, but he condemneth all public persons; as his Majesty, the Counsel, the house of Parliament, to be all without faith and repentance, because by them this Constitution is maintained, and by them hath force and being. But howsoever he doth conceive of us respectively, It is wholly uncharitableness to consider of persons and of a people but respectively, that is, but in this and that particular, which maketh a sinister censure. and so indeed sinisterly, his Argument so is not good: for consider the best Christian respectively, as he is in corruption naturally, and not as he hath grace withal, and so is he without faith and repentance: So consider the Apostles, in our saviours time, when there was great confusion in the jewish state, as members of that body, they were without faith without repentance: & thus by considering men, and Churches respectively in the worst part, no men, no Church of Christ shall have either faith or fear of God. But neither doth God so, nor religion teach so, nor charity so suffer any to consider so of God's Church and his people. Let themselves be considered in their Schism, they have neither faith nor repentance, nor promise of salvation. They be not (say they) in a Schism, and we say, we are not in a false Constitution. But they say, we are convinced of it by them; and we say, they are convinced of it by us, and disclaimed of other Churches for the same: so as, if thus respectively we be without faith and repentance in their judgement, they also in the same regard are schismatics, and having neither faith nor repentance in our judgement; and if their opinion of themselves, may clear themselves hereof, so may the like do us: what reason to the contrary? Objection. Object. Thirdly, he would prove us not to be under the Covenant, because God is not our God, neither are we his people: which is the sum of the Covenant, and that saith he, is wanting unto us: but how doth he prove this? for that saith he, we be not come out, and separated ourselves, as in 2. Cor. 6. 16. 17. Answer. Ans. But the falsehood of this may appear by what hath been said, and how that his proof confirms not this wretched opinion of us is before declared, where at large I have spoken of the quoted Scripture. Objection. Object. But he saith, that Christ is no Mediator of a mixed company. john. 17. 9 16. Answer. Answ. It is true, understood as men are before God, for so Christ is Mediator only to the Elect, and only the Lord knows who are his: but in respect of men he is Mediator Christ is the Mediator of a mixed company before men. of a mixed company, of Peter a Professor, and of Paul a Persecutor. If his speech were true, then had not Christ been Mediator to Abraham's Family, whilst Ishmael abode in it; nor of Isaacks, while Esau did stay; nor of Israel, while there were false Prophets, or whilst Saul and his wicked Courtiers did live; nor of Thiatyra, one of the Churches in Asia, whilst jesabel abode therein; nor of any Christian, while he remaineth in the state of imperfection; his faith mixed with doubting; his knowledge with error and ignorance, and so forth. For as he may reason from the bad part in a Church, to overthrow the whole body, so may he as well reason from corruptions in a man, to overthrow the whole persons hope of Christian salvation. Again, if it be true, he saith, that the godly do lose their right in the mediation of Christ, because of wicked men among them; then may they not in that standing be prayed for: for we may not pray for them, for whom we know Christ prayeth not for: but how wicked and false this is, may appear by our saviours praying for the open wicked upon his Cross: and he came to save Sinners, that is notorious wicked. 1. Tim. 1. 15. 1. john. 2. 1. 2. Objection. Object. But perhaps he will say, we may not pray for them in their wickedness. Answer. Answ. We are to pray for them in their wickedness: for if they were not wicked, then needed they no praying for: it is one thing to pray for them in wickedness, and another to pray for prosperity of their wickedness; the first is lawful, the latter wicked and unlawful. For his Scripture joh. 17. 9 16. I say, it is understood of the Elect, john. 17. 9 16. who were not of the world, nor seen of men; and is nothing to the purpose in hand. If he take the word world literally, then let him expound john. 3. 16. where God saith, he john. 3. 16. loveth the World. He goeth on to prove us not under the covenant, because we were constrained by authority to profess religion as we do: but of this sufficiently before. His last reason is, because, as he saith, we do offer up a strange worship, not required of God: but he but barely avoucheth it, and we have as good authority to deny it; and till his word be of more authority with us, we must let the reason of his reason lie still as without reason. 6. Every true Church hath Christ for the Prophet: this Reason that we are a true Church of Christ. he avoucheth page, 136. But the Church of England hath Christ for the Prophet of the same. First, because we acknowledge him, and none other to be that Prophet foretold, Deut. 18. 18. and confirmed so to be, Act. 3. 23. The Church of England hath Christ for the Prophet of the same. Secondly, we do receive him so to be by faith, by entertaining the words of the Prophets and Apostles, as the indictment of his spirit, and bearing witness of him, which we do hold to be the only rule of Faith and Obedience. Thirdly, we have the same published by his servants, by whom he is effectual, revealing unto many the heavenly will of his Father, as he saith, joh. 1. 18. and hath opened their understanding, as in Luke 24. 45. And he hath given to the members of his Church a mouth, and Wisdom, where against all our Antichristian adversaries have not been able to speak, or resist. Luke 21. 15. He hath opened the hearts of many to attend to Paul's preaching, as he did Lydiaes'. Acts. 16. 14. And therefore is he our Prophet, in thus performing by his word & spirit that office among us. Objection. But M. Ainsworth will not have Christ our Prophet: first, because, saith he, we have not his ordinance of prophecy, to wit, as they have devised it, that private persons should stand up in the public assembly to interpret Scriptures. Answer. But 1. of this have I spoken before, and I have showed what account in Beza his judgement is to be made of it. 2. by this reason all the reformed churches in christendom had never yet Christ for their Prophet, for none do use this. 3. The argument is not good, if it were a necessary ordinance, to conclude that we do want the whole, for defect in some part. 4. We have Parents who at home do instruct their families in many places, both out of the principles which they have learned; and also out of the Holy word, as far as they do understand. 5. They conclude a necessity now from an extraordinary act in the Apostles time, and only from an example of act they conclude, as if the same were a commandment imposing the same upon Churches. He in his answer to Mr. Smith's Book of differences, doth acknowledge that the having of 1. Cor. 14. a Psalm there was extraordinary; let him then show by what reason we must hold Prophecy to be ordinary, and he hath said something; in the mean season nothing. Objection. Secondly, he saith, Christ is not our Prophet, because Page. 136. we have not teaching by office, that is, Pastors and Teachers, mentioned. Eph. 4. 11. And his proof for this is, because we have Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Priests, as he calls them, etc. Answer. I answer, that even these are Pastors and Teachers, and none but senseless men will deny it: for they do teach all at one time or other by word, and many by word and writing. Objection. Thirdly, saith he, a great part of Christ's word, and Scriptures, Page 138. and of the graces of his spirit, are here never spoken of, nor heard, nor suffered to be uttered. Answer. If this be not a false accusation, what is? for Reader understand that he speaketh of the Church of England, in which is comprehended all the Parishes in the Kingdom, and all the members of the same. Now consider, first, the preaching of the word in many places without restraint; for he that can preach may by Law handle any portion of Scripture to his people. Secondly, consider of the learned writings, the large Commentaries; the published sermons, and it will be found that there is no portion of Scripture not spoken of. Though much want be in many Parishes, yet his speech is nothing true of the Church of England taken in so large a sense: As wants are to be bewailed, so the truth is to be defended. His last reason is about some points of Discipline, of which see before, Mat. 18. 15. 17. 7. Every true Church hath Christ for the Priest and Sacificer Page 141. 7 Reason that the Church of England is a true Church. of the same, this is his own. But the Church of England hath Christ for the Priest and Sacrificer. First, because we acknowledge no sacrificing Priest by office, but only jesus Christ, our high Priest: and do condemn all the Christ jesus is our Priest and only Sacrifice. Shavelings of Antichrist: our Sermons, Laws, Writings and Practice show this. Secondly, because we do believe and teach, to depend for salvation upon only his satisfaction and intercession, without any merits of our own. Thirdly, because that in all our confessions, we humble ourselves before God in Christ, and in our prayers ask all for Christ's sake, and in our praises, laud the Lord through Christ; let the Church's faith, and practise of this be seen in the Book of Common Prayer, which is the Church of England's witness herein to all Churches. Objection. But Mr. Ainsworth will not have Christ our Priest: first, because our sacrifices and gifts are not offered up by Christ, nor our Church reconciled unto God by him, as he saith. Not heathen, nor Infidel worse than we, if this were so: but we deny it; let us see his proof of this: because, saith he, our confessions, prayers and praises are Idolatrous, with which Christ hath no communion: Again, we deny this; but thus would he prove it: Because we read, saith he, a written liturgy, etc. Answer. I answer first, that all our prayers allowed by the church of England are not written: our daily practice shows the contrary; therefore it is in part false, which he saith. Secondly, if stinted and read prayer be idolatrous, than what saith he to the read prayers of other Churches? but we deny read prayer to be Idolatrous; for in the old Law was read and stinted prayer: this their conceit taken as a ground, made Mr. Smith cast out all reading of Scriptures also out of his public worship of God; so out of one evil springs another: and Mr. Ainsworth to help himself against Mr. Smith, Page 36. saith, that God never gave Books to read for prayers unto him; and yet we know that certain Psalms were penned for that purpose. Deut. 26. 3. 15. Psal. 22. 1. and 92. and many other: which is contrary to that he affirmeth. Yea, the Lord tied them unto words. Numb. 6. 23. 24. which they must needs either read or get without Book, and so be stinted, which is all one. He particularizeth many other things, besides stinted prayer, which he saith, are Idolatrous: but we denying all, he saith we must stay for proof of every particular till the next time: if he think that we should look out, what they have written against these in particular in their books; I think they should read the defence of them in our books, and either answer them sound, or cease repeating them thus often without any proof. Thirdly, his arguing is weak, for he thus reasoneth: where corruptions be in the Church, to that Church is not Christ a Priest: let him prove this if he can, and show what corruptions do take away the benefit of Christ's sacrifice from a Church. If he could truly from the word convince men's consciences herein, he might rest with one of these main reasons propounded, as enough to make all men fly that Church, which hath no fellowship with Christ. Objection. Secondly, he saith, that Christ is not our Priest, because of Page 142. the wicked among us. Answer. But by this reason not judah in Esaies' days, nor the jews in Christ's time; nor the Corinthians, had received benefit by Christ; for that there very wicked & impenitent persons were among them: but if it had been so dangerous as he maketh it, even to the loss of Christ; surely some Prophet, or Christ, or his Apostles, would have evidently taught it: which they did not, and therefore it is not to be believed. Among all his reasons whereby he aggravateth the greatness of this evil, he maketh it a breach of the second commandment: by which (saith he) (observe good Reader, how these men will avouch any thing, and that under show of Scripture) all Idols, Images and similitudes are forbidden to be brought into the church. Mr. Ainsworths' gross understanding of the second Commandment. Now saith he, these wicked ones are lively images of Satan, pictures of the devil, which are as he saith, more horrible, than the bringing of images and representations of beasts, of fowls and fishes. Did ever any Divine, any Church under the cope of the whole Heavens, so expound and enlarge the meaning of the second Commandment? The words are, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. who maketh to himself among us the picture of a devil? who sets the shape of the devil upon a wicked man, to make a representation thereof to himself? who falls down to a wicked man, apprehending in him the devils image, and doth worship him with divine worship? and yet if his Exposition be true, and that an Image did comprehend a wicked liver, such things would follow necessarily. He that considereth this allegation of the second commandment, need not wonder, that they dare pervert other Scriptures less known, and more hardly understood. Not to have the wicked kerbed, and duly punished is a great evil, but yet men may not bely God's truth, to make that as a means to amend that evil; the truth is strong enough of itself, it needs no lying interpretations upon the Scripture to defend the same. 8. Every true Church hath Christ for the King thereof: Reason, that the Church of England is a true Church. Page 146. We have Christ for our spiritual King, and only Lawgiver. this is his own Doctrine. But the Church of England hath Christ for their King. First, because by our Doctrines and writings allowed by our Church we acknowledge no other lawgiver having any authority over our consciences, in matters of faith & obedience between Christ, and us, but he alone. Let our authorised writings, our Church's witnesses, for this be examined, & see whether any doctrine be against it. Secondly in baptism we have made all a solemn vow to him our Lord & Sovereign herein. Thirdly, because we have renounced that Antichrist the Pope, and all his usurped Tyranny in this behalf, as against Christ's prerogative royal herein. Fourthly, because we do hold his laws the rule of our spiritual life, and as Christians to be subject to the same, neither are any laws made to bind conscience before God, but for outward order, peace and unity sake; neither do any out of knowledge otherwise subject themselves Christ jesus hath manifested his kingly power over us. unto them. Fiftly and lastly, because our Saviour hath manifested his kingly power over us: first, in subjecting us all in these things now mentioned unto him: secondly, in subjecting many thousands truly by his word and spirit to the power of his will, standing members of the Church of England; of which there have been both public persons, as Bishops, and others also, which did shed their blood for the Gospel, the sceptre of Christ's Kingdom, and such now still are there ready to die for the Name of the Lord: thirdly, in putting into the heart of our King, for his heart is in Christ's rule and governance; and into the hearts of the Nobles, and other, in their great meetings to ordain Laws against all spiritual power of that Antichrist, who is against Christ: fourthly, and lastly, in defending us by his great power, not only as he is God, but as he is the Prince of his people here, defending the Gospel against the Romish Synagogue, and the conspiracies of the same: and this do we acknowledge publicly to be done unto us for no other cause, but for his Gospel's sake. Objection. Object. But Mr. Ainsworth would not have Christ to be our King. First, because (saith he) we have not Christ's Officers appointed by him to govern us, that is, Pastors, Teachers and Elders. Answer. Answ. I answer; first, that we have Christ's officers appointed to govern; the civil Magistrate, the King's Majesty, the ruling Elder next under Christ in all causes, as well Ecclesiastical as civil: then have we Ecclesiastical Governors under him, Bishops, who be also Pastors and Doctors: which ancient orders be in the East, South, and Latin Churches; where have been and are, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: and all these be in the Church of England. Of the authority, power, and jurisdiction of Bishops, much hath been said of many, and not by these answered, and therefore needless for me to say more, than before is said already. Objection. Object. Secondly, saith he, because we have not the ordinance of Christ prescribed in the 18. of Matthew, practised, nor suffered to be practised. Answer. Answ. For answer to this, remember what is said before. Objection. Object. His third reason is again, for that the wicked men live in the Church, who are no Subjects of Christ's Kingdom. Answer. Answ. Of this also much is said before: it is only often by him repeated to fill up room it seemeth, or else a reason for every thing against us, as he doth make it, but though he repeat it again and again, yet the weight once felt, it is of no more validity at one time then another, but once answered well, is ever overthrown. Objection. Object. Lastly (saith he) this Church wanteth the power of Christ against Sin, Satan, Antichrist. Answer. Answ. I answer, we have spoken, and we still do speak of the Church of England, and that it wants not the power of Christ; for there is in it the preaching of the word, which is Christ's power, Rom. 1. 18. there is the power of admonition, suspension, and Excommunication, what is then wanting of Christ's power? If they mean that it is not in every parish, that is not enough to deny it to be in the Church of England, in which is comprehended all Parishes, and all Superior power over these Parishes, in which is this power of Christ. And therefore the Church is a true Church, having Christ for the head; King, Priest, and Prophet of the same. And thus much for Mr. Ainsworths' reasons retorted upon him against himself, by which (in pag. 127. of his book) he endeavours both weakly and untruly to make our Church a false Church: But these same are sufficient reasons to maintain, that we are a true Church doing as we be by law established. Now I will in like manner deal with Mr. Smith's arguments: Answer to M. Smith's Arguments, which also are turned against himself. by which he would prove us to be no true Church, Page 83. He making the Majors, and assuming negatively, and I taking his Majors, such as they be, and assuming for ourselves affirmatively. The first Argument. THe true Churches of Christ were established of men, that The first Argument. did repent and believe, and show their faith by their works, that were Saints, and faithful visibly, and of these only. Mat. 3. 6 Page 84. jam. 2. 18. Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ephe. 1. 1. Mat. 28. 19 The Propositions are all M. Smiths. Observe here how this Proposition is to be understood of a Church in planting, that is, of a people no Church, who did not profess Christ, but to be a Church of Christ, and not of a people professing Christ, to be only reform; and therefore herein he dealeth deceitfully, and speaketh not of the like case, playing the Sophister. I have showed how there is a great difference between the planting and reformation of a Church once planted. Again, there is degrees of repenting, of faith, and showing forth works, which he doth not express, as had been fitting. None of the Scriptures speak of any Church to be reform, but of Churches either in the gathering, as Mat. 3. 6. and 28. 19 or gathered, as jam. 2. 18. Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Eph. 1. 1. That of james is against him; for it seemeth he found fault with such as boasted of Faith, and had no works; the other show that they were called saints, but how, and wherefore, I have already showed: so as he allegeth them not so fitly as he would make his credulous Scholars believe, whom he would persuade to hold these silly reasons to be undeniable Arguments, page 83. yet if this his proposition be good, it is for us; whence I assume contrary to him. But the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England were established of such persons, repentant, believing, showing their works, etc. Ergo, true Churches. Objection. M. Smith denieth the Minor, upon this reason, because at the time of reformation was, first, compulsion of all sorts: secondly, a mixture of all profane, etc. Answer. To both which, I have spoken at large before. And further let this be noted, first, that he saith, men were compelled; I ask by whom? as also whether those that compelled were not voluntary, and the servants of Christ, or the same, that such as were compelled by them? By answering hereunto, they shall find her blessed Majesty, & the compelling number, which were the Church of God, to be repentant, faithful, and by drawing others to God, after the example of good Kings, to show their works, to be visible Saints, and Saints only. Secondly, he confesseth that such as were compelled were newly, though hardly drawn from Antichristianisme, this being true, from his own mouth, that the compelled were such as had departed from Antichrist newly though hardly, they were therein partly voluntary, and not wholly compelled, as he would make his associates believe. The second Argument. THe true Churches of the Apostolic institution, consisted The second Argument. Page 84. of a people separated from unbelievers, whether Iewes, or Pagans', or other. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Reu. 18. 4. Act. 19 9 and 2. 40. 47. and 5. 13. 1 Tim. 6. 5. If this proposition be meant of any other instance of time, then in the first gathering, and the word other, comprehending any other than jews and Pagans', & such unbelievers only, I deny it to be true, and the quoted Scriptures prove it not. Acts 19 9 is to some purpose, as I have expounded the proposition, but the rest show not that they did separate, but were exhorted thereunto: The Separatists conclude that men are so, because they aught to be so, but very absurdly. now the exhortation to a thing argueth what aught to be done, & showeth that such as be exhorted either do it not, or are slow to it; but is no argument at all that such do it, or are such persons as they be exhorted to be. Rich men are exhorted to be rich in good works & ready to distribute. 1. Tim. 6. 18. Are they therefore so? or may I in defining a rich man set him out by this, and quote this Scripture to prove it? yet such are his proves, which I wish the Reader to consider well of. He and the Separatists conclude, and would prove men and Churches to be so and so; because the Scriptures command, exhort, and thereby teach, that they aught to be so. Their wits and wills cannot make this right reasoning. But I assume the Minor. The Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England consist of such a separated people: Ergo, true Churches, etc. That we be separate from jews and Pagans' who can deny? and for unbelievers to be taken in the new Testament for a people professing They cannot by Gods word call us unbelievers. Christ as we do, I challenge all the Brownists in the world to show me that term or name to be given to such by the holy Ghost. Men in the Church may be condemned for a measure of unbelief, but yet not called therefore unbelievers; if such men do profess, as we do in our Church the Lord jesus, and become not absolute Apostates from Christ, as at the first they were without Christ, they are not to be called unbelievers. Objection. Mr. Smith Page 84. denieth this Minor; first, because the persons which submit to Antichrist and his Abominations, are in the Lords accounted equal with Pagans', etc. Answer. I answer, that first it must be meant of such as submit to Antichrist so as they acknowledge him the head, and they members of his body, else not: if out of his forge he can beaten out the contrary with the hammer of the word, I charge him to do it, else is he herein deceived, and would deceive. Again, if it be so, yet it is not spoken properly, but figuratively and in respect by way of comparison, as Esay 1. 10. If such terms as he doth produce them for be given to make such a people no Church of God, but to be Sodom indeed, and Gomorrah indeed, then had not the jews in Esayes time been God's people, which is contrary to verse 2. 3. where the Prophet in the person of God, calleth them his children and People. Objection. Secondly, he saith the Apostle exhorts the Churches to separate from inordinate livers, from persons excommunicated, etc. as 2. Tim. 3. 5. Tit. 1. 16. 2. Thes. 3. 6. 1. Cor. 5. 11. Answer. I answer first, that here he concludes, as before, it aught to be so: Ergo, it is so; which is very absurd reasoning, and very false. Secondly, this is to be understood of a private separation, but not of a Schismatical dividing of men's selves from the body of the whole Assembly, as he intendeth hereby, and is the matter in question. The third Argument. THe true Churches of the Apostolic institution were by The third Argument. Page 84. Baptism gathered into the Covenant or new Testament of Christ. Mat. 21. 19 20. Acts. 19 4. 5. and 10. 48. Mat. 18. 20. Here note, that he saith not, baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, after the words of Christ's institution: Mat. 28. 19 for he used not these words in his new baptizing, so some have testified: thus dare he altar Alex. Hom. jam Wh. laws and ordinances, an intolerable audaciousness against God, the practice of God's Church, and the words of the Institution. The place Mat. 18. 20. is idle here, and nothing to the purpose, but to fill up spare room. But I assume: The Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England were by Baptism gathered into the Covenant or new Testament of Christ: First, they were and are all therein baptized: and secondly, their Baptism is received as the seal of the Covenant, or new Testament: thirdly, at Baptism there is a repetition of the Covenant, exhortations to embrace it, and profession made of Faith therein before any be baptized: see for the truth hereof the practice of our Church in the Book of Common Prayer. Ergo, the Ecclesiastical Assemblies are true Churches, etc. Mr. Smith denieth this Minor, and saith, and only saith, (for he proveth not that which he saith, to overthrow the same) that the Apostles, did baptize indefinitely into the whole new Testament of Christ: but our Assemblies (he saith) do not profess the true Faith of Christ: and are therefore not baptized into the new Testament of Christ indefinitely, etc. This he doth but affirm of his bore word, which I deny, and our profession & practice crieth shame upon his impudent belying of us herein. In the order of our administration, I demand of him, either in the exhortations, or in the prayers, or in the words of the Institution, or in the answers made; what one restraint is made of the Covenant, whereby it may appear that we baptize any respectively? this aught he to have showed, & if he had been able he so would have done; till he do it, he is to be herein held as notorious a Slanderer, and depraver of God's Church, as any enemy of our Christian profession whosoever. The fourth Argument. THe true Churches of the Apostolic Institution, had The fourth Argument. Page 85. Christ's power Ministerial in the body of the church. This proposition, he saith, he hath confirmed before; and I say, I have answered the same before, and have by many reasons manifested the falsehood thereof, that Christ jesus, nor his Apostles, ever established any popular government in the church. His assumption therefore I grant as for us, and so this his fourth Argument must be forged a new, to make his conclusion follow, as a truth. To let this fourth Argument go therefore; I thus frame for us a fourth reason in the room thereof. All the churches after the Apostolical Institution, had the Ministerial power of Christ in certain principal members. The Church of England hath so. Ergo, the Church of England is after the Apostolical institution. He grants the Minor, Page 86. the Mayor is manifested before, in answer to this proposition of the fourth Argument in his defence of popular Government; against which, this Argument may be made. The true churches of the Apostolic Institution, had not Christ's power ministerial in the body of the Church. For it was first in the Apostles, they did commit it to the Evangelists in their absence, and where no Who had authority over Churches in the primitive time: see Doctor Field 5. book chap. 22. and 25. Evangelist was left, they committed it to the Elders, who were elected out of the people, and ordained by the Apostles, to rule and oversee the flocks. That the Apostles had authority over churches, it is evident enough; first, by their planting of them, 1 Cor. 3. 6. secondly, by being Fathers, begetting them, 1 Cor. 4. 15. 9 & 2. thirdly, by propounding causes, ordering, and perfecting of them, 1. Cor. 11. 2. 34. Act. 1. 15. and 6. 2. 6. and 15. 13. 22. fourthly, by the Apostle determining a cause, and inflicting punishment himself upon transgressors. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 1 Cor. 5. 3. fifthly, by the Apostles appointing some over Churches, 1 Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. The Evangelists had authority over churches; for they received that authority not from the Churches, but from the Apostles, 1 Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. as the Apostles did receive theirs from Christ, and not from man, Gal. 1. 1. And they had power committed to them by plain precepts to their own persons, without mentioning any Coadiutours, 1 Tim. 1. 18. and 3. 15. and 5. 21. 22. and 6. 14. Tit. 1. 5. The Elders had authority over the churches, for they received their ordination and placing in the Churches, from the Apostles, and Evangelists, with the Church's consent. Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. The Apostles do call them, and give them a charge to see to the Church, and to govern the same, Act. 20. 17. 28. and this was done without mentioning any power to be in the people, the multitude: and this is the universal opinion of all Churches, and the practice of both Greek and Latin Churches, unreformed, and Reform. But the anabaptistical Assembly of Mr. Smith, hath Christ's ministerial power (if it be that power) in the body of the church. Ergo, the anabaptistical Assembly of Mr. Smith, is not of the Apostolical constitution. The fift Argument. THe true Church of the primitive Institution Apostolical, The fift Argument. Page 87. had Christ jesus for their Mediator; that is, their King, Priest and Prophet, 1 Tim. 2. 5. Heb. 9 15. Gal. 3. 15. 16. joh. 17. 9 The Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England have jesus Christ, for their Mediator, that is, their King, Priest and Prophet. Ergo, true Churches, etc. Mr. Smith denieth the Minor, upon the same Reasons that Mr. Ainsworth before hath done, from whom it seemeth he had them; but I have in my answer to Mr. Ainsworth, both defended this Minor in the particulars, and made a Reply to what he saith to the contrary; which may suffice, as an Answer to Mr. Smith also. The sixth Argument. THe true Church of the Apostolic Institution hath The sixth Argument. Page 87. Christ for the Head, and is a true body unto the true head Christ, truly united by the spirit of Christ. Ephes. 1. 22. 23. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Gal. 3. 16. Eph. 5. 23. Understand Reader, that we dispute of the visible church, & not of the invisible: speaking of the visible Church. First, the scriptures are not well alleged, being understood of the invisible Church properly. Secondly, the proposition itself is false, being understood of every particular Church, & every particular member of the same: for first, these words, truly united by the spirit of Christ, are to be understood only of the Elect: secondly, they do seclude out of the Church secret hypocrites; for they are not truly united to Christ: thirdly, it maketh the Church's Apostolical not to have Christ their head, etc. even Corinth, and the Churches in Asia, of whom john Revel. 2. and 3. speaks, which had in them such as had the spirit of Satan, whereof the Apostle saith, 2 Tim. 1. 15. that all they which were in Asia were turned from him; which doth not befall such as be truly united unto Christ: fourthly, particular 1 Cor. 12. 27. Churches are not the body of Christ, but members of his A particular Church is but a member of the whole. body, and that not by the spirit, as the company of the Elect be, but by an outward profession of their Faith, and representatively; because who so joineth to one particular true Church, as to the Church of Christ, doth so adjoin himself to all. For otherwise, if every particular Church were the true body of Christ, then had Christ many bodies; one head should be to many bodies: then also every particular Church should abide with Christ, and never fall away; in it there should be no Hypocrites, no Reprobates, because in Christ's true body, there be none such: and therefore in this proposition he is in doubtful terms deceitful, and in the matter understood after the question erroneous, if not Heretical. But expounding it thus, to wit, that a particular Church, first, hath Christ for the head, as men do receive common graces from him, and as the whole is taken synecdochically How a particular church may be judged the body of Christ. for some, who in the rule of Charity are by their fruits to be judged elect: secondly, that it is his body, first, in profession of faith, secondly representatively, as setting forth to others the whole Church, by holding with it the same God, Word, Faith, Profession, Doctrine and Sacraments, whereby thus I say, expounding it, I do assume that: The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England have Christ for the head, and are his true body, united by the spirit of Christ. And therefore true according to the Apostolical constitution. I have before proved that the Church of England hath Christ for the head: and if he be the head, it is his body, which hath received many gifts of the spirit, and in it are many visibly, who do truly seek God, and do voluntarily serve him; which he, page 87. cannot deny, though else where is plainly of another mind respectively. And thus much for the insufficiency of his Arguments against us, and the same made good for ourselves, and that very justly against him. 9 That our Church is a true Church. The Church which Reason that the Church of England is a true Church. hath true matter, form and properties of a true Church, that is a true Church. This will not be denied. But the Church of England hath true matter, form and properties of a true church. Therefore is it a true Church. Reason. 1 The minor I have already proved in my former book. First, because we have a true and no false head. Now a true head cannot be conjoined to false members of Christ, but to true members, which are the matter of the Church. M. Ainsworth to this saith, that jeroboam might so have Page 181. Objection. pleaded for himself and his people. Answer. This he proveth not, and how unjustly he compareth our principal Governor to jeroboam with his Calves, and we do that abhor such detestable Idolatry, to that people, I leave unto any understanding Reader to judge; and do refer the Reader to a further answer to this afterward, made to M. Smith, objecting the same. Objection. M. Smith he saith, that we have a false head: which he would prove by saying fantastically, from a fantastical spirit, that we do worship God in a fantastical Christ, etc. Answer. But how we do hold of Christ and his offices, against the jews who hate him, against Turks who do debase him under cursed Mahomet, and against Papists, who do deprive him of his glory herein many ways; and lastly, how we against all other Heretics do maintain the holy Truth of this second person our Saviour, the English Confession The harmony of Confession. agreeing herein with all other Churches doth manifest the same, and not hitherto hath it been taxed of any learned men, or found fault with by any Church of Christ in this point, that so now these fantastical spirits should judge us to be worshippers of any fantastical Christ. Reason. 2 Secondly, we be either true matter, false matter, or no matter: but first we are not no matter; for such are they which make no profession of Christ at all: as jews, Turks, and other Pagans', Assemblies of Rebels against Christ, and no Churches of God at all. Secondly, we are not false matter; for if any may be so termed, this matter be the Papists, who sit in the Temple of God and do endeavour to undermine it; they be the Antichristians, for Christ in mere Profession, but against Christ in very fundamental Doctrines, as the controversies between us and them do declare. Now from them are we departed so far, as the Reformed Churches do hold us a true Church, and the Romish Synagogue condemneth us for Heretics. Therefore, being neither no matter, nor false matter, we be true matter. Reason 3 Thirdly, true matter are all such as are baptized, and openly profess, that jesus the Son of Mary, is the Son of God, made Christ the Lord, by whom only and alone is salvation: that this is true matter, I do thus manifest it. First, because it was the principal doctrine which the Proofs of this Reason. Apostles taught to gather a people to God. Acts. 2. 36. and 9 20. and 10. 42. and 19 4. 5. and 18. 28. Luke. 24. 47. 1. Cor. 15. 3. and 3. 11. Secondly, because such as did make this profession were judged by the Apostles, and Apostolical men, worthy to be admitted into the Church, as fit matter of it. Acts. 8. 37. and 16. 31. 33. Thirdly, because it is the sum of the whole Gospel, and Covenant in the new Testament, in respect whereof, there is no other point of Religion necessary, but as it tendeth either to bring men unto, or to confirm them in this main truth. Hence it is, that S. john concludeth his Gospel with this scope. joh. 20. 31. this is that Corner stone laid, to which all must be coupled, and on whom all other doctrines must be built. Eph. 2. 20. And therefore sithen such as do profess this truth do summarily and in general profess all the evangelical doctrines in God's Book, such must needs be fit matter of the Church. Objection. Mr. Ainsworth doth grant these, as truths of God: for he doth pass them over without gainsaying any thing. But Mr. Smith, who will deny any thing, denieth this before set down, to be the sum of the Gospel: and why forsooth? because (saith he) the sum of the Gospel is this; that jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Son of Mary, is the only King, Priest and Prophet to his church▪ governing, sacrificing, making intercession and Prophesying after that holy manner, and according to those rules which he hath prescribed in his Testament. Answer. I said, Reader, that it was the Sum of the Gospel, that is, a short Compendium of all that which is comprehended in the Gospel, and in few words so contained, as all in the Gospel may be brought unto the same. Now what saith he, which is not briefly comprehended under the name of Christ, by which is signified his offices, of a King, Priest and Prophet? so as he saith no more in sum than I have said, and therefore herein he showeth both a spirit of contradiction, which is his nature, and therein obstinately grown by the work of Satan, and also great folly in adding these words; after that holy manner, and according to those rules, which he hath prescribed in his Testament, except he understand them, as prescribed to us, that we might believe. For if he mean the government of Christ, his sacrificing, intercession, and prophesying in his own person, and his holy spirit, than this prescribed order after the rules in the new Testament, is not a binding of Christ to literal rules as men be, but only an informing of our judgement, how by faith we may apprehended Christ's holy performance of these things. But if he understand within these offices of Christ, the outward government, sacrifices, intercessions, and prophesyings of the visible Church, as by all likelihood he doth, for he doth add these words, to bring into the sum of the Gospel the visible Church practices, than belike Christ must not be believed to govern, sacrifice, pray and prophecy by his spirit, except the same be performed in the visible Church: thus he bindeth the performance of Christ's offices to the external actions of men. Again none then do believe and hold the sum of the Gospel, except he know and hold how the Churches of Christ visibly is governed, how sacrifices, prayers, and prophecies are to be performed▪ o the wickedness of man! what will not an Heretical spirit perversely bend, teach, to have his own will! But I assume: The members of the church of England are baptized, and do openly profess this sum of the Gospel: Therefore they be true matter of the church of Christ. The Minor is true: first, The sum of the Gospel professed of all. by the doctrine of the Church: secondly, it is publicly preached: thirdly, it is by Laws maintained: fourthly, by none, as he stands by Law a member of the Church, opposed: fifthly, by the blood of Martyrs confirmed: sixtly, in Scholes defended: seventhly, in it Children are catechized, and so is universally professed. Objection. Mr. Ainsworth answers, first, that it is not rightly and Page 182. truly professed, though it be professed. I answer, that it is rightly and truly professed according to the doctrine and the faith of our Church, which all do profess according to their measure of knowledge. Objection. Secondly, he saith, though all be true which I say, yet it proveth not all the Church to be true matter of Christ's church, except they all make the like profession. Answer. Reader note, that he doth acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church is such, that Ministers preach it, that laws maintain it, and so forth, and yet we never the better, except all do alike profess the same: and this he would prove because many are wicked and ignorant: so then, because all do not alike practise, and because all have not the like measure of knowledge, therefore he concludes, that all do not alike profess, and therefore the Church's doctrine, the preaching of the word, the wholesome Laws of Magistrates, and the sound knowledge in this, in many thousand particular persons, must all be as nothing, because others are not as they be: how his Brownistical Divinity can prove these things I see not; till he do it, his deriding of my thus reasoning Page 183. from these seven things before mentioned, may be turned upon himself as his own folly doth deserve. In the mean space, I do avouch: First, that all that be In what respects we all do make a like profession. by Law, members of the Church of England, do make a like profession in these respects; first, because they do stand members and so by law are in the same profession, which the law doth maintain: secondly, in as much as this point is not contradicted of any: thirdly, in that the most ignorant, or profane being in particular informed, and demanded how they believe in this point, they will, and by experience it is found, they do acknowledge this whole truth; the sum of the Gospel mentioned: fourthly, In that their voices be in all the laws, as Ministers and people do consent to choose some for them, one in one place, and an other in an other, for the Constitutions and Acts decreed upon, not against the word of God: fifthly, by the hearing of this truth published and preached: and sixtly, by all offering their children unto Baptism, and all receiving the Lords Supper, the seals of this truth and sum of the Gospel: and thus do all make a like profession. Secondly, I say, that the general profession of this truth, after this manner, in these six things, maketh such as be in many things ignorant, to be true matter in that Church; so it be, that there be withal other who in judgement and conscience entertain the main truths of God from the beginning: for we must know, first, that the How a people are a true Church, though wicked men do arise up among them after the first constitution. 1. Cor. 1. Reu. 2. Church taketh her name of the first beginners, Act. 2. 47. in which place, by church is meant such as our Saviour left behind him, and are numbered, chap. 1. 15. secondly, that that Church never looseth the name of a church, so long as such do continued, or the like do arise in their steed by a continual succession, though in time wicked ones do arise up among them. Thus Corinth, and the Churches in Asia, held the name of the Church, because there were such as did maintain the truth first published and received. Now the late Queen with many other, did voluntarily begin reformation, they of knowledge professed this truth, and many of them suffered for it, against Popery; let this man tell me whether they were to be accounted God's people? If he say yea, considered by themselves, then say I, the same truth in the same degree hitherto maintained, maketh such still to the true people of God; and for the mixture of others arising in the Church, let him, if he and all his can, prove that the Church so ceaseth to be a Church, and the good nothing to be esteemed, because of the bad among them: thirdly, I say, that the better part giveth the name of the whole, though the same be fewer in number by many; thus Sardis is called a Church, for the few names Reve. 3. 4. there: fourthly, I say, if by a like Profession he mean (for the word is ambiguous) either; first, a like in particular knowledge How many ways the word (alike) is to be taken. of all main points distinctly, than he thrusts out the two Disciples going to * Luke 24. Emaus, and Thomas, for their not believing a special main truth, for a time to be no true matter. So many in * Esa. 1. 3. and 5. 13. john 7. 49. john 3. Esai his time, who speaketh generally Alike in profession. as of all, for the general ignorance of most among them: by this his reason, the common people had not been of the Church of God, they were so ignorant of the Law; yea, Nichodemus had not been a true member of the jewish Church: but all this is most false, therefore though some be not like other in particular knowledge, yet may they be true matter: or secondly, a like in quality, that is, one A like in quality. to profess, as truly and as sincerely as another, than hypocrites before men, are hereby thrust out of the Church, as no true visible matter; the contrary is manifest in judas, admitted by Christ; in Simon Magus, admitted by Peter, and by Demas, commended by Saint Paul: or else thirdly, a A like in degree. like in degree of grace, than he condemneth all for false matter, who are not alike bold with Peter; a like learned & painful with Paul; a like Prophetically inspired with Saint john; a like devout with Annah; a like holy in conversation with Zacharie and Elizabeth: then had those whom Saint Paul reproveth, 2 Cor. 12. 20. 21. been false matter of the Church at Corinth, and such as Esai and other reprove, false matter of the church of the jews; all which is untrue: no place once affording the very lest conceit hereof. Let him therefore the next time show what he meaneth by the like Profession differing from these three, and show how any with us so differ, and that all for the same are no true matter of Christ's Church: fifthly, and lastly, I say, that the general profession of this truth, maketh such a one true matter, though he be ignorant, and withal disorderly. For True matter twofold. we must know that true matter is twofold; good matter, and bad matter; as Timber and stone is true matter for building, yet not all Timber and stone good matter; so a woman lawfully married is a true wife, but every true wife is not a good wife: so every subject, though a true subject, yet may not be a good subject: these with other are at large set down in my former Book, page 115. And thus is it with the matter of the Church, every one which professeth and holdeth this main Truth and Sum of the Gospel, is to be admitted as true matter into the Church, as the Eunuch was, and if he may be admitted, then being Acts 8. already in the Church holding that profession, he is to be judged true matter of the Church, though of ill conversation, but thereby not true and good, but true and bad matter. Hence it is that in 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 Thes. 3. 15. warning is given to take heed of some for their bad conversation, yet are they then called brethren: if any that is called a brother, 1 Cor. 5. 11. admonish him as a brother, 2 Thes. 3. 15. by giving them terms of brethren, he teacheth that they be not to be held no Christians, or false Christians, but by their conversation bad Christians, and so as ill livers not to be approved, but not as enemies to be rejected, 2 Thes. 3. 15. And the Apostle writing to a mixed company at Corinth, calleth them all Saints by calling, that is, in that they were added by a visible profession to the Church (for many are only called, but few are chosen, Mat. 22. 14.) and never maketh exception of the evil livers, as false matter among them, though after he reprove them, as unworthy matter for their ill conversation. To this distinction of matter Mr. Ainsworth saith nothing, but carpeth at the setting down of false matter; his words are not worth the rehearsing, Page 182. M. Smith, he yields this distinction, and denieth nothing of all I have said, but only that I set not down the sum of the Gospel, to which I have made answer. And thus have I showed, that we be true matter of Christ's Church. Reason. 4 Fourthly, I prove that we be a true Church, because We have the true form of the true Church. we have the form of a true Church. That the true form maketh a Church to be a true Church, will not be denied. Now that we have the form of Christ's true Church, thus I prove. First, by one of Master Smiths own Arguments, be it weak or strong, Page 115. They that are the true matter of the Church of the new Testament, have the true form. This is his own. But we are such true matter, as I have proved. Ergo, we have the true form, being united together; for so is the proposition to be understood. Secondly, I prove it thus, If God hath visibly covenanted with us to take us in Christ for his people, and we so again to take him by Christ for our God, then have we the form of a true Church. For this covenanting mutually doth give a being unto a people to be God's people, Deu. 29. 12. 13. This is the Lords setting up of a people to be his people, and the people's setting up of the Lord to be their God: as Moses speaks. Deu. 26. 17. 18. Now in the Lords doing of this; first, he giveth them How God maketh a people his people. his word, which is 1. his ordinance to make men his people, Mat. 28. 19 Mar. 16. 16. 2. His power to subdue them, Rom. 1 16. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 5. Heb. 4. 12. 3. It is his means of reconciling a people. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 4. It is that by which he extolt a people above other. Psal. 147. 19 Rom. 3. 1. 2. and thereby as it were they be set a part and sanctified unto God to be his people. Secondly, this word ordinarily he sends by men who are hereto ordained, Mat. 10. and 28. 19 Ephe. 4. 11. 12. and these be called his Ambassadors 2 Cor. 5. 20. who do bring men unto God by that word; so we see did the Apostles, Acts. 2. 3. etc. Thirdly, with this word he addeth seals to confirm his Covenant: thus did he in taking to him Abraham, Gen. 17. 1. 10. he gave him his word, and the seal to confirm it. So had Noah before him, Gen. 9 1. 8. 12. So Adam and Eve before all, a word and seals, Gen. 2. 16. 17. So to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, he gave them his word by Moses, and seals to confirm the same, which is well known. And as in the old Testament, so in the new, a Word, and Sacraments. Mat. 3. 3. 6. Mat. 28. 19 Acts. 2. 14. 38. and 8. 35. 38. and 10. 48. And thus are a people set up of the Lord to be his people: and in these three things only do stand Gods visible act in choosing for his part a people to be his: respecting no goodness in them, but choosing them of his love and mercy. Deu. 7. 7. 8. and 9 5. john. 15. 16. Here note, that God doth thus make a people his who were not his before visibly; but to recover his people fallen How the Lord reformeth his people. from him, and to hold them still with him, he than reformeth them, and bringeth them back chiefly by the power of Authority; so did he bringthe Israelites back again to God's worship by valiant Captains, after the people had fallen by Idolatry: for they fell from God's true worship: judg. 2. 11. 12. then the Lord punished them: verse. 14. then when they cried, chap. 3. 9 the Lord raised up judges and delivered them, judg. 2. 16. and while such judges did live, they did continued in the true worship. verse 19 So did jehosaphat bring the people to the Lord again: 2. Chron. 19 so did Hezechias and josias. And thus doth God make and continued a people his people. But I assume this first part of the Consequence: God hath visibly covenanted with us to make us his people. God hath made us his people so as he hath made others. First, he hath given us his word, which was in the first conversion of this people to Christ, his powerful hand. Secondly, he sent it by his servants whosoever they were, that brought this Nation first to the Christian Faith. Thirdly, he gave withal the holy Sacraments, so as then hereby the Lord for his part made us his people, by the self same means that he ever made any other to be his. Objection. Object. But we fell after. Answer. An. True, so did the Israelits as is declared: but God hath brought us again by such blessed means as is before showed at large, after the like manner, as he brought his people from Idolatry and bodily misery withal. And therefore, if thus God covenanted with others, he hath also so covenanted with us. Now see also how a people do covenant with the Lord, How a people do make God their God. visibly to take him to be their God, as judah did. 2. King. 11. 17. First, it stands in an outward hearing such as preach Christ, and an outward profession of faith to that word preached, and especially to the sum of the Gospel, in what degree of knowledge soever: for as inwardly the word written in the heart by the spirit, and believed by a true sanctifying faith is a true covenanting of God and the Elect, and is the form of the invisible Church: even so outwardly Gods minister Rom. 10. 9 10. preaching to the ear and we hearing it, and professing faith unto it, it is a visible covenanting with God. Thus is the receiving of the word mentioned, Acts. 2. 41. 1 Cor. 15. 1. and the eunuchs hearing of Philip, and his profession of Faith to that he heard, held his covenanting with God, so that he had the seal set thereunto for confirmation. Secondly, it stands in receiving of the Sacraments; first, of Baptism, by which visibly, the forgiveness of our sins is sealed unto us. Acts. 2. 38. by which visibly we are buried with Christ: Col. 2. 12. have put on Christ: Gal. 3. 27. are saved by it: 1. Pet. 3. 21. secondly, of the Lords Supper, whereby we are together one body. 1 Cor. 10. 16. And thus do people according to the Scripture visibly set up God to be their God and have covenanted so with him. Objection: There is required besides these, actual obedience, which if they perform not, they have not covenanted with God. Answer. First, I answer, that actual obedience follows the Covenant, Obedience a fruit of the covenant. as a fruit thereof: for God covenants with us to make us good, and we covenant with him to become good, not that either before, or in the Covenant we be actually good. Deut. 26. 17. 18. Our visible Covenant is in words, our performance of particulars in act follows afterward: yet thus far an actual obedience is even at the Covenant making; to wit, an outward attention to that word, which we profess to believe, and a receiving of Baptism, if then it be offered: I speak of Christians newly converted to the profession of Christian Personal offences do not argue no Covenant. faith. Secondly, I deny that want of future obedience in personal transgessions doth argue that no Covenant hath been made, or then to be disannulled: if so be, first, that the fundamental points of the Covenant be held by us, that is, that we do profess him our God and no other; hold his Word to be our rule and none other; his Sacraments to be the seals and none other: for in these three is the foundation of the Covenant, the persons one and the same, In what doth the foundation of the Covenant stand. the writings one and the same, the Seals one and the same: this bindeth each party to other, to perform the particulars of the Covenant thus made, and the party offending in some things for matter of fact, not disannulling any of these three, is only liable to reproof, and punishment, but yet the Covenant doth stand firm. A man and a woman do covenant together lawfully in marriage, the word of mutual promise passeth solemnly between them to perform mutual duties, and the man giveth a token to confirm the profession of his love and truth therein, which she receiveth: now she after is a very disobedient wife, and breaketh the particulars of the Covenant; but herein is she just, she holds none other her husband; she stands unto the general Covenant, and she keepeth the token thereof: Though she be disobedient otherwise in many things, yet is there a Covenant made and remaineth, so as yet there is true man and wife. And thus is it with his Church, as the example of the Israelites doth show; of whom it is said, that they were a stiffnecked people, Deut. 9 6. who often provoked God to anger. Psal. 95. and always resisted the holy Ghost: Acts 7. 51. yet had they covenanted with God, as Deut. 26. 17. Moses telleth them. Secondly, if the Lord on his part break not, the covenant holds: for though the Lord complain that Israel had broken Covenant, yet were they for all that his people, until he cast them off and chose another to serve him. It cannot be proved therefore that a people have not covenanted with God because of their personal evils in the Church; nor that therefore they be none of the Lords people, except it can be also proved, that God hath cast them of, and chosen others. Now also I assume the latter part of the Consequence, which is this: We have visibly covenanted with God to have him for our We have taken God to be our God. God. We do hear the word preached, we do profess faith to that word, we entertain it, as God's word; and we do receive the Sacraments; our words, writings, and practise show this to be true. And therefore if these have made other people to be in covenant with God, than the same do so make us in covenant with God. And therefore also have we the form of a true Church. Mr. Ainsworths' answer is one, and the same threadbare Page 184. Objections often repeated, and answered by me; that we were compelled, that many are profane, etc. But I have answered before to such frivolous Objections, as not of force to prove that either we never did covenant, or that if we have, it is thereby dissolved: I leave him these two to prove, and to answer what I say to the contrary. Objection. Mr. Smith's answer is, that the Papists have the word Page 89. and the Sacraments, and saith, we are inferior to many of them in profession and practice. Answer. The man here speaks he cares not what, he gins so to commend them, that it is likely, when he hath run out of breath Anabaptisme, and perhaps Familisme, when he comes to it, as he hath outrun all with us, and Brownisme also, than he will become in love with Antichristianisme, and sit down a blind Papist. And it is just with God, if it so should fall out; but the Lord prevent it, the Lord show him mercy, and reclaim him at the length if it be his blessed william. Touching the Papists, have they the word so as we have, and the fundamental points of the covenant? I demand how they have it? make they not a covenant with Angels, Saints, and so hold not the person in the covenant? Make they not another word, even men's traditions, the declaration of the covenant, and so change the evidence? make they not more Sacraments, and so add counterfeit seals? turn they not the Lords supper into a Popish sacrifice, and a cursed Idol called the Mass, and so do tear off the Lords seal, and make it nothing worth? How can this bewitched man make them to stand in our state; yea, and in Profession (a thing never heard to be uttered of any but Antichristians themselves) to be better than we? Reason. 5 Fiftly and lastly, I prove our Church a true Church, because Properties of a true Church. we have the true properties of a true Church. The first is, if it were a property, for here I take Mr. Smiths devised property for one (because he esteemeth so of it, as all the rest are with him nothing without it,) which is, the interest and title to all the holy things of God. If this be a property, Page 90. yet we have it, for (saith he) else where, the true property Page 115. ariseth from the union of the matter and form: Now we have true matter and form, as is proved; and therefore also this Mr. Smith's property of a true Church, which he maketh the master property, to which all other are underlings. This he maketh a chief and first property, that so he hereupon may with two or three outrunners make a separation from among God's people Schismatically, to take authority to themselves to do any thing in the Church, which he calleth in page 114. 115. assuming the new Testament, assuming the ministery, assuming all the means of their edification to Salvation: this maketh two or three Stragglers, to hold themselves a Church forsooth, to take upon them to expound the Scriptures, to make a Minister, to censure and Excommunicate, and to do what their barren brains, shall by the supposed motion of the spirit fantastically lead them unto. The misled I pity, but the leaders are worthy of that they deserve. He hath taught them to assume so fast as he hath made M. Smith's Assumptions hath brought his followers into Consumptions. many very Asses, in consuming their estates in following him so variable a Changeling, who as Mr. Ainsworth saith, in three sundry books, hath showed himself to be of three several religions. If this which he calleth a property, were a property, Preface of his book against Mr. Smith. yet we have it, if true matter and form may produce it. But because he notoriously beguileth herewith the people, let them know, and he also for his learning, who thus speaketh to other, as setting all to School, that this which he calleth a property, is not a property, but a Difference between a Privilege and a Property, they be not one: It is a property of the wicked to do wickedly, but it is no privilege. privilege; the difference whereof is, that an essential property ariseth from within, but a privilege from without: the one, to wit, the property essential, maketh to the being of the Church, the other to the well being, but not simply to make it to be: of the one there can be no want, of the other there may be visibly. To make this plain, take the similitude of a man and wife, used (as I have showed before) by the Holy Ghost often in the Scripture: the properties of a wife is, first, to hold only such a one for her husband, whom she hath chosen: secondly, to keep to the words of the covenant, by which she was and is tied to that husband. These two are essential properties, by which she is a wife, and and without which she is no wife: there be other properties also, as obedience, and care for her husbands well far, with other more; but if she fail in these, yet is she a wife, so long as in the other she remaineth constant. Now the privilege of the wife, is to have interest, and title in her husband, to assume (to speak as Mr. Smith doth speak in his divinical Dialect) his body for her use, and to have also interest & title into all that which he hath, All which though she hath right unto as a wife, and thereby hath a better being for a wife, more joyfully and comfortably to live; yet these things not being the wives properties, but such things as be of the benefit of the Covenant and should come from the husband, by him to be performed, and for the bettering of her estate, to be granted unto her; though she be deprived of all these in respect of use (for she cannot be deprived of the right unto the same, in respect of his promise) yet is she a wife: even so is the Church, whose properties are: The first property is, to hold out to profess the person covenanted The first essential property of a true Church. with; that is, the true God of Israel, even Christ jesus, who hath taken her unto himself, to be her King, her Priest, and her Prophet; this property our Church hath, as is proved by particulars before: & this is an absolute essential property, without which she is no Church, the change of the person disannuls on her part the Covenant utterly: which is when others are served and worshipped with the honour due unto him. Deut. 29. 25. 26. this is called a forsaking of the Lord, judg. 2. 13. jer. 16 11. and 2. 11. 13. 2 Chron. 24. verse 20. with 18. 1 Kings 18. 18. and 14. 9 and 9 9 Deut. 32. 15. 17. and 31. 16. 20. And also whoredom, the breach of spiritual wedlock. Osea. 4. 12. 13. 17. judg. 8. 32. Hence it may appear whether the Papists Church have not forsaken God, and whether they do lie in spiritual whoredom or no: by worshipping Angels they hold not Christ the Head. Col. 2. 19 by worshipping the true God in Images, or under visible forms of God, that is, by any representation to the eye, for God cannot be represented, it is to cast off God, and to make other Gods. 1. Kings. 14. 9 whose whoredom Osea doth set out, as if he had been sent unto them, chap. 4. 12. 13. 14. 17. And therefore these men cannot say that the Papists do profess the person of Christ to be their King, Priest, and Prophet, as we do, who have made an exchange as we see, and do make men Priests and sacrificers to God for them, and dead men, called their Saints, Intercessors; in all which as in other particulars more they renounce Christ: all which our Church doth condemn, and is altogether free from in doctrine and practice. The second Property is, to hold the words of the covenant, The second Property that is, to profess that the written word of God by his Prophets and Apostles, is only the words of her Lord's covenant, as the bond of his promises, and her faith, and also the only and sole rule of her obedience. In which Scriptures she only shall find Christ, joh. 5. 39 above which she may not presume, 1 Cor. 4. 6. neither adding too, nor taking from the same, as the first Prophet and writer, and the last Apostle and last writer, and one between, as it were in the midst, do give all warning of. Moses, Deu. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Solomon, Pro. 30. 6. and john, Reu. 22. 18. Now this is also a property essential to hold the true words of the covenant, which bindeth each party on either side, that have made a covenant. God is no way a God in Christ unto a people A prevention. to make them his Church visibly, neither doth covenant with them so to be, but as he doth give them his word, to beget them, and to witness to them the same. And therefore the word of God is called God's covenant, Leu. 2. 13. Deu. 29. 1. Exod. 6. 4. Leu. 25. 25. 42. jer. 11. 2. This can they not say that the Papists do; for they do hold an other word than God's word, to be the words of the Covenant; to wit, Traditions, the supposed unerring voice of the Church; when as the words of the Covenant are only God's words. God first offers himself unto us, he only maketh the writing of the Covenant, man doth not meddle with the inditing thereof, the Church is only to consent thereunto, as the truth of God, the ground of faith, and rule of obedience, and so receive it at him. The Papists therefore by their traditions and unwritten verities, as they call them, and by their imagined unerring Ecclesiastical constitution, imposed as truths of God, grounds of faith, and rules of spiritual obedience, do interline the Lords covenant, and add a new word thereunto, contrary to his will, and so do make the commandments, that is, the words of the covenant of none effect by their traditions, Mat. 15. 3. So do they go also a whoring after their own inventions, as the Psalmist saith; and in not keeping to the Lords Psal. 106. commandments, have turned away from him. Now our King. 9 6. Church holdeth to the covenant, for we do hold no words to be the words of the covenant, but the words of God, written in the holy Scriptures, by the Prophets and Apostles: for this see our book of Artilces, our book of Controversies against the Papists in this point, allowed by public authority. The third property is, to maintain the publication of this The third property. Covenant, by the reading of it in her Assemblies, and by the interpretation thereof, to which she doth attend: by this the Church is kept in visibility, and is set as it were on a hill; by this means wisdom crieth in the streets, and calleth her lovers and friends to come unto her: by this her Lords banners are displayed, and trumpets sounded to gather the Lords host together, to march all under his colours: by this is held out his Sceptre, that all may know under whose government they be. And this is a true and essential property of the Church visibly seen, by which it is set forth, joh. 10. 27. and wherein she doth continued. Acts. 2. 42. 1 Cor. 15. 1. Which property of so meeting together being lost, she * Note here then what an evil men of place commit, who neglect the public Assemblies by staying at home: and whether this be a sin in the Ministers, who then teach privately, it is to be considered of, especially in an orderly estate of an established church inhibiting the same. ceaseth to be a visible Church, and is but as a scattered flock, sheep wandering without a shepherd. Now this property hath our Church, which is gathered together in many Assemblies, where the words of the Covenant are read, and the same in many places interpreted unto them. We have no Papistical lying legend, or other human trash in an unknown tongue, for the Church cometh to the Law and to the Covenant, which is only written in the words of God, and not of man. And thus we do see the main and essential properties visible, by which it is a Church, and also visible and open to the eye of all: the want of the two first maketh it no church; the want of this third no visible Congregation. And where these be, there is a true visible Church. To use the Sacraments, to pray, and to have care one for and over another, are duties of the Church; but yet because the Church may be a true church Of the use of the Sacraments without the use of the Sacraments for some long time, as the Church of Israel was for many years, so it be not done of any careless neglect or contempt: and for that such as be either no church of God at all, or an Antichristian Assembly, may have and usurp the seals put to a blank, as Ishmael and Esau out of the Church had Circumcision, as Turks now have, and the Papists, Baptism: I have not set it down to be so essential to the being of the Church, and the visibility Of Prayer. thereof as the other. For Prayer I confess it also to be the property of the Church. Acts. 2. 42. and 4. 24. and 20. 36. by which Gods worship and his Church are Synecdochically set forth. Gen. 4. 26. Acts. 9 14. 1 Cor. 1. 2. And they be called the wicked which call not upon God. Psal. 14. yet because it is only the effect of the Covenant, the fruit of faith after the Covenant be made, and a holy means to sanctify our profession, and the use of holy things, but yet not primarily of the essential being of the Church; either to be at all, or to be visibly, but doth necessarily follow, as an inseparable grace, upon the very being of the Church; I have omitted that also. The third, which is, Of care for each other. care for and over one another, though it be essential for the well being, yet is it not simply for the being of a Church, neither doth it rise so primarily in such fullness from the covenant, as either the use of the Sacraments or prayer do: but only it follows by a consequence, and ariseth naturally from the Church considered as a body, a fellowship and society; which whither it be Ecclesiastical, or civil, is to care for the preservation of the several members, to keep up the whole. And further, because that the Church is a Church, though there be in it divisions, and members tearing 1. Cor. 3. 3. 2. Cor. 12. 20. in sunder one another, as it fell out in Corinth, I have passed it over more briefly, and set it in the last place. By all this which hath been said, we may well see, that What wants and corruptions may be in a Church, and yet the same be a true Church. the use of some of the Properties, may for a time want; as the use of the Sacraments, the care for one another, and the use of Discipline; so as corruptions may be, even in the administration of the Sacraments, and yet the Church be a true Church; and the reason is manifest, for if the Sacraments may be wanting, & yet a true Church, than the abuse of the Sacraments corruptly administered, cannot make the Church a false church, which is true without them. Again, there may be corruption in prayer, both in the matter which men ask, and in the manner of ask, so be, the two first properties remain sound, and yet the same people be a true Church: because the person giving the Covenant, and the Covenant itself is held, by which (as is showed) the Church is a true Church: as also because (as we have heard) that prayer is a gift indeed from God, but hath his being in us, and used by us, and we being imperfect, it also may so be. Lastly, there may be corruption in the translation of the word, and in the Church's interpretation of the word, and so false Doctrines arise, and be maintained; yet not being in the fundamental points of the Covenant before mentioned, the church may be a true church, though corrupted. For it is to be known, that the words of the covenant, that is, the holy scriptures have wholly their existence from God; as he did by his Spirit extraordinarily inspire the Prophets and Apostles, penmen of the same, 2 Pet. 1. 21. but the ordinary interpretation hath the being from us, which is either true or false, as God doth please ordinarily to inform men's judgements to see the true sense of the holy Ghost: and therefore the Church not denying the Covenant itself, but acknowledging it so, (as is aforesaid) rejecting all words or traditions, put in room thereof, the same church remaineth a true Church, though she misconceive the sense in some places of the same, and so collect some false doctrines from the same. Whence I also conclude, that though corruptions were in administration of the Sacraments, in translation of Scripture, in prayers, yea, & that care over one another be greatly neglected: all which are nevertheless great corruptions to be lamented, and aught carefully to be amended with all diligence for the Church's prosperity, yet in such a church for all these corruptions, may be a true Church: which may serve for answer to Mr. Smiths holding of accidental corruptions Page 90. obstinately defended, to make a false church; which appeareth by these things to be as false, as he is variably inconstant. Now touching the Privileges of the true visible church, The Church may want for a time her privileges. these be for instances some of them: first, to be called by these titles, Saints, faithful, Elect; secondly, it is given to them to suffer for Christ; thirdly, to be the Ark to keep the Books of the Covenant, the holy Scriptures, the Records of Heaven; fourthly, to set too the Seals unto the Lord's Covenant; fifthly, to use the Keys to open and to shut the Kingdom of heaven. These be the Privileges of the spouse of Christ, for her beautifying, for her glory, and honour among the sons of men; yet may she be without affliction a time, & be without use of Discipline in the church censures; yea others may have the book of God among them, & the seals, and for all this she may be a true Church: for, privileges the husband may hold back from his wife, denying them unto her in respect of the benefit of them, and bestow also some of them upon other persons, and set some over her in his displeasure to overrule, in what otherwise, if she did please him, she might have liberty in, and yet be his true wife, & he her husband; but her essential properties she cannot want, neither he take from her, and still to remain a wife. And so is it with the Church; Her essential properties do remain, which God never taketh from her, as sometime he doth for a time her privileges, Lam. 2. 6. 9 in his displeasure, as he took away the Temple, Altar, & sacrifices at jerusalem from his people, and yet they remained his Church, and were his people. To them it was a privilege to have extraordinary Teachers, Prophets, which the Lord took from them for a long time: and Lam. 2. 9 yet a true Church: for privileges are not of the essence and being of a Church, but for the honour and well being of it, whereof, for her sins she may be deprived for a time. And thus much for proof that we are a true Church, in matter, form, and properties, with answer unto what Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Smith hath said to the contrary. Reason. 10 The 10. and last Reason, that we have been and still are We be a true Church. a true Church, is, hat Assembly of people which was once truly constituted, and after never divorced by the Lord, was and yet remaineth a true Church. For till the Lord do divorce a people they be his Church still; neither can a Church divorce herself, she may do acts worthy of divorcement, and may provoke her Lord to divorce her, but it is at his choice to retain her still, as it is with a husband, who may retain an Adulterous woman still for his wife, as the Lord did judah; whilst the Candlesticker remaineth, and is not taken away, the Church remaineth. But the people of this Nation was once truly constituted as in the beginning I have proved) and was never yet divorced by the Lord, neither the Candlestick removed. Therefore it was, and still doth remain a true Church of God. Or thus, That people which hath recovered the essential causes of the true Church, it is a true Church. But so hath the Church of England. Ergo. I only propound these, which if they deny, considering what hath been said. And here I call on them again to show, what is truly spiritual divorcement, These are necessary points to be known, and yet not showed to us by the Separatists. and when it may appear, that the Lord giveth a bill of divorcement. Likewise, what is the removing of the Candlestick: all which I desire to know for my learning; let them show these things, and the prime and very essential causes of the Church, and they perhaps herein will effect my purpose, that is, give to themselves satisfaction, and so declare to others, that they have erred in judging so untruly of the Church of England. The ninth Error of the Brownists. THey say that all our Ministers are false Ministers. That this is an Error in them, I have in part showed in my former Book, Page 128. as I there understood it, to wit, of such as are sent of God, and are admitted and set over congregations according to the truth, and true meaning of our Laws, and the Book of Ordination: and so let my mind be taken, that I need no more to make mention of my meaning, though the words of my Reasons, be in general terms: and therefore thus I proceed to prove such Ministers to be lawful Ministers of Christ, and his Church. The first Argument. THE Ministers of the Church of England, are either The first Argument, to prove our Ministers true Ministers. Christ's, or Antichrists: For in the new Testament this distinction may comprehend all Ministers, as of and under one of these two; and those that be Christ's Ministers, are true Ministers; and those that be Antichrists, are the false Ministers: But the Ministers of the Church of England are not Antichrists Ministers. Reason. 1 First, because they be against him in doctrine, and by oath Our Ministers are not Antichristian. to the Supremacy have renounced him: and so do continued preaching against him. Their doctrine from Scripture is their calling of God to witness their departure from him: their oath the best outward trial of truth in man, and their Preaching an open publication to all men of their faith against Antichrist, what can be further required? now this is done by many, and may be witnessed by thousands. Reason. 2 Secondly, because they do show no obedience unto Antichrist. Obedience is a mark of a servant. Rom. 6. 16. john. 8. 34. 2 Pet. 2. 19 Now they be not in bondage unto Antichrist, whose tyrannous authority with his laws, as far as they be judged contrary to God's laws, are by our Church abolished. Reason 3 Thirdly, it is apparent they be none of his, because Antichrist himself disclaimeth them, not only as none of his, but as no Ministers at all, condemning them as Heretics, forbidding to hear us; and if he can get us into his Bearish paw, he is by fire and faggot ready to devour us, as lamentable experience of his cruelty doth manifest. If we were of him he would love us; for the world doth love her own. john. 15. 19 and the Devil is more politic then to be divided against himself, for than could not his kingdom endure. Reason. 4 Fourthly, because Antichrists Ministers are sacrificing and massing Priests, and are to that end ordained; but so are none of our Ministers. Here let not these Snatchers catch at the name Priest, which it pleaseth the Church to let remain in Ecclesiastical laws still, as being of ancient use, and coming of Presbyter, as some think, signifying an Elder; or of Proesti, whence the Latin praeest, signifying one set over: so a Priest by the Etymon of the word, is an Elder, set over other. In itself than it is a word of honour, by which also the elect of God are called, and by Christ thereunto advanced. Reu. 1. 6. The Papists understand it in the abuse, we take it not in their sense, our Church's meaning is well known both by Law and practice: it is therefore childish to contend about a word or name, when the matter is out of question; and yet these men do not more often use any name then this, to make people believe, that we are Popish Priests. and to bring us into contempt with the credulous vulgars', and such as be of their own stamp. Therefore I conclude, we being no Ministers of Antichrist, we then be the Ministers of Christ. The second Argument. Pastors and Teachers are Christ's true Ministers: for The second Argument, to prove our Ministers true Ministers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. these be reckoned up among the rest, as sent of Christ. Eph. 4. 11. But the Ministers of the Church of England are Pastors and teachers. A Pastor is a term taken from Shepherds: so than it is for Christ's Minister to play the good shepherd, as our Saviour calleth himself. john. 10. Now this is in keeping, feeding, and governing his flock, as Beza noteth upon Act. 20. 28. The word Teacher is one that is qualified with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. gifts and understanding or aught so to be, john. 3. 10. who instructeth them that lack discretion, and are unlearned. Rom. 2. 20. Now such have we, thus exercised in all these things: What proof should I make of this? Is not the thing known to all, so as herein needeth no more to be said, except all the persons should be named, and so inquiry be made after them, which if these men, credulous in every conceit to themselves, but incredulous of evident truths among us, will not believe, let them take pains to go every where and see, if they want not eyes to behold the same. And therefore are these true Ministers of Christ. The third Argument. THe Ministers called and sent of God, and of his Church, The third argument, to prove our Ministers true Ministers. are true Ministers; this is undeniable, and granted of all. But Ministers of the Church of England are called and sent of God, and of his Church. First, they are called and sent of God, which calling and Called and sent of God, & how. sending of God, is the preparing of men with gifts and graces, to be able to execute in some measure, the office whereunto he doth appoint them. Thus Esay shows his Commission from God, by the spirit of the Lord upon him, that is, the gifts and graces thereof. Esay 61. 1. Thus the Lord declareth his sending and calling of Bezaleel and Aholiab, by giving them gifts of his spirit for the performance of their charge. Exod. 31. 2. 3. So our Saviour did call his Apostles, and gave them a power, Mat. 10. 1. to accomplish that which he did charge them to do. verse. 5. 7. 8 In like manner before he sent them upon their universal Commission, he did speak of those things which concerned the kingdom of God. Acts. 1. 2. Luke. 24. 44. then he opened their understandings to understand the Scriptures: ver. 45. then he promiseth them power from above: verse 49. which was the power of the holy Ghost, Acts. 1. 8. for which they were to wait a time: Luke. 24. verse. 49. then he blessed them: verse. 50. He breathed on them, to receive the holy Ghost, john. 20. 22. which according to his promise came upon them visibly. Act. 2. 4. And thus were they furnished, and did proceed on to execute their great charge imposed upon them. Thus we see what is God's calling; I speak not here A prevention. of extraordinary, though the instance be from the Apostles, as if all should be so furnished now, and in that manner, but the purpose of my speech is, to show hereby that God doth sand none, but he qualifieth them with gifts, extraordinary persons with extraordinary gifts, by an extraordinary means, or without means; but ordinary men with ordinary gifts, by a common means, giving them natural gifts; by the holy scriptures, grace & by study, learning, but he sends none, but thus either the one way or other he doth qualify them for their vocation. Now it is manifest to all Christendom, that we have men worthily qualified with gifts both of Nature, Art and Grace, and such therefore sent of God. Which furnishing with gifts maketh a man fit matter for the ministery, and God's spirit moving him to desire to employ that way the same gift, is as it were the internal form of a Minister, or God's ordination by the imposition of the hand of his spirit upon that party for the ministery, to whom nothing wants but the visible calling of the Church: and thus we see the calling of God. Secondly, they be called and sent of Christ's Church, for Called and sent of his Church. that the Church of England who hath called them, is the church of Christ: this is at large before proved. And therefore Ministers of the Church of England are true Ministers. The fourth Argument. Minister's, that have what the Apostle requireth to the The fourth Argument, to prove our Ministers true Ministers. making of true Ministers, they be true Ministers. For the Apostle describeth a true Minister of the Gospel, and showeth what a one he aught to be, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. and else where in his Epistles. But Ministers of the Church of England have those things Many of our Ministers have those things which are required in a Minister of christ. First, Ability to teach. Secondly, a desire to employ their gifts for the Churches good: with Graces. that the Apostle requireth to the making of true Ministers. This I will manifest in particulars. First, he requireth ability to teach others, 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Tim 3. 2. ability to exhort: ability to convince gainsayers of sound truths. Tit. 1. 9 Now such have we, who by word and writing manifest this before God and man. Secondly, the Apostle requireth a desire in men furnished with gifts, to bestow their talents that way to the Churches good, 1 Tim. 3. 1. And also graces, holy virtues, to adorn their profession, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 6. 7. 8. & 2. 7. And such have we, men who have entered with desire to bestow the benefit of their gifts upon the Church, before any other calling, and many there be of unblamable conversation. For the truth of this I appeal to their own consciences, which will, if they be not cauterized, accuse them of great impiety, if they dare deny this. To nominate persons is full of inconveniences, I therefore omit them. If I should nominate the dead, who living were godly men, and members of our Church, famous for learning, and no less for piety, the Separatists would say, they prove not that we have now such. To which I answer, that God being the same, the Church no worse the means all one, why may they think the same graces to be now denied, which before were bestowed? Thirdly, the Apostle, and other penmen of the holy Thirdly, Presentation, Probation, Election, ordination. Ghost, do show that there is required in the present entrance into the ministery, these things: Presentation, Act. 1. 23. and 6. 6. Election, or choice out of those that be presented, Act. 1. 24. and 6. 3. 5. and 14. 23. Probation, or trial of the parties gifts and graces, 1 Tim. 3. 10. And ordination, Titus 1. 5. Act. 14. 23. with imposition of hands, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 6. and Prayer, Act. 13. 3. And this order is observed of us. None come to the ministery but they be presented, and chosen; yea, by the book of ordination are to be carefully examined, and are ordained with imposition of hands. Thus we see in the substance, there is nothing in any point wanting, in making of Ministers by our laws, which the word of God doth require. The exceptions they take are about circumstances only, and in some manner of doing, which do not make an nullity, or a falsity of the deed done. Though some patrons do present partially, some Ministers enter by Simony, and others deal corruptly, they have therein no defence or colour by Law, which utterly condemneth (well agreeing to God's word) all by-respects in presenting, and all juggling tricks every way. Objection. Object. But they will say, the people aught to choose their Ministers, Act. 1. and 6. and 14. 23. Answer. Ans. These places indeed testify that such examples of practice thereof were then, but there is no precept for the perpetuity of it. Again such elections of the people were ever when the Apostles were among them, and not else, as the very places show. Furthermore, the people were very judicious, and were able to make a choice than it seemeth, whereas it is now far otherwise with many. Lastly, in all these places we do see indeed an Election among the people, but the people did not assume it as a right of themselves, but upon the Apostles exhortation, and a grant unto them, for the time the people made the choice. Read, and see whether these things be not so. Indeed I confess a double evil to be in the choosing, when either an ignorant bad people be left to do, without wise guides, what they list; or a Muck-wormly Patron is suffered for hope of greedy gain to tyrannize over God's people, to set over them at his wicked pleasure either an ignorant fellow, or a lewd wretch, when many of the people being of good understanding do desire better. Touching Bishops and Archbishops, I say, first, with Beza: Against D. Sarania. Page 111. Page 120. If the reformed Churches of England do continued underpropped with the authority of Bishops and Archbishops, let her truly enjoy this blessing of God, as they do imitate the examples of the old holy Bishops, and if they endeavour as much as they can, to reform the house of God, according to the rule of God's word, we may obey them, and honour them with all reverence. Caluin to Sadol. Secondly, I say with Caluin, if there shall be brought unto us an Hierarchy, wherein the Bishops shall so rule, as that they refuse not to submit themselves to Christ, that they so depend upon him, as their only head, and that they be knit together by no other rule then by the truth. Than surely, if there shall be any that shall not submit themselves to the Hierarchy reverently, and with the greatest obedience that may be: I confess them worthy of severe punishment. Many learned men have stood for their callings, as justifiable, but with Caveats touching corruptions, for which, condemnation lighteth upon the person, and not upon the place. Fourthly and lastly, the Apostle requireth of Ministers, Fourthly, diligence in Preaching. etc. as also Christ commandeth, Mat. 28. 18. that they feed the flock, Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. that they preach diligently, etc. 2. Tim. 4. 2. And many such have we in many places, blessed be God, and blessed be the means, and upholders of the same. And thus things being true, I conclude, that therefore these Ministers of the Church of England, be true Ministers. The fift Argument. IF sound Doctrine be the trial of true Ministers, then have The fift Argument to prove our Ministers true Ministers. we true Ministers: who do preach the truths of God, the judicious Hearers of many can witness the same, and the extant labours of many published after the preaching of the same, may confirm this. Objection. Object. If it be said, they preach not all the truths of God, and they preach sometime error also. Answer. Answ. I answer: first, let such Objectours instance particulars if they can, wherein they omit any truth, and wherein they teach an Error, and thereafter shall they receive answer. Secondly, all truths to all are not revealed at once, it is enough that they do publish the truth to them known, as it shall be held fit; for not all truths known neither, are to be published at once: Our Saviour taught what his Disciples could bear, john 16. 12. and not every thing at once; and Saint Paul gave first milk, and after strong meat. 1. Cor. 3. And for particular erring in some things, who is so perfect, as not to say he doth err in something? for if a minister could not be a true Minister for doctrine, because he erreth in something, than Mr. Smith, Mr. Ainsworth, and all the rest of that way are no true Ministers; for we do condemn them for false doctrine, and one of them doth condemn another reciprocally, and if therefore they will believe either us or themselves, if this should be true, they be no true Ministers; therefore though there be some errors of the lest sort, which either strike not at the very root of Religion, or the main branches of it, at the foundation or main pillars of the same: they are nevertheless true Ministers. But sound Doctrine is the trial of a true Minister. 1. Tim. 4. 6. jer. 23. 22: in which jeremy doth show what Prophets God sent not, such as stood not in his counsels, nor declared his words: and therefore on the contrary, such as do stand in his counsel, and declare his words, are sent of God. Therefore have we true Ministers of Christ. The sixth Argument. THey that have Gods ordinary and daily assistance in their The sixth Argument to prove us true Ministers. Mr. johnsons words in his Book against the hearing of our Ministers. Page 2. 1. King. 22. 21. ministery, are his Ministers; and so to be approved as true Ministers, being called by the Church: for God works by and in his own ministery, and doth not assist false ministers ordinarily, and daily, if he do extraordinarily at all. For the spirit of Satan is in the mouths of false Prophets; and he hath promised only to be with such as he sendeth, unto the end of the world. Mat. 28. 20. Now therefore with whom he is, they must needs be judged to be sent of him, and approved by him. But Ministers of the Church of England, have an ordinary and daily assistance of God in their ministery. God's assistance appeareth in his effectual working men's conversion by them: for conversion is by the word 1 Cor. 4. 15. Ro. 1. 16. through the Spirit, and not by word delivered without 1 Cor. 3. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 3. 5. the Spirit, and it is not in man to move the heart to grace; God doth take the power of conversion to himself, Deu. 30. 6. Acts 16. 14. the means is the word. jam. 1. 18. Examples hereof we have through out the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore if men be here converted, God doth aid the Ministers, and is with them, by the power of his spirit in that work. 2. Cor. 3. 3. by which the Apostle proveth, to have the power of the spirit in his ministery, by the conversion of his hearers. Objection. Object. But it may be (some will say) none are converted: as Mr. Ainsworth doth, page 180. Answer. Ans. I shall fully, by God's grace, answer this, when I come to refute him therein: in the mean space let it be but granted, that I may proceed to the next part of this minor to be proved, to wit, that this assistance is also ordinary and daily. Ordinary, for that the means are ordinary; the persons or instruments by whom God works, are ordinary also, and it is done in an ordinary place, in a Church reform, and in an ordinary time, and therefore cannot be held extraordinary any way. That it is daily, the evidence hereof is in particular men leaving their natural course to return unto God, of which, instances may be given from time to time. Therefore the Ministers of the Church of England are God's Ministers, & so true Ministers. Objection. Object. But by this some may gather (but untruly) that therefore such as reclaim men from evil ways, are only true Ministers. Answer. Ans. I answer such a Caviller, that the scope is to prove that God is with these; not that therefore he is wholly from other: again this is but one reason, but there be more beside, which are sufficient to prove a lawful ministery: and lastly, Ezechiel the Lord's Prophet shall go to the people from God, and God be with him in the truth, though not in the people's hearts to win them by that truth: he may save his soul, though he cannot save others, Ezech. 2. 3. 4. and 33. 9 So the example of Noah and Lot, do show the same. Now by this sixth Argument it may appear, how corrupt a Book that of Mr. johnsons is, the Title whereof is; Certain Reasons and Arguments proving (but very weakly) Published Anno 1608. that it is not lawful to hear, or have any communion with the present ministery of the Church of England. For with whom God keeps communion, whom he doth stand by, aid, and countenance, their communion is to be kept of man; those persons men may hear and join unto, help and countenance: but, as we hear, the Lord so doth to Ministers of the Church of England, & that is visibly manifested by the effects of his Spirit, who works by them. And therefore communion may be kept with them, contrary to his Assertion in that Book; the reasons there given might be easily made for us, and so nothing against us but in show, if it be considered what, first, be the substantial What to be observed cauteloussy by the Reader, in reading M. johnsons Book. parts of the ministery; the true word, the true Sacraments, true prayer, kept substantially sound: secondly, that the administration be only that word, those only Sacraments, and that prayer be made to God only, in the only Name of Christ, according to the pattern of true prayer, in the measure of grace, & truth that God shall give: thirdly, that the persons whom they disclaim under the names of Prelates, Priests and Deacons, be considered as not opposite to the names of Pastors, Teachers, Elders and Deacons, mentioned in the Scriptures, Prelates as in disdain they term them, being ruling Elders for Government, Pastors and Teachers, for their instructing of the people: Also many of the Priests (as they scornfully name them) being Pastors and Teachers also; the Deacons being many of them agreeable to the Apostles description, 1. Tim. 3. 9 fourthly; that the things they find fault with, be but of circumstances not of substance, of the manner of doing and not of the thing to be done, the reasons (I say) may in many of them be good for us; & the Book of no force to withdraw any from us. And let the Reader consider but this, how idle he is in the very beginning page 3. 4. 5. in which he stands to prove that we are no Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists; as if we held any such thing: here he flourisheth with his quotations, and doth triumph in a battle with himself: but by such a course, in which he goeth about to prove us to have no true ministery, he may as well so make no Church of God in the world to have a true ministery; then what is become of Mr. johnson? he should be found also, an non est inventus, in the Records of Christ's true ministery Again note, in his endeavour to prove us no Apostles, Prophets, nor Evangelists; he setteth himself to the task roundly, but when he cometh to that which is more material, to speak of Pastors and Teachers, then as a Fox he makes a train, and prefaceth his Reader to delude him, Page 6. and saith before he speak of this, for further clearing, and better discerning of our state, he must make observations. Who seethe not here his deceit, and how that it is not easy to discern such a difference of our Ministry from that he pretends to find out in the Scripture, disagreeing from it? The other callings are plainly different, if these had been so, why doth he fetch about so before he do come to the matter, his preface being nothing to the matter, but to prejudicate his Reader. But that I intent not, and I hope I need not, others I trust, are willing to undertake the same, his labour might be manifest to be but a flourishing show. But thus much occasionally I note by the way, having already two adversaries, enough and too many to deal with at once, being also otherwise charged with more necessary duties for the good of God's people. The seventh Argument. The seventh Argument, to prove our Ministers true Ministers. THey that have the true Properties of true Shepherds, are Christ's true Ministers. I need not prove this. We have true properties of true shepherds. 1. Propertie. john. 10. But Ministers of the Church of England have the true properties of true Shepherds. john. 10. First, these go in by the door. verse. 2. that is, by jesus Christ: verse 7. by his call and the Churches, which I have proved at large. Secondly, the Porter openeth unto them. ver. 3. By the Porter 2. Propertie. (saith * Page 101. M. Smith, but very ridiculously) is meant the whole Church: which is against himself, and against common reason; so hath his new ways intoxicated his brains: for he saith but two lines before, that the door is in the Church, and now the Porter is the Church: the first is an unproper speaking, for the door to let into the house, is not in the house, but at the side of the house, and a Porter at the door of the house, in no reason can be the whole house. Men loose very reason by God's just judgement, when they be madded by their own fantasies in religion. The Porter therefore invisibly letting men into the Church by Christ the door, is God's spirit, who doth qualify true Ministers with gifts and graces, and is forcible by them to win people, and visibly the Porter is the authority committed by the Church unto some for admitting men into the house, the church of God: And this is a sensible exposition according to custom with us now, & then in judea; from which the speech is borrowed. Thirdly, they call their own sheep by name; verse 3. that 3. Propertie. is, they take notice of their people, of their growth in religion, and do abide with them, diligently watching over their flocks; as by law and faithful promise made in the open Congregation they be bound in their ordination. Fourthly, they lead them forth, verse 3. that is, from Pasture 4. Propertie. to pasture, from milk, the grounds of Religion, to strong meat: catechizing and otherwise interpreting the holy Scriptures unto them. Objection: Object. But some people are bad saith Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith's objection to the third Reason. Answer. Answ. What then? doth not the Minister therefore his office? The Rider leadeth his Horse to water, though he drink not when he is at it. Ezechiel leadeth out the people, though the wicked who follow not, do perish. His weak answering herein, and M. Ainsworths' passing over this tenth of john, showeth that it is so strong a hold for us, that they cannot overthrow it. Objection. Object. But M. Smith further denieth this, because we speak (saith he) against Brownisme, etc. as if that were truth, and so we should not lead them forth in the truth. Answer. Answ. But how little affinity Brownisme hath with the truth, hath been, and is manifest, even by Mr. Smiths own mouth, in his new Anabaptisme condemning the same. Fiftly, they go before their flocks; verse 4. that is, in godly 5 Property. conversation: M. Smith denieth this, because saith he, godliness is not in a false Church, Ministry, etc. This objection we see is but his fantasy, so to think of our Church, ministery, etc. Therefore are these Ministers of the Church of England, true Ministers. It is then wickedness to them, to apply this Scripture, john 10. against us, and thereby call us thieves and robbers, and it is impudent bold hardiness in M. Smith, to say hereupon, that he dare (mark Reader his words) in the true fear of the Lord, call the best of us all a Page. 101. spiritual Thief and a Robber; yea, a Wolf that cometh to rob and to destroy. The man is at liberty to rail, and to speak evil, but the Lord doth rebuke him. Reply unto Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to this ninth Error. NOw I come to M. Ainsworths' Answer to my former Book, in which, as now more at large in this, I speak of the gifts, calling, etc. of our Ministers so qualified. Objection. Object. To this he maketh this answer, that it is a boasting Page 186. as Papists and Anabaptists will do, etc. Answer. Ans. I answer his imputation of boasting is but a fruit of his own vanity, who in their way of singularity by an overweening of themselves, do measure unto us, what abundantly flows from themselves. The Papists (saith he) do object such things, but do they, or can they so truly object them to us, as we by the warrant of the word, can object them to these men? if not, his casting the Papists boasting upon us, is idle: he doth dislike the Anabaptists boasting; out of that let them lively see their own Picture, bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, as natural children, lively sprung from their immediate Parents. For the grounds of the Brownists, Schismatically Separating from us, are the Anabaptists foundation, on which they built their heretical brotherhood. But I come to the particulars, which in my other book he doth except against. Objection. Object. First, he denieth that qualification with good gifts is Page 186. a proof of a lawful Minister. Answer. Answ. To which I answer that by dismembering what I have conjoined, he doth but deceive the Reader: for this M. Ainswroth doth sever deceitfully what I conjoin together. reason with the rest together, reckoned up in my former Book, and whereof I have now in this also before largely spoken, do show and prove who is a true Minister. He useth in the beginning this deceit with his Reader, as I have noted in my reply to his answer unto my Probabilities. I never dreamt that one qualified with gifts for the Ministry was a Minister, but that qualification making him fit matter, and declaring his calling by God, if the Churches calling be added thereunto, and his office performed faithfully, then is he a true Minister of Christ Let this his setting a sunder of the particular branches of my whole reason be noted, that he lead thee not from that truth, which I avouch. Objection. Object. Secondly, he excepteth against our Ministers Page 187. calling, and his ground is, because (saith he) our Church is not a true Church. Answer. An. But we see this his condemning of our Church to be altogether from his imagination, and now also proved to be flat against the evident truth: his sandy ground hath made his building weak. Touching his other questions, I refer him for resolution, to the practice of our Church, the Laws, and Constitutions thereof, as also to the statutes and ordinances of our nation, by which he may be instructed and receive satisfaction to his scoffing demands, and for further information he may read the books of divers who have written at large of the same. Thirdly, whereas I have avouched in my former Book, that there be many Ministers, Preachers in & of the Church of England, who do preach the true doctrine of Christ, administer only his Sacraments, perform their office faithfully, live conscionably, and have Gods gracious assistance in their ministery to the benefit of many, etc. Objection. Object. He saith, these be fair words, etc. as but barely affirmed without proof. Answer. Ans. Surely, I must confess, that I had not though any of them so far void of shame to deny this truth. Is it possible that such as pretend such a care to maintain truth, should so hoodwincke themselves, as they dare so impudently deny this truth, evidently shining among us, the beams whereof spread forth unto all the reformed Churches in Christendom? But how would he disprove my speech? forsooth, for that there be some careless of teaching among us, and of lose life, (whose amendment or removal I hearty wish,) and for that some be dumb and cannot preach; a thing greatly to be lamented. But how doth this overthrow what I say of many others, where did he learn to conclude thus, where some are bad, all are naught; where some cannot preach, there none can preach? and yet this is his manner of reasoning, if he did frame his superfluity of words into a more reasoning, as the understanding Reader may well see. He shows a gibing and mocking spirit, in speaking of our ordinary prayers, wherein he takes pleasure, it seemeth, to have us in derision, but as he doth it profanely, so also he writeth of us lyingly: for mentioning only such things, as be appointed in common & daily prayer, as occasions fall out, he saith, that this is enough for Priests (so he in contempt doth term us) to do in the Country Parishes: and yet he omitteth to reckon the reading of the holy Scriptures, which is appointed by the same Book: likewise he may see that every Minister upon pain of suspension, is to catechize his people every Lord's day, and every one that can, is to preach also every Lord's day, by our late Ecclesiastical constitutions, and therefore it is untrue which he saith, that the bore reading of ordinary prayers is enough. They profess a love unto the truth, & yet dare against truth bely the church of God, & their mother. Objection. Object. Fourthly, he saith, that my speaking of Ministers Page 189. converting souls, is but a vain boasting. His reasons be: First, because of our (as he saith) disordered and idolatrous estate, etc. Answer. Ans. I answer, first, this is more than he hath proved, he barely saith it, but giveth no reason, as was meet in so grievous an accusation of a whole Church. Is it true that we be Idolatrous, because M. Ainsworth saith so? when his words are a divine and an unerring Oracle, he may be believed: till then, his words are herein, but as wind. Secondly, I answer, that therefore by his reason, it is more likely that our Ministers here should convert some, because many are bad, for if all were good, there were no matter to work upon. If he mean that all are Idolatrous, and disorderly, all lamentably ignorant and profane, he is as impious in himself for so thinking, as ill conceited of us. Objection. Object. Secondly, he would prove our converting of some to be but a vain boasting, because such as be converted are (as he saith) Infidels before, and yet are members of our Church, which how it can stand with the rules of God's word, hath (as he confesseth) never yet been showed. Answer. An. Well therefore, I will show: first, that here is conversion in the Church, and secondly, that yet such so converted, were not before that conversion Infidels. The first I thus prove: If men in our Church formerly There is true conversion in our Church. profane and irreligious in many things, have visibly forsaking that lewd course, by no compulsory law of man, but by an inward fear of God wrought by God's word preached, Many of the latter sort departed from us. as themselves have confessed, then have such men been converted, and so a true conversion wrought in our Church by the ministery of the word. The latter will not be denied, if the former be proved: for what is a man's visible conversion, but an outward confession of sorrow for sin, a leaving of the same, and an endeavour to do well voluntarily, after the good pleasure of God, manifested unto him? Prou. 28. 13. Mat. 3. 6. Luke 15. 18. 21 24. But such a conversion hath been, and is daily wrought in our Church, and the instances are infinite. For proof of this, I refer him unto many thousands now with us, who will avouch thus much, and I also appeal to the hearts and consciences of such of themselves as are departed from us. Did they not here leave off to do wickedly, as nature first led them? did they not rejoice in the word, which before they carelessly neglected? did they not suffer mocks of others, once like themselves, for not still running to the same excess of riot, as in times before? And did they not Ezech. 18. 30. out of compassion to others, seek as they were commanded, the soul's safety of others? and all this by the word, and voluntary subjecting of themselves unto the same; God, Angels, and their own consciences do witness this to be true, if they dare deny it. But I hope better of some, who I trust (at the length) will see our Church to be a true Church, and return, as some have done to their mother again, or at the lest will reform their opinions, unto the godly judgements of the reformed Churches, as they hold of us, and lovingly consent with us, that God may show them mercy in this their great schism, and gricuous rending of God's Church, to the hindrance of the Gospel, and the great advantage of the enemies thereof. Men converted in our Church, were not before Infidels. The second point, viz. that such so converted are no Infidels before, I manifest, first, by distinction, for there is a double conversion, the first is primarily the profession of Christ, and before this are men Infidels, and not of the Church of Christ visibly; so were the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and the rest converted from Gentilism to Christianity: the other is secondarily to sanctification of life, and this is of members in the Church, who are not borne in personal holiness, but are brought to a godly conversation by the word in their appointed time. And thus is the word to convert or return used in Scripture, and understood of such, as be members of the true Church, though lewd and very wicked before their change of life. Esai. 6. 10. and 10. 21. jere 31. 18. 19 Luk. 22. 32. and therefore this conversion doth not presuppose infidelity, as the not profession of Christ doth. Secondly, If where conversion is, there must needs be also before infidelity, then when men do shall to Idolatry from God, and be brought back again, that is, be converted; then must there be a rebaptisation; for Infidels are to be baptized. This man, Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. johnson also, doth acknowledge a conversion now from Antichristianisme, are therefore all such before Infidels? then hath not M. Smith done ill to be again baptized: for whosoever in the scripture are called Infidels, are wholly without the Church, and must by baptism be admitted into the Church: he useth to quote Scripture often, if he use but a word, or do but allude unto a place of Scripture, why doth he not here quote Scripture to prove the use of the term Infidel? let him (if he be able) show that any by the Scriptures are called Infidels, who profess the Name of Christ, though very lewd in life and conversation: if he cannot, as I am sure he cannot, why doth he herein leave the Scripture, and take upon him beside and against Scripture, so to conclude as here he doth? Two Scriptures I quoted in my former Book Rom. 10. Page 129. Rom. 10. 14. 1. Cor. 9 2. 14. 15. and 1. Cor. 9 2. jointly with the other reasons, to prove that these are true Ministers, which find the blessing of God upon their ministery. The first place in the Romans he passeth over, as belike, not knowing well how to answer it, for that the holy Ghost there evidently telleth us, that such Preachers which so preach, as people thereby do hear, believe and call upon God, are sent of God, and to be received with gladness, whose feet are beautiful and do bring glad tidings of peace and good things. But he falleth upon the second Scripture taking or leaving as he best advantageth himself. But what is his answer? Objection. Object. First (saith he) Apostles were sent to convert Heathen, and for this he quoteth Scripture, to prove that which no man maketh doubt of. But Pastors are set (saith he) for to feed converted Christians: for this also he hath his Scriptures which we do not gainsay. Answer. Answ. But the Scriptures say not that Pastors are to feed only converted Christians, for who then shall feed such little ones as are borne in the Church, and reclaim such as fall to wickedness in the Church to convert them to sanctification? Objection: Object. Secondly, saith he, The work and seal of Paul's Apostleship was seen in Corinth, by separating the believers from infidels, and gathering the saints only into the communion of the Church under the officers given by Christ. Answer. Ans. Mark here this man's answer, who first speaketh not a word of the Apostles doctrine, as if separation and the rest had been or could be before the power of his ministry in converting them; belike separation maketh men believers. He is wondrously in love with this point of separation, and would make his scholars believe that it can do strangely, make of Infidels believers without preaching the word before, else why omitteth he to speak of the Apostles preaching? for by this God wrought upon the people to make them his, before a separation was made, or before they were called Saints and in Communion under Christ's officers. Separation and gathering of the Saints is not conversion itself, but the fruit of conversion, and signs of men converted, the one arising from hate of wicked men, and the other from love to the godly, which are ever more or less in men converted. If the Apostles work and seal of his ministery was not before officers were set over the people, what, and whose work was it to make Disciples? as Christ commanded, Mat. 28. 18. and as they be called Act. 14. 20. 22. before they had Elders set over them, verse. 23. Mr. Ainsworth after this doth but repeat what I have alleged and made answer before unto, and given reasons thereof, page 129. to which he could not answer, yet would he make the same objection again. Belike he thought men would read his answer without comparing it with my book, indeed if so men do, it were easy to carry away a cause, and much labour should be spent in vain, nothing said, and much said, yet never the near to give any man satisfation. He quoteth 2. Cor. 6. 14. etc., to prove that the work and seal of Paul's Apostleship was separation 2. Cor. 6. 14. of believers from Infidels; If the man were in his right mind and that the conceited excellency of his separation had not bewitched him, he would never so absurdly have alleged the place to prove this point. First, the place neither mentioneth the Seal of his ministery, as in 1 Cor. 9 2. neither doth expound his meaning as doth 1 Cor. 4. 15. and 2 Cor. 3. 2. 3. 6. Secondly, the place shows not their separation, but is an Exhortation from the fellowship of Infidels, whereby is manifest rather, their not whole separation from Idolaters, as the place itself, the judgement of Divines thereon, and the exhortation in it own nature doth plainly evince: the Apostle saith, be not unequally yoked with Infidels, Ergo saith Mr. Ainsworth they had made a Separation. A ridiculous consequent; by as good a reason we may conclude that all god's people are come out of Babylon, because john (Reu. 18. 4) bade them to leave Babylon; and that men are such as they should be, for that they are forbidden to be what they are: such Doctrines would make a speedy reformation, that we need not such Schismatical departures, neither have we by his Doctrine any wicked among us, for we have exhorted, and do still dehort men from their profaneness of life and conversation, and then why maketh he with his a separation? Therefore sithen by his consequence from hence we be separated, as he would conclude of me, so say I that Mr. Ainsworth is a false Doctor (as his works show) if he be any at all. He skips over an Objection and an Answer, made concerning our Ordination by Bishops, Page 142. and also the place of john 10. Page 143. he passeth by, and cometh with a sleight answer unto that which I lay to their charge in making their Ministers by merely lay men, and such as are no Ministers at all: my reasons against that practice is laid down in my former Book, page. 144. 145. he answers nothing particularly to the several reasons and Scriptures as he aught, and as he would, if he could have opposed the truth with any show of truth, but the stream runneth too clear from the world's beginning for him to throw in dirt and not be seen; or to turn the force of such a current, and he not be drowned with resistance, yet will he blunder the water with his feet, and withstand the stream as well as he may, and therefore he saith, that because I say that we have the calling of our Objection. first Ministers from out of the Church of the Papists, as that learned and renowned Mornai, doth in his Book of the Church confess also; therefore I teach a plain Apostasy from the Gospel unto Popery. Answer. But the Argument follows not; for true Church is amongst them, Reu. 18. 4. I then demand, may not Gods truths and his ordinance received among the wicked, be carried forth from among them, and the same be acknowledged to be thence received, but we must needs thereby teach to go back again unto them? The Babylonians took away the vessels of the Lord, and afterward the jews received them again, at the hands of such as were wicked and Idolatrous, might they not receive them, but must needs teach that therefore men must leave jerusalem, and turn back into Babylon? Doth not Mr. Ainsworth, know, that it is one thing to receive once a good thing with corruptions ignorantly, and another thing having received that good and cast off the corruptions, to return again, to receive the good with corruptions, when there is no cause? Again, I demand whether the Apostasy of Antichrist overshadowing the Church of God, doth make a flat nullity of all God's truths, and his ordinances, so as they be no truths nor ordinances of God, because the same pass by them, and for that we receive them from them? If he say no, then why doth he dissallow our ordination absolutely? If he say yea, then are we not baptized neither they themselves, and so are no visible Christians received into the visible Church by Baptism, for we received our Baptism from them by succession? If our Baptism must needs be held true, then why not ordination? What disannulleth one ordinance of God more than an other? and if the holding of our receiving the Ministers calling from them, make them a true Church, what lets but the same may be concluded likewise from Baptism? and that more strongly, sithen Baptism being a visible badge of the visible Church of Christ, and the knitting of the members together, which are by the word won to the profession of the faith? To the retorted Argument of the Papists against us, which he doth bring, if what I have said do not content him, let him sand to the first framer of the argument, who is able Doct Sutcliffe. enough to wind him out of this his supposed labyrinth. For my part when I pled with a Papist, as I now do with a Brownist, he shall see me answer as I may, or if he had framed the Papists Reason from him, either to maintain themselves against us, or to overthrow us in what we do stand in against them, he should have had a present Answer. To conclude this, Mr. Ainsworth hath not yet overthrown my Reasons made against their course in making of Ministers, but that they do stand as no Ministers, being made so as no Scripture doth give warrant, nor any practice of the like recorded in the word of God, from the world's beginning. All he hath said against us to defend himself, and his fellows, is but his imagination of some supposed absurdities that may follow thereupon; but if any absurdity should follow, yet the Argument is not dissolved, Touching Mr. Gyffords complaint of such evils as are amongst us; I answer, that albeit he hath justly so lamented, yet his testimony will not prove what this Answerer doth bring it for; to wit, that we do vainly boast of conversion, but indeed have no effect of our Minsterie, let any mark, but why he bringeth in that record, and frameth it in an Argument, than the vanity of this his allegation will there in appear. Reply to Mr. Smith's Arguments against our Ministers. MAster Smith, as M. Ainsworth hath done, opposeth Page 92. this truth, which I hold concerning the lawfulness of our Ministers: and would prove us all false Ministers, his Arguments are these: The first Argument. THe true ministery cannot be raised out of a false church. The Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England are false Churches: Therefore the Ministers are false Ministers. Answer. I answer, that it is no syllogism; for neither part of the question is in the Mayor, but a changed term; for there is great difference between the word ministery and Ministers: he pretends Art, and shows nothing less: but this is his Logic for poor silly Layicks, and good enough for them that would overthrow Universities. Again, I deny the Mayor; for first, why may not as well true Ministers arise out of a false Church, as a false ministery, Worship, and Government arise out of a true Church, as himself avoucheth? Page 14. Secondly, we see by experience, that Luther, and other worthy Ministers of Christ have been raised up out of the Romish Church. Thirdly, again I demand, why true Ministers may not arise out of such a Church, as well as true Baptism, or as God's people being in it, and yet come out from it? If so much of Christianity doth remain in the Antichristian Church, as maketh the people still God's people in the constitution of it at the first, which at length cometh Reu. 18. forth, than what letteth but so much of the true Ministry may remain, as may also make such as at length departed out of her, true Ministers? especially, if it be true which Mr. Smith saith, that what particulars I have alleged, Page 99 for to approve ourselves, the same are also in the popish Ministers? But he confirmeth his Mayor by that which before be delivered touching Christ's ministerial power given to the Congregation, and by that which he hath said against succession. Which proofs are before overthrown, and so his Mayor lieth in the dust: and if his reasons were not refelled; yet are they very ridiculously alleged to prove his Mayor, except he can frame them better to it, than I see how: for thus his Mayor dependeth upon his reasons the calling of Ministers is not by succession, but from the body of the Congregation: Ergo, the true ministery cannot be raised out of a false Church. Here again, is Tinterton Steeple the cause of Goodwin sands. The Minor I deny also, for the Church of England is a true Church, as I have before proved at large, and answered his reasons, on which in his assumption here, he only did rely, without any further proof. But his ill shapen Argument doth well serve to be turned upon himself thus. The true ministery cannot be raised out of a false Church. But M. Smiths anabaptistical Assembly is a false Church: Therefore neither M. Smith, nor any else of that Assembly, is a true Minister. The Mayor he holds true: the Minor may be confirmed, because (as he saith) a false Baptism See his Book against M. Clifton. maketh a false Church, or such are no Church which are not baptized: but he, and those which were baptized by him, are either falsely baptized, or not baptized at all. For first, they hold our Baptism as no baptism; and so in that respect are not baptized. Secondly, he saith, that true Baptism is when one baptized doth baptize another into the In his answer to me, Page 91. line. 28. faith of Christ, capable of Baptism. Now he did baptize, and was not baptized before, as he acknowledgeth, and he did baptize others not capable of his Baptism, having received before a true Baptism, in matter the water, in form the words of the institution pronounced: now let him prove if he can, by the new Testament, that any so baptized as we be, or by the approbation of any Orthodoxal Church, that such are to receive Baptism again: if he cannot, then were they not capable of Baptism and so by his own words are they not baptized. Thirdly, that baptizing which the word doth not warrant, is a false baptizing; for thus they do reason in other things: for the word warranting an action, maketh it truly divine in God's worship. But first, M. Smith did baptize himself contrary to the scripture (which commandeth one to baptize an other. Mat. 28. 18.) and contrary to all examples in Scripture, even in Christ, Mat. 3. 3. neither can the like act be showed to be done by any since Christ was borne: sithen then his act being in the intendment of him divine, and the truth thereof depending upon the Scripture, it being against the Scripture, without warrant of Christ, of his Apostles, or of any Christian Church, it must needs then be a false baptizing, with which all the rest are polluted, as being the beginning of their anabaptistical constitution, and by which all the other entered into baptism. Fourthly, their baptism is false, because it wanteth the true form; for they held not the Witness ja. Wh. and other more. words of Christ's Commanding so to baptize, viz. in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost: now the form Mat. 28. being false, it cannot be true. And therefore we may well see, that they be not a true Church: for he saith, that a true Constitution and true Baptism are one▪ and so on the contrary In his book against M. Clifton. it must follow, that a false baptism makes a false constitution. The second Argument. THe true ministery hath a true office, in execution whereof M. Smiths second argument against our Ministers. it is exercised, Rom. 12. 7. 1 Cor. 12. 5. 28. Eph. 4. 11. The ministery of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England have not a true office, in execution whereof it is exercised. Therefore the Ministry of the Ecclesiastical assembly of England, is not the true ministery. Answer. To let pass here how he changeth the terms of the question, putting ministery for Ministers: but I omit this & other childish points not to be stood upon, leaving them to acute scholars to see into and judge of. The Mayor understood of Gods ordaining the ministery, & wherein it should be exercised, is true, but understood as it is exercised by men, who are subject to err, the Proposition is not ever true; for Ministers having a true office may yet not be ever exercised in the execution of the same through corruption, and yet for want of right execution it cannot be said to be therefore no true office. Nadab and Abihu had true office, yet offered up strange fire, and for it was punished, nevertheless their office remained still true. Again this proposition is absurdly delivered; for it is not a proper speaking, to say the ministery hath a true office; but the Minister, or Ministers have a true office. He speaketh so, as if the ministery & office of Ministers were differing things, when they be all one. But as he taketh authority to himself to change the administration of Baptism, so may he change right reasoning, and true speaking, for they hold that their spirits are not to be tied. His Scriptures and Proposition want some agreement, neither doth he truly define in his words a true ministery from these places; but rather thus: The true ministery of Christ is an office, Rom. 12. 7. to be exercised extraordinarily by Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and ordinarily by Pastors and Teachers, 1 Corinth. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. for the repairing of the Saints, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Ephe. 14. 12. This is evident out of the words, and therefore for his Mayor I deny it as a sufficient description of the ministery. The Minor I also deny; for we have a true office: to Preach the word of God, and to administer the Sacraments of Christ, are the true office of Christ's Ministers, Mat. 28. 18. Ephe. 4. 12. but this is our office by the law of our land, by the book of ordination, and is seen by our practice. Therefore we have a true office. Objection. Object. But he would prove the contrary by one only reason, which is, because, saith he, the ministery of the Church of England doth arise out of the Ministry of the Church of Rome, and so, saith he, must needs be of the same nature. Answer. Ans. But this I deny, except that which cometh and ariseth of another, be produced so one from another without any hindering cause, as that the one essentially doth make another, as his similes, which he bringeth do declare, as light inflaming light, and a man begetting a child; thus things naturally arising one of another, must needs be of one nature: but it is not so with our ministery, and the ministery of the Church of Rome. Our ministery arose not from the Romish Church, as from a voluntary procreating cause, as he absurdly maketh a simile of a father and his son; but it arose from under the bondage of that Church, through God's power retaining the good and leaving the evil thereof. Therefore that which ariseth out of good amongst corruptions, is not of the nature of the corruptions, but of the good overshadowed with those corruptions. Who knows not that God's people are in Babylon, and that they do arise out of the Romish Church? doth it therefore follow that when they are risen out of it, that they be of the same nature with it, because they do bring the good things with them there learned and received from under the corruptions? Again, he teacheth in this his Reason a gross Error, for he extendeth not our ministery, and the original thereof, beyond the present Antichristian state of the Now Church of Rome; but teacheth that there it had his first foundation, which is most untrue: for our ministery thus refined from the Popish Church, hath the beginning from before Antichrist was hatched in the Romish Church: as may appear by the Greek Churches at this day, in which are Archbishops, Bishops, and other inferior officers over Parishional Assemblies, and in which they have read Prayer, and other like exercises of Religion with us; now these Churches are more ancient (at lest some of them) than the Church of Rome, and were before that Roman Antichrist, and therefore our ministery is for originalitie to be considered before the now Romish Church, though it did run a time through it (as pure water from a pure fountain may do through a dirty channel for a while) till God gave it a clearer issue. This being considered, his simile from refining of Sugar, to be still Sugar, is fit for us; for our ministery being as Sugar, but heretofore full of dross, by refining it from the Romish Church, we have it more pure, but not still to be therefore of the drossy corruption, as he would persuade his Disciples. Lastly, he asks who can bring a clean thing out of that which is unclean? I answer, the Lord can; as he brought light out of darkness, and maketh him alive by grace, who is dead in sin. Also if the unclean thing be not absolutely unclean, who need ask this question: for out of that which is partly unclean, and partly clean; may a clean thing be produced: now the Romish Church is not so unclean, but there is some clean things in it, as such truths as we do hold and teach for the truths of God, by the warrant of the word. It is therefore no wonder, that any should ask how clean things may be brought from an unclean thing, wherein clean things are. The third Argument. THe true ministery hath a true vocation and calling, by Election, approbation, and ordination of that faithful people, Mr. Smiths third Argument against our Ministers. where he is to administer. The ministery of the Ecclesiastical Assembly of England: hath not the true vocation and calling by Election, Approbation, and Ordination of a faithful people, where they do administer: Therefore the Ministers of the Ecclesiastical Assembly of England: is not the true ministery. Answer. The proposition he would confirm by certain Act. 6. 2. 6. and 14. 23. Scriptures, Act. 6. 2. 6. & 14. 23. 1 Tim. 3. 10. and 4. 14. But these Scriptures do not prove that the body of the Congregation, which here he calleth faithful people, did ordain and make their Ministers. Nay Acts 6. and 14. do plainly show that the Apostles did ordain them, and not the people; if the contrary there can be showed, let me bear the blame for ever: and the 1 Tim. 4. 14. showeth 1. Tim. 4. 14. also the contrary, for there is mention of the Eldership; and Mr. Smith (as is before set down) holdeth that all the Elders were Pastors, than here by his own exposition, is he greatly deceived, to confirm from the Ministers and pastors ordination, lay persons ordination: see here Reader, how herein he crosseth himself. Objection. Object. The Minor I deny; and he would confirm it thus: because we are made Ministers by Bishops, etc. Answer. Ans. But if the Patron do choose for the people, as he aught a fit man, and the Bishops do truly examine him, and finding him apt to teach, and of a godly conversation, do so ordain him, what let is there herein, why his calling is not good? If ignorant persons, bad and of lewd behaviour be ordained, it is wickedness against God's Law, and the law of ordaining and making Ministers, and such personal corruptions God will duly (at length) punish, in such offenders whosoever, except they repent; but yet the lawful authority of Bishops to ordain may stand good, being an Ecclesiastical practice, for many hundredth years in the Church of God. And here I do confess, that it is sin in any to ordain a bad and lewd fellow for a Minister, or to set a blind guide over a people, and it is cruelty in covetous and accursed patrons, for lucre's sake, or other by-respect to thrust a bad, or insufficient man upon a Congregation, when the people desire a better, whose souls he makes sale of, as men do of beasts in the market place; an evil not to be suffered in the Church of God, neither indeed do our laws allow hereof, though such evils pass unpunished many times. In the next place after these three reasons, M. Smith seemeth Page 96. to make answer to my reasons given in my former Book, by which I do prove that we have true Ministers of Page 128. Christ, as now in this book I have before sufficiently showed. His seeming confutation of my former reasons are but idle cavils, and tedious discoursing, to beguile the simple plain hearted. Objection. First, to my Argument of converting men he answers first, negatively, that here are none converted to the true visible Faith, taught in the new Testament. Answer. To this I answer: 1. that he grants, Page 96. line 35. that the Lord works inward conversion by the ministery of the Land, and the hearers feel it in their Consciences: by which Note what M. Smith. he acknowledgeth the Lord to countenance it, and to make it lively in the very consciences of men, which is the confesseth to be wrought by our Ministry. first and most excellent fruit or effect of the ministery; for there beginneth Christ's work of his word: Act. 2. 37. and 16. 14. Heb. 4. 12. 2. That therefore if the heart and conscience be converted, can that ministery be denied to have an outward effect? If the first be true, as there he confesseth, and also doth acknowledge the same of himself in another place: then the latter cannot be denied: for as S. Paul saith, if we believe in the heart, we will confess with the mouth, as the instances of such as were converted mentioned in the Acts, do declare. 3. In denying us true visible faith, he speaketh both falsely and most unproperly, and so also absurdly: falsely, for can there be inward conversion, and not true faith? It is most strange to hear of the heart's conversion, and of no Faith, when this is first, and the other follows upon it: Absurdly, in calling Faith a visible thing; for it is the most secret grace, though from it do arise lively fruits to demonstrate it, which fruits nevertheless are not Faith itself, no more than an effect may be called the cause of itself. It is said in james, that Faith must be jam. 2. showed by works; works of Faith are visible, but not Faith itself. He speaketh therefore absurdly, and coineth a distinction foolishly, as he doth Religions to himself daily most fantastically. 4. If he mean by true visible Faith, the true fruits of Faith, and deny that we have no visible fruits of Faith, he doth us great wrong, and for truth of this, see what before I have said of visible conversion. Secondly, he answers by concession, be it saith he, that we do convert to the visible faith, yet it is no proof of the truth of our ministery, that we are true Pastors, and Page 95. and why forsooth? because, saith he, A Pastor converteth not properly, but feedeth men converted. I answer, first, that he grants they convert, but not as their proper work, yet they do convert: secondly, I have before proved against Mr. Ainsworth, the vanity and falsehood of this distinction. Secondly, to the Scriptures which I alleged Pag. 129. Romans 10. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 9 2. to be compared with 2 Cor. 3. 1. 3. and 13. 3. 5. to prove that such as convert men to the profession of the faith of Christ, and do call upon his Name, are sent of Christ, for that the Apostle, that is, (as I said) one sent of God, doth so confirm his ministery; Book of their confess. pag. 31. and because, they confess that Christ doth not workeby false means. Objection. First, he answers caviling, that so we would prove ourselves Apostles, when as I used the word, Apostle, in a double sense: in one sense, only from the Etymon of the word; applying it to Rom. 10. 15. whence I thus reasoned. They that convert souls, are sent of God: so doth the place prove, & the word, Apostles, signify taken in the large sense. But the Ministers of England convert souls, therefore the Ministers of England are sent of God. Answer. Thus taken, he yieldeth, that no man can convert to the true faith of Christ's new Testament, which is visible, except he be sent of God. And therefore we proving, that we convert men, as himself acknowledgeth inwardly, and as I have proved outwardly, it follows hence, from his own grant, that we are Ministers sent of God. Yet against the force of reason, & the word of God, from a perverse spirit, he saith, we pervert men, and are the instruments of Satan, sent by the Lord in his wrath to keep the people in bondage from the obedience of the faith taught in the new Testament, which fury and outrage of his spirit, both religion, reason, & his own confession forced from both, hath bet down in him. Answer. Secondly, he raileth upon me for avouching, that the 1. Cor. 9 1. Objection. word, work, 1 Cor. 9 1. is understood the Lords effectual working by his ministery, in the conversion of souls to God, and not the outward settling of them, neither only nor chief into gathered Assemblies. His reason is because men are not converted to the true faith, till they be converted Page 96. and established in the true Church, if it may be found. This is most false, or most absurd: first, his (if it may be found) shows that there is a conversion belike some time, and not an establishing of such a one into a visible Church: secondly, what saith he of the twelve men, Disciples, Act. 19 1. what visible Assembly were they established in? and yet were converted: thirdly, this is against the order of receiving men into the true Church; for the Apostles did first judge them converted to the true faith, before they received them into the Church, an instance is in Act. 8. 37. and so of all the rest: and yet here this man saith, they be not converted to the true faith, before they be converted and established in the true Church: Folly dwelleth with the wilful. For my expounding the Scriptures, I refer them to the judicious Reader to compare them together, and to the learned Commentaries of Divines, amongst other, M. Caluin, who calleth the Apostles work, the conversion of the Corinthians, and that the Lord had sealed his Apostleship by their faith, 1. Cor. 9 1. 2. and saith also 2 Cor. 3. 3. that the Corinthians faith was the Apostles work: his doctrine, the Lords effectual work thereby. The bringing of people to embrace that, is more Apostolical, than the gathering of companies together, which both false Apostles, Heretics, and schismatics have done, and now do. And whereas M. Smith, to make good his abusing of the word by his wretched glosses, brings in 2 Cor. 3. 7. where mention is 2 Cor. 3. 7. made of Moses, a comparison between the persons of Moses and S. Paul, as if the holy Ghost intended to set them two out, he doth herein seduce his Disciples, and abuse the place; for there Moses and Paul are not compared, but the Gospel and the Law, the ministration of both, by the Ministers of either Testament; of which see Interpreters upon that place. The Apostle mentioneth not their gathering into a company, but his teaching of them, 1 Cor. 4. 15. and winning of them to the profession of Christ, which is their conversion to the faith of Christ, called the seal of his Apostleship, 1 Cor. 9 2. by which they be made Christians, and God's Church, though they be not in one place. And thus much to this: I leave his railing and raving spirit to be rebuked of him, who saith, that the railer shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Thirdly, that which I speak, page 129, 130. touching conversion by private persons, he would obscure by a tedious multiplicity of words, in his Book, page, 97. 98. but applieth it not to overthrow my reasons, which remain untouched, and therefore till, as a direct answerer, he refel my reasons, and make more evident the truth, I let him pass, as shooting at rovers, both deceitfully and idly. Fourthly, to that which I say, touching the qualification of our Ministers, their Calling, Doctrine, administration of the Sacraments, faithful execution of their ministery, conscionable living, and God's assistance in their labour. He tells us if we would believe him, that the Popish Ministers Page. 99 have all these; and saith, that they do preach the true doctrine of Christ, and administer his true Sacraments, and so forth; proceeding to set out them to condemn us, but all verbally, without proof, and therefore I deny, what he saith, till he prove it, and in the mean space desire him a better guide than that lying spirit, even the grace of God's spirit, to learn him to speak the truth. In the next place, he answers to the answer of an Objection from popular power, to overthrow ordination by Bishops, which before is replied unto. To my Similitude of marriage, that as a faulty entrance in marriage, so the substance be kept, cannot disannul it being made, nor make it false; no more can a corrupt entrance into the ministery, make it either a false, or no ministery. He answers summarily thus much, that matter or form being false, the ordinance cannot be true: but he saith, our ministery cannot be true, because our Assemblies are false. Where first note his folly, how he maketh the Assemblies part of the ministery, either for matter or form of the ministery, which was never heard of before; else why maketh he the same the reason to overthrow either the matter or form, which he stood upon, for other accidental circumstances disannul not Gods ordinances, as he confesseth. Secondly, his ground is false; for we be a true Church, and therefore by saying we are a false Church, he cannot prove our ministery false; my simile therefore is good, and not yet of less force, by all that he hath said. Fiftly, to the place of john 10. before spoken of, he answers both absurdly, and falsely, as I have in my Reply to M. Ainsworth upon this place fully declared. Sixtly, and lastly, to that which I say in my former book Page 144. against their Ministers, he answers, and saith, that I call them unlawful, but I dare not say false: But if he say true, himself saith, the Brownists Ministers are Antichristian, & such are, by his own account, false; and why may not I dare so to call them, if (I say) he speak truth: for himself now I dare call him both an unlawful & a false Minister; for that he doth teach continually false and absurd doctrines; because also he perverteth God's truth, to the destruction of his followers, as is by me made manifest, and very effectually by M. Ainsworth in his answer unto him, and so I hope will he be more and more manifested by others an anabaptistical Heretic, and a man nothing but dreams, and vain in his imaginations. Objection. Object. But he saith first, if Ministers be by succession, then are they true Ministers; because (saith he) they were ordained by our Bishops. Answer. Ans. I answer first, that they have renounced, as he confesseth, that ordination; and therefore by it can be no Page. 102. Ministers. Secondly, he challengeth to be Minister by the popular power before spoken of, and denieth any succession to be in the new Testament. To which I answer, that the first is fully answered before, that there is no popular power of ordination in the new nor old Testament, & therefore that cannot make them to be, which is not itself. Objection. The second I have proved, which he renounceth, and would again here overthrow by this reason; because the Church elected Mathias, there being then no Apostles, Acts. 1. the Church elected Deacons. Act. 6. and Elders Act. 14. Answer. I answer, that it is most false to say there were then no Apostles, for what was Peter, and the other ten with him at that time? I have also before showed how contrary this is to truth of Scripture, and contrary to all Divines that either are or have been, except he can produce their testimonies. Again it is false which he saith, that the Church did elect Mathias; for it is said they presented two, Act. 1. 23. and the Lord did make the choice. 24. 25. how impudent is he that will so plainly gainsay the Text? Of the other places have I also before spoken, to which I refer the Reader. And thus much for the ninth Error. The tenth Error of the Brownists. Our Worship (say they) is false Worship. What I have written against this in my former book, Page 146. 151. I wish thee Reader to consider, for that among other things, thou mayst see the order of Service under the Law, and the Service used in the Primitive Church, gathered from the Scriptures, which these Adversaries nayther do, nor are able to gainsay. And for further manifestation of our Worship against this their Error; I thus reason: The first Argument. THe Worship only of the true God according to his word, The first argument that our worship is true. is true worship: But such is the Worship of the Church of England established by Law. Therefore the worship of the Church of England is true Worship. Reasons. The Mayor is not denyable; the Minor I do prove: We worship only the true God and none other, Trinity in Unity, & Unity in Trinity; if they deny this, let us know what God we do worship, which they do not, or the true Church never did. We do worship him after his Word: His word requireth in true Worship, a true God; so have we: Deut. 6. a true Rule, which is itself, to direct us in that worship, which we have, even the holy Scriptures: it requireth preaching and opening of the Scriptures, Mat. 28. Acts. 15. 21. which also we have: it requireth knowledge of that we do; Prou. 19 2. and so verily many have: it requireth true Sacraments, Mat. 28. 1 Cor. 11. to be administered; and those have we: it requireth true Prayer, Psal. 50. which is a request made for things lawful, unto God, in the Name of jesus Christ; and such are our prayers: it requireth in these the heart; Josh. 22. but that being unknown to man, and Charity teacheth to think the best, we must also be thought so to worship him; unless they will condemn us all for Hypocrites; which let them show how they either can or dare do, by the word, if they do: lastly, that it be done in the true Church, and so is ours. Psal. 99 These things I do assume, let us see what they can deny, for yet I know not. The second Argument. THe Worship not forbidden in Scripture, is no false Worship, The second argument that our Worship is true. but true: The Worship of the Church of England is not forbidden by Scripture: Ergo, it is not false Worship, but true. The Mayor is evident; the Minor I thus make manifest by all the parts of false Worship, mentioned in the Scripture, and condemned, whereof we be free. First, it forbids We are not guilty of the false Worship condemned in Scripture. false Gods; Exod. 23. these we abhor. Secondly, the worshipping of Images and Idols, Exod. 20. the Sun, Moon and Stars, forbidden, Deut. 17. 2 King. 17. and 21. and Angels. Col. 2. Revel. 22. All which we all condemn, and do not at all worship. Thirdly, it forbids all voluntary will-worship, to serve God after the minds of men. Esa. 29. 13 Mat. 15. 9 Now this also do we preach against, reprove, and often do punish the offenders in such a case: neither teach we the precepts of men for doctrines of Scripture, nor do we any thing appointed by man, and not warrantable by the Word, which any of knowledge do take as holy things of God, or as any part of hiw Worship, in and by which God is said to be honoured: this our Law and Church Constitutions are against: we have free liberty to preach against any abuse of any thing which is used in the time of our Worship, and may rebuke such as put holiness in any thing, but what is agreeable with the word of God: none can deny this, which knoweth our Laws, and heareth our teaching, and observeth the practice of such as worship with understanding. And therefore we not being guilty of any such thing as the Scripture condemneth, our worship is not false, being so considered truly, as I have said. The third Argument. THat Worship which is after the manner of the Worship of The third argument that our Worship is true. the true Churches of God, set down in the word: that Worship is true and not false: But such is the worship of the Church of England. Ergo, it is true and not false The Mayor is true, it being understood of the Church's Our worship is after the worship of the true Churches of God. manner of Worship, which the word commendeth unto us, else a true Church may err in God's Worship. The Minor I thus confirm, the order and particulars of our proceeding in God's worship agreeable to the true Churches of Christ. First, we are appointed and do meet together at set times: Public meetings. so the jews in the old Testament were commanded by the Lord, Deut. 31. and so did Act. 15. 21. So in the new, 1 Cor. 11. 17. and 14. 23. and that on the first day in the week. Act. 20. 7. 1 Cor 16. 1. and so all sorts every where, justin Mart. Apo. 2. Tertul. in Apol●orat. Secondly, we begin our Service with Confession and solemn Confession & Prayers. Prayers to God: so did God's people in the established Church of the jews. Esdr. 9 5. 6. and 10. 1. and these Morneus against the Mass. Page 18. our prayers and this Confession made in Faith, taking hold of Christ, is our spiritual sacrifice, which is available for us, and accepted with God as the outward sacrifice made under the Law. Leu. 16. 15. 16. And thus prayers were used in the Morn. pa. 23. 24. primitive Church, both general and special. Act. 20. 36. 1 Tim. 2. 1. 2. Acts. 2. 42. Objection. If they say that in the primitive Church, there was no set form of Prayer. Answer. I answer, first, there was set forms in the old Testament, as is proved in my other Book, Page. 191. Secondly, these be no where disallowed in the new Testament, neither by plain words, nor by undeniable Consequences: their conceit of saying, it quencheth the spirit, is against known experience, and is the groundwork of M. Smiths casting of reading the Scriptures in the Assembly. Thirdly, saith Morneus, saint Augustine expoundeth Saint Paul, Page 20. 1 Tim. 2. to mean solemn Prayers; and this worthy Morneus doth say, that we have both precept and prescript form of Prayers, and for this citeth Mat. 6. 9 10. Fourthly, the Graecian Churches, as hath been told me by one of that Constantine Achilles. Nation, a Graecian borne, that they have had, and still have set form of Prayer: which Churches were planted by the Apostles, and never yielded subjection to the Romish Synagogue, yea, it is a practice in all reformed Churches, who have renounced Antichrist: how then can these men hold it Antichristian? Thirdly, we read Psalms and portions of holy Scriptures: Scriptures read. so did the jewish Church. Deut. 31. 9 14. Nehe. 8. 1. Morn. Page 19 and 13. 1. Luke. 4. 16. 18. Act. 13. 15. and 15. 21. and so were charged to do by the Apostle: Col. 4. 16. and a blessing is pronounced upon that exercise. Reu. 1. 3. And the same continued in the Churches of God; for saith Morneus, the Service of the Christians, for order, was derived from the jews, Morn. page. 25. which the Apostles, it seemeth to me, did countenance in the Synagogues, sitting silently at the same, till they had leave to speak, Act. 13. 15. To this purpose was some appointed to be Readers. Fourthly, we have singing of Psalms: so had the jewish Psalms sung. Just Mart. in Apol. 2. Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 81 Church, as all David's Psalms do manifest, and Christ himself did use the same, Mat. 26. 30. so approved by the Apostle, Ephes. 5. 18. 19 Col. 3. and practised in the following ages. Preaching. Fiftly, we have preaching in many places, and so had they in every Synagogue, every Lord's day, Act. 15. 21. Morn. page 3. Pliu. Epist. Tert. de anima. Euseb. lib. 4. S. Hilary on psal. 65. Neh. 8. 8. Luke 4. 16. 22. Act. 13. 15. 16. So also in the primitive Church, Act. 20. 7. 1 Cor. 14. 23. 31. The same not to be despised, 1 Thes. 5. 20. And this most necessary duty continued in the purest ages following, as Authors do make mention. Sixtly, we have the Sacraments administered: so had the Sacraments. jewish Church, which they were bound to receive upon extreme Morn page 22. and 31. just. Mar. Apo. 2 Euseb. li. 7. 6. 22. Tertul. in his Apol. Orat. penalties, Gen. 17. 14. Numb. 9 13. Exod. 4. 24. and so did receive them. Ios. 5. Exod. 12. 28. 2 Chron. 29. 15 and 35. 1. So in the primitive Church Mat. 28 18. Acts. 2. 41. and 8. 38. and 10. 48. Mat. 26. 26. 27. 28. 1 Cor. 11. 23. Act. 2. 42. And the same continued in the true Churches of God after. just. Mar. Apo. 2. Prayer and praises in the end. seven, We shut up our religious exercises with a Psalm: so did our Saviour, Mat. 26. 30. And with Prayer: so did the ancient Church of the jews, Numb. 6. 23. 2 Chron. 30. 27. As they began their Sermons with invocation, Morn. page 23: as Neh. 8. So in the Apostles days, Act. 20. 36. And practised in the after Ages; to which prayer the people with one consent said, Amen, Neh. 8. just. Mar. Apo. 2. Eightly, all in a known tongue, as the Apostle commandeth, In a known tongue. 1 Corinth. 14. and so practised, as their gifts of tongues given for that end declare. And thus do we see our worship in matter and manner to be the same with the true approved Churches of God. Now these things being thus, how can our worship by them be judged false and idolatrous? Reply to Mr. Ainsworth. MAster Ainsworths' answer is, that they doubt not to Page 194. Objection. affirm our worship to be false, even an human invention: and his reasons are, because apocrypha books are read; because Sacraments are administered by unpreaching Ministers, by our service Book; because of our observation of holy days, etc., Answer. My reply hereunto is, first, that these be not all our worship, as is now fully showed, to which he hath yet made no answer: secondly, grant his reasons good to prove his assertion, which yet are very absurd, yet then when the apocrypha is not read, as some days it is not appointed, and also where preaching Ministers are, and the worship performed on the Lord's day, he cannot belike then prove our worship to be false and idolatrous, sithen his reasons have then no force, as being at sometime, in some places out of date. But first, he bids me prove Apocrypha to be the true Page. 194. word of God. This I leave him to do, if he can; who among us do hold it Canonical? do not we in our writings witness the contrary, and that we approve them not, farther than they do agreed with the Scriptures? Secondly, he willeth me to prove the Sacraments administered by unpreaching Ministers to be true Sacraments. To which I say, if they be not true Sacraments, See for this Cal. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 15. sect. 16. then are they not Christ's Sacraments, and being none of Christ's, they be truly and indeed no Sacraments at all; and so Mr. Ainsworth, and many of his company, baptized by such, must needs run with Mr. Smith, into Anabaptistry. The circumcision in Israel in jeroboams time, was never rejected of God, nor condemned of the Church in judah, in Hezekias time, but such were admitted to the Passeover as truly circumcised, else they should not have been allowed to eat thereof. There is, the water, sprinkling of it, and the words of Institution added thereto, which are the external & essential parts of Baptism. Lastly, it is universally held, that Baptism among the Papists, administered by popish Priests, is true Baptism, albeit therefore it doth not follow that Christians well instructed should carry their children to them, if they may have their children baptized by other: There is one who giveth many reasons for this. Buca. cap. de bapt. loc. come. 47. He tells me, that I do not meddle with their reasons given out in many books, but he citeth none, against many things which we use, and they deny, and what then? are therefore their reasons good, and we the worse? so may then I say, that they do not meddle with many men's reasons printed in several Books, to defend, what they oppose, and therefore their reasons good, and M. Ainsworth in the Error. And thus have I made Reply to M. Ainsworths' answer to the ten Errors of their way: He hath made answer, as I do charitably think, to have us reform our corruptions, as he judgeth them, and I have made a Reply, to have them forsake their Errors in condemning us for a false Church most unjustly. If they do well, who envieth them? we wish that they may see our good, and cease unjustly to be troublesome both to us and themselves. Reply to Mr. Smith. Page 103. MAster Smith, to prove our Church's worship to be a false worship, maketh Reasons, such as they be, which are these: The first Argument. THe true worship of the Lord cannot possibly be offered up in a false Church. The Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England, are false Churches. Ergo, the worship offered up unto the Lord in those Assemblies is false worship. To pass by the mayor not sound, which he doth not prove, though he pretend only the proof of it: for he saith, true worship is * Than by his own confession it may be in it, else how can it defile the worship of God? so here he contradicts his own proposition. defiled by a false Church, and that God will not have every Communion of men to serve him, and that it is not acceptable to him. This is the sum of his confirmation, which how it proveth the mayor, I leave to be judged. The minor I deny, which he proveth not, as supposing it afore proved, which I have disproved: and so this Argument is easily answered. The second Argument. THe worship which is offered up unto the Lord, by a false ministery is a false worship. The Worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is offered up by a false Ministry: Ergo, a false Worship. The Mayor is still unsound, neither doth he prove it otherwise then the former; to wit, by Gods not accepting the worship by a false ministery but such a reason proveth not the Worship itself false. God doth not accept of any wicked man's worshipping of God in a true Church, by true Ministers rightly worshipping, Esa. 1. Doth it therefore follow from Gods not acceptance for the man's wickedness, that therefore the worship itself is false Worship, and not of God? none can truly say so. The Minor is false as I have proved before; and now not by him disproved. So then the Mayor being unsound, and the Minor false, this reason also is not worth a rush. The third Argument. Jewish, that is, literal, stinted, imposed Booke-worship is false Worship. The Worship of the Ecclesiastical Assemblies of England is jewish, that is, literal, stinted, and imposed Booke-worship. Ergo, false Worship. The ground of this Argument he maketh his proofs out of his Book entitled, The differences of the Churches of the Separation, to which he referreth his Reader: now this book of his, is since confuted in most things very sound, but chiefly this proposition here avouched by Mr. Ainsworth, who it seemeth can in a good cause do worthily well, which I wish his employment in ever, and cease to defend untruths against us, in which he is very barren and without judgement. Therefore for the Proposition I do commend to the Reader his * A defence of the holy Scripture, Worship, and Ministry, against. Mr. Smith. Answer at large. The Minor I deny, which upon so false a proposition he takes to be true, without further proof: in which he denieth all reading of Scripture; yea, so much as for a Preacher to look upon his Text of Scripture in the public Assembly: and yet if this Satanical bewitchment of him were true, nevertheless the Minor is in part false; for all our Worship is not literal, stinted, and imposed upon a Book; for many Sermons are made by meditation, and uttered by the help of memory without any Book: so many prayers are made freely, as occasion of times be, and not read upon a Book; so as herein he speaketh untruly of the Worship in all the Assemblies of the Church of England. After these his Arguments, he cavils with my reasons in my former book, first, pressing his book of differences, Page. 105. as if it were not confutable, but, as I have said, it is sufficiently in this point confuted to his shame. Secondly, to that I say, we do worship no false Gods, nor the true God with My former Book. Pa. 146. any false worship, and therefore our worship is not false: He answers, that Israel might so have said in jeroboams Page 105. time, and when Aaron made the Calf. But how unjustly they might so say, as we may, and how falsely this man uttereth such words, the holy Ghost himself shall give sentence: for doth he not say, that Israel had Priests for Devils, 2 Chron. 11. 15. and for the Calves which jeroboam had made? And is it not said, that the Israelites did worship the Calf, and that Exod. 32. 8. 23. they said, they were the Gods which brought them out of Egypt? So they worshipped Devils, and false Gods, yea a molten image for God, how can it be said then, that they might say, as we truly can, that we worship no false Gods, nor the true God with false worship, as they did? Lastly, he taketh for granted our worship to be the invention of man, and so concludeth in a verbal sound of words without any proof, as the Reader may see, that our Page 106. Church is a false Church, and so an Idol our Service book an Idol: that we have a false Christ, and so an Idol; and so he saith that our faith is false; our doctrine false; the word not the true word; neither the Sacraments, nor our Communion true: all which if he could as easily prove, as affirm, he had needed no farther to have troubled himself with other discourses, these had been enough to have removed us out of our way, or else to have perished in our standing: but sithen he, nor any schismatical Heretic is ever able to justify this against us, the contrary herefully being made plain against him, he is to be judged, as such wicked speeches deserve, so uttered against the true Church of God, and his mother, if he be not every way a Bastard, unworthy to be acknowledged a natural and true Son. And thus also have I ended with M. Smith, whose reformation I wish, and not to presume above that which is meet to understand, but to understand according to sobriety, and Rom. 12. 3. 16. not to be wise in himself, as the Apostle admonisheth all. There remaineth somewhat to be replied unto upon their answers unto some particular opinions of theirs, set down in my other Book; but for that at the first I have Page 151. mentioned them briefly, as to let the world judge of the vanity thereof, and considering they be of no moment from that which is already handled, which being thoroughly understood, sufficiently may furnish the meanest Reader of understanding with better and more reasons to answer them, than they have said to defend them; and lastly, this my Reply being grown into so great a quantity, I pass them by, and leave them, as not fearing any indifferent Reader to be seduced by them in such things. For a Conclusion, I wish them to consider the truths of The Conclusion. God, to acknowledge us the true Church of God, as we be indeed; let them not by a false condemnation of us, in what we are not to be condemned; maintain therein their Schism from us, and by untruths seek either to draw more, or hold whom they have so gotten from us, through error of their minds. If M. Ainsworth can prove substantially, that we be no Church of Christ, this one matter is sufficient to insist upon, to remove any honest heart fearing God, to fly from every thing which may justly be disliked in any Assembly; but if not, let Gods fear appear in them; let sincere love of true speaking declare itself in them, by acknowledging us to be what we are by the warrant of the Word; and cease to call us false Churches, Antichristian Churches, so shall they be less condemned, and the truth on both sides appearing, peace will follow, and with truth holiness, without which none shall see God. Thou seest, Reader, the causes sufficient to hold thee A brief repetition of reasons against them. back from the Separatists Schism: We are a Church truly constituted; by lawful means reform; Saints by calling; that their is no example or warrant for any to separate from such a church as ours is, as they do, with condemnation. It is opposed by the godly Learned: no Church giveth them the right hand of fellowship: The Lord hath by his fearful hand reproved the Ringleaders. It is like old Schismatics: it is occasioned through discontentment; violence of passion enforceth it: ignorance with a good meaning in many upholds it: if ever they had grace, here in England they found it: here we feel the power of the word: here are such as truly fear God: the best churches hold us a true Church; God hath adorned it with worthy men of God, and with the crown of Martyrdom. The Godly here remaining, are more charitable than the Separation: we carry a pity to them, and yet they do reject all communion with us: yea, behold how Satan confounds them by divisions, and how deadly they condemn one another. Mr. Smith's Censure and observation of M. johnsons Church, and the rest. THeir Constitution is as very an Harlot, as either her Mother In the character of the Beast. England, or Grandmother Rome, out of whose loins she came. That the Church of the Separation is an unnatural Daughter to her Mother England, for that she being of the same constitution by Baptism, dare call her an adulteress, and an harlot. And therefore cannot with any truth (retaining Baptism) or good conscience, separate from it as a false Church. That they craftily and subtly draw back, being guilty in their consciences, to defend their Errors. We protest against them (saith he) that there is no ordinance of the Lord true amongst them. That the Separation is the youngest and fairest Daughter of Rome an Harlot. That the Separatists of Mr. johnsons Church, do confidently of self love, and self conceit, fill their mouths with ill terms, therein treading in the steps of all Antichristians their predecessors. And lastly he warneth them not to be wise in their own eyes, through Pride, and to take heed, notwithstanding their Siren songs that they prove not a cage of most ugly and deformed Antichristian Heretics: So reckoneth he of them now. Mr. johnsons Censure and observation of Mr. Smith. THat he hath forsaken the truth of Christ, seduced with In his Epistle before his Book against Anabap. the error of Anabaptists. That his grounds and assertions pervert the Gospel of jesus Christ; bereave the Church of the grace and favour of God to young and old; take away comfort from Christian families; deprive kingdoms and Commonwealths of Christian Kings and judges. That he fills his mouth and pen with falsehood and blasphemy: perverteth Scripture, abuseth the people of God, etc. The Goliath, defying Israel, and provoking to battle and combat. Mr. Ainsworths' Censure and observation of Mr. Smith. He attributeth to him Folly and shame: That he frets In his defence of holy Scripture. within himself, speaking with a stiff neck: he reproveth him of insolency, swelling words of vanity: that he writeth to set out the fraud and malignity of that Boaster. That he yields small hope of good: that out of a proud heart he hath stirred up strife: that no constancy is found in his mouth: that he saith, unsaith, and contradicteth his own grounds: that he fighteth against himself, and the spear which he tosseth turneth into his own heart: that he is a false Prophet. All this in his Epistle. That God hath stricken him with blindness, that he is benumbed In the Book. Page 3. in mind; drunk with the wine of violence, proclaimeth open war against God's everlasting Testament. That he Page 4. 5. hath graced the Porch of his building with imposture and fraud, and secondeth his fraud with injury. Page 8. That Mr. Smith is a deceiver, properly so called, digging a pit to serve his Heretical humour, and hide his blasphemies, into which by God's just judgement he is fallen. He calleth him 10. a proud Gentile, given over to blindness of heart: that God 12. himself is highly blasphemed by his wretched exposition of the 13. old Testament. That Satan hath deceived him: he calleth 15. his exposition, Dotage, fancy, wormwood: that he is taken 20. in the snare which he set for the righteous: that he seeketh to abuse them by equivocation, and to shroud himself in a conceited fancy. That he is a windy cloud, carried too and fro, and rather than he will forego his error he will contradict what before he had well written. That his Writings are Heretical, 23. and that his lying tongue varieth incontinently: that he wavereth as a Reed shaken with the wind; forgetting himself 31. like a drunken man: that he fighteth against himself, and will be found a Calumniator both of them, and of Israel, and of Christ himself. That he coggeth the Reader with the dye of deceit. That he is tossed in the sea of error, and so reeleth 40. too and fro staggering like a drunken man. That he openeth 41. his mouth against heaven. He likeneth him to julian the Apostate, 42. and Elimas the Sorcerer, strucken blind with Anabaptistry, a just recompense of his former error. That he hath 45. no will to forsake his error. He calleth him the accuser of the 52. Saints. He tells him of blasphemous opinions, and that sophistical 56. reasons, are the pillars of his heresy. That he dealeth like a false Page 60. 61. coiner, and one like that hunteth the souls of God's people, setting reasons, as haies to entangle them. That his words are rough and crooked. That the curse hangs over his head: that his 63. heart is stricken with the darkness of Egypt: that he is the enemy 64. of God's Book: that Lucia could not have written more reproachfully 65. of the holy Scriptures: that in his Arguments remain but leasings. That a seduced heart hath deceived him: 68 that he cannot deliver his soul. That his Logic is not like every 80. man's: like the raging Sea, he casteth up mire and dirt. And 91. thus till he repent, lieth he under censure and condemnation of the Separatists. Mr. Smith's words in his Epistle to the Reader, before the Character of the beast. IT cannot be accounted a commendable quality in any man, to make many alterations and changes in Religion, in such weighty matters as are the cases of Conscience. Inconstancy is much to be blamed in matters of salvation. The wisest and most religious men have been always most constant in their Profession and Faith: inconstant persons cannot escape the deserved imputation of Folly, or weakness of judgement therein. Now who ever more inconstant than he? of himself he hath given sentence. Therefore ye poor seduced souls, leave such wavering Reeds, that are tossed too and fro with the wind of their own fantasies, arising from the humorousnesse of an instable mind, violently forced with the passion of unruled affection. Even so be it, Amen. Lord remove the causes of contention, and give thy peace unto thy people. FINIS. THE TABLE OF THE Principal matters handled in this Book. OF the Presbytery. Page. 5. Seven Probabilities that the way of the Separatists is not the good way of God. 38. schismatics who they be, and what are the causes of their Schism. 46. 63. The Romish Church is in a true Constitution, and why yet we forsake it. 50. 130. A Covenant have we made with God, and have renewed it. 51. 250. Separatists abuse the holy Scriptures. 62. 117. Separatists do condemn truths as falsehood. 89. Separatists describe a Church not truly. 93. Separatists do force untruths upon such as would join with them. 105. Separatists general sins in their way. 105. Separatists especial errors in the same way. 108. 150. 158. 160. 164. 177. 204. 240. 290. 324. Brownisme the ground of Anabaptisme. 77. Brownisme maketh a breach of a lawful Communion. 86. The Constitution of our Church is a true Constitution. 123. The Word may be heard among us. 87 And spiritual communion may be kept. 88 We be voluntary Professors. 129. 145. The Church of England is a true Church. 94. 242 Christ is our Head. 247. Christ is our Advocate. 250. Our Prophet. 255. Our Priest. 257. Our King. 259. Our People are true matter of the Church, as they stand by Law. 271. We hold sound the sum of the Gospel. 273. And do in some sort make alike Profession, and how. 273. The Ministers of our Church, ordained according to the truth of our Laws, made in that behalf, are true Ministers. 290. Such are not Antichristian. 291. Our Worship is true worship. 325. And is after the true Churches of God. 327. Saints, who they be, and why so called. 165. True holiness required in the old Testament. 81. One man's sin polluteth not another. 171. 174. How many ways one becometh guilty of other men's sins. 174. What it is not to consent to sin. 230. Popular government not to be approved. 177. What is to be thought of the Separatists laical Prophecy. 182. Of Ministerial succession. 184. Of a mixed Assembly. 134. 165. 254. Corruptions may be in a true Church. 93. Planting and reforming differ much. 146. 245. 246. Prince's may compel their subjects to the outward means of Religion. 146. God hath used Prince's power to advance religion. 147. And to reform abuses. 278. Idol, a word not used in Scripture for a Church or a Church's constitution. 155. Separation may not be made from a true Church with condemnation of it, as a false, or no church. 205. From what people to make a full separation, by the Separatists judgement. 228. Of variety of opinions about Church government and discipline thereof. 212. What government is every were to be wished. 227. To what special heads all the places of Scripture for the Separation, are to be reduced. 239. To know when places for separation are perverted. 240. Three necessary considerations to prevent rash separating from us. 241. Papists have not God's word as we have it. 251. The separatists have only a respective consideration of us, and that ever in the worst part, which is not warrantable in them. 253 unbelievers in the Scripture are other manner of people then true members of the Church of England. 264 Of the Authority Ecclesiastical in the beginning. 267. How a people are yet a true Church, though wicked do rise up in it. 274. Matter of a Church, as it is true, so is it also good or bad matter. 276. How God maketh a people his people, and how again they take him to be their God. 277. 279. Properties and Privileges of the true Church. 282. 283. 284. True conversion is in our Church. 306. The Properties of a good Shepherd. 301. The places of Scripture which are expounded, taken out of the Old Testament. Exodus. 19 6. 60. Leviticus. 19 17. 237. Leviticus. 20. 24. 136. Zacharie. 11. 17. 155. Haggai. 2. 14. 175. The places of Scripture expounded, taken out of the new Testament. Matthew. 5. 23. 24. 236. 237. Matthew. 18. 15. 20. 217. john. 17. 16. 139. john. 10. 1. 2. 301. Acts. 2. 24. 137. Acts. 19 9 138. 1 Cor. 5. 217. 227. 1 Cor. 11. 236. 238. 1 Cor. 6. 14. 309. 1 Cor. 9 1. 321. 1 Cor. 14. 182. 2 Cor. 6. 14. 18. 140. 145. 153. 2 Cor. 12. 21. 236. 238. 1 Peter. 2. 9 59 60. 1 john. 5. 21. 154. FINIS.