A Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage 153. this first Probabilitie.

Answere. HEe answeres, first, generally, and would ouerthrow all my likelihoods, and make them vnlikely, and he thus reasoneth:

If such likelihoods as these haue beene obiected 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 obiected against them, then are all the likelihoods vnlikely.

But the former is true, to wit, the Papists and Heathen ob­iecting 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 obiected against them. Therefore are all my likelihoods vnlikely.

Reply. The Latter part of the Maior followes not, except the likelihoods be all one: it is not enough to haue such like, but the same: for things not the same, but like, are not so euery way like, but that there is some difference to discerne one from another, which difference may force a differing conclusion.

The Minor is most false, and set downe without any proofe from him: In this he iustifieth the wicked words of Heathenish & of Antichristian enemies against the Church of Christ, against his Mother, to grace him and themselues for strength in error. Had the Heathen as much colour and truth, to condemne Christs Church, and the Papists vs of Nouel [...]ie, Schisme, &c. as we haue herein to condemne you? M^r Ainsworth eyther bring good proofe for this, else men [Page 41] will condemne you as foolish and forlorne, and that deser­uedly.

Secondly, he answeres particularly to the Likelihoode after his discoursing manner, and would free themselues from Noueltie.

First, because Kelison the Papist, would bring the Reformed His first reason why their way is not Nouelty. Churches within the compasse of Noueltie, which they seeke to remoue by looking for antiquitie by the Scriptures.

Answere. Belike he reasoneth thus; If we doe remoue the Papists imputation of Nouelties from vs by the Scriptures, pro­uingThough the Papists cannot iustly condemn vs of Noueltie, yet may wee condemn these Separatists of Noueltie. our antiquitie, then doe they the same also. This con­sequence rests yet to be proued by M^r. Ainsworth. Will it follow because we can free our selues from Noueltie against the Papists, (betweene whom and vs, is euident matters of difference plainely recorded in Scripture, and wherein we with the Reformed Churches, do accord fully against them) that therefore the Separatists can acquite themselues of No­ueltie, whose conceits (wherein they differ from Reformed Churches, in this matter of Separation) are strange from the Scriptures, and vnheard of in Orthodoxall Churches? Let him defend the singularitie of their way from reformed Churches, and their owne so standing from Noueltie, andM^r. Ainsworths taxe to be per­formed. then doth he write to the purpose: but herein is hee 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 Noueltie.

Secondly, (saith he) If it be Noueltie to differ from the re­formed His second rea­son. churches, then the Church of England is to be blamed, because it differs in many things from them, &c.

Answere. First, what is this to the purpose for clearing themselues? it seemeth this Answerer is content to be killed himselfe, so that he may runne an other thorow with the same sword. A guiltie party to accuse another of that whereof hee is faultie, saueth not his owne honestie, but he is still one and the same.

Secondly, I doe not meane, that to differ in some or moe things, any way from the reformed Churches, (as it seemeth [Page 42] he taketh my words) is matter of Noueltie, but first, suchWhat differen­ces make No­ueltie. differences, as the word doth not warrant, neyther any Or­thodoxall Churches haue euer practised, nor any approued Histories made mention of, in and from the Apostles times hitherto: but haue beene onely among Schismatickes, these differences are Noueltie: such are not our differences fromOnely Schis­matickes haue so separated themselues from churches, as these doe from vs. the reformed Churches: but yours (M^r. Ainsworth.) Shew vs, what approued true Church of God euer vsed 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 finde your selues of kinne to Lucifer, Donatus, Andius, Schis­maticks first, & afterwards Hereticks: if you boast of Scrip­ture it's vaine boasting, for it helps you not; it approueth a Separation, but not your Separation vpon such grounds, as you forsake now all Churches for: If you haue faith in this point, and truth in you at all, quote any practicall place of example for Separation, and let the world see, if you be able to shew it, your separating from all Churches now, onely so, and no otherwise; if you cannot manifest this, cease to trouble Gods Churches with your Noueltie any longer. Againe, I vnderstand such differences, as vniustly cause the Authors thereof, to make a diuision from the Churches of God, to rend in sunder brother-hood from the true people of God. But such is not our differences with refor­med Churches, for they doe acknowledge vs Brethren, & doe giue vs the right hand of fellowship, as a true Church of God with them, they account not vs eyther Antichristi­an, or false Churches, but wee heare them: and they vs, as occasion serues in the seuerall congregations.

Yea, which is more, Reuerend Beza, and Learned Sadel, In their Epi­stle to the Lord Archbishop. Septemb. 15. Anno. 1589. Letter. Mar. 8. Anno. 1591. doe giue our chiefe Church Gouernours honourable titles, and stile the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie thus: To the most reuerend man and Father in Christ, the Lord Arch­bishop of Canterburie, Counsellor to the Queenes Maiestie, Primate of all England. And Beza saith thus to him, my Re­uerend Lord, and speaketh much to cleare him, and the [Page 43] whole Church with him, of suspition of arrogancie, as hee calleth it, if they should account otherwise of them (he mea­neth our Bishops) then their godlinesse, and dignitie, and mu­tuall brother-hood doth require, so farre off is that Church of Geneua, from making diuision from vs, for this cause for which the Separatists so much condemne vs.

In the conclusion of his answere to this first Probabilitie, His Answere. he blameth me for standing vpon the hard words which some of them haue vttered against the Presbiterie, and tels me, (if I had not a partiall and euill eye) I might haue seene many moe hard, and reprochfull tearmes vsed by some of vs against the same, &c.

Reply. Still (marke Reader) that this Answerer doth not cleare himselfe, but accuseth vs to be guiltie with him, a miserable defence of himselfe: they are Nouelists, his defence is, so are we: they are Raylers, his defence is, we doe raile also. If he cleare himselfe thus, then belike he disputeth after this manner:

If the Church of England be in some things Nouelists, and See the vanitie of his owne reason. some of them doe giue hard words of the Presbiterie, and ac­cuse vs to be Nouelists and Reprochers of the Presbiterie: then are we no Nouelists nor Reprochers of the Presbyterie.

But (saith he) in some things the Church of England are Nouelists: and some of them vse Rayling speeches against the Presbyterie.

Therefore are we no Nouelists, nor Railers of the Presby­terie.

Our Church vseth no rayling speeches against the Pres­biterie, but those of most eminent note among vs who haue written against it, vse reuerend speeches of the chiefe sup­porters thereof, and if any particular persons of our Church haue beene ouer sharpe in their inuectiues against the Presbyterians, I am not to iustifie euery particular mans proceeding herein.

I acknowledge Reprochfull tearmes become none, the diuell may not be rayled vpon: and therefore M^r. Barrowes out-rage herein is detestable, though you cannot finde him [Page 44] worthy of reproofe: and yet doth he raile vpon the Pres­byterians. You approoue the Reformed Churches con­stitution, you will be also in it, pretend it to the simple, and yet rayle vpon them, and speake euill of that you allow, because euery way they square not to your Rule. Your weapon still stickes (M^r. Ainsworth) in your owne bowels: all you haue said, hath not pulled out of your sides yet my throwne dart of Probabilitie, that your way is Noueltie.

A Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere toPage 125. this first Likelihood.

THis man in his answere to them, frameth formes of my supposed Reasoning, onely to make my Likeli­hood (to the simple Reader) friuolous, but he neither fra­meth my Arguments right, neither ouerthroweth them, whilst he would shew in me folly, he very much therein befooleth himselfe. He frameth my first Likelihood thus:

Answere. Noueltie is not the truth: the Separation is Noueltie. Ergo not the truth.

Reply. He taketh the Maior for granted, as he may well, for all diuine truth is Antiquitie: though for the manifestation of some particulars thereof it may seeme to be new.

The Minor he would denie, for that I might so con­demne (saith he) Luther and Caluins opinions, because they were new, and so commend Poperie, which had a thousand yeeres prescription against Caluin.

But his consequence followes not, and it is also vntrue which he saith, that Caluins opinions were new. For Hy­stories shew, that the Protestants opinions haue beene maintained from time to time against the Papists, till Lu­thers dayes, and the prescription of a thousand yeares, were onely the darke time of Antichristianisme, ouershadow­ing the cleare light of Caluins, or rather Gods truth, which shone in the Churches Apostolicall, and in the times after, till Antichrist arose and preuailed.

Againe he erreth; First, in making new opinions & Nouel­ties New, and No­ueltie, are not one. all one, when Opinions may be called new, in respect either of late manifestation, or recalling of them againe to minde, which were vtterly forgotten, and yet be auncient truths: but Noueltie is neuer truth, as euer contrary to true Antiquitie.

Secondly, by supposing that I take Noueltie to be the publishing of true opinions a fresh, after they haue some long time been hid, which is far from my thought. But No­ueltie is that, which is contrary to the truth, and true An­tiquitie, where and whensoeuer it be set abroach: and this I affirme their way to be, and thus I frame the reason:The Separa­tists way is Noueltie.

That which is contrarie to the truth and true Antiquitie, is Noueltie. But the singular way of the Separatists, from all the Churches, is contrary to truth and true Antiquitie. And therefore it is Noueltie. The Minor will appeare to be true, if men will weed out their differing way from all Churches, and shew that way distinctly from the same, and try it by Scripture, and true Antiquities, they shall finde it not practised in, or by any true Church of God. And thus we see that his framed Reason is against himselfe, though hee made it against me, and to shew therein my simplicitie, which he saith he pitieth in mee. But in deed he frameth not my Reason aright, as euery vnderstanding Reader shall iudge, which therefore I thus set downe: And let me see what both the former Separatist, and this strange Se-bap­tist, Se-baptist. withall their best Associats, can say to the same.

Such a Noueltie diuised in diuine matters, as causeth a dif­ference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendome, is likely not to be the good way of God.

But the way of the Seperation, is such a Noueltie as causeth a difference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christen­dome.

And therefore the way is likely not to be the good way of God.

That it is a Likelihood cannot be denied. First, becauseLikely reasons that their way is Noueltie. New wayes from all Churches, are a probable coniecture [Page 46] of affected singularitie, & 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 Antiquitie of it, to be the old way. Ier. 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 vs the custome of Gods Churches. 1. Cor. 11. 16. and therefore it is a Likelihood, that a new way which ouerthrowes the Custome, and brea­keth peace with all Gods Churches is not the good way. Can it be lesse than a Likelihood to be in a new differing way from all? The Minor is graunted of them, and proued here before, and in my other Booke against them. Is it not likely then that their way is not the good way of God?

Now M^r. Smith, pitie not me, but lament your owne in­stabilitie and folly. Make hereafter your owne Arguments, let mee frame mine owne. Your labour shall be rewar­ded with small thankes at my hand. You offer mee a counterfait weapon, and too blunt to cut: giue me leaue to make mine owne, I can set an edge vpon it to smite with, though you thinke farre otherwise. Be not too highly conceited of your selfe, yeeld to truth, and studie to be quiet, & endeuour as much to see your owne errors in run­ning on, as you gaue your selfe to finde out corruptions whilest you were here: be indifferent, and we doubt not of your returne from your self, as some now be returned from you: blessed be God.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this.

Reply. THis Answerer, first saith, that I doe not name any agree­ment of them with the old Schismatikes, but that I doe onely quote M^r. Gifford in the margent to proue it. This Doctor cannot see the wood for the trees, this which I haue said may now shew it him. I cannot write against him a Booke, and finde him eyes too, to see into it. Was it his ig­norance or carelesnesse, or both? hee despised my labour, and therefore he ouersaw, what others may see there plainly set downe. That which was first set downe by way of pre­uention, darkened his sight, that he beheld not the rest fol­lowing, nor answered the first. Yet if he thinke that my rea­sons proue them no Schismatickes, or that the Ancient Schismatickes were not such, for the fore-named causes; let them, to cleare this point, set downe truely by the Word, what is properly a Schisme in the Church: who are Shisma­tickes: wherein was the Schisme of former Schismaticks: & why the Ancient Churches did condemne And us, Donatus, and others for Schismatickes. Epiphanius doth speake otherwiseHeres. 70. much good of Andius, to be one vpright in life, in faith, and full of zeale towards God, and yet held a Schismaticke. [Page 48] So Optatus, speaking of Donatists, saith; wee beleeue andLib. 3. teach the same things, we are baptised, and doe baptise after one sort; yet for diuiding themselues from other churches were Schismatikes: from whose iudgement I thus reason:

Those, though otherwise neuer so godly, that separate from Who are Schismatickes by the iudge­ment of anci­ent Churches. true Churches, like Nouatus 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 Schismatickes. This is the iudgement of ancientBooke transl. page 35. Churches, for which see at large, Morneus, de Ecclesia.

But our late Separatists doe diuide themselues from vs vp­on like grounds: for a more strickt discipline with Nouatus, and Lucifer; for that good and bad are mixed together, with Donatus; and from lesser corruptions among vs with Andius. Therefore are these also Schismatickes.

This is also learned Zanchius Iudgement, and Saint Au­gustines Zanch. lib. de Ecclesia. opinion is, that they who doe breake the bond of Fel­lowship are Schismatickes. Zanchie fetteth downe what aIn Esai cap 2. ver. 3 pag. 119. 120. Schisme is, where are Schismatickes, with the reasons they pretend, as iust causes of separation, and thus hee writeth:

There is (saith he) a departing and falling away in Chari­tie, and the Simbols of Charitie, that is, in the receiuing of the Sacraments, partaking of publike Prayers, in the collection of the Almes of the Church, and other such like Ecclesiasticall exercises; to wit, when any man, albeit he doth agree with the rest of the Church of Christ, in the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine, neuerthelesse I know not for what light causes (saith hee) hee with-draweth himselfe from the rest of the Church, will not communicate with it in the Sacraments. Such are cal­led (saith he) by a proper word, Schismaticks, and such a depar­ture What Schisme is. Schisme, as one should say, a cutting off, [...]: for that they cut in sunder the vnitie of the Church, by this their departing, and as also, saith Augustine, vnder the colour of faith, they breake in sunder the bond of fellowship.

The causes (saith hee) which Schismatickes pretend when Page. 121. 122. Fiue causes pre­tended for Se­paration by Schismaticks. they with-draw themselues from the communion of the Church, are fiue: Some difference in doctrine; varietie of Ceremonies [Page 49] and Rites; some vices of the Ministers; the more lewd life of them that liue in the Church; and the comming of all sorts, hand ouer head, to the Supper of the Lord: all which he pro­ueth to be no lawfull causes to forsake a Church of Christ, from the page 122. to 133. And lest any should obiect the want of Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasti­call discipline be restored into the Churches vnder them, yet may not we forsake that Church for that cause: Reade this worthy learned man: hee may giue any man, not wilfully fore-stalled, sufficient satisfaction; hee doth not onely giue barely his iudgement, but sets downe his reasons, and an­sweres obiections. For this see also Caluins iudgement in his Institutions. lib. 4. and on Psal 26. 5.

Answere. Secondly, for Answere, M^r. Ainsworth saith, that this Likelihood is an obiection of the Papists; and looke what wee can say for our selues against the Papists in this Point, the same also will as well, if not better, cleare them against vs.

Reply. This Answerer saith of mee, page 163. that I make a woeful Obiection, and am rather to be pittied, then answe­red in my idle (as hee supposeth) Repetitions: for which, hee some two or three times taxeth mee, but by an vtter mistaking. Would not any thinke that hee should be free of that which hee condemneth in another? and yet what he iudgeth in me lamentable, in him is pittifully miserable. Hee is altogether idle in often obiecting the Papists to vs, before, now here, and after in the next answere of his: and as friuolous, as idle. Is this a good Reason, the Papists hold vs Schismatickes, but falsely; therefore may not we account them Schismatickes, and that truely? The Reason is good (saith hee) for that they are not more truely condemned of vs for Schismatickes, then wee be so iudged by the Pa­pists: because our defence against the Papists, is the same for them against vs. How vaine is this mans imagination, to thinke that wee can say nothing for our departing from [Page 50] the Romish Sinagogue of Sathan, but that the same will cleare them as well, if not better, for separating from vs. A pittifull Doctor truely, that belieueth and teacheth his Schollers in this sort. But let him know, and all his associats, that wee forsake not the Church of Rome, for that they are not in a true Constitution, or for externall Gouernement, We forsake not Rome for the same causes, for which the Se­paratists doe forsake vs. 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 fundamentall, or for corruptions of a lesse nature, as these men doe from vs, without all warrant from the word: Ex­cept they will with M^r. Smith, expound the old Testament after his phantasie, and so become Anabaptists.

But we leaue (as the Leuites did the ten Tribes in Ierobo­ams Why we de­part 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 vnwritten verities, and humane traditions, equalized with the holy Scriptures. Thirdly, because they haue not, neyther doe allow the Word of God so much as to be read in a knowne tongue, or to be had priuately so in the peoples hands. Fourthly, because they make Ecclesiasti­call Lawes, and impose them as the diuine pleasure and will of God, vpon mens consciences, to be done, as true worship to God. Fiftly, because they haue many false Sacraments. Sixtly, because they do commit grosse Idolatry to stocks and stones, their worship is all in an vnknown tongue. Seauenth­ly, because they do teach most damnable Heresies, as neces­sarie doctrines of faith and saluation, of which see for many Doctor Willets Sinopsis, and for one and twentie specials in M^r. Parkins Reformed Catholike. Not one of these in our Church, but all of them, are detested in word and deed, as all of the Diuell, and his grand Sonne, the man of sinne, Antichrist, and are all euidently and plainely condemned of vs, as being against Gods word in the old and new Testa­ment.

Now (M^r. Ainsworth) if these will as well, or better, [Page 51] cleare you from Schismaticall Separating from them, as they doe vs, in iust Separating from them, then must you prooue these selfe same to be in our Churches, for whichM^r. Ainsworth, an intollerable abuser of the Church of England, ex­cept he can prooue what he saith. you so depart from vs, els haue you in this your answere spoken very vnaduisedly, I might truely, say, most slaun­derously. If you attempt to make the seely Creatures mis­led by you, to beleeue that either these or the like in equall Euill, is in our Church maintained and practised, thereby to maintaine your Separation, as lawfull from vs, as ours is from Rome, you are worthy of that which you deserue.

Thirdly, and lastly in his Answere, as he foolishly would cleare himselfe from Schisme, by our Chuches departure from Rome: so would he make me a Schismaticke in the Church of England. He blameth me in his first Fore-speech, as one rather offensiue to others, then defensiue for our selues, and what is he (iudge Reader) in his Answere to these Probabilities? doth hee cleare himselfe from Schisme? or doth hee not onely rather seeke to make others as bad as himselfe? Hee is a miserable Physition, that would sucke out like corruption (if any such were) from others, as he and his are infected with all, to cure themselues. What if our Church were in Schisme, and my selfe a Schismaticke? to finde vs out to be like himselfe, is hee and his the lesse sinfull? but the follie of such Reasoning in this Doctour is before discouered.

Touching the Couenant pretended, so he calleh it, be­cause he vnderstandeth, that it was not for them: thus may I say: M^r. Smith taught, that a true Church should make aWe are a peo­ple in coue­nant with God, and haue renued our couenant also. couenant with God, and when they fall, renew the same a­gaine: he denyed vs so to haue done, but I shewed the con­trary. As first, that we had couenanted all of vs by Baptisme, when we were thereby receiued into the Church. This co­uenant, after we were come to yeares of discretion, and ad­mitted to the other Sacrament, we did renew, and still so do, at that time, which is manifest from the order establi­shedThe Booke of Common prai­er setteth downe an or­derly and an Apostolicall proceeding to receiue the Lords Supper. in the Administration of the Lords Supper; wherein three things are performed. First, an Exhortation is made [Page 52] by the Minister, to the Congregation to repent of sinne, to bewaile their estate: if any haue done amisse in any thing, he forewarneth them not to come to that holy Ta­ble. Secondly, the Minister inuiteth the repentant, whose properties he setteth downe, and how they ought to come: Namely, first, with true and earnest Repentance towards God: secondly, with loue and Charitie towards their neighbours: thirdly, with an intent to lead a new life, fol­lowing the commandements of Almightie God: & fourth­ly, with a purpose from thence forth to walke in his holy wayes. Thirdly after al this, the people freely do offer them­selues and do make a generall Confession voluntarily, with one voyce & consent: in which, they first do confesse their sinne: secondly, craue pardon: thirdly professe amende­ment, with a desire to continue in well doing euer after; whence I thus Reason:

The Churches which voluntarily, after admonition giuen, The reason framed to proue our Co­uenant renued with God. doe come, and make open confession of sin, craue pardon; pro­mise amendment euer after: they doe visibly renew their coue­nant with God.

I say visibly, for who at that time can iudge the heart, but God alone? And what is the renuing of the CouenantWhat is the renuing of the couenant. with God, but this? viz. the acknowledgement of sinne af­ter the offence committed, crauing of pardon, and pro­mising amendement? the performance of the thing after, is the declaration of the truth thereof, which for the pre­sent is not seene.

But our Parish Churches, both haue done, and doe so, euen as often as they doe receiue the Lords Supper.

The Proofe of this is our common practise, set downe in the Common prayer Booke.

And therefore our Parish Churches, haue reneued their Couenant with God. And then these of the Separation for want of this, cannot condemne vs: as I did shew at the re­ceiuing of the Sacrament, vpon the occasion afore named: and this is that couenant pretended, saith he, and not inten­ded, say I, at all to further them; whatsoeuer some igno­rantly, [Page 53] other maliciously, haue imagined to the contrary. I expounded the words of the Booke, declared plainly our former practise, and our present purpose to be a Renuing of our couenant with God. Which M^r. Smith not percei­uing and denying, did take aduantage to leade away the people, which by the manifesting of this couenant with an earnest Exhortation thereupon, I endeuoured to pre­uent, as it hath so rightly fallen out, since then:

Some will peraduenture obiect and say:

Obiection. Obection 1. That the Minister doth speake the words.

Answere. Answer. And so doe the people after the Minister, and doe say thereunto, Amen: which is a consent to what the Minister speakes; also the Minister is their mouth vnto God in Prayer, Esdr. 9. as he is Gods mouth to them in Preaching.

Obiection. Obiection 2. That is made in generall of all, & not in par­ticular of euery one, with particular mention of their sins.

Answer. Answer. 1. A generall Confession of a particular per­son is acceptable, as Dauids was, then much more the ge­nerall Confession of a whole Congregation. 2. Let them shew an example of a whole Church together making particular Confession of the sinnes of particular persons, or any commandement so to doe in the Churches, in the re­nuing of their couenant with God.

Obiection. Obiection. 3. Perhaps they will say, that all this is done in our Assemblies vpon a Booke.

Answer. Answer. 1. The Minister reads vpon a Booke, but the people receiue his words by voice into their mindes, and from their inward apprehension giue consent to the Minister confessing, praying and promising for them, and they for themselues, by saying the words and answering Amen. 2. Though it be in part from a Booke, this ma­keth it not, either to be no Confession, Prayer, and Pro­mise, or false, so it be with vnderstanding, agreable to the word of God, for the matter, and done from the heart. 3. To the people it is all one to heare their Minister pray from the Booke, as from his brayne. For it is the matter [Page 54] agreeing to the words rightly conceaued, and in heart af­fected, which maketh the thing to be approoued of God, and not words vttered by the Ministers mouth, from ei­ther his owne inuention, or a Booke by the Churches ap­pointment.

Obiection. Obiection. 4. And lastly, If exception be taken but a­gainst this, because it's in part from a Booke:

Answere. Then the thing is granted which now wee plead for: But a dispute riseth only about the manner of doing, which is not now the point in hand here, neither needed to bee disputed vpon.

To conclude this with M^r. Ainsworth, his alledging of Canons, is as his and their quoting of Scriptures, brought out to condemne others, but proue directly against them­selues. For M^r. Ainsworth and his Company separate themselues from the Communion of Saints: he and they combine in a new brother-hood: hee and they account the Christians, who are conformable to the Doctrine, Go­uernment &c. of the Church of England, to be prophane and vnmeet to be ioyned with in Christian Profession, so doe not wee here that remaine with our Mother the Church of England.

A Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to this second Likelihood or Probabilitie.

MAster Smith frameth my Argument thus: They that M^r. Smiths answere, page 126. in some things agree with ancient Heretiques and Schis­matickes, are Heretiques and Schismatickes.

The Seperatists do agree in some things with ancient He­retiques and Schismatickes. Therefore they are such, &c.

Reply. Making this my reason: his answere is, that thus might he proue me an Heretique and Schismaticke, because Here­tiques & Schismaticks haue held the doctrine of the Dietie, Trinitie, the fall of Adam: in which things I doe with them agree.

And by this Argument may M^r. Smith proue himselfe a Iew, a Turke, a Papist, a Brownist, an Hereticke: for in some things hee agreeth with them all, and with Arrians and Familists his next neighbours in his Anabaptisme. The Argument hee reiects as vaine and light, and so doe I; if it be vaine as it is, let the vaine framer of it take it to himselfe, mine it is not. This second likelihood I thus forme: where­to let him answere.

They that differ from all the best Reformed Churches of A likelihood framed into the forme of reasoning, to proue them probably to be Schismatickes. Christ, and in that difference agree with, and walk in the steps of ancient Schismatickes, it is very likely they be Schismaticks.

But the Separatists differ from all the best reformed churches, and in that difference agree with, and walke in the steps of an­cient Schismatickes. Ergo, it is very probable they of the Sepa­ration be Schismatickes. The first part needeth no proofe: their so walking can be no lesse then a Probabilitie. The Minor is euident: first, that they differ from Reformed Churches, and secondly, in that Separation are agreeable to the Ancient Schismatickes, as is before declared in this Reply to M^r. Ainsworth: and therefore the Conclusion fol­lowes necessarily.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage 156. this third Likelihood.

IF it were not to shew this mans folly, and to lay open to my owne people his vanitie, with the falshood vsed in an­swering, I would cease to make Reply vnto him, but would let giddy heads runne, that would with such an answere be carryed away. In this Answere hee abuseth intollera­blyM^r. Ainsworths idle Answere vnworthy of Answere. the vnaduised Reader, that compareth not my Booke and his answere together. First, he changeth my Probabi­litie in the Text, and takes the Marginall Note: see and read both. Secondly, he passeth ouer my three proofes of the Likelihood; the Exposition of the first Proofe, the second wholy, and the third; also the foure waies plainly laid downe, shewing how they doe abuse the Scripture: of which not one word, but he snatcheth at two Instances giuen. Rea­der, I pray thee read, obserue well and iudge. In his An­swere he is as idle, as deceitfull in his ouer-skipping of my reasons. First, saith he, I walke in the Papists steps, which is idlely repeated of him now three times. It seemes this man thinkes euery thing to be hatefull and to be auoyded, which the Papists doe, we may not eate, weare clothes, wee may not reason in that forme, and also vse those Arguments truely, which the Papists vse Sophistically and falsely. Hee is much beholden to the Papists, for I see not how he could haue made answere to my Likelihoods but for them. If itSee Osiander against Ana­baptists. be ill for vs to vse Papists arguments, why doe they the arguments of the Anabaptists. I say they vse strange [Page 57] expositions, which also I haue declared in my former booke, to be such as are contrary to the generall and con­stant opinions of Diuines, Orthodoxall Writers, such as the Church of God neuer receiued: the instances I omitted, but shewed that they were confuted by many vnder hand wri­ting, and were in the hands of M^r. Smith, whom I expected should haue beene the first Answerer to my Booke. Besides this Answerer and his Fellow, is by one challenged for this point, and twentie Positions set downe, which are in some of their hands, this I auouch in my Booke; besides Doctor Allysons booke against them. To all hee answeres, that those to whom their expositions seeme strange, are (saith hee) themselues strangers from God: Alluding to Eph. 2. 12. as it seemeth: whether so or noe, this is an accursed proud speech. It is most vncharitable so to censure all, not appro­uing their expositions: it is high arrogancy to appropriate such singularitie to themselues in expounding, as who so hold them strange, are strangers from God, that is, with­outWho are strangers from God. the true God, without Christ, hopelesse of heauen; for such are strangers from God. Hee leaueth to the Godly wise, to discerne of their expositions; and so doe I his An­swere here, except he meane by his Godly wise, such as be of his owne stampe, as I suspect.

My instance giuen Acts. 20. 21. hee first Cauils at, sus­pecting my faithfull dealing in citing it truly, as one doth alledge it: but the place is a proofe to an answere made to a question in a Catechisme of M^r. Cliftons; whom in pit­tie and loue to his person I was loth to name: and yet sor­rowing for him, whom I truely and entirely loued in our way, as a man deuoted to God, and euery way worthy of loue, for his vnreprouable life and conuersation: I haue dealt truely with his labour herein, as the place with questi­on and answere compared doth shew. Let this vncharita­ble Answerer suspect and suppose what he pleaseth.

Secondly, he fals from the matter into a by-point, and would proue that wee, whom hee in contempt cals Priests, teach not all the truth of God in England, by our practise, [Page 58] and by our Lawes and Canons. Hee findes fault with mee, but not vnderstanding me, for impertinent discourses, but who doth roue now? I doe proue that they doe misalledge Scripture: he takes occasion from the Scripture to tell vs that we teach not all the truth of God. When this is the question betweene vs, he shall receiue an answere from vs fully: this now shall suffice, I say that we doe teach all Gods truth knowne to vs, if he meane their conceits, wee doe no [...] teach them, we approue not them for truths.

Thirdly, hee runneth vpon vs for misalledging Scrip­ture, by which, as is shewed before in another case, hee re­specteth not to grant themselues abusers of Scripture, so that they may haue companions in euill. Hee referres the Reader ouer in some other things, to the former Treatise,The former Treatise is an answere of his to M^r. Spr. and so doe I, there to receiue his answere.

To the places by me brought forth in my Booke, page 82. which he cauils at in his booke, Page 167. I answere, that first, he confuteth them not, but doth aske a question, whyPage 158. hee may not misalledge Scripture out of the Psal. 106. 39. Ierem. 23. 15. 21. against vs, which are misalledged? to which I say hee may not: albeit I had mistaken any place, hee may not doe wickedly, because others doe ill. Peruer­ting of Scripture is great impietie against God: Is this a Doctor to aske such a question? Secondly; he changeth in the end my position, which he first rightly set downe, and for which the places were brought; I say wee are Gods people,We are Gods people. and I proue it: first, because he hath giuen vs his word and wrought effectually by the same, and by that effectu­alnes of the word in conuerting, I say it is the voyce of the Sonne of God: for all which I quote Psal. 147. 19. 20. Ier. 23. 22. Iohn. 5. 25.

Now he would make the Reader beleeue, that I say, that England hath Gods word, because Israel had it: and for thisPage 157. purpose doe bring these Scriptures. Is it not wofull, that the man will needes be blinde? Wilfulnesse deserues correcti­on. If hee were so ignorant and seely as hee seemeth, hee should be more worthy pitty; then an answere. The other [Page 59] place which he would make answere vnto, is in 1. Peter 2. 9.Lib. de Eccles. q. pr. pag. 80. 125. which I say is properly meant of the Church inuisible, as Doctor Whittakers vnderstands the first verse, and vrgeth it against Bellarmine, and saith it cannot be vnderstood of vi­sible particular Churches. The Apostle writeth a Catholi­que1. Pet. 2. 9. is vnderstood of the inuisible Church. Epistle to the dispersed Christians, of whose Election he was perswaded; he speaketh also of a Generation cho­sen, Elect, of a kingly Priest-hood, a holy Nation, a peo­ple set at libertie, such onely are those which are in Christ truely, and visible Churches are not such; experience shew­eth, and the Scripture in all Ages, that the Apostle speaks thus vnto men professing Religion, the Reason, for that in charitie hee perswadeth himselfe that of all men, those which openly professe Christ, in a care to please him, are the likliest to him, to be the Elect of God, & of the inuisible Church, & the rest in the visible church not so reformed, he hopeth well of, that they are the Elect before God, though not yet so manifest to men. All the Elect, holy, liuing stones, spiritual house, are inuisible, and not discerneable to the Eie of the bodie, but Tytles belonging to the Catholique Church, as Doctor Whittakers saith, and onely seene by the Eie of Faith. If it were meant of the visible Church, then may the Elect vtterly perish; a holy Nation be prophane, people set at libertie, turne againe to bondage: yea, Christs bodie, which is the true spirituall House, a royall Priest­hood perish, contrarie to his word. Againe, men are so cal­led in respect of Christ their Head, and not in respect of their outward holinesse.

Answere. 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 answere, it followes 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 inuisible, because all, All the Scripture was written to the visible Churches, and euery thing therein; yet not all therein spoken, spoken of it. It speakes of the Church Tryumphant, of heauen and [Page 60] of hell, doth it speake therefore of the visible Church? This Reason is altogether without reason, let his wise Rea­der iudge. Saint Paul writeth Ephe. 1. 4. Hee hath chosen vs 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. Answere. 2 Secondly, Be­cause (saith he) Moses so spake to the Israelites: Exod. 19. 6. Reply Where vnto I answer, first, againe as immediately before I to the place of Moses. Exod. 19. 6. haue said to his other reason: secondly, the place expounds it selfe to be meant of the inuisible Church, though spoken to the visible; it is with a condition of true hearing, and o­beying the Lords voyce, verse 5. Now such as truely heare and doe Gods commandements, are onely the Elect saith Doctor Whittakers, Lib. de Eccles. Pag. 80. towards the end: thirdly, these titles might be spoken of the Iewish 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 dignitie. Reply. But this end proueth that the Apostle doth meane the members of the inuisible Church, in the visible. He saith, they are a chosen generation and so forth: this is his charitie, but he doth not say, that they shew 1. Pet. 2. 9. forth the vertues of Christ, but that they should shew thē forth. Declaring the end of Christs calling, and withall, giuing them a token, to know who they be indeed that are called effectually, and are of the chosen Generation, royall Priest-hood, and holy Nation: not all that are called are Elect, not all in the visible Church, are of the inuisible, but onely such as truely shew foorth the holy vertues of Christ our Sauiour.

Now whether this place appertaine properly to the inuisible Church or no, though spoken to the visible in [Page 61] charitie, I leaue it to euery sound Diuine to iudge. He puts it ouer to euery member of the visible Church to iudge: this man (it may seeme) supposeth euery true member of the Church able to iudge of that wherein hee himselfe is greatly mistaken: great humilitie in esteeming well of o­ther mens good parts, but great seelinesse with all.

Doctor A [...]ison is answered in a word; in their Iudge­ment, his labour is vnworthy a Doctor of Diuinitie, saith he, and so haue they thought best to passe him ouer: good cause why, if they could they would haue made answer to him. His course is a death to their cause; he puls off theirSee Ainsworth, Page 116. 124. vizard, shewes of Scripture, the abuse whereof by them is intollerable.

If they would but explaine their Scriptures, and shew how thence doe arise their singular opinions, no more need to be required of any vnderstanding Reader to discry the false-hood of their way, and vaine (if not impious) shews of Scripture which they will muster in the margent, if they allude but to the phrase in Scripture. See the places al­ledged by them in the Preface to the Reader, in their Booke to his Maiestie. Page 6. 7. marke the matter, and the Scrip­tures, and see how little they accord. This I professe for my selfe, that there impertinent allegations of Scripture wrought in me a iust suspicion of personall ill entents, and after by due tryall a reiection of their cause, as the forge­ries of their owne heart, which by abuse of Gods most ho­ly word, they would make him Author off.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to thePag. 126. third Probabilitie.

HIs Answere is onely a framing of what I say into this Sillogisme. That is not the truth, the teachers and pro­fessors This is not my reason. whereof sometimes doe giue strange Expositions, [Page 62] and thereby doe wrest the Scriptures.

But the teachers and professours of the Separation, doe strangely expound and wrest the holy Scriptures:

Therefore the Separation is not the truth.

Reply. He that deuiseth an Argument of his owne, in stead of what another maketh, if thereby he would ouerthrow an Aduersarie, hee is much conceited of himselfe, that any thing may passe from him as currant, or he iudgeth him whom hee opposeth, to be exceeding simple. What M^r. Smith thinketh of himselfe, or of me, I let passe. But my reason from the third Likelihood, is thus framed.

The way which is defended by the teachers and professours thereof with strange Expositions, impertinent allegations, and Sophisticall conclusions, is likely not to be the truth.

I vnderstand not sometime, as he saith in his propositi­on, but vsually, if not alwayes, whether it be of ignorance, or wilfulnesse 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 professours thereof, with strange Expositions, impertinent allegations, and Sophisticall conclusions.

By the way of Separation, I meane not any truth which they hold with vs, or with Reformed Churches, but onely that, wherein they doe walke apart from all Churches of God in the world, as Schismatickes, and in the Brownisme which they maintaine 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 haue partly shewed to be true in my for­merThe Separa­tists foure wayes princi­pally do abuse Scripture: See my for­mer Booke, Page 26. 28. Booke, by setting downe foure seuerall wayes of their abuse of Scripture, to vphold their cause: by which (as ge­nerall Rules) the particular places may be tryed: partly in this Booke, in giuing answere to seuerall places alledged falsly, by M^r. Ainsworth, in defence of his way: If M^r. Ains­worth require speciall instances, I referre him ouer; first to Doctor Allison, who handleth this very point, and onely [Page 63] this, in a good bigge booke, it is not yet answered, and therefore he herein shall saue me labour. Then to M^r. Smith himselfe, who expoundeth the places brought by M^r. Ains­worth & his companie, to maintaine their threefold Presbi­terie, otherwise then they do, & condemneth them as false. Also to M^r. Bradshawes challenge, which is not yet publikely by them set forth, if they could answer him in this, they be not sparing of their labour. Lastly, I set him ouer to the places by him alledged, and of me answered in this booke afterwards.

If M^r. Smith doe require (as hee doth) that I produce particular places, I referre him ouer to answere M^r. Iohnsons company, condemning him in their iudgement, as an Here­ticke, for the opinions which he holdeth by Sophistrie, and abuse of Scriptures: So also I will him to looke vnto the Reioynder of diuers Ministers, who haue shewed him his false exposition vpon Math. 23. 2. 3. and many other out of the New and Old Testament: to all which he hath made no answere, that we know of; I may therefore saue my paines, either to adde more, or repeate what others say, sithen they be not answered.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage 158. 159. this fourth Likelihood.

Reply. HEe passeth by the proofe of my Likelihood, which is, that it is a propertie of the Church of God, to be ableA true Church can iudge of a true Church. to discerne of a true Church: els none can. The proofe of this M^r. Ainsworth acknowledgeth, for he saith; that men endewed with Gods spirit, can discerne the Church, 1. Cor. 2. 15. Now all the Churches beyond the Seas acknowledge vs forSee Page 125. true Churches, but allow not of them so standing: it is like­ly then we be in the true Churches, and they in a Schisme, forsaking vs as false Churches. For this see more in my booke, Page 177. lightly passed ouer by this Answerer, and his fellow helpers.

His reasons giuen to refell my Likelihood are none at all: yet what he saith let vs see.

Answere. 1 First, hee 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 maist see (Reader) hath hee answered the first, and so this remaineth vnanswered.

Answere. 2 Secondly, he saith, that this is a maine proppe to vphold our Church of England, and that we loue to make flesh our Arme. Reply. Hee 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 maine proppe; it is denyed plainely in my booke, Page 177. And in this place I account it but a likelihood, or probable con­iecture: what an ill spirit is this man led with, who will needs make vs belieue wee hold that which plainely by word, wri­ting and practise we disclaime.

Answere. 3 Thirdly, he refers his Reader ouer to his Answere in his former Treatise, and so doe I, to expect thereto a Reply: Reply. if he had dealt particularly with me, I would haue answered [Page 65] him in particular: other mens labours, best vnderstood of themselues, I leaue to themselues; not that I cannot make an­swer to what he there saith, but I know the party with whom he dealeth, is euery way sufficient to encounter a greater Ad­uersarie then this Answerer, though he help himselfe with Answere. 4 all the power he can with his confederates. Reply. Againe, he re­fers men ouer to Iunius Letters. so doe I: for they be Let­ters published to their disgrace, if they were capeable to ap­prehend shame. Answere. 5 Lastly, he puts me ouer to the Church of England, because we there say, that the truth of the Gospel of Iesus Christ, dependeth not vpon counsels; nor as S. Paul saith, vpon the iudgement of mortall 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 it selfe: wee here of a Church professing the Gospel there, whether the Gospel depend on mans autho­ritie: here, whether it be not a probable coniecture and likelihood, that the Church is a true Church, which the best Reformed doe acknowledge so, and that particular persons opposing all their iudgements therein, be not in a Schisme by so departing with condemnation.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to thisPage 126. 127. fourth Likelihood.

AS before, so first here he frameth a reason of his owne head, making his disciples beleeue the same to be mine, his Argument is thus set downe:

They that are not approued, by the Reformed Churches That is not my reason neither, but he abuseth me, and play­eth with his owne shadow. haue not the truth.

But the Separation is not approued by the Reformed Chur­ches.

Therefore the Separation is not the truth.

Next he giueth an Answere thereunto. First, to the Mi­nor denying it, by prouing that the Reformed Churches [Page 66] doe approue of their Separation. But the reason brought to proue it, is not sufficient: which is because the Vniuer­sities and Iunius haue not disallowed, but being silent, haue consented to them. It seemeth that he thus reasoneth:

Whosoeuer doe passe ouer with silence mens published wri­tings, M^r. Smiths weake reason, to proue them­selues to be al­lowed of the Reformed Churches. wherein they haue been desired to shew their iudgement, they consent and allow of such writings.

This is seely and weake: Men may keepe silence, not for that they approue, but disallow the matter propounded, which sufficiently doth condemne it selfe: and for that they see the Publishers to be men of a contentious spirit, and will not be satisfied, neither will see what is amisse, though it be shewed vnto them. And this is the cause of many mens silence in this matter among vs, and why not the cause al­so in others.

But the vniuersities of the Reformed Churches passe ouer with silence the published writings of the Separatists, wherein they haue beene desired to shew their iudgement.

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 bare silence for consent. A meere coniecturall approbati­on from fansie, because the Vniuersities be silent, yet some Churches speake & shew their dislike: let Amsterdam it self witnesse this against them. If it be a good reason to con­cludeBy M^r. Smiths owne Argu­ment, the Scripture doth approue the Baptisme of Infants. a consent where the matter is with Silence passed ouer, I demaund of M^r. Smith, why hee disalloweth the Baptisme of children, sithen by this his reason, the holy Ghost consenteth vnto it? if with all he consider the gene­rall commandement for baptising all, Christs allowing of children to come vnto him, the Circumcising of Infants vn­derMany reasons summed toge­ther for Bap­tisme of In­fants. the Law, the Analogie and proportion of one with the other, the largenesse of the Couenant to the Father and his seed, as to Abraham and Isaac after the promise, so to the beleeuing Christian Father, and to his childe after the promise: As Faith in Abraham begate Isaac his childe, after the power of the word of Promise to be a visible [Page 67] member of Gods Church: so Faith in a Christian Fa­ther begetteth a childe, after the power of the word of Promise, to be now a visible member of Christs Church: Isaac was not the seed by naturall Generation, but Is­mael, hee was of the word of Promise; so Iacob, and such as came of him, were accounted the children of Promise, because he was promised, and Abraham beleeued against Nature and reason of hope, and so had him. Adde hereto, that the grace vnder the Gospel extendeth it selfe as far and to as many, as Gods fauour did vnder the law. If therefore a childe was by the parents faith, in the couenant vnder the Law, much more the children of Beleeuers now vnder the Gospel. Examples there be of whole families baptised, & the Scriptures doe not disallow Infants; Children of beleeuing Parents are holy by their parents Faith: yea, God hath out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings made perfect his praise: Dauid hoped in God hanging vpon his mothers brests: Iohn Baptist beleeued, and leapt in his mothers wombe for ioy. If children then be holy, if they may be­leeue, if leape for ioy, if laude and praise God, if they be in the Couenant, if God be their God, and all Hystories shew it to be the Churches practise to baptise Infants, & not any mans inuentions, can M^r. Smith iustly condemne it? If the Scripture be silent in it, God alloweth and consents vnto it, by his owne reason, whereby he condemneth himselfe in that he alloweth.

Secondly, he answereth to the Maior, to wit thus. They thatThe Separa­tists regard not the iudgement of any Church. though they be not approued by the Reformed Churches, and haue not the truth in their iudgement: yet he suppo­seth, first, that they may haue the truth, though no church approue of them: and secondly; that they may haue the allowance of Gods Churches, planted by the Apostles, though not the approbation of the Church now: and thus they sooth vp themselues with suppositions, to be wi­ser then all Churches, to know more of the Apostolicall Churches then any, or els to haue more conscience to fol­low them then all: one of these they must needs imagine [Page 68] to be in them, if they chose either, it is pride and folly. Last­ly, he telleth me that the Reformed Churches doe vtterly disallow our Church, in regard (saith he) of the Prelacie. He may in this be answered, first, with his owne answere to vs, sufficient to turne his owne weapon vpon himselfe: but secondly, it is not true, he saith, as the Epistle of Beza and Sadeel, in the name of the whole Vniuersitie at Geneua, manifestly declareth, as elsewhere is shewed. And thus much for his answer, and reason framed as he listed, which I re­nounce: this is my Argument:

Whom the Reformed Churches approue 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 approue not of the Separatists in their way: but allow vs for a true Church, which they deny.

Therefore it is likely they are not in the right way.

It is a speciall propertie (as hath beene said) of the true Churches, to haue the Spirit of discerning who are true Churches, who are not: the Spirituall 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 discerne a true Church, but so far should erre, as to approue 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, approue vs for a true church, whom the Separatists condemn, how should a true Church be knowne, if a true Church (nay so many true Churches) can iudge no better of a true Church? If it be granted that the Churches haue this spirit of discerning, then as it is likely that we are Gods Church, because they approue of vs; So is it likely, that the Separatists way is not good, or that the Reformed Churches approue it not.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage 159. this fift Likelihood.

HIs answere to this Likelihood, containeth onely a Answere full of contempt and vncharitable­nesse. shewing of the light estimation of these Diuines, and an vncharitable coniecture of me, how I would haue delt with Christ, if I then had been liuing: where he com­pareth them selues to Christ, and these reuerend Diuines to the Priests, Rabbins, and Diuines in Israel, condemning Christ and his Doctrine, holding the iudgement of these our Diuines, to haue no more Likelihood against them, then the Iudgement of the Iewish Rabbins and other wereM^r. 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 haue shewed, that these mens learned Iudge­ments could not be so much as a Likelihood to reproue them in their way, but hee hauing not done this, hee saith nothing.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to thePage 127. fift Probabilitie or Likelihood.

Answer. FIrst, he frameth an Argument for me, but ridiculously thus:

Whatsoeuer M^r. Whittakers, M^r. Perkins, M^r. 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, hee maketh answere by another Argument thus:

Whatsoeuer Herod, Pontius Pilate, Annas, and Caiphas, the learned Scribes and Pharises, Teriullus the Orator, and all the learned men of the Iewish Church say is true, that is true.

These persons all of them with one consent, say that Chri­stian Religion is Heresie and Schisme. Ergo, Christian Re­ligion is Heresie and Schisme.

Reply. The first I reiect, as no reason of mine: what I haue sayd I thus frame:

Whatsoeuer these godly and learned Diuines, say and write of considerately, in a point of Diuinitie concerning the visible Church, it is very likely to be true.

First, because these men were better learned, and no lesse Reasons to proue the force of the Likeli­hood. godly then these which do condemne them: secondly, be­cause they herein speake in a matter belonging to their cal­ling: thirdly, because it is to be thought that they had stu­died the controuersie, and spoke not rashly, it is to be sup­posed that so godly & learned men, would not rashly con­demne vnder their hands to after Posterities what they knew not: fourthly, Because these be many in number, and generally approued of the Churches of God. Is it not probable that such as be learned and godly, hauing studied a cause, being approued men, and many in number, doe iudge rightly of a cause? Can it not be a likelyhood? Let him that can disproue it.

But these godly and learned Diuines, say and write consi­derately, that the Separatists course (which is a point of Diui­nitie touching the visible Church) is wicked and Schismaticall.

This I haue proued in my former Booke, Page 31.

Therefore it is likely that the course of the Separatists is wicked and Schismaticall.

To conclude; he reasoneth thus for the Separation, and against vs:

Whatsoeuer Christ, the Apostles, the holy Scriptures, and M^r. Smiths rea­son to proue themselues right, and we to be out of the way. the Primitiue Apostolicke Churches, collected of the Iewes [Page 71] and Gentiles, doe allow or disallow: it is to be allowed or dis­allowed.

But the Separation is allowed, and the Church Ministe­rie, worship and Gouernment 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 proofe of this Minor, he saith, it is proued in his Booke: so he brings himselfe to witnesse for himselfe, which is a weake proofe, if hee were a man euer himselfe. But sithen he is not alwayes himselfe, neither in iudgement nor practise, his defence is childish: he should let that which he hath written be approued of other then himselfe, and his company, before he make it authoritie to confirme so false an Assumption as hee affirmeth to be true, by his owne booke. But sithen he hath no more proofe but his owne saying, I returne his Argument thus against himselfe:

Whatsoeuer Christ, his Apostles, the holy Scriptures, and the Primitiue Apostolicke Churches: yea, and all the Churches after Fathers and Counsels doe allow or disallow, is to be allowed or disallowed.

This needeth no proofe.

But the Separation is disallowed, and the Church, Mini­sterie, worship and Gouernment of the Church of England is allowed by these persons. Ergo, &c.

If M^r. Smith deny that they disallow not the Separation,And his late Booke, against M^r. Clifton. then I referre himselfe to himselfe, in his booke of diffe­rences where he condemneth the way of the Separation, practised by M^r. Iohnson and his company for Antichristi­an (out of the Scriptures) as he supposeth: and if the scrip­tures condemne it, then Christ, his Apostles and the rest, except he can shew what Church, what Counsell, what Fa­ther euer allowed of such a Separation. He may read Zan­chie de Ecclesia, against such a Separation, and Morneus in his Booke of the Church, in diuers things opposing the Separatists iudgement, with Caluin and others; to whom I referre him, as my witnesses against him. Besides, the

Scripture against his cause. If hee doe affirme, that they doe condemne our Church, the Ministerie, Worship and gouernment, then I demand whether wholy or but in part: if but in part, so may any Church of God in the world, as hee himselfe doth the separation, by him somtime so much approued: if hee say wholy, let him bring out his euiden­ces from Christ, from the Scripture. In the meane season let him answere for this matter, Bishop Bilsons perpetuall Go­uernment: Doctor Sutcliffe of Eccelesiasticall Discipline: Mr. Hooker: Mr. Bels Regiment of the Church: Doctor Downe­hams Sermon, who haue taken the defence of these things in hand, in which if they erre, let these Separatists confute them, and cease to call for new and more opponents, till these be ouer-throwne by them: till then I conclude from the premises, that we are to be allowed, and the Separatists to be disallowed.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answer toPage 159. this sixt Likelihood.

Reply. THis Likelihood, which I haue propounded and confir­med in my former Booke, from Page 32. to 42. and haue preuented many obiections, alledged some testimo­nies of it, and especially George Iohnsons Booke, he wholly (in a manner) passeth ouer with silence, onely vnder pre­tence of his Answere made alreadie vnto M^r. Sprint, vrging more prudently, as he saith, this same Likelihood; to which he putteth ouer his Reader, who must goe seeke an An­swere to what I say, and as I doe affirme it, where it is not to be found: a prettie euasion if he could so escape.

The truth is my Likihood, and Reasons, are not so setM^r. Ainsworth passeth by the instances giuen of Gods iudgement a­gainst them, for that he can not answere them. downe in M^r. Sprints Considerations, as I here vrge it. So although M^r. Ainsworth answere him, which is questiona­ble, yet he hath not made answere to what I say. But he is wise to passe that by, which he wel knew (being so laid open, as it is in my Booke) he could neuer make particular answer vnto, but with great and publike shame in the particulars.

I desire the Reader to peruse my former Booke, and consider, whether it be not very likely, that God hath been offended greatly with their course: and with the chiefe of them from the very beginning of the first knowne man, to the last principall Ring-leader of the latest out-road of such Separatours.

Obiection. If he should say vnto me, as hee doth vnto another in Page of his Booke 38. that we doe bring in mens persons against the Cause of Christ, Answer. I would answere him, that I bring not man against Christ, but Gods fearefull hand, that is, euen God himselfe against men running in a By-path, which by his iudgements he disclaimeth to be his: Gods punishments are not mans work or word, but Gods witnesse and testimonie against them.

Reply. But he would make my Likelihood nothing, for thatHis Answere. (saith he) page 38. A Canaanite, and a Philistim might haue so reasoned against the Israelites; yea, saith he, with as much truth, and more colour then wee 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, then we Gods people haue to reason against Schismatickes. See his reason: they had Gods iudgements among them, saith he, Ergo, the Canaa­nites and Philistims might condemne their religion. The consequence is vnsauorie salt, but worthy of such a Doctor in Schisme. If his Argument be naught, then perhaps, he will say, our reason is not good against them. This I deny;This reason is forcible against them, and his weake against vs: the reasons why. and marke Reader, wherein we differ: first, he bringeth in Canaanites, against Israelites, and we are a Christian church against Schismaticks: secondly, he bringeth in a fit compa­rison for them, notorious offenders punished for personall transgressions in a holy way amongst Gods people, and we bring in their chiefest and holiest persons, their Guides and Ring-leaders punished, not for personall faults, which we doe not obiect to them, but for their way in which theyPage. 34. 42. doe walke from among Gods people, as my reasons why, and how, in my former Booke manifesteth: thirdly, hee bringeth in iudgements vpon certaine members, as they fell to sin now & then, but we doe alledge Gods displeasure against their chiefe Leaders, with a continuing hand vpon them, as they rose vp one after an other to seduce people from vs into that way: as we shew that Gods hand was on Bolton, then on Browne, then on Barrow, and Green-wood, then on the two Iohnsons, then on Bornet, then on M^r. Smith, who is become in their owne iudgement, and in ours too, a fearefull Heretique. So hee should haue shewed the like by succession vpon Moses and Aaron, then on Iosua, then on Othniel, Ehud, &c, If he dare make the like com­parison betweene these & themselues, for their persons and for their cause; if not, he hath said nothing to ouerthrow this Likelihood. His inserting of Moses and Aaron [Page 77] amongst the wicked Rebels, as if Gods speciall wrath did light vpon them, is both foolishly and wickedly done. They died with honour and renowne; though it pleased God to call them away for some sinne, before they entred into Canaan, they neither died by Pestilence, nor were consumed with the Sword, nor burnt with fire, nor destroy­ed of Serpents, nor were swallowed vp of the earth, as o­thers were: that M^r. Ainsworth in his Canaanitish conceit, should muster them among the wicked, to march vnder Gods wrath to death and destruction. Againe, herein God would by them teach vs an Euangelicall truth, that not Moses nor Aaron, no Law, either Morall or Ceremoniall,Why Moses and Aaron did die before they came into Canaan. but Iosua, that is, Iesus our Sauiour, should bring the Isra­elites, that is, euery true Beleeuer into Canaan, that is, the Kingdome of Heauen.

He aduiseth me to beware of deliuering positions ten­ding to Atheisme and Iudaisem; I accept of it: let him con­sider that he teach no doctrines tending to Anabaptisme,Brownisme the ground of Anabaptisme, Familisme, &c. Familisme, and Arianisme, the fruits of their Brownisme, vpon the principles whereof others haue built these Here­sies. The Anabaptists cyte the same places for their holy walking from all the world by themselues, which these Se­paratists doe against vs. Read Lucas Osiander, against Ana­baptists, and see how this way of Brownists helpeth the Anabaptists.

Lastly hee maketh a comparison betweene Bolton andHe falleth into that which he findes fault with in me. Iudas, and maketh in part Iudas case better then Boltons: idle and to no purpose, except to help a Iew to disgrace our Religion, by Iudas miserable end. But hee will say, that this ariseth from my speech, who said, that such an end the Lord letteth not his speciall instruments come vnto, which he denyeth, and bringeth in Iudas, one fore-ordained to that end, and fore-told off: of whom I my selfe did makePage 34. mention by way of preuention, describing also what I meant by speciall instruments, & gaue instances of the same, that I might not be mistaken, to preuent wrangling: but who can restraine contentious spirits that loue to be wrangling?

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to thisPage 128. sixt Likelihood.

Reply. AS before, so likewise here, he frameth for me my rea­sons; but so as I should affirme that they haue not the truth, that are iudged of the Lord, and that they haue the truth, who are prospered by the Lord: when he hath fashi­oned them himselfe, for his owne aduantage, then he ma­keth naught of them, as if they were mine, and accuseth me of false Doctrine. But as I reiect them, as none of mine, (which any one may well perceiue by that which is here before set downe) so what he inferreth there vpon nothing at all toucheth me, but his labour is a fighting with his owne shadow. If what I haue said will not serue, I thus a­gaine reason:

It is more then likely, that such as be iudged of the Lord, An Argument to proue that the Separatists haue not the truth. for the way wherein they walke singularly from all other, haue not the truth in that way.

But the Separatists are iudged of the Lord, for the way wherein they walke singularly from all other. Therefore it is more then likely, that the Separatists in their singular way haue not the truth.

My labour in my former Booke, from all the instances deliuered, is my proofe of the Minor. Now by the Lords iudging, I meane not onely temporall afflictions, pouertie, banishment & such like, as M^r. Smith would insinuate to his Reader, that I doe as appeareth by his quoted Scriptures,What I do vn­derstand by Gods iudge­ments vpon them. Eccles. 9. 1. 3. 1. Pet. 4. 17. for these may befall the best I acknowledge; but I vnderstand the iudgement of God vp­on the soule, as almost the examples giuen doe clearely proue: and therefore mistaking me, he hath not made any answer vnto me, nor proued my Doctrine false. Hee fra­meth also another argument from all the instances, to shew [Page 79] the weakenesse of my reason, but as in the former, so here he doth me wrong still; but for answere, I thus amend him, and let him answere what he can to the same.

If Mr. Bolton before had peace within him, and through An argument to proue that God is displea­sed with them. the way of the Separation came to hang himselfe: If Mr. Hari­son and Browne before carryed himselfe honestly, but in this new way by Mr. Harisons testimony, behaued himselfe very lewdly: If Barrow with Greenwood were before temperate, but in this way immeasurably raging and rayling: If the two Iohnsons liued before like brethren in loue to themselues and to their Father, but in this way one hated another, one persecu­ted another, one brother labouring to shame another to the open George Iohnsons booke witnes­seth this at large. world; one Sonne excommunicating the Father, and the Father bitterly cursing that Sonne: If Mr. Burnet before was of God mercifully preserued, and in this new way, whilest he was priso­ner for the cause, was by the stroke of God cut off with one of his seuere iudgements: If Mr. Smith was before in good reputati­on with godly men, more stable and constant, but in the inclina­nation to this new way, was giuen ouer to hold false and absurd opinions, and verie vnstable, sometime liking, sometime in praier thanking God for preuenting him, before allowed of vs, but now disallowed and condemned of the very Separatists for an Here­tique: If some before did walke not dishonestly, but in that way became filthy persons, and of vncleane conuersations: If all of them before were charitably disposed, meeker spirits, more tem­perate, lesse censorious, and not dispisers of the good in others, but in this way the contrary; then it is very likely that God is displeased with them for that very way, in which God so forsa­keth them.

But all these things haue so fallen out to these foresaid persons in this their new way, as I particularly haue proued in my for­mer booke. Therfore it is very likely that God is displeased with them for the same.

Hee saith hee is able to say as much of the Officers and Leaders in the Church of England. When hee is able so to produce instances successiuely from the beginning, and in such a manner, hee is better to be beleeued, but in the meane [Page 80] space, his bare word getteth herein no credit, but with the foolishly credulous. As for his examples of Iudas, then of Christ, with others, and of the Apostles they be vnfitly mat­ched, and are not as those, which I haue brought out against them.

The last part of his answere, seeking therein to cleare himselfe of particulars laid to his charge, is answered before sufficiently in the Preface.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage. 160. this seauenth Likelihood.

HEe passeth ouer, as his manner is, the reasons and in­stances giuen for the Likelihood, and what is spoken [Page 81] of their voluntarie running out of England, drawing peo­ple in danger of a Statute against Fugitiues, from vnder the authoritie of their Soueraigne into a strange Nation: these things obiected, hee hath not answered. That which Answere. hee saith to the Likelihood in summe is, that if the ill suc­ceeding of their cause be a Likelihood to condemne it, then might the cause of God, professed by Noah, and by the Pa­triarkes, be disallowed, because it prospered little for many yeeres, when the wicked did flowrish.

Reply. I answere first, the consequence followes not, the case is not alike. Noah and the rest had no new way from the Church of God being then it themselues. Noah was in the declining age of the world, and was by lincall discent and successiuely a Preacher, not one that brake out from Gods Church extraordinarily, as these would be held to doe, to plant new Churches, and make new Couenants, wherein, as I haue said, God doth giue an extraordinary blessing. The place cited to proue that there shall be few in the Church,He alledgeth but falsely, the place of S. Luke. 17. 26. as in Noahs time, is misalledged: it sheweth the securitie that shall be in the world; but not the fewnesse of persons in the Church: and at this time it helpeth not them, when we doe see before our eyes that it is the time of confoundingWe liue in the time of Anti­christs con­sumption. Antichrist, who must decrease, and the Church encrease, till the fulnes of the Gentiles come in, and the Iewes be brought to the truth, as the Apostle doth foreshew. The encrease of the Church now hath the ground from Gods promise, and it is a greater Likelihood from thence, that we, that is, all Reformed Churches, which haue forsaken Antichrist, and doe multiply greatly in number against him, since Luthers time, should be Gods Church, then a few out-goers nothing prosperous in their way.

Againe, the not encreasing of the Church in time of theWhy the Church in the old time could not increase as the Church of the new Testa­ment may. Patriarkes, was no cause of stumbling then, for that it was kept in families, and stood vpon such as came by naturall generation, from the stocke of Abraham; and therefore could not so encrease by Abraham begetting one, Isaac two, Iacob twelue, as now vnder the Gospell; one may beget to [Page 82] God at once three thousand soules as Peter did: and for that then there was not come in the time of fulnesse to call the Gentiles.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere.Page 129.

THe truth (saith hee) encreaseth in short space into a multitude. The Separation doth not encrease but is kept vnder: Ergo, the Separation is not the truth. Thus he reasoneth for me, but I frame my owne argument after this manner:

That which from the beginning for many yeares, in the time My likelihood framed into an argument. of reformation, had ill successe, and that by the opposition of the godly, is likely not to be good, and approued of God: First, be­cause God hath promised successe vnto his truth after the re­uelation of Antichrist, to the consuming of him, as we finde2. Thes. 2. to be true since Luthers time: And secondly, because it is pro­bable that godly men will not so be left continually to op­pose so great and essentiall a truth to saluation, as these men pretend their cause to be, to keepe it so euer vnder, but ey­ther God in mercy would reforme them or correct them.

But the Separation from the beginning for many yeares, in the time of Reformation hath had ill successe, and that by the op­position of the Godly.

And therefore is likely not to be the good and approued way of God.

Answere. His answere is, (to that argument which hee framed for mee) that Christs flock is but a little flocke: Reply. but I say yet it is not like his, of some fortie or fifty persons, nor yet so few as fiue hundred, little it is in comparison of the world, but yet in it selfe great. But what if it be little; ergo, euery little company is Christs flock; a weake reason, then the Arians, the Anabaptists, the Familists are Christs flock. And on the contrary, if they be many and a great number, those should not be the Church of God.

Answere. But he tels me (if he may be beleeued) that the Separa­tion hath had infinite encrease euer since Luthers time: and what is his reason, for that the Separation is the same withM^r. Smith ac­knowledgeth the Separatists and Reformed Churches the same in Essen­tiall parts. Reply the Reformed Churches, in the maine and essentiall parts, and therefore looke how the Reformed Churches haue in­creased, so much hath the Separation increased. By this reason we and they are come to be one also; I would haue thought, that they and we should neuer haue patcht in one: If he can make themselues one with the reformed churches and we also our selues one with the Reformed Churches, vpon the same ground, then as they be one with them, so are they with vs, and if they iudge them true Churches, so must they esteeme of vs. Now that we and the Refor­med Churches are one, I thus argue from his reason: They that agree with the Reformed Churches in the maine and We and the Reformed Churches a­gree in the maine truth, and therefore are one true Church in the constitution. principall points, are one with them. But we doe agree with the Reformed Churches in the maine and principall points: as the Harmonie 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, then the Separatists, the Re­formists, and the Church of England are one, and the same in the maine and Essentiall points of Religion, and there­fore cannot we be separated from, for either false or no Churches of Christ, more then they separate from other Churches; Let his brethren of the Separation answere this.

But for the cause of the Separation, considered by it selfe, it hath no agreement with the Reformed Churches,The Separa­tists conside­red in the sole causes of their Separation a­gree not with the Reformed Churches. but is a by-path, and a Schismaticall 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 hastie misconsturing of my quoting of it, which was but partly an allusion to the phrase, and part­ly to shew, that to goe and to dwell among people that speake what words they vnderstand not, is not so great a fauour, as to remaine where we vnderstand, and are vnder­stood what wee speake, where therefore wee may doe the [Page 84] more good though with affliction, then to run to a strange countrey, to [...]peake in the a [...]re.

Answer. The last of his answere is, whereas I say, that the Separa­tists leaue a Curse behind them, he gathereth thence an Ar­gument to proue that they haue the truth. Reply. A fearefull de­fence, from a curse to conclude themselues blessed. It may seeme he doth thus reason: They that leaue a Curse where they come, haue the truth. But the Separatists leaue a Curse A strange Ar­gument of M^r. Smiths, to proue that the Separatists haue the truth. where they come. Therefore they haue the truth. The Minor he granteth, and I put him to proue his Maior. Though the word of God to the Reprobate be the sauour of death to death, yet euery doctrine that is so, is not the word of God. The word of God is but so accedentally, but false doctrine, Heresie and Schisme are so in themselues. These be a curse to others, and to the authors and bringers, so is not Gods word, & therfore to alledge what the word is by occasion, is no proof for his exposition to vphold Schisme. And this much for Mr. Smiths froth, that is, his idle and de­ceitfull answers to my Likelihoods, which hee calleth my froth: whether so or no, let the reader now iudg between vs.

To all that hath beene said I will adde a reason, drawne from their dissensions among themselues: & I thus frame it:

They that dayly rend themselues a sunder, so one from ano­ther into diuers parts, yet being all of one constitution, as they re­nounce all spirituall communion together, & liue as seuerall bo­dyes it is very likely that such apeople are not the church of God.

For the Church of God are of one heart, and liue in Spirituall communion with one accord, Acts 2. and 4. and to be contentious is not the custome of Gods Church. 1. Cor. 11. 6.

But the Separatists dayly rend themselues so one from another into diuers parts, though they be all of one constitution, as they renounce all spirituall communion together, and liue as seuerall bodyes.

This is apparant by their dayly practise, and by instance of these companies lately departed from vs, as is shewed before.

Obiection. But they may peraduenture say, that contention hath beene in the truest and best Churches of God, and there­fore by this Likelihood, those Churches might not be the Churches of God.

Answere. It is one thing to haue contentions, and another thing to be rent a sunder so, as there be partakings to make se­uerall bodies, & then so to liue without brotherly commu­nion, as they doe: M^r. Iohnson and his Church, M^r. Smith and his company, M^r. Robinson and his flocke; all profes­sing Separation, and yet to stand in a plaine diuision with­out a holy communion together visibly, yea, so farre are they in discord, as one will excommunicate and cast an o­ther to the deuil: let them shew whether the true Churches of God do so contend, and teare one another: it will not be found but among Schismaticks. Though we haue 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 heare muster them together, that though one seeme to be weake considered by it selfe, yet all of them together may be a strong reason, and motiue to perswade them to looke vnto their standing, and to keepe others from hastie running vnto them. Conioyntly I therefore as one Argument vrge 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 Schismaticks, which is maintained by great abuse of Scripture, which no other Church of God in the world approueth of, which godly, learned and famous Diuines doe condemne, which the Lord by his hand of iudgement disclaimeth, which hath ill successe, in which one sort of it rends another in sunder, hate­fully renouncing all Spirituall communion one with another, it is very likely that such a way is not the way of God but Schisme.

But such is the way of the Separation, as the particulars which haue beene proued doe declare. And therefore it is [Page 86] most likely that the way of the Separation is not the way of God, but Schisme.

It is Reader, the sin one the right hand, as there is a sin on the left hand, as Salomon teacheth, Pro. 4. 27. But pray and hearken after the word of God, which Esai saith, Thou shalt heare it behinde thee, saying, this is the way walke 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 downe, and then make a Reply vnto both M^r. Ain­sworths, and M^r. Smiths answere. The Reasons alledged a­gainst them are three-fold: taken first, from the euill of the entrance into their way: secondly, from the persons grieuously sinning in the way: and thirdly, from their opi­nions erronious and false.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere toPage 161. 162. this Reason.

MY answere thus framed, he giueth no answer vnto, but that which hee saith, is:

Answere. 1 First, a complaint taken vp against me for cursing and deceit; alluding to the Psal. 10. 7. he saith, he may so com­plaine truely: Reply. but I say, he doth it most vniustly, let him next time shew my cursing and deceit, for yet he hath not set it downe.

Answere. 2 Secondly, he saith, they protest their consent with vs in all holy doctrines which we professe, Reply. what they meane by holy doctrines I know not; but it appeareth not that they consent in all, when they acknowledge not particularly ourWhat true do­ctrines the Se­paratist con­demne as false. doctrines; but some holy doctrines they do condemne, and will not iustifie them with vs: as namely, that the visible Church is a mixt company of good and bad, and that in it may be not onely Hypocrites, but some of lewd conuersation, 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 iudgement of the best learnedWord and Sa­craments infal­lible markes of a true Church. Diuines commenting vpon the place of Math. 13. Second­ly, they deny that the true word of God preached, and the true Sacraments administred, are vnfallible and conuertible [Page 90] markes of a true Church, else why do they deny our church to be a true Church, hauing these true markes? Doctor Whittakers against Bellarmine in his Booke of the Church,Quest. 5. Page. 390. and 413. 415. bringeth in twentie places of Scripture to proue this, and confirmeth the same in Page 425. 435. by many arguments. Thirdly, they deny it to be lawfull to heare any in their owne constitution, differing in a published opinion, which themselues disallow, and the parties persisting therein, they doe condemne, as also the hearing of any in the Reformed Churches, and in our Assemblies vtterly; Mr. Iohnsons BookHis Booke a­gainst the hea­ring of our Mi­nisters. sheweth this, and their excommunicating some for it, is proofe sufficient: which doctrine is contrary to the iudge­ment and practise of all the Churches of Christ in Christen­dome. Many other holy doctrines wee hold, which they consent not vnto, neyther in those which they consent vn­to, will they haue with vs spirituall communion.

Answere. 3 Thirdly, to this hee answereth, and saith, they cannot The Separatists reasons why they cannot keepe commu­nion with vs. keepe communion, because they cannot inioy them with­out partaking of three euils: first, is Antichristian abhomi­nations imposed: secondly, Idolatry publikely set vp and maintained: and thirdly, Ministers making concord be­tweene light and darknesse, vnder shewes of truths, seducing mens soules to destruction. Reply. What he meaneth by the first, hee shews not, let him set downe, first, what are Abhomina­tions: and then secondly, what are Antichristian Abhomi­nations: and thirdly, whether euery Abhomination be suf­ficient to make a separation from the true Church, and by theNote these three as neces­sary to be knowne. word conuince vs of them, and if so hee doe, and we yeeld not, they may condemne vs of obstinacy therein. The se­cond thing is very false, and a meere slander: if hee and all his company can proue from gods word, but this one thing, that here with vs, publike Idolatrie is set vp, maintained, and euery one thereto enforced, they may spare labour in other points, and make an end of this controuersie. It shall there­fore much auaile 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 proue this point: [Page 91] and therein first, to shew what is Idolatry by Gods word: se­condly, that that idolatrie there condemned is here among vs Three things necessarie for him to proue. committed: thirdly, that it is in our publike worship, and e­uery one by Law thereunto enforced: thus shall he cleere the cause and giue full satisfaction. If he doe not this, I dare tell him he cannot, and if he cannot, he is to be held an vn­iust Calumniator in a high degree, both of his Prince, state, and church. His third euill as hee accounts it, is an euill surmised, and he neuer shall be able to proue it; that all our Ministers (if he meane not all, why speakes he without ex­ception?) vnder shew of truths, seduce mens soules to de­struction; his heart knowes better, though it send foorth such bitter water.

Answer. 4 Lastly, he demaundeth whether we forsooke 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 forsooke not the truths of God, which they hold, neither any priuate person abiding in there constitution, if so be we perceiue, and he professe sorrow for the abhominations, and declare his desire of a better estate, walking as purely as he can in so corrupt an estate, though hee stand a member of that constituti­on. And I see not what word of God is against this, but that in priuate such so qualified may be ioyned with in prayer, and other godly exercises, if they so affect and de­sire them, euen in that standing, as is aforesaid. Such a one may be said to be in that constitution, but hee cannot be iudged to be a liuely member of it: in his soule the best part of him is, he came out from it, though not wholy in body as were to be wished: I say in body not wholy, but in some part, in that he doth auoid some of the grosest euils, and declineth the rest as he may, for of such a one here I speake. If you M^r. Ainsworth can shew this to be against saith, loue, and sound Diuinitie, I will disclaime my thoughts herein.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere toPage 130. this Reason.

HE frameth a reason for me: but compare mine and his, and thou mayest see much more in his heaped vp together, then is in my reason, and the weight of my reason left out. What I haue said to M^r. Ainsworths Answere, may suffice to giue satisfaction to M^r. Smith, for the first part of his Answer to this. His affirming our faith, repentance, and Baptisme to be false visibly, is his bare word, which I reiect as being no diuine Oracle, but as both false and absurd, as is the similitude of the mingled seed of an Horse and an Asse, to proue our Church essentially cor­rupted. I leaue this beastly conceit with him; fitter for a Horse and an Asse, then for a man to vtter against the Profession of Christians, and a Christian Church.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answer hereunto.Page. 162.

Answer. FIrst, he denyeth that they retaine any vntruths; Reply. now I haue here proued it, and it shall be further confirmed afterward. Answere. Secondly, whereas I say that our Church is not a false Church, because they say the difference betweene vs and them are but certaine corruptions: now corruptions doe not make a false Church, but a corrupt Church, as cor­ruptions in a man maketh but a corrupt man, and not a false man. Hee answereth, first, and saith, that it is grosse to say no corruptions can make a false Church: the word no, I vsed not, Reply. but I affirme that the corruptions which they men­tion (in the end of the Booke of their Confession) if they bePage 68. corruptions on our part, doe not make a Church (other­wise sound) to be a false Church: because they in some things are disputable, in some true; but not euident in all particulars: and are rather of circumstances and manner, then of matter; and concerne some outward order and forme, with priuiledges 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 seauenth, the latter part of the eight, the tenth, as they vnderstand faithfull: and therefore the want of these cannot make vs a false Church, if withall, that be true which M^r. Smith auerreth, that there may be a false Ministerie, Page. 14. Worship, and Gouernement in a true Church.

Answere. Secondly, hee endeauours to proue that corruptions make a false Church, from Zeph. 3. 7. and Moses, Deu. 32. 5. which places shew they corrupted their wayes, and were as no Children, or worthy to be no Children; Reply. but they con­firme not what he saith, that corruptions make a false church; for what is true cannot euer be false; but good, by corrup­tion becommeth naught; but that which hath beene a true Church, what corruption soeuer in any degree be in it, is euer a true Church, but corrupted, till the Lord remoue theWhen a Church be­comes no Church. Candlesticke, and giue a bill of diuorcement, and it become no Church of Christ, but the Assembly of Antichrist, the Synagogue of Sathan.

Answere. Thirdly, hee answereth my Similie, 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 neuer so often and openly, shee may be (by M^r. Bernards di­stinction, saith hee) esteemed a corrupt, but not a false wife: Such a distinction (saith hee) may I carry to the stewes. Reply But this businesse I leaue for him to doe, hee dwelleth nearer the place where stewes be, then I. It is a meruaile how his pure pietie could admit so foule a thought of so filthy and stincking a place, being employed in this his holy defence. But are not Mr. Smiths Horse and Asse engendring, and Mr. Ainsworths Stewes, comely Separatisticall Meditations think you? I wish them to write hereafter their more cleanlySee George Iohnsons booke and M^r. Whites. thoughts. Let M^r. Ainsworth know, I make no distinction to vphold baudrie, nor to couer Incest, nor Buggerie, such speeches occasion their owne 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 haue said more directly and plainely; A man is a substance, a Church is not a substance, but consists of relation onely to Christ; so had the vanitie of this answere better appeared as eui­dently, as if hee had said, a Church without a substance, a wife without a woman; for the truth is alike in both. I aske him, is not a Church a relation with substance also? if a sub­stance, [Page 98] then the similitude is good and fit; if not a substance, but a meere relation, without respect vnto the persons and their conditions, betweene whom and Christ the relation stands; then I demand why they leaue the consideration of the relation (which as they say, maketh a people the true Church and Wife of Christ) when they speake of vs, and other Churches, and doe consider of our persons, that is, of our substances, and our walking in our profession? The ideacal reference betweene Christ and a people his Church, holdeth them holy in euery mans sight, though in them­selues considered many be very prophane. In the relation, they be Saints, the body of Christ without sinne, in their owne persons beholden, sinfull. Therefore if the Church be alway in relation, and so euer to be considered without the persons as they walke in themselues, there is no pol­lution, let them hold to a meere relation, and they shall an­swere for their fanaticall separation, as others shall for their Anabaptisticall inspiration.

But because my similitude fits not his purpose, he bring­ethThe Simili­tude of Hus­band and wife fitteth well to set out Christ & his Church. in another of a husband and wife: this hee holdeth a fit Similie, and so doe I: and because he may not afterwards start from it, I will shew that it is a most apt Similitude, vsed by the holy Ghost himselfe, 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 Sampson: so doth Christ. Iohn. 13. 18. Secondly, Parents take the woman for their sonne, as Samp­sons Parents did: so God the Father giueth the Church vn­to his Sonne. Iohn. 6. 37. Thirdly, the parties are betrothed as Ioseph and Mary: so is Christ and his Church. 2. Cor. 11. 2. And making a couenant declared by words, the man giueth to his Spouse tokens of loue, as Isaacks Seruant did to Rebecca: So Iesus Christ giueth his word vnto his church, Sacraments as pledges of his fauour and the graces of his spirit, the earnest of his loue, Ezech. 16. 8. 14. Fourthly, the parties doe marry, and are full man and wife: so doth Christ marry his Church. Osea. 2. 19. 20. Fiftly, they doe [Page 99] dwell together: so doth Christ with his Church. Iohn. 6. 56. and 14. 23. Reu. 21. 2. 3. Sixtly, the husband loueth his wife, as Isaac did Rebecca; comforts her, and defendeth her: so doth Christ his Church. Eph. 5. 25. Iohn. 13. 1. Cant. 2. 6. Psal. 110. Act. 9. 4. 5. Eph. 5. 23. Thus haue I declared the truth of the aptnesse of this Similitude, for that it is most fit to ouerthrow their cause. If wee be the wife of Christ, then are wee the Church of Christ. But that wee are his Wife, (if any particular Church may so be called) it is eui­dent,The Church of England the Wife of Christ, as well as any other particular Church. because hee hath betroathed vs vnto him, by giuing vs his Word, his Sacraments, and hath bestowed the graces of his Spirit vpon this Church, and in other things hath shewed himselfe a husband vnto vs, in dwelling among vs, and mercifully defending vs, as hee did his people Israel: if any deny these things, the spirit of madnesse is vpon them, and they are depriued of sensible apprehension. Here, from this Similitude, I propound these questions, to make euident the cause which we hold against them.

Question. Question 1. Whether a woman disobedient, may be for all that her disobedience, a true wife.

Answere. Answere. Yes: Michol mocked her husband: Zephora was raging: the Leuites wife runne from her husband:Iudges. 19. Iobs wife vexed him: yet all true wiues. For a woman is a wife, not because shee is obedient and louing, but becauseDisobedience makes not no wife, but an ill wife. she is betroathed and married: her obedience or disobedi­ence argueth eyther the goodnesse or badnesse of a wife, but maketh not her more or lesse a wife: a bad woman married, is as truely a wife, as a good woman. If the hus­band command his wife to doe his will, to see to the fami­lie in his absence, to educate his and her children well, to correct offenders, and so forth; if she be carelesse of all this, is shee not a wife? If they say no, and can proue it, many bad wiues will curse them; but some husbands that haue them, will be glad and thanke them, for finding out such an ouer-sea crotchet to make a riddance of them. If shee be a wife for all this, as indeed shee is, then disobedience and rebellion disanulleth not the marriage. Thus also it is [Page 100] with the Church. As what before hath beene said of the Churches wickednesse in Esaias time doth prooue: nay, though the wife continue obstinate, yet is shee a wife; so is the church, Gods Church, though shee will not heare. Psal. 81. 11. 2. Chron. 36. 13. 14. 16. and yet verse 15. hee calleth them his people, though he did seuerely punish them.

Question. Question 2. What if a wife play the whore openly and often, is shee then a wife?

Answere. Answ. Such a one deserueth a diuorce, and hath lost her power of her husbands bodie: but euen then shee is a wife, so long as the husband will so account of her; as Da­uid did his wife Mychol, marryed to another; which mar­riage2. Sam. 3. was adulterie, especially if she did voluntarily liue so: Bethsheba after h [...]r adulterie, is called the wife of Vriah, and2. Sam. 11. 26. Mat. 19 9. a woman marryed that may be diuorced for a­dultery is called a wife, and so is, vntill the husband re­nounce her, and giue her a bill of Diuourcement, as none of his wife. If she were not his wife, he could nor retaine her. Thus is it betweene God and his Church; which, though she commit Idolatrie, (which is spirituall Adulterie, and is so called in the Scripture. Ezech. 23. and 16.) and that she commit it openly and continue in it, yet is she the Church of God, whilst the Lord will stand to his Couenant as hee saith, Ezech. 16 60. and will acknowledge them his people,Ezech. 23. 5. as he did when they liued in adulteries: vntill he giue her a bill of Diuorcement, of which, read Esay. 50. 1. & that he doth remoue the Candlesticke out of the place, as he spea­keth, Reu. 2. And therfore, albeit we were an Idolatrous peo­ple; yet that maketh not vs no wife of Christ, nor Church of God, vntill they can proue that God hath diuorced vs,We are to be accounted Gods Church, till they can shew that Christ hath diuorced vs, & remoued the Candlesticke. and taken away his Candlesticke from vs. If they will iudge vs to be diuorced, and the Candlesticke to be remooued: then let them shew, first, what is Gods diuorcement, and what is the Candlesticke: secondly, that that Candle­sticke is taken away, and the diuorcement made: thirdly, how these be done; that so we may take true notice of it: [Page 101] let them by Gods word teach vs plainely these things, and if they doe, we haue cause to hearken vnto them; till then, we must hold our selues the Church of God, being neither in Constitution nor publike practise Idolaters, intertaining no other louers, but doe hold Iesus Christ, our onely head and husband, and therefore are his wife by his owne word, Sacraments, and holy graces bestowed vpon vs, and not yet taken from vs: blessed be his holy Name. Amen.

Question. Quest. 3. Whether a lawfull marryed woman, through her misbehauiour, disobedience, rebellion and adulterie, can be a false wife?

Answere. Answ. False, is taken two wayes: first, for deceitfull, or fraudulent, or lying, or corrupt: secondly, for the coun­terfeit of a thing, not the thing, but onely in semblance like it. In the former sense, a wife wickedly disposed may be called a false wife, but yet is shee a wife, and truely 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 marry­ed, and yet by reason of immoueable impediments not tru­ly marryed, 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 soeuer she be, but is a true wife, disor­derly liuing. When I say a true wife, I meane only a woman that is indeed a wife in lawfull marriage, & a false wife is the counterfeit woman not marryed lawfully, but going vnder the name of one lawfully married as a true man in this sense is one verily that is a man, hauing the liuely essentiall 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 learne what to thinke 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 obser­ued, to ouerthrow their condemning of vs to be a false [Page 102] church. If they vnderstand it in the first sense, yet are wee then neuerthelesse a Church of Christ, for all the corrup­tions which they falsly lay to our charge, and can neuer proue such corruptions to make an nullitie of a Church. If they hold our Church a false Church, in the latter sense, then must they prooue our Church, to be no Church of Christ at all. For in this sense can wee call a Church of Christ no more a false Church, then a woman marryed law­fully and liuing honestly no wife.

The word, Church, (as is well knowne) is vsed for the As­semblyHow the word Church, is ta­ken. of wicked, called the malignant church; this how­soeuer it is called and shewes it selfe, is a counterfeit, a false church, that is, it is no Church of Christ, but the Syna­gogue of Sathan, as it is tearmed by the holy Ghost, in Reu. 3. 9. The word, Church, is also taken for such as professe Iesus 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 tearmed a false Christ. A true Christian is the sin­cere professour, one so indeed, like Nathaniel before God, as he shewes himselfe 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 diuell; as Iudas was, before he was reuealed to man, as Christ called him. ToIohn. 9. conclude this, The Church (saith M^r. Ainsworth) stands in relation to Christ. Then, say I, that which hath right refe­rence to Christ is true, as he is true; as hee is verily Christ, so is that Assembly which hath true relation to him veri­ly his Church. And if wee doe call it a Church, and dare not call it the Church of Christ, but a false Church, then we speaking plainly, wee hold it no Church of Christ at all. As a false Christ, is not Christ but a diuel, so that Church, which is a false church, and cannot be called truely the Church of Christ, is the church of the diuell. If therefore they dare not call our Church, the Church of Christ, then [Page 103] let vs see their impudencie, if they dare call it a Church of the diuell.

In the end of this his answere, he teacheth three things: First, that corruptions may be in true Churches, and instan­cethCorruptions may be in a true Church. Pergamus, and Thyatira, which I confesse to be true; and in these two churches greater corruptions, then in ours, which I wish him ingeniously to confesse: for there was the Doctrine of Balaam, of the Nicolaitans, a woman Iesabel, teaching and deceiuing the people, to make Idolaters and fornicatours: which doctrines our Church abhorreth. How then are we a false church, with lesse corruptions, and they true, with moe and greater? Secondly, that some cor­ruptions make a true Church false, as he calleth it: but in­deed, the scripture alledged by him out of Re. 17. 2. & 1. 8. 2. proue not his Assertion, but euidently shew the Church of So it is, as it is considered in the Apostasie and Idolatrie thereof, but not as it was or is in the Constitution. 2. Kings. 17. 27. 28. Rome to be the Synagogue of Sathan; the habitation of diuels; & therefore the church of Antichrist. Thirdly, that a church may from the first constitution, by corruptions, be a false church, though it imbrace much truth: his instance is in 2. King. 17. 27 28. &c. But this church was no church of God, but a congregation of Infidels in the first constitu­tution; a people brought from Babylon, from Cuthah, A­ua, Hamath, Sepharuaim, and placed in Samaria in steed of Israelites, Gods people; they worshipped diuels, 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 Leuite was sent to teach them to know and feare 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 M^r. Ainsworth deale vprightly with his people, and with all the world: first, shew by Gods word plainely, what is A taxe for M^r. Ainsworth and h [...]s com [...]anie, by which the truth will be more fully laid open, then yet hitherto it hath beene. a Constitution, secondly: what is a false church, a true church, and no Church; and withall, the euident difference between a [Page 104] 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 becommeth a false Church, and whether then it may haue 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 errour where it is, and will demonstrate to euery one, whether we or they haue the truth in this point; to wit, whether wee be a true Church of God or no, better then any thing which hitherto they haue said and written against vs. If he and they loue the truth in sinceritie, let them manifest these things plainely, but not by bare quoted Scriptures, but by explanation of the Scrip­tures brought, and then drawing their arguments from thence, shew how such places of Scripture proue what they hold. I doe professe, if God will be mercifull vnto me, that the truth I will embrace with my heart, if herein I should stand in errour.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to this.

MAster Smith hath gathered vp my two Reasons into one, and giueth such an answere as it is, vnto both; which I haue before replyed vnto. And thus much for the reasons from the entrance into the way.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere.

MAster Ainsworth answeres not to the proofes of their vnthankfulnesse, but saith they are thankfull; yet shews not how they so be, as I shew how they be not, and doe now further confirme it out of his owne answere: first, hee willMr. Ainsworths answere con­demneth him of vnthankful­nesse. not confesse any good hee hath receiued in particular: se­condly, hee cannot speake in generall but with clipping of his speech, with an (as is meet:) thirdly, he acknowledgeth they receiued 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 scorne Fellow Priests, and in his bitter zeale, dangerous Seducers, ac­cusing vs of blasphemie, persecution, &c. M^r. Ainsworth be­like reasons thus; because he saith they be thankfull, though they abuse vs, and will acknowledge no particulars receiued, yet therefore must they be iudged of vs thankfull. A goodly reason, if his bare word were witnesse enough in his owne cause. His Similitude of a Papist inlightened and forsaking Poperie, is vnapt: first, he brings in a Papist conuerted, lea­uing Rome a Church of Antichrist, as if it were one with their leauing of vs: secondly, one conuerted in the Romish Church, when they themselues were conuerted, if they be yet conuerted, by our Church: one may be conuerted in a Church of Antichrist, but not by it. In may be extraordina­rily, and yeeldes nothing to that where the conuersion is wrought: but, by giueth something to the Church, as Gods instrument, with which he worketh. Men may be extraordi­narily conuerted in the Church of Rome; but not both in [Page 107] and by it, as here they were, and others ordinarily are con­uerted to sanctificaton daily, by the publike authorised mini­sters of the Church of England.

Mr. Smiths Answere replyed vpon.

MAster Smith, as afore maketh a Sillogisme, but there­in frameth onely an imagined reason of mine; his owne indeed, and none of mine, as now the Reader may fee. But to this vnthankfulnesse he answereth more directlyM^r. Smiths Confession. and plainely, then M^r. Ainsworth. Hee confesseth he recei­ued here the seeds of true faith inuisible, effectuall to Iustifica­tion and saluation in Christ. But this hee abateth diuersely: first, with an iff; if he had not knowne the Separation: belike then, where it comes to be knowne, except it be imbraced, all hope of saluation 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 imbrace it, and hauing embraced it, to ouer-runne it, as hee hath done? Secondly, that this estate hee stood in to saluation, was inuisible and knowne onely to himselfe, by the inward feeling of his heart, but not visibly to be so iudged by others according to the word. Here hee acknowledgeth an inward conuersion, but not an outward. But if God afford the greater, hee will giue the lesser: and can there be true grace inward, euen ef­fectuall to saluation, and for some long time, and not ap­peare outward? But herein hee affords not God his due praise, in denying what is true, and hereby accuseth himselfe to be outwardly wicked, suppressing grace (for true and ef­fectuall grace will not be kept secret but by violence) which he confesseth he had in himselfe inwardly. Hee also auer­reth a manifest vntruth, in saying that others outwardly cannot iudge of one so qualified here inwardly: the con­trary appeareth by such as see men reformed, and out of iudgement from the word, doe behold the conuersion of [Page 108] others by the fruits of amendment of life: as also by wic­ked persons, who doe see such and doe mock and so perse­cute them. Thirdly, hee confesseth his vnthankfulnesse, in not thanking vs, nor acknowledging any thanks due for any vi­sible conuersion, in which respect (saith he) our Church is bar­ren. As hee is hereby vnthankfull, so vntrue; as both expe­rience and what I haue declared doth shew. If M^r. Ains­worth, hold not with Mr. Smith, in this opinion, to wit, that here with vs is onely inuisible conuersion, let him tell me what in this case, hee esteemeth of the iudgement of Reformed Churches? If he hold neither inward nor outward conuer­sion, why dealeth he not plainely, as doth Mr. Smith? if he hold both inward and outward, why is he so vnthankfull as to conceale it, and to depriue this Church of her due, and God of his glory manifested among vs?

Thirdly, they sinne in Ʋncharitablenesse: and thereof beSeparatists be very vnchari­table in censu­ring. three degrees.

The first degree is, vniust censuring the igno­rant, as blinded by the God of this world, and that those which haue knowledge, and come not to them, doe sinne against their owne consciences, and remaine so for feare, fa­uour, profit, and other wordly respects: also that thoseSee my former Booke. Pa. 51. which haue tasted of their way, and seeing at length the same to be a Schisme from Gods people, so leauing them, to be Apostates, and then what not? that they will grow worse and worse, till God be auenged on them. Thus hath Mr.In his Booke against me. Smith written, and this censuring hath passed from the mouthes of many, and written in priuate Letters of some. Thus to iudge is a sinne, being against Mat. 7. 1. 2. and a­gainst the holy properties of true loue. 1. Cor. 13. which thinks no ill, ver. 5. and hopeth all things, ver. 7. and doth nothing contumeliously.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths AnswerePage. 164. 165. to this Degree.

FIrst, he saith, my accusation is an old Popish cauill against the Protestants: I say it is no cauill, but a iust accusation, for they haue so censured vs, and this so censuring, to be a sin, is also prooued: againe, though Papists cauill like Ca­uillers, this is no cauilling. For wee accuse the Separatists not falsly, but of what is done, and wee doe shew also the same to be sinne.

Secondly, saith he: they pray for vs, wish vs well, spea­king what they beleeue and know, to conuert vs, and so to couer a multitude of sinnes. Thus would hee be held charitable: Good wordes: but let them loue in deed and truth. They pray for vs, so, if they doe as they ought, doe they forOne being asked of some, whether hee thought them Gods children, whom before he held very vertuous? He answered, A Turke may be Gods child: and would giue no other Answere. M^r. Fr. Ies. Turkes, Iewes, and Papists, with whom they yet will haue as soone spirituall communion as with vs. What is then their charitable iudgement of vs, in their so praying, with such a separation from vs? Wee pray for them, yet for all this, hee saith, wee are vncharitable. They speake (saith he) to conuert vs, and to couer a multitude of sinnes. Their con­uersion pretended, is plaine Nothing more against charitie then the ouerthrow of faith. peruersion of Faith, then which, to wit, to spoyle Faith, the roote of Charitie, is no­thing more against charitie: to offer poyson for nourish­ment, conceits for veritie, Schisme for sinceritie; iudge this, by what is here laid to their charge, and prooued in this booke against them. Their couering of a multitude of sinnes, is nothing lesse: for their way being euill, they increase sin vpon their followers, and for vs, they labour to find all, and more then all, making indifferent things sins, and truths falshoods, as doth appeare here by what is both layd to their charge for errors, and defended against them for truths.

Thirdly, He denyeth that they censure vs, &c: If their writings, and ordinary course of speech did not contra­dict him, his word might stand with those that would be­leeue him herein: read Barrowes workes, yea, and Greene­wood against M^r. Gyffard, and iudge whether the persons be censured or not. I nominate certaine speeches, whereto hee makes no answere, as was meet to haue done; and not barely to denie, what by proofe is auouched.

Fourthly, He accuseth vs Ministers of vncharitablenesse, and our Church of innumerable abhominations and Idolatries, which doe abound: but the best is, he names not one. First, this mans reasoning still is thus: They are not vncharita­ble, because we are so; els why answers he thus? Is it not to remoue the censure of vncharitablenesse from them, which is the matter layed to their charge? Secondly, If any of vs vse reproachfull speeches, I confesse it is a fault, as also to giue any tearmes to men in hate, choler, malice, & for re­uenge, otherwise then in loue, by those tearmes to discouer their sinne, as the Holy men in Scripture haue done: men by priuate passion, in priuate conference may slip in words, which is not good, and wee ought all to be farre from the same; but be it much more farre from vs in publike, and in handling Gods cause, in speaking from God to the peo­ple, so also in writing: for that is deliberately to sinne, to see it before hand, and yet to let it passe, and with will to do wickedly: oh, that all of Barrowes veine 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 Booke 163. as separate themselues wittingly & continually from the church of England, cut themselues off from Christ: he applyeth this to themselues, which the Ministers spoke in generall: but as he will needs take it, let him hold it as a iust sentence a­gainst themselues. The iudgement of these Ministers isSuch as doe forsake the true Church of Christ, doe for­sake Christ himselfe. iust vpon 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 [Page 111] 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 bodie, and so also with the head of that bodie. If this be not so, then, why is a man (in their iudgement) iustly excommunicated, held to be one cast out to Sathan, 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 Booke prooued, these Separatists haue cut off themselues from Christ, and are (as M^r. Perkins saith) Excommunicatours of themselues, and to be held as Heathen and Publicans.

Lastly, for his bare accusation of vs, for innumera­ble abhominations, and abounding Idolatries; I say, it is as false, as idle; here in his owne defence, and against him­selfe, proouing still his vncharitablenesse, in thus accusing their mother so falsly. But these speeches flow not from any iust cause in vs, but from the innumerablenesse of his imaginations against vs, and the abhominable super-aboun­ding gaulie bitternesse within themselues, from which the Lord once free them.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere toPage. 131. to this first Degree.

HE saith, their censure is but the censure of the holy Ghost, and what the Scriptures doe teach. It is great wickednesse to doe euill and defend it, but horrible blasphemie, to make the holy Ghost, and holy Scriptures abettours of mens cursed passions, raylings, and outrages. Let him iustifie by the Scriptures his Barrowish raylings, and reuiling tearmes, and so acquite himselfe of blasphe­mie: till then let him consider and feare, that God will reckon with him for it, except he repent. Saint Paul neuer [Page 112] 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 deale with the diuell: but these men can giue themselues dispensations for any thing. Is not this Antichri­stian pride, and a signe of a presumptuously daring spirit? Iudge by this mans writings, by his Actions.

The second Degree of Ʋncharitablenesse, is their desireSeparatists vn­charitable in their desires. to haue the preaching of the word extinguished among vs, and so Egyptian darkenesse to come vpon vs, rather then it should be taught by any Ministers of the Church of England: which appeareth by their perswading, first of Ministers to leaue their Ministerie; then of the people to forsake them: and by their dispising and scoffing at the di­ligent endeuours. of any of vs, in teaching the people.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere, &c. Page. 165.

MAster Ainsworths Answere, is not a direct denyall, but it is an ouerthwart accusation, full of bitternesse against vs, though couered with fine and smooth termes. Who saith; First, That Egyptian darkenesse couers our land. M^r. Ainsworths vile report of our people, Church, and Ministers. Secondly, That the true light of the Gospel is not yet risen a­mong vs. Thirdly, That our land is Vr of the Chaldees. Fourth­ly, That wee walke in the light of the fire and sparkes which men haue kindled to themselues. More specially touching the the Ministerie, he saith; 1. It is an Antichristian Clergie, to be sent backe to the bottomlesse pit. 2. Thornes and thistles, that can yeeld no grapes, nor figs. 3. A false Hierarchie and Priesthood. 4. That it vpholds idolatrie, prophanenesse, hu­mane traditions, pleads for sinne, and against the truth. Par­ticularly of the Ministers without exception, thus he saith: 1. that they be false Prophets; 2. their Ʋision night, their Di­uination darkenesse; 3. that they deceiue the people, and preach [Page 113] lyes in the name of the Lord; 4. that they be Falsers, not sent of Christ: 5. he compareth them to theeues comming in to steale and kill. All this he onely saith, but brings no proofe: It is enough to answere him that he slanders the people of God, speaking openly euill, and belying the Ministers of Christ. If a false accusation be charity, he hath herein well acquited themselues from vncharitable dealing with vs. Hee saith nothing to my proofes, touching the hearing of GodsPage 52. 53. 54. of my for­mer Booke. word euen from vs. These he ought to haue refelled, had I erred therein, els hath he answered nothing, but turned onely his pen to sclandering. I expect that the next time, he should take vp my words better, and answere more to the matter, els learne to be wisely silent.

Reply to Mr. Smith his Answere toPage 132. this Degree.

IT is in substance a graunt by necessarie consequent vnto that which I lay to their charge, and yet would hee in words seeme to denie it, and so accuse me for a slanderer. But Reader, marke what I say: They wish the word not prea­ched among vs, rather then it should be preached by any of vs in the Ministerie. I say not that they wish it simply, but respectiuely, this he yeelds vnto, by wishing the dissoluti­on of our Ministerie. The reason by which he would denie, what I lay to their charge is, because hee desires that the Word might by the Kings commandement, or allowance, or per­mission, be preached throughout his Dominions, by men fitted thereunto. But this takes not away what I haue said: forM^r. Smiths an­swere vntrue, and against himselfe. here he meanes, that the King would graunt some of them leaue to preach in his Dominions. But herein obserue, what he holds partly against himselfe, and partly false by insinu­ation. Falsly he insinuates that the Kings Maiestie allowes not fit men to preach the word, for if he doe, why wisheth [Page 114] he it, as if it were not? Against himselfe, because hee here grants, that if the King command or allow fit men, they are to be heard: but such haue we, and allowed by his Maie­sties authoritie, and therefore are such among vs to be heard. Let him answere himselfe, and the Separatists him herein also; except they will deny the Kings authoritie.

The rest of his answere also in some things is still partly against himselfe, partly bare affirmations in vntruths. Against himselfe, for that hee 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 vs, though we had no true Constitution. Secondly, that Preaching is more necessarie then a true Con­stitution: Why then say I, is the preaching of the word re­iected, for want of a Constitution? Thirdly, that men must be conuerted and brought to the Faith, before the Church be Constituted, and they be established in the new Testament of Christ. Then may there be a people conuerted, and belee­uing God without a Constitution, and before they be in Christs new Testament. A Paradoxe; Can there be Faith and conuersion to Christ out of the new Testament, and without couenantting with God? These men will teach any thing. His bare affirmations in vntruths are: 1. That wee M^r. Smith saith, but pro­ueth not what he saith. haue established an Antichristian Communion and constituti­on: 2. that we iumble all the people of the Land together, of what Religion soeuer they be: 3. that ouer vs is set an Anti­christian Ministerie, worship and Gouernement: 4. that wee doe maintaine it, and refuse wholy all Reformation offered. All said soone, and onely said; hee prooued none of these things, neither confuteth such as haue publikely defended our Ministerie, worship, & Gouernement. Let him confute Doctor Downham, his late Sermon. Doctor Scutchffes Booke, of Eccles. Discipline. But it is not matteriall what a wauering Reed saith of his bare word: What, haue we not renounced Antichrist, and his power ouer vs? doth not our Profession and Lawes separate a Protestant from a Papist? And how can we be called a Church Reformed, if [Page 115] we haue refused all reformation? Is it true then, which here he auoucheth against vs vpon onely his bare word?

The third degree of Ʋncharitablenesse is, that they en­uieSeparatists are enuious and proud. and are sorry for the prosperitie of Ministers and good things amongst vs, contemning and condemning the best, for the best graces of God in them: for the more religious and painefull men be in our way, the more they censureIn his disco­uerie. them, and raile against them, as Barrowes booke doth wit­nesse; contrary to our Sauiours practise: Mat. 12. 20. against his Commandement: Luke. 9. 49. against Barnabas reioycing: Acts. 11. 20. 21. 23. and Paules ioy. Phil. 1. 18.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere.

MAster Ainsworths answere is, that they reioyce at goodM^r. Ainsworth equiuocates in his reioycing▪ things among vs; but hee meanes his owne good things, their Schisme, where hee answeres not mee to my meaning, and takes his schisme and their errours for good things; the thing in question. I neuer doubted, that they woudl be sorry or enuy the successe of their way; this his ioy, so vnderstood, is idly conceiued to be the good things which I meane. Then hee gesseth at what good things I meane, but without my thoughts. I vnderstand neither sect, nor Schisme, nor any humerous conceit of parties parta­king this way, or that way, but the preaching of Gods Word; What good things wee re­ioyce for. the effectuall power of it; the encrease of Preachers; the ma­ny godly exercises with vs; the honest conuersation of many; and that their schismaticall way is more and more discouered to many; and as Schisme reiected of some, which did intertaine it, and now haue returned, to the ioy of many; that the Gospell is yet vpheld, and Lawes made against Poperie: these and such like, are the good things which doe prosper with vs, and for which wee are to reioyce and praise God.

What sorrow some men, as hee saith, haue at the pro­speritie of Prelates, as he cals them, they best know: for my part, I professe with Reuerend Beza, long may the church inioy them if at would please God, that as they haue gouerne­ment in their hands by Authoritie, so euery one would execute the charge committed to his trust diligently: for then more enuious then truely zealous were they that would sorrow to see them in prosperitie. Prosperitie aduanceth the creditAduance­ment of learning is good for the Church. of authoritie, and hinders not goodnesse whereas is grace and true feare of God. It is madnesse to dislike the aduance­ment of Learning: it is not approued wisedome to despise ancient generall Customes of Churches, not against the Word: or not to allow good order of Ecclesiasticall Superioritie in Gouernment, without which, men runne, we see, as many wayes, as they haue imaginations: and no end is of out-roads, if the power of authority restraine them not. My hearts desire is, that what amongst vs is allowable, may by good vsage become more lawdable, which by a­buse in personall miscarriage doth grow contemptible. And therefore touching the Booke he mentioneth, which I writ, and would haue printed, it is a false report receiued of him. The Author thereof I challenge here, therein to haue slandered me. Indeed I gathered from their workes, what possibly might haue been said in the worst manner a­gainst vs, onely to see what could be said, better to arme my selfe against them; and by that and other meanes, I did not a little satisfie my selfe.

Reply to Mr. Smiths & Mr. Ainsworths Answere hereto.

IT is a deniall with railing on me, but what is said already, what his practise is, what here he hath vttered before wit­nesses, is proofe enough to contradict him herein, that de­nieth dayly his former selfe in doctrines and deeds.

I lay to M^r. Ainsworths charge, that is, to him and his [Page 117] Companie, their wofull abuse of Excommunication: and doe produce witnesses for the same, which he wholy in si­lence passeth ouer, as neither hauing any conscience able to defend it, nor grace to confesse the same; to shew the spirit of humilitie, & impartialitie towards themselues. M^r. Smith denies their rash Excommunicating any, and yet a Taylour among them was Excommunicated for taking seauen shil­lings, for making a Doublet and Hose, and standing in the lawfull taking of it: because another Taylour said, he ought to haue had but fiue shillings. Againe, he and they (beforeThe Cap. at Gains. they went ouer) Excommunicated one for hearing the word preached by our Ministers.

Is not this abuse in Excommunication, to cast a man offIt is an abuse of Excommu­nication, to Ex­communicate any for hearing of the word. to the diuill, for hearing Gods word, which is a thing com­manded of God? there is no precept, no practise of this in all Gods Booke; where is hearing the word of God made a sin, deseruing Excommunication? Indeed Pharisaicall Hy­pocrites threatned Excommunication for men following our Sauiour and beleeuing in him: but our Sauiour forbad not his to heare them. Mat. 23. This is therefore to be ra­ther of a proud Pharises spirit, then of Christs. But he saith, that it is lawfull to Excommunicate one for hearing vs: first, because we be false Ministers. I answere, that if it were so; yet it followes not, that wee should not be heard at all: for so was some of the Pharises, yet our Sauiour did giue leaue to heare them, so it be with a take- [...]eed, and a warinesse: secondly, because or Church is a false Church, and so an I­doll, and to commit Idolatrie deserues Excommunication. I answere: he takes two things for graunted, which we de­nie, and hee cannot proue: first, that our Church is a false Church; and then, that a false Church is an Idoll: the con­trarie I shall manifest afterwards, by answering his reasons for the same: thirdly, he askes whether I will heare a Popish Priest preach, and pray. I answere, that I would, so be he preach the truth of God, and pray as we doe, only to God, in Christ, let him shew Scripture why not? fourth­ly, because hee saith, the Lord forbids to heare false [Page 118] Prophets, &c. Deut. 13. 3. 1. Tim. 6. 3. 5. Tit. 3. 10. 2. Ioh. verse 10. I answere, that these places be nothing to vs, except he can proue vs false Prophets, and Heritiques. He can ea­sily call vs so, as he is audaciously bold, to call S. Augustine an Heretique, which no Church of Christ euer so did name. It is not the quoting of scriptures; but the true sense, & right application, which conuinceth an aduersaries conscience: let him proue that these are spoken of vs, and there an end of this. And thus much for the third sinne, and the degrees in sinning.

Fourthly, they sinne in abuse of holy Scriptures, ill ex­pounding,Separatists a­busers of Scrip­ture. misapplying, idly alledging, 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 vnderstanding Reader, and by him herein to be iudged, and their cause vpon this one point, if so they please, to be aduentured. If they aske particulars, they are too many to recite; some are answered here in the Reply to their answere to the first er­rour, which the Reader may consider of; as also of others else where, as hee findes them, and in my Reply by his rea­ding shall meet with them.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths and Mr. Smiths Answeres.Page. 167. 168.

MAster Ainsworth onely referres the Reader ouer to my third probabilitie, & to their Bookes, and so do I. M^r. Smith denyes not this, but excuseth himselfe by ig­norance,Page. 134. if he haue so done, by not remembring the pla­ces, and would haue them produced; as if hee neyther knew any, neither I knew to produce them; but hee hath a Reioynder of diuers Ministers to a Reply of his, wherein they shew him euidently his grieuous sinne herein, by many instances. He kept this their labour close, which is so much [Page 119] against him: and doth discouer fully his audacious dealing with Gods word. And thus haue I proued that they sinne in practise and in doctrine, as shall be more manifested after­ward.

The second thing is, that they thus sinne openly; which is also euident, by their wayes knowne farre and neere, so as this needes no proofe.

Fiftly, they sin in their obstinacie, which is the third thingSeparatists be obstinate. to be proued in the last argument: this is proued by me in my former booke, from, Page 65. to 70. in which dis­course is also shewed, how they do manifest their obstinacie.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere.

MAster Ainsworth with all the help he hath had, can­notM^r. Ainsworth not able to cleare them­selues of wil­fulnesse. wipe off their wilfulnesse. Hee cannot I say, be­cause hee doth not, for that he would doe herein what hee can. He toucheth not one reason, nor answeres a word to the diuers instances which I giue, and whereby I shew them to be wilfull. If the next time, hee answere not to what I haue said in the other booke, and hee now hath passed by, he is iudged more wilfull and peruerse, for that he will not see nor now acknowledge their wilfull peruersenesse, so plainely made manifest vnto them. But saith hee, wee are no Schismatickes, nor our way Schisme, and therefore not wil­full in persisting in a good way. By this it appeares, proue their way Schisme, and then they yeeld themselues to be wilfull. Then for this, see my Reply to his answere made to my se­cond Probabilitie, where their Schismaticall course is made manifest vnto them: and also consider what after I say, to manifest our Church a true Church, from which to depart with condemnation as from a false Church, or for some particular corruption to auoid spirituall communion in ho­ly things, is a proud Pharisaicall and damnable Schisme. [Page 120] Hee saith that the Papists as easily call vs Schismatickes, as we doe them. I grant as easily, but not so truely. The folly and falshood of this obiection is shewed before at large.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere.

MAster Smith his answere is: First, that we persist in our Schisme from the Church of Rome: belike he reasons thus; if our departing be lawfull to be persisted in without condemnation of obstinacie, then may they persist in their Schisme from vs, and not be iustly held obstinate: but I an­swere, that our departing from Rome is no Schisme, for thatOur departing from Rome, is no Schisme, & yet the Separa­tists are in Schisme from vs. Iesus Christ in plaine words commands vs to come out of her; Reu. 18. 4. There is no Schisme in forsaking that Anti­christ: neyther are wee condemned of any, but onely of the Papists themselues for Schisme, as the Separatists be of all: and wee say, that the Papists condemnation of vs, is nothing in the partiall defence of themselues, and vniust censure of vs. Secondly, to vphold their departing from vs, to be as lawfull, as ours from Rome, he dare auouch (for what dare he not teach after his owne conceits,) that the difference betweene them and vs is more, then betweene vs and the Papists. M^r. Ainsworth before equalled the causes of their departing from vs, and our departing from Rome, but this man makes our corruptions greater between them and vs, then betweene vs and that Romish Synagogue of Sathan; but how false this is, remember what is said of this in the second Probabilitie.

Sixtly, they sin in their Separatists are railers. If any particular per­son be free from this, and other euils, I here doe not vnderstand him nor any such. railing, scoffing, and blasphemies, &c. This haue I set forth at large in my former Booke from Page. 70. to 78. and by the word haue manifested the same to be great sinnes.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere.Page. 168.

MAster Ainsworth his answere to this is: First, a doubt­ing, with an iff such things be, they themselues con­demne them. They be loath to see their sinnes, and to con­fesse them: humble spirits sooner confesse their owne euils, then sit proudly taxing their neighbours. Secondly, heeM^r Ainsworth imputeth sinne and blasphemie to the holy Ghost. saith, what I account railing, scoffes, and blasphemies, are no other speeches, then the holie Ghost hath vsed and applyed to like persons. If hee will not be iustly condemned of impious blasphemie, let him proue this, else most accursedly im­putes hee sinne in and by them to the holy Ghost. Let him tell mee where euer the holy Ghost called set Prayer the smoake of the bottomlesse pit; singing of Psalmes harmonshing some ballad; The Lords Supper a two-penny feast; that such Ministers as with vs preach painefully, and liue religiously, are called by the holy Ghost, rauening wolues, Angels of hell, and that vpon such, are the vttermost deceits, and effectuall de­lusions of Sathan. A wofull man if that hee dare charge the spirit of God with such things. Hee that dare say this, is bold enough. Thirdly, hee seemes to make their out-rage herein lesse, by alledging Martin Marprelates course. Mar­tins course was curst, and condemned iustly of all sober spirits, yet was not hee so badde as Barrow, that Rabshakah: no scurrulous Mate answerable to this man, his penne was full of venome, as his head of violent rage, his writings witnesse it, as I haue at large declared in my other booke. If this Answerer will iustifie him, let him beare his iniquitie: Had his cause beene good, yet his manner in handling it was diuellish; what excuse soeuer may be made for him.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere.

HEe speakes for his fellow Barrow, and tels vs, that first, hee approues of Barrowes Scripture-phrases, as fitly applyed against vs: secondly, other Phrases also, be­cause hee knowes not what particular motion of Gods spi­rit guided him; for it seemes, hee dare not but thinke, what hee wrote was of Gods spirit: thirdly, hee dare not censure his mocking, for that hee followed therein Eliah. Thus can they gloze with themselues, and iustifie any thing, & all vn­der colour of pietie; the more damnable their iniquitie. Let this man doe his best for Barrow, or rather worke wic­kednesse for him, hee cannot proue before God all his Scripture phrases to be aptly applyed against vs. And what motion of the spirit can railing, rage, or mad frensie be, that such a one cannot therein be iudged of? His following of Eliah against Baal and Baals Priests, was beyond his war­rant to mocke and taunt the preachers of the Gospell, from any authoritie of God. Hee that sinneth is worthy of death; so he that consents and iustifies the wicked, deserues to die, and a woe by Esay is pronounced against him.Esay. 5.

I alledge against this man, his published writings: first,Page 71. 73. 75. of my former Booke. against the Separation: secondly, for his allowing of Bi­shops: thirdly, for his iustifying of set Prayer, and saying of the Lords Prayer. He answers me thus; that I may as well al­ledge against S. Paul his Pharasaicall practises, persecutions, & blasphemies, before he came to the truth, as euidences to confute christian religion, which afterwards he embraced. This answer set downe, is enough to manifest him; and sufficient it were not to regard what he writes: for as new conceits arise, soIn his Epistle of his booke of Differences. wil he euery day deny himselfe; and of late in effect he hath published so much of himselfe. If therefore hee had not ad­iured me before the Lord to answere him, I had iust cause in euery mans indifferent iudgement to haue beene silent, and [Page 123] to haue let him flye without pursuite. Hee hath out-runne himselfe with vs, and now also what he was with the Brow­nists; whose assemblie hee condemneth at this present, to be In his Booke of Anabapti­strie 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 wickednesse, and for being in loue with an Harlot: may they not by this haue sweet comfort of their troubles for their Brownisme? Note this, Reader, well.

Now followes the matter of Brownisme, the opinions of their owne way, errours arising from their owne heart; which being proued, I may conclude that they are in that their way not to be ioyned vnto, but to be auoided as Schis­matickes.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this first Errour.

WHat M^r. Ainsworth can say hereto I know not; what hee hath said to my former booke, let vs see: hee denyeth vs to haue a true constitution by two reasons: first, because (saith hee) all prophane, wordly, and wicked persons are receiued, as the matter whereof the Church is builded, contrary to Leu. 20. 24. 1. King. 8. 53. Acts. 2. 40. and 19. 8. 9. Iohn. 17. 16. 2. Cor. 4. 14. 17. 18.

I answere, first, these words insinuate, as if wee were re­ceiuing A difference betweene ad­mitting into the Church & retaining of men already in it. in strangers into the Church, as if the Church were in planting; which is deceitfull dealing with his Scholers, wee cannot be said properly to be receiuing such into the Church, as be already in it, but wee retaine them that are in. It is one thing to receiue wicked men into the Church, and another to retaine the members that are in it already. Hee speakes therefore improperly of vs, if not absurdly, espe­cially if hee vnderstand the speech of the Church of Eng­land, as hee should, and as I doe in this point in hand.

Secondly, his accusation is false, for we make not men mat­terHow men be matter of the Church. of the Church, as they be wicked or profane; but wee retaine them, because they hold the same profession of Christ with vs, though in conuersation they doe swarue from it, which ill demeanour wee condemne in them, by our Profession, by Lawes: and this is manifest by punishment inflicted vpon many, when they be lawfully proceeded a­gainst, and till then wee retaine them, hoping of their a­mendment.

Thirdly, his argument is of no force: what though [Page 135] some wicked be retained? will a false constitution there­uponThough the wicked be not cast out, yet the constitution is not false. follow? First, I demaund, is an honest societie of Tradesmen, a false societie, because some be retained among them who are vnhonest? secondly, I demaund, was the con­stitution of Corinths 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 suffred Iesabel to teach, deceiue, and toReuel. 2. 20. commit fornication? what is to be thought of the Church of the Iewes, in Esaias, and [...]eremies time, when the people as is before shewed, were wicked in a high degree, and the euill spread among all sorts.

Fourthly, a people are matter of the Church by theirOutward pro­fession ma­keth men mat­ter of the Church. profession, though they erre in conuersation; men co­uenanting in word, are in bond of societie, though performance faile in many things among them: Hee was a Iew that was circumcised, whether hee was borne of a Iew or otherwise, howsoeuer his life was; were not Elies Sonnes. Saul, Doeg, Nabal, Ioab, Absolom, and such wic­ked ones, Israelites outward by birth, by profession, by circumcision? And what hinders men borne of Christian parents, professing Christ, and baptised to be Christians, though they be of ill conuersation? If such Iewes were not denyed to be true matter then, what lets these Christians to be true matter now? I say true matter, for there is a dif­ference betweene true, good, bad, and no matter. These by being so borne, so professing, and baptised, be true matter, though not good: of this distinction haue I spoken before in my other booke. Page 112. 115. Whereto Mr. Ains­worth saith almost nothing, let him eyther answere now di­rectly hereto, or else cease to deceiue in this point.

Fiftly, what is the reason, that a mixture of good, andA mixture of good and bad in conuersation are not false matter of a Church ney­ther before God nor men▪ some bad in a Church, should more make that Church a false Church, then a mixture of thoughts, holy and vnholy, flesh and spirit in a man, striuing one against another con­tinually, should make him a false Christian? But as Rebecca was a true wife of Isaac, though shee had two contraries, an [Page 136] Elect and Reprobate within her; so is the Church of Eng­land a true wife to God; though she haue within her Esaus with Iacobs.

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 answere, first, that God in his word doth acknowledge the mixt Israelites his people, and therefore is not hee to be made Authour of this their errour. Second­ly, if it were so in respect of God, who seeth all men, as they be, then should there be no true matter of a Church euer; except they will say, that no Hypocrites are in a Church, which though before men they be holy, yet before God they be diuels, and so hee holds them, as hee did Iudas, be­fore he was manifest to be a traitour before men. If they say, it is a false matter in respect of men; I answere, first, that God by his word cals not a people his Church, because men so iudge of them, nor for any of their vpright walkingsDeut. 7. 7. 8. with cap. 9. 5. and compared with Esay. 1. & 5. &c. with men, but because hee hath taken them to serue him; hath couenanted with them, to hold them his people, though they doe prouoke 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 iudge Churches false Churches before men vpon this ground. Therefore this position of his, is neyther true in respect of God, or in respect of man, if eyther God, or his Prophets or Apostles, may haue credit with them.His alledged Scriptures doe not proue his position.

Now to his alledged Scriptures, I answere, though hee say, they be plaine and manifest for his assertion, yet they doe not afford him this assertion, that a mixt companie, 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 applyed, for by separation there is meant, a setting a part Abrahams po­steritie to a speciall seruice of God, and therein to be a people differing from all the world. And by other people, is [Page 137] meant such as worshipped not the true God; what is this to vs, who worship Iesus Christ, and are also a people separa­ted from other nations, such as is there vnderstood? so the place maketh much for vs, and nothing to his purpose. Let him produce a place to proue that Israelites were to sepa­rate from other Israelites for their corruptions, as false matter: else his proofe is nothing, but if hee would ende­uour it to deceiue others, let it be before noted, that the contrary is plaine from the word: for euen when Moses spoke from God of this their Separation from others, euen then spoke hee of the Israelites as a corrupt people among themselues, Deut. 9. 6. 7. 8. and Num. 14. 22. 33. 35. And yet he tels not the godly of any Separation, to be a body from that mixt Assembly. Moses was no Brownist, nor any other Prophet of God, to teach this Schismaticall Dona­tisme. God separated them from Heathen, but hee 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 kinde we cannot conclude an o­ther, for this is a speciall separation, and as it is meant, so is the place to be vrged, and not otherwise, for if it be, it is but abused.

The second place, is 1. Kings. 8. 53. This place is the very1. King. 8. 53. same with the former; and so hath the same answere: this Answerer would seeme to affright men with number, be­cause he wants places of weight.

The third place is in Acts. 2. 40. If it be obserued, toActs. 2. 40. expounded. whom S. Peter speakes, the Answere is soone and truely made. Hee speakes to the Iewes, and of such Iewes as oppo­sed Christ, and denyed him to be Christ: How followes this to vs, from Iewes, who renounced the very foundation, euen Iesus Christ, whom we doe professe to be the true Mes­sias, and so hold him? The holy Ghost saith; forsake those that deny Christ; Ergo, saith this Brownist, forsake such as doe professe him to be Christ Let him shew mee by what rule of reason this can follow. If conscience of holy vse of [Page 138] Scripture were in them as they pretend, thus would they not make it a nose of waxe to frame it to their vaine fanta­sie, as they here wickedly do. The scope with the true sense, applyed 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 al­ledgedActs. 19. 8. 9. answered. I see not, except against themselues: for first, the Apostle went into the Iewish Synagogues, to condemne our scrupulous Separatists, who refuse our Churches: se­condly, hee desputed openly and boldly, these runne here into corners, or else voluntarily flye their Country to speake and write there their pleasures. Thirdly, the Apostle taught, onely the things appertaining to the kingdome of God, and no other then what before had beene taught by Moses and the Apostles. Acts. 26. 22. 23. when these teach in their particular way, their owne conceits, as is pro­ued, and shall be after further manifested. The ninth verse carryes onely a shew as they looke vpon it: a shew I say, onely in their eyes; but not indeed so to any iudicious Reader. For if they alledge this to maintaine their Separa­tion from vs, then it prooues not their purpose, vnlesse we grant our selues to be a people hardened, disobedient, and speaking euill of the way of God before the multitude, and that their way is that way of God, which is the whole mat­ter in controuersie. Secondly, if their way were Gods way, yet this place is not against all, but against certaine that were hardened; and therefore vnlesse they haue spoken to all our Church, and disputed with vs, and so haue made their way knowne to all, and that all are found hard hearted, this place helps them not. If they alledge it, to proue that in the true Church there are not a mixt people, let them draw an argument from it, and shew how it followes 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 [Page 139] 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 vpon themselues, for these Brownists speake euill, yea, and with obstinacie blaspheme our holy exercises, the preaching of Christs word, the ad­ministration of the holy Sacraments among vs, as I haue in my former Booke sufficiently declared. And therefore are wee rather to flye from them, then they should hence conclude to depart from all vs.

The fift place is Iohn. 17. 16. This is vnderstood of theIohn. 17. 16. answered. elect onely, such as are so not of the world, as Christ Iesus himselfe was not of the world; the whole prayer of Christ teacheth this exposition, and hee euidently shewes what hee meanes by such as are not of the world, such as hee saith, hee sanctifieth; such as he prayeth to the father for; such as are one in the Father and in the Sonne, in whom Christ is, and to whom hee giues his glory, they behold it, and are where hee is, and the loue of the Father vnto Christ, shall be in them. There­fore these words are vnderstood onely of the Elect, that are ordained to life. Now then to vrge 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 onely of a people ordained to eternall life, which who they be, man knowes not, therefore the Apo­stles admitted of Simon Magus, of Demas, for their pro­fession, not because of their election, which they knew not, as appeares by the story. Thus therefore is this Scripture egregiously abused being vnderstood of the inuisible mem­bers, to be applyed to the visible members: but this is a common deceit among them, which the simple see not; but swallow vp euery text vnchewed, as seruing their turne, if it smell but of a separation, or forsaking of the world; they neuer regarding how it is to be taken If this answerer should childishly obiect that our Sauiour 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 answere hee speakes of visible members indeed, [Page 140] 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; euen as much as a Reprobate, and one ordained to life: the per­son of the man may be seene, but his election cannot. So then though here Christ speake of such as be in the visi­ble Church, yet hee speakes not of them, as they be mem­bers thereof before men; but as they be indued with hea­uenly graces, and holy before God, as is euident by that which is said, and proued from the text.

The sixt and last Scripture is 2. Cor. 6. 14. 18. This place2. Cor. 6. 14. 18. expounded and answered fully. is one of their common places, to which they doe runne vpon euery occasion, as their speciall weapon to fight for Separation, and to defend the same. But this is very like the former, a flourish to deceiue the simple: and for that it is so much vrged by them, I will the more stand vpon it, to cleare the same from their wretched abuse of it, in the iudge­ment of any iudicious and learned Reader: in which let these things be obserued.

First, the Occasion: The Corinthians were a people con­uertedThe Occasion. to Christianitie, and yet liued in ciuill societie among Infidels, called Gentiles; of which some perhaps being their friends and kinsfolkes after the flesh, would inuite them to their Idoll feasts, as may seeme. 1. Cor. 10. 27. to which some would goe, and eate of the things sacrificed to Idols, euen in the Idoll 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 Idoll was nothing. 1. Cor. 8 4. and so they made no conscience of things externall, but thought any thing lawfull therein in that respect. But the Apostle shewes it to be a defilement by Idolatrie, which he commands to fly from. 1. Cor. 10. 14. and here dehorts from. Now the occasion here with vs is not alike, we dwell not in ciuill societie with Idolaters, but vnder a Christian King, and with a people professing Christ: here is no pub­like Idols set vp, nor any feasting in honour of them, wher­to wee are inuited. If any secret Idolatry be committed, and [Page 141] any inticed thereunto, then the occasion being the same, the place is of force against such, but no defence for these mens Schisme, from our publike Assemblies.

Secondly, The scope of the 14. 15. 16. verses is setScope. downe in the verse 17. that the beleeuing Corinthians pro­fessing Christ, the true God, should separate and come out from among the Gentiles, Infidels; which separation and comming out, is expounded in the words following: that is, touch no vncleane thing. By touching, is meant a parta­ing with them in their euils; according to that in the Ephe­sians chap. 5. 11. Haue no fellowship with the vnfruitfull workes of darkenesse, but euen reproue them rather: these last words shewing what it is to haue no fellowship with them, it is by words to reprooue them, in iudgement to condemne them, in affections to hate them, and in conuersation to auoid them; so touch we no vncleane thing.

Now here see this Answerers Scope, why hee alledgeth this place, to wit, to proue, that none of lewd conuersati­on are true matter of the visible Church. How agrees the Apostles Scope, and this mans drift together? If Christi­ans must separate from Gentiles, then are not men of ill conuersation, professing Iesus Christ true matter of a Church: or thus; If true beleeuers must auoid sinne, and euery vncleane thing, then the wicked and prophane are not of the visible Church. What a madde Argument is this? Here is Tinterton Steeple, the cause of Goodin Sands.

Obiect. But it may be they will say, that Gods comman­ding the beleeuers to separate from the wicked, is his reie­ction of them, and if all the godly would performe the Commandement, there should be no wicked among them: and thus by the Lords reiection they be not, and by the godly mens obedience, they should not be of the Church. I know not how possibly they should defend this Scripture for themselues, but thus.

Answ. But hereto I answere; they force more from the words, then the Lord giues them, if they happily should [Page 142] make this Obiection: for God commands not his to sepa­rate wholy from all the wicked, but from wicked Infidels, Gentiles, Idolaters, Iewes, 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 Infidelitie, and so iudged of the Church, and therefore such are to be separated from, and hereto tends this place: but for other wicked, which liue in the societie of the godly, another course is to be taken; to separate onely from their priuate familiaritie, and if they will not be reformed, then other courses are to be ta­ken with them, as their sinne of obstinacie deserues. For these differing things are to be euer obserued: first, a dif­fering betweene, a separation publike of the godly from among such as are no Church, and a priuate 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, betweene the wicked in life, holding the publike profession of the Church in the Church, and wicked out of the Church, denying the Faith: fourthly, a difference betweene separation in priuate from the wicked in the Church, and a separation from Gods ordinances in the Church, for such wicked mens sake. Lastly, betweene the godly separating the wicked from among them, and themselues brea­king societie with themselues, because of some wicked persons. These things mistaken, Separation is disorderly perfor­med, and wickedly practised, and such places as this here­by misalledged, to the vpholding of an vngodly Schisme, and breach of true and lawfull peace.

Thirdly, The matter found fault with here, is the beingThe matter entreated of. of such together one with another, as ought not to co­here in one, which being together is set out, first, in the mat­ter, manifested in these tearmes, Ʋnrighteousnesse, Darke­nesse, Belial, Idols: secondly, in the maner of the being toge­ther; to wit, as being one with them, which is noted in these tearmes, Yoked, Fellowship, Concord, Partaking, A­greement, which is in summe thus much, beleeuers are not to be with the wicked in their vnrighteousnes, in their state [Page 143] of darkenesse, as they be vnder Belial, the Deuill, and are Idolaters, as if they were yoke fellowes in one Socie­tie and Communion, liuing therein at one, and perta­king with them in their euils, and so agreeing together. What now is this to helpe the way of the Separatists, who doe forsake here not Darkenesse, but light; the preaching of the word with vs and among vs: not vnrighteousnesse, but the godly fellowship of many fearing God: not Belial the Di­uel, but God, whom they haue found euen powerfull a­mong vs and vs: not Idolls, for what Idols are here set vp in our Assemblies to be worshipped, but Gods worship and diuine exercises? If the matter hereserue their turne: Marke Reader well, they must proue vs all to liue; first, in darke­nesse: secondly, in vnrighteousnes: thirdly, to be in league with the diuel: fourthly, that wee be Idolaters, and Idols set vp among vs, and that we all doe as one body cleaue to­gether, as couples yoked in that fellowship and communi­on, liuing so, partaking in euill with concord and agree­ment: If he doe not proue this against vs, he gets nothing by this place but condemnation with God, and shame with all wise and vnderstanding Readers, for so vrging this place against our Church.The persons spoken of.

Fourthly, The persons to be separated from, here mentio­ned do nothing fit his turne to produce this place against vs, for he speakes 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 kinde of reasoning there is no force of consequence. Because In­fidels, Heathen Pagans, Idolaters, led by the diuell, are no matter of a true Church: Ergo, Christians professing Ie­sus Christ, yet not in life answerable to their professing, are no true matter of the Church: I leaue him this consequence to proue, if he cannot, let him lay his hand on his mouth.

Fiftly and lastly, The persons to whom the Apostle speaks, shew that he alledgeth not the true meaning of the place; for euen then, when this doctrine of Separation from the [Page 144] Heathen was taught, there were of the Corinthians, who herein did in some sort pertake with the Heathen, they were a mixt company; there were among them dissentions and di­visions; 1. Cor. 1. 10. 11. 12. Enuying, there were men carnall: 1. Cor. 3. 3. there was open incest; 1. Cor. 5 1. 2. there was a great abuse of the Sacrament; 1. Cor. 11. drunkennesse; con­tempt of the poore; one going to law with another vnder Infi­dels; 1. Cor. 6. giuing of offence to the weake; 1. Cor. 8. per­taking with Idols in eating in Idoll Temples: 1. Cor. 10. vaine­glorious abuse of gifts in the publike Assemblies; 1. Cor. 14. Heresies, some not beleeuing 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 euill men vnrepentant among them, guiltie of vncleannesse, Fornication, Wantonnesse, Strife, Backebitings, Whisperings, Swellings, &c. 2. Cor. 12. 20. 21. Can worse be said of any in our Church? doe any of vs receiue the Sacra­ment drunke, or deny the Resurrection? yet note for all these things in Corinth, how well in generall hee speakes 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 hee teacheth not the godly to hold the wicked a false matter, neyther to gather themselues together from among the other, but to admo­nish one another, to auoid priuate familiaritie, as Caluin ex­pounds the 1. Cor. 5. 11. and to cast out some. Hee neuer taught the better sort that they were polluted, except they separated. This Luciferian Schisme, and Pharisaicall pride was farre from his thoughts, and Gods Church then. If this place be good against vs, and sufficient to proue bad liuers to be false matter, a mixt companie no church of Christ, and that the Separatists Schisme is hereon grounded, the same had beene also as good against the Church of Co­rinth, and the Apostle would haue vrged them to this Brownisticall practise, but neyther doth the Apostle so ap­ply it, neyther did the better sort so practise, eyther there, or in any of the churches in Asia, in which was giuen as iust [Page 145] cause of Separation, as they can take against vs 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 orderM^r. Ainsworths second reason against our Constitution confuted. of our gathering, and the cause; to wit, constraint of au­thoritie: for the Order, I haue alreadie spoken of it: and if they like not my answere, I referre them to what Doctour Willet hath written, in his fift generall Controuersie: also to Doctour Downchams Sermon vpon Reuel. 1. 20. which they haue not answered.

Reason. 1 For the Constraint; I answere, that first in the plantingOur Constitu­tion was of vo­luntarie profes­sours. 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 Maiestie, with many o­thers begun a voluntarie Reformation, they were not con­strained then; for who could but God? so if hee speake ge­nerally of all, it is a fallacie, a dicto secundum quid. Se­condly, the Supreame power gathered, they made Pro­clamation of her Maiesties godly intent, which was a kinde of teaching, whereto the people yeelded voluntarilie, for any thing that any man can say to the contrary, and howsoeuer it be, that the inferiours came not to consent, yet if all the chiefe did it voluntarily, it is accounted in such a case the Act of all. Exod. 19. 3. 7. 8. Iosh. 4. 2. 8. Hence it is, that when God gaue Princes to rule his people, theirPeople are iudged to be according to their Gouer­nours. Actions are specially recorded; the state of the people in them commended or disallowed; and the people in respect of the Gouernours scarcely mentioned; there­by giuing vs to vnderstand, where Kings and chiefe Ru­lers doe voluntarily receiue the truth, there the people are to be iudged so to professe, as Princes doe, and as their Lawes command to be done. Thus wee may see how Asae 2. Chron: 14. 2. is commended, that hee tooke away the Altars of strange Gods, ascribing all to him, as the principall; who did lead [Page 146] and command the rest; to whose godly Commandement when the people did yeeld, though by his power some o­beyed in feare, yet is it said, that the people sought the Lord, verse 7. And therefore the people are accounted volunta­rie professours in their chiefe Gouernours, because they obey their Soueraignes voluntary Commaundements made in their Profession, for the aduauncement of Reli­gion.

Reason. 3 Thirdly, Wee may be said to be a voluntarie people, in respect of Baptisme, to which Parents doe 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 iudged voluntary; because when they come to the yeeres of vnderstanding, they ap­proue of their Parents act. How wee be otherwise by Par­liament voluntary Professours I haue shewed before.

Reason. 4 Fourthly and lastly, grant that the people be constrai­ned to worship God, it ouerthrowes not the ConstitutionA great diffe­rence between planting and Reforming. in Reformation, betweene which and the planting there is among other this difference: that in conuersion, at the first the Word must be preached, and by that meanes must men be brought to a voluntarie profession without com­plusion; to which purpose tend all his Scriptures alledged: but in the time of Reformation, Compulsion, the authori­tie of godly Princes, is an approued meanes to bring and settle the people in order to the worship of God: A master cannot compell a man to be his seruant before hee be, but when he is, then if the seruant fall from him in the time of of his seruice, he may bring him againe by force: God v­seth to call at the first by a free meanes, but in Reformati­on after Relapse, he vseth other meanes. As Proclamation of Princes: so in Hezechias time, by which many returnedPrinces may compell their Subiects to Religion. from Idolatrie. 2. Chron. 30. neither were any reiected by so comming, as false matter of a Church, though they were not clensed according to the purification of the [Page 147] Sanctuarie then: so then the Lord blessed Compulsion; and afterwards in good Iosias time, who compelled the peo­ple, 2. Chron. 34. 32. 33. It is not vnlawfull for Princes by this example, to compell their Subiects to Religion, in reforming the Church; yea, and to binde them some way, for better performance of the duties of Religion: as by taking an oath, 2. Chro. 15. 12. Neh. 10. 29 by vrging some writing, whereto all must seale; Nehe. 9. 38. by offe­ring a subscription; Esai. 44. [...]. by taking and giuing of hands; Esdras. 10. 3. 9. Thus the Scripture records the Lords meanes vsed to recall men backe to the truth, and to con­firme them in their standing, that they may not fall againe. I demand, whether Religious Fathers may not force their children by threats, and correction to a religious Course: which if hereby they attaine vnto but in shew, is the fami­lie lesse Religious? If not, then why is a Church (lesse a true Church) because Princes, the Fathers of our Coun­tries; yea, nursing Fathers to the Church, doe by their authoritie, cause many to ioyne vnto the Church, in out­ward shew subiecting themselues to the truth? When many became Iewes for feare of Mordecai, it was noted, as a prosperous successe befalling the Church then, rather than a disgrace and disparagement to it, as Brownists now take it.

The authoritie of Princes is great in these things, when God bestowes them vpon the Church; and it hath pleased him to vse them, as great instruments for his Churches good, which here to declare how, I thinke it not amisse, both to magnifie their power herein, to free it from con­tempt, and to shew that by Princes power vsed for to bring men to Religion, the Church is more honourable, and not lesse true, as these Separatists doe dreame. 1. Hee Princes haue beene speciall instruments which God hath vsed for his Churches good. planted a nationall Church, by a Prince and Prophet, Moses. 2. Hee Reformed it by Kings, Iosias, Hezekias, and others. 3. Hee made it more glorious by Kings, as by Salomon. 4. Hee set orders among persons by kings, as by Dauid, and by the Iudge and Prophet, Samuel; 1. Chro. 26. 22. 5. He [Page 148] placed and displaced Officers by them, as by Salomon: who put downe Abiathar, and preferred Zadoc. 1. King. 2. 35. 6. Hee makes Princes and Nobles the deliuerers of his peo­ple, Guides and Defenders of them; as the Iudges, Iosua, Gideon, Ehud, Othniel, Sampson: yea, Cyrus though an Heathen, Zorobabel, and Nehemiah. 7. The holy Ghost com­plaines, as the greatest want in the Church, that a King was not in Israel to bridlemen, to keepe them in order; so great a good is such authoritie to the Church, both to fur­ther good, and to preuent mischiefe, if it please God to blesse his people with godly Princes.

Therefore it is strange, that these men should so disanullPrinces care for the Church bettereth the estate of it, and makes it not worse. a Church, because Princely authoritie bindes many to o­bedience, who otherwise would breake out; sithen God hath so imployed them in Church affaires, hath so pros­pered them, and commended their endeuours to compell men to Religion. They ought to pull downe Idolatrie; they may restraine men from a false worship, and punish such as therein transgresse: if so, then let this Answerer tell mee, why their authoritie stretcheth not as well to force men to the true worship, sithen Iosias zeale is herein com­mended? Indeed, Faith cannot be compelled, but yet mens bodies may be brought vnder; and vnto the outward meanes: by which though such benefit nothing towards God, yet is the act of Princes herein laudable, and to the Church very profitable: if so, then the people obeying by constraint, make the Church nothing lesse 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 M^r. Ainsworth shew, why people compelled by Princes autho­ritie should be therefore the more false matter of a Church, then some of their Company held in through feare of their censures, to abide with them? can it be worse to compell men in the time of Reformation, then to hold men in af­ter Reformation?

M^r. Ainsworth proues not how a constraint, makethPage 169. [Page 149] such a breach in the Church, but that hee passeth ouer with silence, and would disproue our order, and that by two reasons.

First, because it is not found in all the new Testament. I an­swere;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 tye men to one, and so to exclude all other, without variation of any cir­cumstance of place, or person at any time; which to proue, I suppose passeth all his, and all his companies cunning. If then there be no binding Law, there is no transgression: Ge­nerall Rules are for things indifferent, they guide, but impose no particulars to a perpetuitie. Occasioned practises arising, as time, place, and persons require, euen in Apostolicall examples doe not binde as precepts: let them consider of these things. Secondly, if this reason of his be good, then it followes, thatHis reason o­uerthrowes 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, euer made Ministers, which Apostles, or Euangelists, or the Eldership onely, laid hands on such as were made Mini­ster, so they were publike persons; and this is the constant order of making Ministers, by such in the new Testament, and no one instance can be giuen of any called and orday­ned to a Pastours Office by a company of priuate men, as they be; and therefore their course not being according to the constant and perpetuall order of the new Testament, without alteration in this point, it is disallowed, and they no Ministers by his owne argument. Let him herein an­swere me to euery reason as I doe him, and if hee preuaile by a lawful fight with the weapon of Gods word, I yeeld him the victory, and let him hold it.

Secondly, because this order was receiued from the Church of Rome. I answere; first, that the argument is not good; because wee haue it from Rome, ergo, it is to be disallowed: this can hee not maintaine; It is not materiall whence order is, so it be good. Secondly, this order one ouer another, [Page 150] was before this now-present Rome, if Histories may be cre­dited; and if this answere ouerthrow not his reason, once againe I call vpon both him and his associates, to confute M^r. Downhams Sermon on Reu. 1. 20. And thus much for Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this first Errour: to which M^r. Smith saith nothing at all, but as it may seeme, answeres this and the next Errour as both in one.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths AnswerePage 172. to this second Errour.

MAster Ainsworth at first boggles at it, as if hee durst not challenge it for the grosse absurdities of it, but af­ter bethinking himselfe, hee defends it, but very seelilie. His answere consists of two points: first, that I haue said [Page 151] nothing to disproue it, but that it may for any thing I haue said be an Idoll, as he thinkes. For that he makes my reason to be this, because I see it not, and Marlorat names it not, Ergo, no Idoll; but the Reader may see, that my argument is, the Scripture makes it not an Idoll, neyther is the word Idoll, in the Scriptures so taken: therefore it is not an Idoll. Hee saith I doe not see all that the Scripture teacheth: I con­fesse it, and if hee doe not the same, he is arrogantly proud; but I speake of my sight in this particular, and if I be ouer­seene,The word Idol, is not vsed in Scripture for a constitution. he should haue giuen some instance where the word Idoll, is taken for such a Constitution as ours is; but this could hee not doe.

To Marlorats paines hee answeres, that both hee and I Mr. Ainsworth a Cauiller at my words. may as soone number the hayres of our heads, as reckon vp all the Idols in the world. Marke Reader, I say Marlorat num­bers vp the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and hee supposeth that I speake of his reckoning vp all in the world; so hee puts the word World, for the Scriptures: what a cauill, or blindnesse, or wilfull mistaking is this? three times in eight lines, I nominate the word Scripture, and not at all the word World and yet hee puts one for the other: but hee that is so blinde to take the World, for the Scriptures, no meruaile it is that hee takes Schisme instead of the sincere truth, and their inuented constitution for Gods order in religion. Second­ly to proue it an Idoll. If it be a false constitution, as before is proued (saith hee) set vp instead of a true, what is it better then a very Idoll? I answere, here is a weake proofe, for such a con­fident cause on their behalfe, and in their iudgement of so great moment: hee shewes not what is an Idoll, nor proues a false constitution to be an Idoll, by eyther reason or scrip­ture: but first comes with an iff, supposing to be what isHis reason is ridiculous. not: if our Constitution be false, then is it an Idoll; this is ridiculous; for his argument is the very question: as if hee had said if our constitution (as he cals it) false, be an Idoll, then it is an Idoll. Secondly he askes a question; a false con­stitution being set vp instead of the true constitution, what is it better then a very Idol? I answer that first, his ground is [Page 152] weake, for our Churches Constitution is not false; see what is aforesaid for this. Secondly, I say, that an Idoll is falsely defined by the terme Constitution, without warrant of Scrip­ture, as in my former booke I auouch, which he hath not refuted, nor giuen yet thereto any reason to the contrary. Thirdly, I say, that hee himselfe, it seemes, dare not call it an Idoll, but demands of others what it is, and saith, what is it better then an Idoll? hee durst not say; what is it but an Idoll? Well then, our Constitution is no Idoll at all, for ought this man hath said, but this their errour remaineth vpon them. Hee calles me in the end of his answere a vaine man; but Vanitie it selfe is vpon him, as his Answere shewes, which the Lord remoue from him: this is my recompence for his railing.

Reply to Mr. Smiths AnswerePage 9. 15. to this second Errour.

MAster Smith here fals to the matter, but withall after a discoursing fashion, holding some truths, but teach­ing many errours: but two things hee auoucheth touch­ing this second errour? first, that a false Constitution is a reall Idoll, Page 9. Secondly, that it is greater and more abhomina­ble Page. 14. then any Idoll that can be in a true Church.

Touching the first, he tels vs; first, what is a false Con­stitution, a mixt company, because it is a false matter, and so a false Constitution; this hee proues not, but sets out his er­ronious thought, by a beastly Similitude of a Horse and an Asse engendring, bringing out a third thing, a Mule: so good and bad conioyned, produce a third thing, that is, (saith he) a false Church. I answer; first, that a mixt company is no false matter, as is before shewed: secondly, he speaketh onely of the matter, and omitteth the forme, which also is in the making of a constitution: thirdly, hee proues no­thing by a Similie, much lesse by this filthy one: fourthly, [Page 153] his similie ouerthrowes himselfe; for a true Horse and a true Asse doe produce a true creature, though not like ei­ther, and not a false one. Againe, good and bad men are not substantially intermingled, as the seede of an Horse and an Asse, to bring out of themselues a third creature: if they doe, 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 consistsM^r. Smith doth put a beastly si­milie in his Ca­techisme. by mixture of both: but thus much, and two much of a beastly similie; wherein hee compareth the godly, eyther to an Horse, or to an Asse, but vs all to Mules. And for the holinesse of this Similie, it is also in his Catechisme, to be learned belike as one of his principles of Deuilitie.

Secondly, hee proceeds to proue a false ConstitutionPage 9. an Idol: first, hee saith it is Idolatry, and against the second Commandement. What then M^r. Smith, is it an Idoll? Is Idolatry an Idoll? you miserably are deceiued, and would deceiue. But a mixt assembly, is neyther Idolatrie, nor an Idoll, nor condemned in the second Commandement: for no word condemneth such a companie for Idolatrie, if o­therwise they be not Idolaters. Secondly, hee would seeme to haue 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? Hee else were is full of his Sillogismes, so fra­med as they be, but here he is onely in exposition, because else his absurditie would more haue appeared. Gods true Church is his Temple: Ergo, a false Church an Idoll, for here (saith he) they be opposite. I answere, first, if any such op­position be, it is betweene the Temple of God, that is, the true Church, and the Temple of Idols, for hee speakes fi­guratiuely, and puts Idols, for a people worshipping Idols. Secondly, if this exposition be true, that a company mixed be an Idoll, who are the Idolaters? This is ridiculous foo­lerie. Thirdly, I answere, that the holy Ghost intendeth not to set out an exposition of a true and false Church, but [Page 154] rather a Church and no Church; the beleeuing Christians, and Heathenish Idolaters: which is the true sense of this place. Fourthly; if there be an opposition, it is betweene 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 yee cannot giue worship and honour to Idols; so contrary is God and Idols, as if indeed you be the Lords people, you cannot agree with them: for the godly hate Idols, as vtterly against the honour of the true God, whom they doe worship. Thus his false ex­position being ouerthrowne, whereupon his argument doth stand, his ridiculous reason fals also to the ground.

His second Scripture is, 1. Iohn. 5. 21. Babes keepe your 1. Iohn. 5. 21. selues from Idols. Here first (he saith) Antichristian Idolatrie is especially meant: but this is most false; hee onely saith, it is enough for mee to deny it: but who knowes not that Iohn writ to the faithfull dwelling among Idolatrous Heathen? which Idolatrie is chiefely here meant, and so being gene­rall, may be applyed against Idolatries of all times. Second­ly, hee saith, Antichristian Idolatrie is meanes inuented to worship the true God in or by: but this is another falshood, if hee meane that it stands onely in such meanes: for Anti­christ with his, doe worship Angels, Saints, and the breaden Idoll to be very God: and if he meane not onely, then hee defines his Antichristian Idolatry falsely: thus two errours appeare in his exposition, for vsually, what else are his cur­sed glosses but peruersion of Scripture, and false interpreta­tion. But how proues hee from this place, our Churches Constitution a reall Idoll? Euen as hee falsely expounds, so hee ridiculously proues it thus: Whatsoeuer meanes is de­uised out a mans braine, and vsed as a meanes to honour God in or by, is an Idoll. A deuised Constitution is of that nature: Ergo, an Idoll.

I answer, first, that it is no argument; his third tearme is the same with the first tearme in the question. His position is; A deuised constitution is an Idoll: and his reason to proue it, is; Whatsoeuer is deuised, which is thus much, whatsoeuer [Page 155] is deuised, &c. is an Idoll, but a deuised constitution is so de­uised: Ergo, an Idoll. Hee befooles his Schollers, with hisMr. Smith foo­lisieth his schol­lers with chil­dish Sophistrie. Zach. 11. 17. childish Sophistrie. Secondly, I deny his maior as an Elench of a false description of an Idoll. Hee proues it not, but ex­amplifieth it, from a false Minister called an Idoll, Zach. 11. 17. where hee vseth another deceit; for Zacharie meanes not that such a one is an Idoll; but speaketh by way of si­militude, that he is as an Idoll. In calling a deuised Consti­tution an Idoll, this man meanes simply, and the Scripture is vnderstood comparatiuely: so hee doth reason a dicto simpliciter, ad dictum secundum quid. Thirdly, I also deny the Minor, as hee vnderstands a constitution deuised, to wit, that it is a mixt company; for it is not a deuise of a mans braine, as before is shewed; and let him shew, what hee meanes by worshipping God in or by it. Fourthly, hee maketh a flourish with Col. 2. 23. Mat. 15. 9. and henceCol. 2. 23. makes a proofe thus, that will-worship, and vaine-worship,Mat. 15. 9. is forbidden there; and it is a transgression of the second Commandement, and therefore Idolatry, and so the church wherein it is offred is an Idoll. So then hee thus reasons; in what Church vaine-worship is that Church is an Idoll. Not all his deceiuablenesse of vnrighteousnesse, nor all Sathans Sophistrie can euer proue this. Hee saith, that hee is blind-fold that seeth not these things manifest, so say I, but to wit, manifest folly in him, and manifest falshood in the things.

In Page 11. and 12. hee discourseth faire in shew, but partly without truth, partly ridiculous, but wholy full of deceit; as may appeare by what is said, and the things themselues considered of a wise Reader will shew: IMr. Smiths Ar­gument full of folly and also falshood. come therefore to his other Sillogisme. That which is con­trary to a true Church, is an Idoll: But a false constituted church is contrary to a truely constituted Church: Ergo, a false constituted church is an Idoll. I answere, first, that the proposition is a fallacie of a false description of an Idoll, as is before in the former Argument declared, so the propo­sition is falsely constituted: which stands in need of proofe.

Againe, it is full of absurditie; if euery thing contrary to a true Church be an Idoll, then euery vngodly man, that liues disorderly, contrary to the holy orders of the Church, is an Idoll. Who worships his Idoll? who doe hold in him a diuine power, as Idolaters hold in Idols? An Assembly of Iewes or Turkes, is contrary to the true Church, they dis­claime Christianitie, is such a Company an Idoll? Where euer, eyther in Scripture, or other writings, is a company of men knit in one, called an Idoll? Idolaters such may be, but not an Idoll: they worship an Idoll, and if they be an Idoll also, then an Idoll worships an Idoll. Brownists in Schisme, and Anabaptists in their Heresies are contrary to the true Church of God; therefore Idols by his reason, and such as doe esteeme them are Idolaters. The Churches of Asia, were against the Church of Rome in the obseruation of Easter, were they therefore Idols? Secondly, I answere to the Minor, that it hath ouer-throwne the Constitution of his Sillogisme, by altering the tearme of the Proposition, putting in for a true Church, a truely constituted Church, which is against the rules of right reasoning: for there may be a true Church, which may not be truely constitu­ted; for true respects the matter, but truely the manner al­so; in which there may be some errour. Againe, in the tearme falsely constituted is an ambiguitie, it is not certaine whether he meane wholy false, or but in part: if he say wholy, then he takes it not here, as hee did before, Page 10. line. 8. for an assembly of vnfaithfull men, with some faithfull a­mong them, and then the question is changed: if hee say but in part, it makes the proposition the more absurd, and the Minor deceitfull, which must onely be vnderstood respectiuely. And thus his reason is without reason.

He brings in againe, 2. Cor. 2. 6. But thereto hee hath2. Cor. 2. 6. his answere already. Yet hence he now frames an idlement, I should say, an Argument: That which is contrary to the Temple of God, is an Idoll. 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 [Page 157] is contrary to the true Church is an Idoll. This seely schisme is without a proofe, there is no tertium argumentum; for the proofe & the subiect of the question are both one; and his owne words, which he brings for the proofe of the Mi­nor, shew 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 owne 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. Hauing thus ridiculously reaso­ned (if I wrong him, looke vpon his syllogisme, thou that hast reason and iudge mee herein) hee Thrasonically with scorne calles vpon me, and saith; Now M^r. Bernard, with all your learning auoid this place, and I will yeeld, &c. I beseech thee Reader, now iudge betweene vs; and if I haue shewed him his extrem folly, to abate his pride herein, marke whe­ther he the next time shew himselfe a man of his word, and yeeld vnto me. Truly God confounds the proud, whom he euer resists. Not hauing done with this, he ads 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 againe is Sophistrie, for false Christ is taken in the Maior properly, in the Minor figuratiuely, which ought not to be in right arguing, which is euer without Equiuoca­tion, ambiguitie, & variation in the three tearmes. And thus much touching his first position, that a false constitution is a reall Idol; for if it be not at all an Idol, as reason shewes, and his reasons proue not, then it is no real politicall Idol; which is a new Idol of his diuising, neuer heard of before.

Touching the second assertion, that it is a greater and a more abhominable Idol, then any Idol that possible can be in a true Church, Pag 14. I answere; first, that it is no Idol, he hath not yet proued it, but by ridiculous shewes of reasons, and therefore his 'Predicates perish where his subiect vani­sheth. Secondly, If it were an Idol, yet may a greater and a more abhominable Idol be found than it; as Moloch, which [Page 158] was brought into the true Church: A mixt people profes­sing Christ, doe honor to Christ, the better sort truely: but Moloch is no God; it thrusts out the remembrance, the worship and seruice of the true God, and makes the wor­shippers cruell murtherers of their children, in offering them to be burnt for his honour. Is a mixt Assembly of Christian Professours, such as the Church of England is, a greater and more abhominable Idol then Moloch? Hee isSee Zep. Page 164. abhominably idle brained that dare auouch it. Thirdly, further to proue it, hee brings in another grosse Errour; one false-hood to maintaine another; to wit this, for that a false ministerie, worship, and gouernment may be in a true Church; but a true ministerie, worship and gouernment cannot be in a false Church. Strange Paradoxes; the latter should be otherwise then he affirmes, by the Argument of contraries, and in the first hee insinuates most grossely that contraries may agree, and each keepe their proper nature: that is, a Mi­nisterie, worship, and Gouernment false, in a Church that is true, and yet he denieth a true Church to be where some men be lewd in conuersation: as if some men in priuate conuersation wickedly behauing themselues, did more take away the truth of a Church, then a false Ministerie, false worship, and a false gouernment. Hee will say any thing, that will publish this for a truth, yea, and hold it as a prin­ciple to defend other Errours withall.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this third Errour.

MAster Ainsworth to this saith; first, that I set it notPage. 173. downe in their words. What then? I therefore, saith he, doe cauill, for that they grant many of Christs Subiects; for want of meanes doe not liue in a true constituted Church. The position was M^r. Smiths in his Brownisticall way, which M^r. Ainsworth disclaimes, and acknowledgeth many out of their way, by his disclaiming of this, to be Christs Subiects visible; for of a visible Constitution I speake. So then with mee he holds this an Errour, and the Errour remaines vpon Brownisticall M^r. Smith the Au­thour; who defended the Brownists Constitution, (which is onely meant in this position) to be the onely entrie into life, as the onely true Constitution of Christs Church. But now Anabaptisticall M^r. Smith, hath renounced that Constitution, for as very a harlot as Rome, in his last booke, called the Charecter of the Beast, published, Anno 1609. And so herein we all agree: I say it is an Errour, M^r. Ainsworth disclaimes it as an Errour, and now M^r. Smith renounceth it, though before his Anabaptistrie he did de­fend it; so hath he herein preuented my reply to him, and eased me of great labour.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this fourth Errour.

MAster Ainsworths answere, first is, that they holdPage 173. that all not in the way of Christ are without. So it isM^r. Ainsworth dare not call their way the way of Christ. nothing to the matter here; but hereby (marke Reader) that he sheweth plainely, that there is a difference between their way, and the way of Christ, els 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 Christs way, it is but one, he might haue held to the words; and if their way be not Christs way, as hee dare not here auouch, why is hee yet a seducing false Teacher to their way, vnder colour of the way of Christ? Secondly, he iustifies (but yet onely by his bare affirmation) the application of Scrip­tures against vs, as a people without, till I and my brethren can proue vs a true Church: Surely then, at this present must he disallow the application, for we are a true Church of God, as is proued, and what hee hath said to the con­trary is disproued. Thirdly, hee excepts against my first reason, as insufficient to disproue the application against vs;Doctor Whita­kers, de eccles. Page. 12. my reason is, that the places are meant of such as neuer professed Christ at all; hee saith it is childish, and askes me why I except not against the holy Ghost, for applying [Page 161] against the Romish Church, words & speeches meant first of Heathenish Babilon? Yea, M^r. Ainsworth, must I needs except against Gods Spirit, because I except against you? No proud conceit. I answere first, the holy Ghost cannot erre in expounding or in applying Scripture: but M^r. Ainsworth and all the Brownists in the world, both may and doe erre. Secondly, the reason of the Holy Ghost, so doing is manifest, for he rightly applyeth the places lite­rally spoken of the type, spiritually to the thing signifyed; and in so doing, there is both truth and soundnesse, in the application, from heathenish Babilon, to Antichristian Ba­bylon, the Romish Synagogue, it followes well; for that the Holy Ghost cals Rome Babylon; but what is it to vs, that are come out of Babylon? or how can that which is spoken against Heathen Idolaters, be brought against vs, that abhorre and flye Idolatrie both by profession of Gods word in that point, and by lawes enacted against the same?

My second reason is an vrging 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 hee wholy silent, be­cause he was not able to giue satisfaction.

For my third reason, and the particular branches, which is this, that God witnesseth that we are his people, by giuing vs his word, Psal. 147. 19. 20. by the effectuall blessing thereupon in bringing men from a bare profession to a godly sanctification of life: by Gods gracious protection of vs, and mercies vpon vs with fatherly chastisements. To all which he answers; that it is but a boasting: so here then he denies that God hath giuen vs his Word, that any are effectually called, or that Gods gracious protection is ouer vs. The Rauens of the wildernesse will picke out the eyes of all such forlorne bastardly children, as doe so de­nie God in his so euident workes, 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 [Page 162] sharpe; for let the latter Scripture be considered, and that they hold it, as fitly alledged against vs, and thou wiltIn what ac­count we be with God, in the iudgement of the Separa­tists. thinke that I say too little; the place is Ephes. 2. 12. In which place the Apostle speakes of the Ephesians before their profession and Baptisme, that they were, 1. without Christ; 2. Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel; 3. Strangers from the couenants of Promise; 4. without hope; and 5. without God in the world. If this place be aptly applyed against vs, as he iudgeth, then he holds vs, the Church of England, as a people out of the profession of Christ, without Baptisme, without Christ, Aliens from the people of God; Strangers from the couenants of Promise, with­out hope, without God in the world: and what then; but as Idolaters and diuels? And herein their iudgement is worse, for that they will needs haue the holy Ghost to auouch thus much against vs, which if it were so, should be more, then the condemnation of all men and Angels: but herein (as in many other) they wretchedly abuse both Gods spirit and vs.

Reply vnto Mr. Smiths Answere to this fourth Errour.

MAster Smith to this first, answeres two things: First, That all members of a true Church are within: spea­king generally, as M^r. Ainsworth doth; but not particularly of the Brownists Church, as the position is meant: so it is an answere, and no answere indeed. Secondly, Hee saith, that all members of a false Church are without: and so they account our Church, & therefore without: But sithen our Church is not a false Church, as is alreadie proued, his argument is lost, and we are not yet without.

In Page. 23. 24. hee defends the Scriptures, as truly al­ledged against Antichristian Churches, which in my answer to M^r. Ainsworth I deny not: but it rests for him to proue [Page 163] that we be Antichristians, which in that section he doth not.

He answeres my second Reason, which M^r. Ainsworth durst not meddle with, and there he will proue, as he saith, that the Scripture Phrase, without, may be applyed against vs, and thus he proceeds.

The first Argument; Churches that are in condition equall This proposi­tion is false, for though in some respect the true church may be worse then Pagans, 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 then Assemblies of Pagans, are without. Reuel. 11. 2. Antichristian Churches are in condition equall or worse then 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, murtherers, Idolaters, &c, are without. Antichristian churches are such, Ergo. The fourth, The habitation of Diuels, &c, are with­out. Antichristian Assemblies, or Babilon, are such, Ergo. The fift, M^r. Ains­worth hath confuted his Exposition of this, in his booke against M^r. Smith. The vtter court &c. is without: But Antichristi­an churches are the vtter court, Ergo. The sixt, The serpent and his seed, &c, are without. Antichristian Churches are the Serpent, and his seed and Angels, Ergo.

All these be easily answered; not to spend time about the syllogismes, and the falshood 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 booke, page 82. and by his owne words in his booke, pag. 25. line 2. Now he concludes, that Antichristian churches are without: if we be not Anti­christian, what is that to vs? This here he proues not, but refers the Reader to the tenth Section of his Booke; and if there hee say any thing, the Reader shall there find a Re­ply. In the meane space, note here; that he takes for gran­ted all the Minors of these syllogismes be true, as if wee were an Antichristian church; whereby he auoucheth al the Propositions or Maiors to be as true of vs: to wit; first, that in M^r. Smiths vn­godly censure of the Church of England. condition we be equall or worse then Pagans: secondly, that we are a false church; thirdly, that we be Dogs, Enchanters, Whoremongers, Murtherers, Idolaters, &c. fourthly, that we be the habitation of diuels, the hold of all foule spirits, the cage [Page 164] of euery vncleane and hatefull bird: fiftly, the vtter court cast out: and sixtly, the serpent, his seed and Angels; for thus holds he an Antichristian church to be. How hee proues vs Anti­christian, in this section he shewes not: but what an accur­sed iudgement he hath of vs, may here appeare, to be both odious and detestable.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this fift Errour.

MAster Ainsworth disclaimeth the position, and saith,Page 174. that they doe hold that Saints by Calling, are the onely matter of a true visible Church. He shewes not what he meaneth, when he saith, Saints by calling; it had beene fit,He expounds not what is a Saint by cal­ling. to haue explained himselfe, for if thereby he meane, that Saints by calling, may be any other people, then such as for­sake all knowne sin openly, & do all the knowne wil of God: what difference make they of their Saints by Calling, & ours by profession? belike they may be Saints, who forsake not all knowne sinne, openly committed in the face of the Church, and doe not obey the knowne will of God, & then, what an idle stirre haue they made to condemne vs for some of ill [Page 165] conuersation among vs? sithen such may be Saints, else why denyes hee this position? If hee meane Saints by calling, to be onely such as liue vnblameably in a holy conuersation before men, without open taint. I answere, that Gods visi­ble Church consists not of such Saints onely, but also of o­ther, euen a mixt company.

First, the Church is a mixt company of good in appea­rance,The true Church doth consist of a mixt company, and not of Saints onely outwardly holy. and also of bad persons in outward shew: this I pro­ued in my other Booke, Page 87. whereto he answeres 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 shewed to be such: but had openly loose of life, mixt with the rest. Mr. Iames his Retrait proues this at large.

Thirdly, because the Scripture defines not so the visible matter of the Church, if any place shew it, let them the next time produce it.

Fourthly, because there could then be no conuersion in the Church to Sanctification, for all keepe in the state of Repentance, which is contrary to Ieremie. 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 repented of euill. 2. Cor. 12. 20.

Sixtly, because the Iewish Church should not haue beene Saints for that so many wicked liued among them, bloudy Ioab, cruell Saul, false Prophets, and others.

Seauenthly, because this holy conuersation, 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, then not onely Saints by a godly life, are matter of a true Church.

Men are called Saints being in one Assembly: first forWhy men are called Saints. coniunction with the better part: See Page 86. of my for­mer Booke. Secondly, because of birth, borne of beleeuing Parents. 1. Cor. 7. 24. Rom. 11. 16. Thirdly, in respect of the thing whereto they be called, as to the profession and [Page 166] worship of Christ, which is an holy calling. 1. Thes. 4. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 1. Rom. 1. 7. Fourthly, in respect of Baptisme, by which they are said to put on Christ: Gal. 3. 27. to be partakers of Christs death: Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. to haue remission of sinnes. Acts. 2. 39. Fiftly, in respect of the couenant made with God, and worship performed to him: Psal. 50. 5. and reuerend hearing of Gods word. Deut, 33. 3. Sixtly, in respect of Gods visible presence, as Exod. 3. 6. Mat. 4. 5. Seuenthly in respect of Gods mercy, who will not see the euill of his people. Num. 23. 21. Ier. 50. 20. If by any of these wayes 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 Answere to this fift Errour.

MAster Smith, hee auoucheth the exposition, as true,Page. 27. 28. that a Saint is one, first, forsaking all knowne sin: second­ly, doing all the knowne will of God: thirdly, growing in grace: and fourthly, continuing to the end. For an Hypocrite, saith hee, is no true member of the visible Church; because it consists of an inward and outward communion. All this would hee proue by a company of quoted Scriptures: Rom. 6. 4. 5. 8. 11. 22. 1. Pet. 3. 11. 2. Pet. 3. 18. 1. Iohn 2. 19. Reuel. 3. 5. compared with Rom. 1. 7. Eph. 1. 4. Reuel. 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 hee can make any open shew, though but Sophistically, to deduct reasons from his Scriptures, but here hee but musters them, and sets them in battle aray, but shewes not how eyther they fight for them, or against vs; this is the tricke of the older Brownists and onely here­by to deceiue with shew of Scripture. Let any vnderstand­ing and indifferent Reader carry this his position to these [Page 167] places, to wit; That a visible member is no Hipocrite, but a Saint, and such a Saint as forsaketh all knowne sinne, doth all the knowne will of God, groweth in grace, and continueth vnto the end, and hee shall see no truth in his allegation. Rom. 6.Rom. 6. sheweth what men be, that are truely in Christ; and not what they be, that are in the visible Church. 1. Pet. 3. and 2. Pet. 3.1. Pet. 3. doe shew what men ought to doe and be, but not what they2. Pet. 3. are. 1. Iohn. 2. 19. is directly against him; for it speakes of1. Iohn. 2. 19. the apostacie of some visible members, who were Hypo­crites, and had not these foure properties: and when hee saith, they were not of vs, hee excludes them not from being of them visibly, but for not being of the Elect number. So the Reader may iudge of the rest, as impertinently alledged: these haue I mentioned as a guide to the rest; marke but his Position well, and his deceitfull abusing the Scriptures may be soone perceiued.

After this hee comes to answere my obiections against his assertion: I said, that by his defining of a Saint and a visible member thus, as is aboue said, that he defines not a visible member, but one elect, and of the inuisible Church. His answere is by a question, whether I thinke one so qua­lified with the foure properties before men, are saued before the Lord? I answere directly, as hee doth will me, that I be­leeue so, and all men are bound to thinke they are saued before God: and who dare thinke otherwise, but onely M^r. Smith? If we may not be perswaded, that he which leaues knowne sinne, doth Gods knowne will, walkes and growes in grace, and continues to death therein, is before God sa­ued, whom may wee not thinke to be damned? He threats to shew me my folly for thus thinking; but in the meane space, he may be iudged worse then madde, for his think­ing otherwise, and for writing that it appeareth not to vs, what Steuen, the blessed Martyr was in Gods counsell.

To my second Reason drawne from the Saints of the old Testament, who did not answere to these foure proper­ties; hee answeres by a discourse of the difference of the na­ture and constitution of the old Testament from the new, [Page 168] onely to bleare the eyes of the simple. When hee cannot auoid the argument, (to wit, that Dauid, Hezechias, Asa, and other Saints did sinne openly, and in some things were not wholy reformed, (see my other Booke 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 deuised visible Saints, may be now also true matter, and so his opinion grossely erroneous,) then hee fals to strange expositions, and vnheard of paradoxes, vttered from his owne braine, without proofe, as here Page 29. 30. hee tels vs; first, that the Israelites were a holy people literally: second­ly, no true holinesse was required in that constitution: thirdly, that all was typicall onely, as typicall Constitution, Worship, Mi­nistrie, Gouernement: and fourthly, that a Saint, was a typicall Saint; an Hypocrite, a typicall Hipocrite; and a wicked man, a tipicall wicked man; so as there might be the Sonnes of Belial; yea, and the best might liue in open sinne, and yet be Saints; to wit forsooth, typicall Saints. And his ground is his owne con­ceit, (he brings no Scripture for what hee thus monstrously auoucheth) because saith hee, their morall communion was onely inuisible, and no true holinesse required of them visibly, and True holinesse 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 couenant made between God and his people is the ground of the churches communion and fellowship. Now the couenant in the old Testament was also morall and spirituall, and true holinesse required by it: first, the summe of it was, that God was their Exod. 20. God, and they his people, which is spirituall, and a holy coue­nant.Ier. 31. 1. Secondly, at the making of the Couenant with Abra­ham, God did require sinceritie, Walke before mee, and be vpright: Gen. 17. 21. and that couenant was spirituall also. Gal. 3. 17. Acts. 3. 25. Thirdly, the morall Law is called then Gods Couenant, which morall Law, is true holinesse. Exod. 34. 28. Fourthly, the Lord required in plaine tearmes true holinesse. Psal. 51. Thou requirest truth in the inward parts. read Deu. 10. 12. Fiftly, the Sacraments were in and of their visible Couenant, and so communion for circumcision [Page 169] is called the Couenant: Gen. 17. 10. now a Sacrament is a Sacrament, for that there is a visible signe and seale of an inuisible grace, the consideration whereof is required of all that doe receiue the outward signes. Sixtly, there were promises made to the old Israelites, euen in the very con­stitution: now the apprehension of promises require faith, which is an inward grace of true holinesse. Seuenthly, eue­ry doctrine commanded to be taught openly to that Church, as then to be receiued, and for which the true worshippers were commended, was part of their Couenant; but true faith was taught Heb. 2. and commended to be the grace, for which they were approued, as is manifest, Heb. 11. which doctrine of faith is a doctrine of true holinesse: so also feare and loue. Deut. 6. 2. 5. 6. 7. Eightly, there were Sacrifices appointed for morall transgressions, as well as for ceremoniall vncleannesses. Leu. 6. 6. So Aaron made often an attonement by Sacrifice, for the morall transgres­sions of the people, and not onely for typicall pollutions: now these Sacrifices for such morall offences, were of their constitution. Ninthly, the word shewes they were defiled by morall vncleannesse, bloudshed defiled the Land, and they polluted it by that sinne: Num. 35. 33. and also Gods name by Idolatry: Leu. 18. 21. and themselues and the Land by morall vncleannesse. ver. 24. 25. Tenthly, and lastly, there was open rebuke and threats for morall transgressi­on, and the Transgressours were said to cast off God in so doing, which argues it to be a part of their visible Couenant; yea, their typicall seruice was abhorred, when men sinned morally against God: see Esay. 1. 9. 15. and 58. 2. 10. And Dauid speaking comparatiuely betweene true holinesse, and outward seruice ceremoniall, hee saith, God required then not this, in respect of the other. Psal. 51. 16. 17. Away then with this dreamers Anabaptisticall frensie, of typicall wicked men, and typicall Hypocrites, and literall holinesse, without true holinesse: in which hee makes the God of Is­rael to delight then onely in an outward slaughtering of of beasts, and the godly in those dayes to be in their visible [Page 170] communion carnall, and brutish, contrary to the euident truth as is declared manifestly.

But to stop my mouth, that I shall not once mutter, as hee saith, (oh the admirabilitie of the man!) hee reades me as hee thinkes 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 typi­call M^r. Smiths Riddlement. communion was tipically polluted by typicall and ceremonial vncleannesse vncleansed: then in the new Testament our spiri­tuall visible communion is really polluted by morall vncleannesse vncleansed; that is, sinne vnrepented of. But in the old Testa­ment, their visible typicall communion was typically polluted by the typicall and ceremoniall vncleannesse vncleansed: Ergo. Surely, such of his as were blinded with his Heresie, and af­fected with his folly, were too-tooly moued with a merry conceit at this riddlement, as not to be answered; through the obscure profunditie of his reason ouer-reaching our poore apprehensions: which made him say, hee would stop my mouth for muttering; but let vs see how I can mutter against it. What, a Goliah? then see the strength of a pibble stone in a sling; haue at a Goliah, let him saue his head; for by his contrarying so daily himselfe, it seemes his braines be already crackt. But ere I answere, I read him againe this riddle: If in his last old yeares, their Separatisticall communi­on was Brownistically polluted, by a Schismaticall rending of themselues from the Church of England, for some supposed ce­remoniall and Antichristian vncleannesse vncleansed: then in this his new yeare, their Anabaptisticall Communion is Smithically polluted by their but halfe Anabaptistrie, new vn­heard of Heresies, euen spirituall and morall vncleannesse vn­cleansed, that is, their sinne not yet repented of. But in his last old yeares, their Separatisticall Communion was Brownisti­cally polluted, by a Schismaticall rending of themselues from the Church of England, for some supposed ceremoniall and An­tichristian vncleannesse vncleansed: Ergo. And now to his argument. His Maior (saith hee) cannot be denyed, for it is a iust Analogie and proportion from the type to the truth, from [Page 171] the shadow to the substance. Obserue Reader, that the proofe stands vpon his owne coyned Analogie and proportion, he saith it is so, but doth not proue it by any euidence of holy writ, not one sillable brought for it. But his then followes not: for first, marke what he proportioneth, visible to visible, typicall to spirituall, communion to communion, typicall pollu­tion to reall pollution, ceremoniall vncleannesse to morall vn­cleannesse, vncleansed to vnrepented: if this be so, why is not a like proportion from Circumcision to Baptisme, from their Order of Gouernment, to our Order? Which hee denyes; and if this Analogie cannot stand, neyther can his. His wit, is no more a warrant to make a proportion in some, then mens vnderstanding here is to make an Analogie in other some. Secondly, it is vtterly false, that their typicall pollu­tion, did represent any reall pollution in our Communion: for there is not taught in the new Testament, that any per­sonall pollution really pollutes the Communion of Saints; this Brownisticall Heresie, and cause of all the Separations, should haue beene proued, but is not, for indeed it cannot. If therefore there be not such a pollution in the new Testa­ment, it is friuolous to tell vs of a type of it in the old Te­stament. Now to manifest to all men, that in the new Testa­mentOne mans sin pollutes not an other. there is no such reall polluting of our spirituall commu­nion, these reasons shew it:

Reason. 1 1. Neyther Christ nor his Apostles were polluted by Iudas in their Communion.

Reason. 2 2. The Apostle Paul reproued corruptions among the Corinthians: the Angell the Asian Churches, and neuer1. Cor. 11. taught pollution.2. Cor. 12. Reu. 2. & 3.

Reason. 3 3. The holy Ghost commendeth some liuing well in places where corruption was, and puts no charge vpon them of Separation, for any pollution, but to hold what they haue: Reu. 2. 24. 25. yea, this censure of holding them polluted who liue in a polluted estate, as righteous Noah in the World, or iust Lot in Sodome, is reproued. Acts. 10. 15.

Reason. 4 4. Our Sauiour allowes the hearing of lewd Teach­ers, in which is a spirituall Communion: Mat. 23. 2. yea, [Page 172] and to communicate in other things, so men doe looke to themselues. Mat. 5. 23. 24. So the Apostle. 1. Cor. 11. Read my former Booke, Page 106.

Reason. 5 5. This was the Pharises pride, who separated them­selues, as the name of Pharise imports; and this pride is condemned, Esay. 65. 5. Luke. 18. 14. yea, and the Lord iustifieth the poore publicane 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. Morall pollution did not pollute in the old Te­stament, this hee grants; therefore not in the new; sithen sinne is not now since Christs comming more contagious then before.

Reason. 7 7. Ceremonial pollution did not pollute that Commu­nion, saue onely particular persons, who did touch, and were touched with any thing vncleane; and therefore no such polluting of communion now: the truth of this reason shall be further confirmed, when I come to answere his Minor.

Reason. 8 8. If the religious communion be polluted, why not the fellowship in ciuill societie? and if this, then must we goe out of the world.

Reason. 9 9. I demaund whether the holinesse of the ordinances of God, by which men are made holy; and godly mens graces, by which these ordinances are declared to be holy, be not of more force to preserue pure the Communion, then some wicked to pollute it: sithen in the word it is recor­ded, that for some godly mens sake, God hath pardoned many wicked?

Reason. 10 10. If the Communion be polluted, then the holy things of God, the vse whereof are part of the Communion, defile and pollute such as come with reuerence vnto them: for things vncleane maketh vncleane, but they doe not pollute any, but rather makes men holy.

Reason. 11 11. To hold the Communion, that is, the whole societie polluted, for some particular persons, is to cast the sins of one vpon the back of another, contrary to Ezech. 18. 14. 17. 20. [Page 173] 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 mans conscience, saith M^r. Perkins, Reuel. 2. 2. is not polluted by another; yea, ignorance of other mens sinnes exempts such as know them not, from the punishment which the offenders re­ceiue for their transgression. Deut. 1. 39.

Reason. 12 12. The godly are neuer reprooued for being at the Ministration of holy things, though others did communi­cate that were wicked: but on the contrarie, it is accounted a sinne to leaue the holy things, for other mens offences. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17.

Reason. 13 13. This were to make the dignitie and efficacie of the word of Couenant, and of the Sacraments the seales of it, to depend vpon the worthinesse of man: contrary to the iudgement of the word, yea, and all worthy Diuines. Rom. 3. 3.

Reason. 14 14. If this were true, then were we not onely to admo­nish others, but to examine their liues also; which the Apo­stle in a great pollution of the Sacrament neuer thought of. 1. Cor. 11. 28. neither is it any where imposed as a charge belonging to euery one.

Reason. 15 15. Euery one must liue by his owne faith, Hab. 2. 4. and answere for what hee himselfe hath done in the flesh; now if it were, as he saith, then is he to answere for others, & liue in a societie vnpolluted by the grace of others, as wel as his owne, sithen, except others liue well, he is polluted.

Reason. 16 16. Saint Paul saith, that the vnworthy eate condemna­tion to themselues, he saith not, to another.

Reason. 17 17. M^r. Smith himselfe, if euer hee were himselfe, tea­cheth the contrary on the Lords Prayer, Page 88.

Reason. 18 18. Communion is a common vnion, many partaking of and defending one thing, wherein they doe agree: now the Common vnion of the good and bad in one society, is not in euill, but in profession of the word, in receiuing of the Sacrament, & other holy ordinances, and exercises: when therefore some doe ill, the Communion in spirituall things is not polluted, because euil is no part of the vnion [Page 174] in common one with another, but the errour of man by himselfe, out of the Comunion, for which he himselfe shall answere, and such also as haue fellowship with him in euil, by which they haue a common vnion, that so agree therein,How men may be guiltie of the sinne of an other. by counsell, consent, commandement, prouocation, neglect of duty, flatterie, excuse, or defence thereof: but if a man doe none of these, then is he not of the euil in common with the wicked, though the wicked be in the common vnion 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. No one Scripture speakes of such a generall polu­ting of all by some particular offenders, but onely as by partaking some way with such, and those so partaking doe make the sinne of an other thereon, and then they be polu­ted of themselues.

Reason. 20 20. As this position is altogether false, so is it pernitious and breeds Schisme, and such Brownisticall and Anabap­tisticall out-roads, as now be in practise among our late Separatists from vs, also among themselues, one from an other.

Thirdly, I answere to the Maior, and demaund whether the visible typicall communion, did not represent the in­uisible Communion of the Elect: and as the typicall vn­cleane were not cleansed till they were washed, and offe­red vp sacrifice by the Priest; so the spirituall member of­fending should not be cleansed, but by repentance and by offering vp, by the hand of Faith, heartie supplications to God, in the Name of Christ our high Priest, who hath sa­crificed himselfe for vs? If it be so, then their visible ty­picall communion, did not prefigure a visible communion of men, but the inuisible communion of Saints, the Elect of God.

Now to his Minor, which I denie to be true, that the ty­picall Answer vnto 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 ap­pointedThe Commu­nion in the old Testament, was not pollu­ted by the sin of one. for any such pollution, as came vpon all for the [Page 175] sinne of one or moe. Secondly, though the Prophet re­proue the Priests, for not separating the cleane and vn­cleane; yet hee teacheth not, that for neglect thereof, the Communion is polluted. Ezech. 22. 26. Thirdly, the Prophets cryed out of the peoples vncleannesse, but neuer tooke the Communion to be polluted, and therefore held with the Church in spirituall Communion. Fourthly, be­cause particular persons were for their particular vncleane­nesses to offer vp sacrifices themselues for themselues, and not all for them and themselues, as polluted in their Com­munion, though the polluted abode in his vncleannes, for some time: let him produce euident Scripture for this par­ticular if he able.

His Minor, he goes about to proue by three Scriptures;Num. 19. 13. 20. Num. 19. 13. 20. Hag. 2. 14. Acts 21. 28. 29. The first place proues not that the Communion was polluted: But that one polluted, and wickedly persisting and not purging himselfe, defiled the Lords Tabernacle; (to wit) to himselfe; for the punishment is threatned onely against himselfe. The place in Haggai, is of ceremoniall pollution, but yet speakethHaggai. 2. 14. of what one vncleane toucheth, making it vncleane there­by, and not of one liuing in vncleannes, thereby polluting the whole Assembly. Againe, he speakes not of polluting the holy ordinances administred in the Congregation, as the sacrifices in the Priests hands, which yet appertai­ned to all, but of what the polluted partie touched him­selfe. As if it were said in like case; a wicked prophane man comes to the Lords Supper: hee pollutes not what the Minister is performing, nor what others receiue, but what hee himselfe doth touch▪ and receiue, eating to himselfe 1. Cor. 11. iudgement, 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. falsly accusing Paul, and supposing a pollution where none was. And let him shew 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 [Page 176] of Israel: but what is that to this matter?

An other exception which I take against his position is, that they take places of Exhortations, admonitions, Comman­ments, &c. which are onely effectuall in the inuisible saints, the Elect, among others of the Church, to describe euery visible member by; as if they did reason thus: God ex­horts and commaunds his people to be such and such; if not, then are they none of his. If they be not (saith he) what M^r. Smiths comfortlesse Assertion. God commands, they are none of his people. What child is his fathers, what subiect his Princes, what wife her husbands by this reasoning; for who are as they be commanded?

Againe, the Lord takes a people to be his, before he com­mand them; commandements are for his people to rule them, and to cause them to obey, not to make them his people. A mans commandement maketh not a seruant, but declares a power, that such a one is a seruant already, that is, vnder his power to be commanded The rest of the Section is but wrangling a confident auouching of his owne will, but not an euident and plaine answere to the rest of the particulars of my former Booke, and therefore I passe them ouer to the Reader, to compare them, and come to the next Assertion following; being the sixt er­rour, which he stands vpon so confidently, as if it be con­futed, he will acknowledge the cause of Separation to lye in the M^r. Smiths ha­zard of all vp­on one stake. dust, and they must disclaime their Schisme which they haue made, and the Heresies they hold; yea, hee will acknow­ledge the Churches of England, &c. to be true Churches of Christ, &c. Therefore seeing he hath iumpt all vpon this point, all the rest may be passed ouer, as idle expence of of time, the victorie being in this particular either won or lost. I had purposed once to haue come to this, and omit­ted the rest before and after, but that it would haue beene thought of his Schollers, that what was omitted, was vn­answerable; for their Mole-hilles, are in their owne eies huge mountaines.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this sixt Errour.

MAster Ainsworth first disclaimes this, as vniustly laid to the charge of his Company: Surely it was the opi­nion of Smithean Brownists here; and who would thinke so maine a point as this, should among themselues be so rent, as one will deny it, and another sort will hazard, all the rest they doe hold vpon it, as truth, and doe maintaine it as a most infallible veritie? If they be thus at discord in their Principles, they will neuer agree in circumstantiall points: who would ioyne to them, who neyther agree with any [Page 182] other, nor yet among themselues. I am glad that M^r. Ains­worth renounceth it as an errour, I wish hee so would doe in all the rest, then should wee soone agree to our com­forts.

Secondly, hee very badly insinuates that the Protestants and Reformed Churches doe affirme the ruling power which is proper to Christ, and onely inherent in him, to be in the Bi­shops, in the Presbiterie: which is most false. They hold no Popelike and Antichristian power ouer mens consciences, to doe as they like, without the word: but that such an ex­ternall power they haue, as thereby they may rule in the Church according to Gods word, in setting men in order, in causing them to keepe it, and execute the offices, in which they be placed, in punishing the wicked, and in gi­uing encouragement to such as walke in Gods wayes peaceably.

Thirdly, he denies that all may preach, but yet some priuate men may prophecie publikely: which they would maintaine out of 1. Cor. 14. but to this I say; first, let them shew that1. Cor. 14. the word Prophet in that place is not an office. verse. 29. Se­condly, that prophecie was euer vsed out of an office in pub­like, Reasons a­gainst their prophecying. that is, by one not a Teacher or Pastour in an establi­shed Church. Thirdly, what expositours doe so expound that Chapter: Beza is against it in his Annotations vpon verse 29. 32. Fourthly, what Church did euer so practise? Fiftly, they say, in an article of their faith, 34. that Prophecie is a publike teaching of Gods word, according to the proportion of faith, for the edification, exhortation and comfort of the church. I would know what difference betweene this and preaching? Hee saith that one is in office, the other out of office: and quotes in the margent for this, Rom. 12. 6. 7. but the Apo­stleRom. 12. 6. 7. speakes there of gifts in office, for hee speakes of offices: ver. 4. and then of gifts, which hee exhorts to imploy well for the Church, and includes himselfe, saying; wee haue re­ceiued gifts, verse. 6. as noting thereby, what persons hee speakes of, euen of such as were in office with him. Sixtly, if such Prophecie be, it is eyther by vertue of a generall [Page 183] calling of a christian, or by force of some speciall vocation; but not by any particular function say they: and I say, not by the generall calling as they be Christians; for then be they not tyed to waite the speciall call of their company, be­cause that shews that such do it not by vertue of their calling to Christianitie, but by speciall authoritie. Seauenthly, If they may teach, they may also by that very authoritie ad­minister the Sacraments: these two are coupled by Christ, and to whom Christ gaue the first, it is euident hee granted the last: Mat. 28. 18. Mark. 15. 16. and the contrary can no where be shewed: and yet herein haue these men made a Separation; so in loue are they here-with, that as they separate men from men, so doe they one ordinance of God from another.

If this Reply be too short, let him answere M^r. Smith, who answeres to him at large, and condemneth him for a new kinde of Antichristianisme neuer heard of before. Page. 67.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to this sixt Errour.

MAster Smith, hee taketh vp as a truth, and as truePage. 40. owner hereof, what M^r. Ainsworth lets fall to the ground as false; and auoucheth that the power of binding and loosing is giuen to the body of the Church, euen to two or three faithfull people ioyned together in Couenant: in confidence of truth herein, hee cals vpon the Kings Maiestie, the Nobles, the whole Parliament house, and all the learned, to consi­der of the supposed truth herein, and if hee proue it not, to hold him a Schismaticke and an Heretique; and the way of the Separation to be nought; and the Church of England to be a true Church, yea, the Church of Rome too: So then beate him out of this, when hee hath runne Anabapti­strie out of breath, as he hath done Brownisme, ten to one, [Page 184] but the new Anabaptisticall Se-baptist will proue an Anti­christian Papist. And his order in handling this point is thus, first, hee would proue no Ministeriall power by succession: then, that the same is primarily giuen to the body of the Church: and lastly, hee answeres some reasons alledged by mee in my former Booke against his assertion.

But it may appeare that the Ministerie ordinarily is byThe ordinary ministeriall ordination is by Succession. 1. Reason. succession.

First, at the worlds beginning, God himselfe preached vnto Adam, whom hee ordained in his place, to teach the succeeding age; after him God raised vp one after another, in order vnto Moses, the persons are recorded in Scripture. Gen. 5. Henoch, Iude ver. 14. was a Prophet: so Noah a Preacher: 2. Pet. 2. 5. After the floud succeeded Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, who are called Prophets. Psal. 105. 14. 15. The next was Ioseph, 1. Chron. 5. 1. with Leui, Coath, Am­ram, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam a Prophetesse. Exod. 15. 20. After the Law giuen, then was chosen Aaron, after him Eliezer, then Phinees, Abishua, Bukki, Ʋzzi, Eli, A­hitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar, Zadoc: and so one succeeded another to the end, as may be plainly shewed by Scripture: so for foure thousand yeares this succession continued in the Ministerie in the first borne before the Law ordina­rily, and in the tribe of Leui, and posteritie of Aaron vnder the Law.

2 Secondly, as God in the creating of the World became Reason for Succession. the Teacher, and then raised vp others in his stead: So in the new creation in the last dayes came God again to preach, euen Iesus Christ; who ascending, appointed Apostles to succeed him: the Apostles had with them Euangelists, and before they departed, they ordayned Elders, which succeeded the Apostles, and the other extraordinarie men, and so are ranked: Eph. 4. 12. with whom God promised to be to the worlds end; Mat. 28. 20. which must needes be vnderstood of the Apostles successours, because the Apo­stle continued but a while.

3 Thirdly, in the Scripture of the new Testament there is Reason for Succession. [Page 185] none allowed to ordaine a Minister, but a Minister; I meane an Ecclesiasticall person, as wee for distinction sake doe speake: as Titus in Creta: Chap. 1. 5. and Timothie else where, to whom the Apostle speakes, and in him to onely Ecclesiasticall persons, as a matter onely 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 onely the Apo­stles, Acts. 14. 23. Euangelists, 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 shewed before at large. Thus wee see in the new Testament all the Apostles time, that the Ministerie was by successi­on: Ministers, as it were begetting Ministers by ordination, and laying on of hands: let one instance be giuen to the contrary.

4 Fourthly, after their time the like succession hath beene Reason for Succession. kept from time to time, Bishop after Bishop, and Ministers ordained by them: the Catalogue of them doe witnesse this, and the Stories of times auouch it; on which we must relie, where the Scripture ceaseth to make further relation: & es­pecially may we easily beleeue succession out of mens wri­tings, when wee see the same verified by Scripture, to haue beene from the worlds beginning, till Christ, and after, as farre as the Story of the Scripture makes mention, it also promising the same to the worlds end. Mat. 28. 20. And thus by plaine Historicall narration both of God and man, wee see a succession of the Ministerie, from one Minister to another: and not one instance of any made and ordained a Minister by the people, but when there were Church-men, as we speake, to ordaine 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 ordaine them: Acts. 6. 2. 6. Paul and Barnabas, when the holy Ghost commanded to separate them, had no hands laid vpon them but when there was in the Church Prophets and Teachers present to doe it. Acts. 13. 1. 2. 3. And it is ap­parant, that the Churches did waite the Apostles comming [Page 186] to ordaine Ministers, acknowledging thereby no such power to be in themselues. Acts. 14. 23. This I speake to shew that Church-men euer ordained Ministers, and not the Lay-people: Caluin in his Instit. lib. 4. cap. 4. sect. 2. saith, that before the Papacie, there was a Bishop in euery Citie, to whom belonged a certaine Country, which should take their Priests from him: and if the Country were large, then were appointed Country Bishops, Suffragans, as wee call them, to performe the office for him: by which it is euident, that the Churches held this Succession, and was not Antichristian, howsoeuer the same be abused now by a popish pride and tyranny. But now to his arguments, where­by Mr. Smith would refell this.

1. Argument. If Christs Ministeriall power be giuen Page. 42. by Succession to the Pope, Bishops, or Presbiterie primarilie, then the Ministerie is before the Church: But the ministerie is not before the Church: Ergo.

Here marke (Christian Reader) that I haue auouched Succession affirmatiuely, and my proofe is euident, euen an Historicall narration of it from time to time, and no one instance to the contrary: This man comes with a contra­dictory speech, but giues (as was meet) no instance, wherin my generall assertion should be proued vntrue, but onely frames reasons sophistically, making absurd consequences vpon this Antecedent. Is this a refelling of an euident story of the truth? will an imagination of absurdities ouer­throw a true Narration? What cleare History might not thus be ouer-throwne? But to his Argument.

The Consequence is false and absurd, the AntecedentThe Conse­quence false. proues it not: for make the Consequence the question, and the Antecedent the tertium Argumentum, and frame this compound Syllogisme Categorically, and then the absur­ditie will appeare. Whatsoeuer is by succession, is before the Church: but the Ministerie is by succession: Ergo. The Ma­ior is false in this generalitie, and as absurd, as to say, that be­cause there is succession in Propagation, therefore Adams posteritie may be before Adam. If the Ministerie did at the [Page 187] first arise out of the Church, and not from God immedi­ately, the first Teacher to the Church, then had his Conse­quence beene true. His reason to confirme his Consequence is a begging of the question, hee maketh a Ministerie with­out Christs power, which is most false, for where the mini­sterie is, there is Christs power.

The Minor I denie, first, for forme, by his adding of aThe Minor denied. second tearme in the Minor, which was not in the Maior, then for the falshood: for the Ministerie is before the Church. It must be knowne that there is a two-fold raisingA two-fold rai­sing vp of the Ministerie. vp of the Ministerie; the first, by God at the first, to beget a Church: so God made Adam a Minister, to whom hee gaue a wife to begin the Church, and as Adam was before his Wife, so is the Ministerie at the first before the Church, the Spouse of Christ, which God winnes to him by his Mi­nisters, Ambassadours, who bring the word to beget the Church, the word is before it, then such as bring it also: and it is said, hee gaue some not onely to confirme 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 be­tweene the Minister and the Church: for hee being sent to win people is a Minister to the hidden number, not yet cal­led out, and is Gods Instrument to make the inuisible mem­bers visible to men, as farre as man can see them: so hee hath no flocke actually till then, but potentially. Yea, Mini­sters sent of God, may be the Church in this respect, that they be Christians, and so one edifie another, till others be added, and they be Ministers in respect of an office bestowed vpon them in their state of Christianitie, so as if there were none left in a country but Ministers, yet there in them may [Page 188] the Church be said to remaine. Hence it is, that a Minister ad­ministreth as a Minister the Lords Supper to himselfe, as a Christian, with others.

2. Argument. If Christs ministeriall power be by successi­on Page. 42. to the Pope, Bishops or Presbiterie, then the Ministerie of Rome is a true Ministerie: but this is false: Ergo.

I answere that the sequell is very absurd, the AntecedentThe Conse­quence denied. proues it not. He is to know that by succession here is meant that true succession, which is personall succession, with suc­cession in sound doctrine: for not ordination by succession serues the turne, but to be ordained to the office of true Ministers; now the Romish Ministerie is Idolatry and Su­perstition, and the men appointed thereto are ordained sa­crificying Priests. Neyther doth it follow, that because all true Ministers come ordinarily by succession, therefore all that haue succession, are true Ministers, for there is requi­red with succession a true office and true doctrine, true Sacra­ments and Prayer, about which Christs true Ministers are exercised. The rest of the Arguments are meere verball, and neuer a Consequent proued.

His third Consequent is, that then men are bound absolutely to sin, in ioyning with the sinnes of the ministers. This man takes a principle of Brownisme vnproued, to ouerthrow a truth, cannot a man receiue the holy things of God, but he must needes sinne with others? Againe hee auoucheth, Page 76. that men were bound in the old Testament necessarily to the Kingdome, Priesthood, and Temple for worship and seruice to God, what sinnes soeuer were committed, and yet men belike did not pertake then with ohter mens sins: why then now? are Gods Commandements and ordinances lesse able to keepe a man pure now, then they were before?

His fourth Consequent from succession is, that then the Lord hath made the ministers Lords ouer Gods Church. How followes this from succession? May I reason thus, the Priests were by succession: Ergo, they were Lords ouer Israel; who is so seely, as not to see, that here is no Consequence? Suc­cession inferres no more, then the true vse of it may rightly [Page 189] afford, if men abuse what they haue 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 vniuersall, and the Bishops their whole Diocesses and Prouinces: I leaue him this Consequent to proue, for hee giues no reason at all of it; hee shall doe the Pope a great fauour to proue him to haue an vniuersall power, by his personall succession, and that by personall succession he may claime Christs power, as hee would inferre by this his absurde reasoning. If Ex­communication be a casting of men out of the Church; how can he conclude, that simply by succession a Bishop in authoritie may cast out all the Church? so then hee casts out the Church out of the Church, or maketh a companie no Church, and sets himselfe without a Church, by this se­quel; whence we see, if his absurditie were true, others more grosse would arise from thence: let therefore absurdities ouerthrow an absurditie.

His sixt Consequent from succession is, that then the office of the Deacons and widowes are lost. He reasons thus: if suc­cession be interrupted in any part, then is there no succes­sion at all. All his skill cannot saue him from shame in so reasoning, if he be not growne shamelesse. But how proues hee the offices lost? Forsooth, because, saith hee, (Oh, profound conceit of the man Anabaptisticall!) as a Priest, vnder the law, came of a Priest, & a Leuite of a Leuite; so an Elder makes an Elder; a Deacon ordaines a Deacon; & a wi­dow must ordaine a widow; which hath not been. A Smiths forge! A Priest came of Leuie at the first; and though Elders may ordaine, may Deacons too? it is beyond his skill to proue: no place in the new Testament in the least syllable affords him the least conceit of it. The ApostlesActs 6. ordained Deacons; so to them which succeed in the Mini­sterie belongeth ordination, and the same is among vs hi­therto: but that there should be imposition of hands vpon widowes; who euer heard to this day?

His seauenth argument, by which he thinkes he may cryM^r. Smiths strongest ar­gument in his owne iudge­ment, is yet from the que stion. [Page 190] victorie, is, That doctrine which destroyes it selfe is false. The doctrine of succession destroyes it selfe: Therefore the doctrine of succession is a false doctrine. My answere to this is, that the man here hath lost his question, for he should conclude, that Christs power is not giuen to the principall members, this is the position in question, and he concludes that the doctrine of succession is a false doctrine. May not wee thinke that hee is wilde in wandering? wee see neither Religion, nor the law of right reasoning, can keepe him within the bounds of right and truth. His proposition he proues not, and yet determinatiuè and accidentaliter, a do­ctrine may destroy it selfe and yet be a true doctrine; and so till he expound it, it may be denied as false. The Assump­tion hee would proue, because Election is interposed; by which (as he supposeth) succession is ouer-throwne. A see­ly reason: is there not a succession in propagation? yet also an election when men chose women to maintaine this suc­cession: the one ouerthrowes not another, but either vp­holds other. In the old Law was succession, yet also Ele­ction, as may appeare by the Law of reiection ordained, if any man were deformed, defectiue in his parts and so forth, such were not allowed, therefore others were to be chosen in their roome; and yet the succession good. Ma­thias Act. 1. succeeded in Iudas stead, and yet was hee chosen; so succession was with Election. But here, as in other places, he deceiueth his affected associates to his owne will, like Pythagorian Schollers, cleauing to his ipse dixit; for hee reasons, as if we spake of a succession of persons onely: as Eliazar succeeding Aaron, Phinees Eliazar, Abishua Phinees, as in the old Testament. But the succession here meant, is of a continuance of Gods ordinance by persons Elected thereto from time to time, being onely of spiritu­all kindred, by the faith of doctrine, by which the ordi­nance is vpheld, and true succession maintained. After these his Arguments, he frames obiections, but none made by mee; and therefore I leaue him as fighting with his owne shadow.

In the next place we come to his Arguments, set downe affirmatiuely from vndeniable groudns of Scripture (as he saith) if he may be beleeued, who neuer beleeues himselfe, but giues himselfe the lye in print twise or thrise in one yeare.

His first Scripture, Mat. 16. 13. 20. Hence hee framesPage 51. M^r. Smiths first Argument for popular go­uernment. Answered. his Argument thus: Christs disciples are Christs Church. Christs ministeriall power is giuen to Christs Disciples. Ergo, Christs ministeriall power is giuen to his Church.

In this Argument he doth change the copulatiue, which ought not to be in a true syllogisme; but this man may as well breake the rules of Art, as the faith of Truth. Againe, he vseth deceit in the word Disciples, which he expounds by this Argument to be other, then Apostles, or such as were Disciples sent forth to preach, when the place of Mat. 16. 13. 18. is euidently against this. Hee cannot proue at this time any to be with him but the twelue, as may appeare by Luke. 9. 18. Neither doth the place say, that these disci­ples are Christs Church, as he maketh shew, by quoting it for a proofe but rather the verse 18. in that place of Mat­thew, manifesteth that Christ himselfe 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 Christs Church, and not the whole Church, and then so meant, he gaines nothing by this Ar­gument. For the copulatiue, is giuen, it is to bee taken two waies, primarily and immediately; or, secundarily, and me­diately: if it be taken in the first sense, and the word Disci­ples, also for the Apostles, then is it for mee, and against himselfe; if in the second sense, and the word Disciples taken for the whole Church, then I grant all, and yet neuer the worse: for I confesse the power of Christ to be giuen to the Church mediately, that is, vnto others for the Churches behoofe and benefit: If he vnderstand it to be giuen primarily to the whole multitude, I denie it, as vtter­ly false, till he can proue, that by Disciples in Mat. 16. 13. 20. is meant the multitude, which hee calles the Church, [Page 192] and not onely 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 neuer called Apostles, till after Christs ascension: I shew him the contrarie out of the word in plaine tearmes, Luke 6. 13. where our Sauiour called his disciples, and of them, he chose twelue; which also hee called Apostles, and this am I sure, was before his Ascension; and yet is not this man ashamed to auouch the contrarie, Page 39. line 10. All that which followes dependeth on the proofe of his Exposition of Mat. 16. 13. for all learned Exposi­tours that I can reade, or heare of by others, doe interpret it of the Apostles. What is M^r. Smith then to oppose all? and what leuitie is it to beleeue him before all, who aboue all is most vnconstant, confidently to day auouching that for veritie which to morrow he will disclaime, as Antichri­stianitie?

His second Scripture is Mat. 18. 15. 20. and 16. 19.Page 52. His second Argument for popular go­uernment. whence he reasons thus: That which is giuen to two or three of Christs disciples, is giuen to the bodie of the Church, though many in number. But Christs ministerial power is giuen to two or three disciples of Christ. Ergo.

The Maior is deceitfull through the Homonymie, of the Answered. word, Disciples, it signifying either Apostles, or other pri­uate persons beleeuers: In this Maior, it being vnderstood of Apostles, then the Argument followes not, that though two or three Disciples, Apostles, haue Christs power, there­fore much more the multitude, the bodie; for so two or three such are not considered simply as a number of two or three, but respectiuely, as selected men to a speciall calling, in which regard they haue the power of Christ. And there­fore his Maior, which he makes to stand of an Argument, drawne from the lesse to the more, is altogether mistaken, and so his whole argument is of no force, except (as before) he can proue that two or three Disciples, are rightly vnder­stood two or three ordinarie Christians: if it were so, it would follow that two or three women should haue Christs [Page 193] 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 neuer heard to be practised in the Church of God: yea, by this, any two or three by themselues may vse all Christs power without o­thers: so a Congregation may be as many Churches, as there be two or three persons Disciples, and vpon euery conceited opinion, walke, after the Anabaptisticall fashion, by themselues, 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 seeme that hee would haue Mat. 18. 15. 20. with 16. 19. to proue, that by Disciples is vnderstood the brethren, the Common Christians, beleeuers. For the chap. 16. I haue spoken of it before, which is nothing for him, no more is this 18. chap. of which also haue I spoken in my other Booke, page 94. 99. And further I here auouch that by Disciples in the first verse, is meant the twelue Apostles so called, as is said, by an excellencie aboue 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 then all the idle words of many M^r. Smiths, expounding it otherwise.

His third Scripture is Mat. 28. 16. 20. whence he dothPage 53. M^r. Smiths third argument for popular power. thus reason: To whom preaching and Baptising is committed, to them the power of binding and losing is giuen: The power to preach and baptise is giuen to the Disciples of Christ, or to the brethren, or to the body of the Church: Ergo, the power to bind, &c. Hee frames not his Argument rightly, neither Answered. concludes immediately the question; but I let this passe as vsuall with him, who but preuents Art, as he doth Diuinitie, to ouerthrow reason and Religion: I deny with Moses his Corahs Assumption, for hee in all these Arguments doth plead rebelliously, like Corah and his company against Moses and Aaron, principall Gouernours, to make all theNum. 16. 23. people holy, & thereby to haue equall power in gouerning: [Page 194] these hee calles here Brethren, or the bodie of the Church, or Disciples, and this hee grounds vpon Mat. 28. 16. 20. But is not the man determined to sinne wilfully, to hood­winke his followers, and to abuse God himselfe, who out of this place will hold, that the words in verse 19. Goe and teach, &c. are spoken to Disciples, common Christians, and not to the Apostles, and in them onely, to such as succeed them in the Ministerie; when first, in verse 16. hee nomi­nates onely the eleuen, which are called Apostles, Act. 1. 26. Secondly, it is the vniuersall opinion of all the Church of God, (excepting such Anabaptisticall Schismatickes) that Mat. 28. 16. 20. is vnderstood of the Apostles and their successours; and none take there the word Disciples for the brethren or bodie of the Church, as this man in his impudent audaciousnesse doth.

Hee would proue his Minor by this reason, because God hath promised his presence to be with his Church, as hee promised to be with the Apostles to the worlds end. If this be a good reason, then an Infant Elect hath the power of Christ to preach, to baptise, for God hath pro­mised his presence to such; yea, to women: and by this, one man may be a Church in himselfe, (as this man absurd­ly once auouched) for God is with a good man, as well as with the Church: if the presence of God promised to all his euer, may conclude to all, what is properly giuen to some, what might not men assume vnto themselues? Truely his Arguments are childishly framed, his reasons grossely absurde, his alledged Scriptures shamelesly abu­sed, and his audaciousnesse in auouching what he pleaseth intollerable: let the Reader in Gods presence iudge freely of what I here lay to his charge, whether I speake the truth or no.

His fourth place is Marke 13. 33. 37. whence hee thusPage 53. His fourth Ar­gument, for Popularitie, Answered. reasons. Christs seruants haue Christs authoritie; Christs vi­sible Church are Christs seruants: Ergo, Christs visible church hath Christs authoritie. Hee expounds Christ visible Church to be two or three faithfull people; which words hee [Page 195] puts in his Assumption vnlogically, still not concluding the words of the question. But who seeth not a double signification to be in this word, Seruants, which ought not to be in sound reasoning, neither is euer, but among iang­ling Sophisters, and Hereticall deceiuers: Seruants, in the proposition is to be vnderstood, as the word seruant, Ro. 1. 1. for one that is seruant in special office, & in the Assump­tion for Common Christians, who be all Christs seruants. His place quoted is a similie, which is not to be wrested from the scope, nor the parts of the similie taken beyond the intent of the place. In this place the Lord intends nor to set out any gouernment of the church, the scope is plain­ly noted in verse 33. & 35. which is this; that euery one seri­ously imploy themselues in what taske the Lord hath set them to, watching, by well doing therein, for the comming Christ, to take an account of vs. What is this to M^r. Smiths imagination? Surely, if any thing about gouern­ment may be drawne out thence, it is flat against himselfe. For first, the Master is Iesus Christ; then secondly, the house must needs be his Church; thirdly, the Seruants, the Officers; to whom it is said, he giueth authoritie, not to the house then, but to seruants in the house, who are to looke ouer others; for to euery one hath the Lord allotted his worke: fourthly, the Porter may be Gods spirit, who watch­eth in the Church, to preserue it from the enemie. Thus then out of this (if it afford any thing for gouernment) it is plaine that the Church, the house, is gouerned by ser­uants (who receiue authoritie from Christ) but it selfe doth not gouerne: for so it should be the Gouernour, and the gouerned.

His fift place is, Ioh. 20. 18. 24. with Luke 24. 35.Page 54. His fift Argu­ment for popu­laritie. whence he thus maketh an Argument: If Christs ministe­riall power of binding and losing be giuen to Marie Magdalene and Cleophas ioyntly, with the rest of the disciples of Christ, then it is giuen 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 giuen to them Christs

Ministeriall power: hee hath gotten authoritie now for women Preachers, belike to ouerthow the Apostles inhibiti­on. It is enough to set downe his argument, the folly of it sufficiently confutes it: but is his reason of force to make good this his madde Paradoxe? hearken to it, and consider; for sooth hee thinks it is iust so as hee saith, and why I pray you? because (saith hee) Mary Magdalene and others, be­sides the Eleuen, were all together when our Sauiour gaue this power to his Disciples mentioned in Mat. 28. 16. 20. Iohn. 20. 21. 23. and such speeches else where, as concerneth the Ministeriall power of Christ.

So then his reason seemes to be this: Whatsoeuer Christ spake, when all his Disciples, men and women, Apostles and multitude were together, that was ioyntly alike spoken to all of them that so were then gathered together. This proofe, wantsReasons a­gainst Mr. Smiths women Preachers. a proofe, and is at no hand to be taken of his bare word: first, because hee is so strange a broacher of opinions, and so inconstantly confident. Secondly, the argument and rea­son are both so absurd. Thirdly, because this bare reason would vphold what is plainely forbidden by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. 34. 35. Fourthly, for that the assertion vnder­propped herewith is so contrary to the iudgement of all Diuines, Councels, Fathers, Churches, and practise of any womanish authoritie, in eyther preaching, or vsing the Church censures publikely. Fiftly, because it greatly dimi­nisheth the estimation of the holy men and women in the Apostles dayes, whom wee neuer read of did put in executi­on any such authoritie, which surely, as they ought, had it beene imposed vpon them, so would they haue at one time or other shewed this their equall Authoritie with the Apo­stles. Sixtly, because it is against that place of the Ephesians, chap. 4. 8. 12. where the holy Ghost mentioneth how Christ gaue gifts vnto men, ver. 8. whom he made Apostles, &c. to gather Saints, but no mention is made of gifts to women, for to preach and gather Churches.

His sixt Scripture is Acts. 2. 39. and 3. 25. comparedPage. 55. with Rom. 4. 11. 12. and Gal. 3. 7. 9. 14. 15. whence hee thus [Page 197] reasoneth. Ʋnto whom the promises, the Couenant, the bles­sing His sixt argu­ment for po­pularitie. is giuen, vnto them the Ministeriall power of Christ is giuen: But the Promises, the Couenant, and the blessing is giuen vnto the posteritie of Abraham, according to the Faith, that is, to all the faithfull, who are indeed the true Children of Abraham: Ergo, the Ministeriall power is giuen to the faithfull: that is, to two or three faithfull people, which are a body vnto Christ. This argument is diseased with an Homonymie of Answered. words; for Promises, Couenant, and Blessing are eyther gene­rall appertaining to euery Christian; or speciall, which con­cerne particular states of men. Againe, therebe Promises, Couenants, and Blessings, onely comprehending things ex­ternall, and common fauours, whereof the very Reprobates may pertake: and there be Promises, Couenants, and Blessings of internall spirituall graces, proper to the Elect people of God. All his Scriptures quoted doe speake of these things eyther appertaining to all, or of such as be proper to the very Elect: let the places be read and iudged of. How then followes the Conclusion hence to a speciall power of gouernment appointed to some? By this argu­ment from these Scriptures, hee may as well conclude that little Infants haue the Ministeriall power of Christ, sithen the Promise is made to them: Acts. 2. 39. the Couenant made with them: Deut. 29. 14. 15. The Blessing is giuen to them. Mar. 10. 16. I answere further, if this argument be now good, then was it so in the Law? for to all Israel was the Promise, the Couenant, and Blessing giuen; and therefore belike therewith the power of Iurisdiction; but we see then the Church neuer tooke so much vpon them; ne­uer did euer any Prophet gather thence so much: indeed re­bellious Corah attempted as much, but the Earth gaped with wide mouth to swallow vp so wretched a Smithean Spirit, as not worthy to liue longer on the earth. Lastly, this maketh Simon the Sadler, Tomkin the Taylor, Billy the Bellowes­maker, and such like to command equally with Soueraigne Authoritie in Church matters, and to liue, if they list, law­lessely: for it is forsooth their Christian libertie to be tyed to [Page 198] nothing. Ah wretched Corah! who art thou that darest breed such Confusion, eleuate base spirits, suppresse Supri­oritie Anabaptistically; and bring a Familisticke Communi­tie, euen euery mans will to be his warrant; his erring minde his guiding master; and affection the rule of his actions, as appeares among them all at this day? but I hope M^r. Smith is but in his new Moone, stay to the Moneths end, and wee shall I trust finde him changed.

His seauenth Scripture is Esay. 9. 6. Iohn. 3. 16. and 13.Page 56. His seauenth Argument for popularitie. 13. Acts 2. 36. and 3. 22. 23. Luke. 2. 11. whence he frames this Argument. Ʋnto whom Christ is giuen to be King, Priest, and Prophet directly and immediately, vnto them is Christs mi­nisteriall power giuen. But Christ is giuen as King, Priest and Prophet, directly and immediately to two or three faithfull peo­ple, wheresoeuer liuing together in the world: Therefore Christs ministeriall power is giuen to such two or three.

Hee hath nine arguments, and this onely is in the right Answered. forme of reasoning, in all the other hee playeth Childishly the Sophister, and also in this his best manner wickedly a Deceiuer. The sequell of this Argument is seely; hee would here inferre a Ministeriall power, which is visible in the ex­ternall gouernment of the Church (for of this wee speake, and doe wholy and euer in all this dispute vnderstand it, else hee doth still play the Sophister,) from inward and spiri­tuall pertaking of Christs Offices by the hand of faith, through the spirit. If hee thus collect a right, directly and immediately, to descend to euery one in outward gouern­ment, because they haue Christ their King, Priest and Pro­phet, then would it follow, that euery Christian man, yea, and woman, may directly and immediately take vpon them, that which is so directly and immediately giuen them, euen as well, as they pertake so of Christ, and are in him Kings, Priests, and Prophets. If they haue the Ministeriall power giuen, as they haue Christ giuen to them, then may they as­sume (without leaue or liking of any, when they please,) that power to themselues, euen as without mans leaue, they take Christ giuen them by God the Father: what a ground-worke [Page 199] is here laid of all disorder and confusion; yea, and of intollerable insolencie and swelling pride in euery particular person? God is the God of order, and not of such a popular proud confusion.

Hee would proue his Consequent from Rom. 8. 32. TheRom. 8. 32. words are, He gaue him for vs all to death, how shall he not with him giue vs all things also? so in these words all things, hee includes, this and that thing, from a generall, hee con­cludes any thing: why may not by his thus absurd reasoning any Christian challenge to be a King? the vnlearned to be exquisite in all Sciences? the poore man to be rich? for what lets vs more to vnderstand in all things, Riches, Wisedome, Learning, Regalitie, and what not, as well as hee to include Ministeriall power; sithen euery Christian by hauing of Christ, hath as much right in these things, which are also his gifts to his Church, as in the outward gouernment of it? If hee hath giuen vs these things; why are not all learned? why take wee not possession of riches where they be? and if these be not here meant, then all things is to be vnderstood with a restraint; and so then it stands vpon an exposition, what is meant by all things, which he yet hath not done: but till hee doe, hee may see his folly with impietie in so alled­ging Scripture. Yet for all this, thus farre I yeeld the Con­sequent true; that Christs ministeriall power is giuen for them, to whom Christ is giuen, in respect of the efficacie, also the free holy powerfull vse of it; because Christs Mini­steriall power is for the Churches benefit, to rule it, and to order such as be in it, and not for others to censure them: for the Apostle saith; What haue I to doe to iudge them that 1. Cor. 5. 12. are without? but this is farre from the right of Authoritie, to execute that ministeriall power which M^r. Smith pleads for.

Touching the minor, I demaund whether hee hold that Christ is giuen to no fewer then two or three, if hee say no, the whole Scripture disclaimes his heresie; if yea, then one hauing Christ giuen to him, that same one by his argument hath Christs ministeriall power in him, and so Mr. Smith [Page 200] may Monopolize to himselfe the execution of all offices, and may bind and loose as often as any new toy comes in­to his restlesse braine. But what doth this man with his sixe places of Scripture? they proue not his Consequent of the Maior; doe they confirme the Minor? nothing lesse, for in none of the places is it said, that Christ is giuen to two or three. In Esay is meant all the Elect: so in Iohn. 3. 16. in Iohn. 13. 13. & Acts. 2. 36. is expressed no number at all any way, the other places are meant of many; why then abridgeth hee the Lords number? and why so peruersely goeth hee still on thus to make the out-road of two or three idle braines Schismatically meeting, to imagine themselues to be that which they are not?

His eight Scripture is, Mat. 18. 15. 20. compared withPage. 57. His eight Ar­gument for popularitie. 1. Cor. 5. 4. 5. Mat. 6. 12. Luke. 17. 3. Whence he thus reaso­neth; If one Brother hath power to retaine the sinnes of an im­penitent Brother priuately, and to remit the sinnes of a penitent Brother priuately: then a communion of faithfull men haue power to retaine the sinnes of an impenitent member publikely, and to remit the sinnes of one that is penitent publikely: But one Brother hath power giuen him by Christ to retaine, &c. Ergo, a communion of faithfull people, &c.

The Consequent followes, I grant, being vnderstood Answered. as the Antecedent of remitting and retaining sinnes of the same kinde; for then it followes, a minori ad maius: for if one man may forgiue iniuries offered, there is no questi­on but the whole Congregation may so doe also. But as hee here takes the Consequent, and intends it, as by his drift may be easily granted; that is, for an Apostolicall pow­er of retaining and remitting; I deny it, and so must stay for a Confirmation; for it seemes hee tooke this as granted, as hee doth many more of his conceits: but who can grant a necessarie consequence from one thing to an other of diuers natures? The Antecedent is of a priuate remitting and retaining of iniuries; and so a man hath a right, in re­spect of himselfe before men, to forgiue the wrong, as the man offending shall humble himselfe, or else to claime his [Page 201] owne, after a lawfull and charitable proceeding. But the Consequent is vnderstood not of iniuries to man, but sins to God, which the Ministers of God in Gods stead hath the Ministeriall power to remit or retaine, as the partie offen­ding is penitent or remaines irrepentant. The places of Mat. 18. 15. 20. Mat. 6. 12. Luke. 17. 3. are so to be vnder­stood as Col. 3. 13. & as I haue expounded the Antecedent: if my exposition barely set downe content not some, let such as doubt, read Bishop Bilsons Booke of perpetuall gouernment, Page. 29. 37. and Doctor Sutcliffe of Ecclesiasticall Discip. Page. 124. and also a Booke entituled, De ritè gubernanda Christi Ecclesia, without name of the Authour: in which this exposition is defended at large, and other expositions refelled; of which see more in this Reply afterward. Therfore here is no Consequence, hee taking the latter part as hee doth, and falsely interpreting the former part in his misvn­derstanding the Scriptures, where hee seemes to ground it.

The Minor is denyed, for these places proue not, that a priuate man hath power giuen him of Christ to remit sins committed against God, but wrongs done against him­selfe.

His ninth and last Scripture is, Eph. 5. 30. 32. and 1. 22.Page. 58. His ninth Ar­gument for po­pularitie. 23. Reu. 21. 2. and 22. 17. from whence hee 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 faithfull people are Christs Spouse, the wife of the Lambe, and Christs misticall body: Ergo, the visible Church or Communion of faithfull ones haue Christs ministeri­all power immediately from him.

There is more in the Conclusion then in the Premises, Answered. for hee puts in the word Ministeriall, which is in neyther of the former Propositions, as in right arguing it ought to be. It is no Syllogisme, and the argument is but a similitude: which may illustrate an appoued truth, but proues not, nor giues resolution to a doubting minde, much lesse decides this cause in hand.

And thus hauing ended a number of ill shapen arguments [Page 202] to defend a cause worthy no better eyther Mood or Figure in reasoning, he tels his Reader, that by all these put toge­ther, it appeareth plainely, what? that the ministeriall power of Christ is in the body of the Church; nay rather, that, oh what? that, I say, he is himselfe fearefully seduced by Sathan, beguiled, and seeking to beguile by his childish Sophistrie and impious abuse of Scripture such as be giuen ouer with him to beleeue lyes. All men may see what a con­ceit this man now hath of himselfe, and of his owne opini­ons, who dare so boldly call vpon the King, the house ofPage of his booke 41. line. 7. 8. Parliament, and all the Learned in the Land, in a confident perswasion of the truth which hee holds, and that onely vp­on such seely reasons, so childishly framed, so without true forme, full of Inconsequence, ambiguous tearmes, and false Positions, and some of them altogether sometime without any proofe, and yet hee cals it, their Faith, and most euident truth of God, Page 54. The vndoubted Truth, Page 36. Wherein hee is so confident, as he puts all on ha­zard vpon this one point, thus makes Proclamation, Pa. 40. line 30. I professe before the Lord, and before the whole world, that if I proue not euidently my assertion: first, I will acknow­ledge the Churches of England true Churches: secondly, Behold the vanitie of the man, who can keep no meane. the Church of Rome so: thirdly, the Greeke Churches also to be true Churches, and all to haue a true Ministerie: fourthly, that the whole cause of the Separation lyeth in the dust: fiftly, that they must disclaime their Schisme, which they haue made, and Heresies which they doe hold. Therefore he failing in this, it is needlesse farther to spend time with him, in any other of his singular opinions, wherein hee differs from Brow­nisme. And therefore this point concluded with him, I need not reply largely vpon any other of his answeres to the po­sitions following, which M^r. Ainsworth shall deny to be the common cause in Brownisme. For it is altogether vaine to stand in refutation of any thing, which this man held the last yeare, hee hauing of himselfe left this cause, and is got out of a Schismaticall whirle-poole of fantasies, and is falne into the Anabaptisticall gulfe of Heresies, in which hee [Page 203] layeth all vpon an other point, viz: Of the lawfulnes to bap­tise Infants, Children of beleeuing Parents; which his present standing hee hath baulified, I should say beautified, with the like garnishments as here, and speakes as confidently as hee hath done in this: for this is apparantly to be ob­seruedWhat a man­ner of man M^r. Smith is in his conceits. in him, great boldnesse to attempt any course more then a common confidence in euery present opinion: affected sin­gularitie from all societies in Protestancie, in Brownisme, in Anabaptisme: Audacious iustifying of his so singular courses, with Sophistrie, with peruersions of Scriptures; contemning the iudgement of all others: Vsing Protestations of the eui­dence of the truth, which hee imagineth to hold in these, and such like tearmes: I am verily assured it is the truth: It is as cleare to mee as the noone day: It is the vndoubted truth of God: the truth of Christ that it is iustified out of the word, with calling God to witnesse, protesting before the Lord, and before the world, if this or that be not thus & so; then iudge after this and that manner his cause, his person: thus hath hee done in our Church, so in Brownisme, thus in Anabaptisme: read his workes, if you can spend time so vnprofitably, and iudge the truth of that I say; with this also that he often disclaimes the way which hee so peremptorily auoucheth for truth; and because his vnheard of Inconstancie may not disgrace him, he puts shamelesnesse vpon him, and professeth inconstancie, andHis Booke of Differences in the Preface. desireth that his last writings ouer may be taken as his present iudgement. I appeale therefore to thee Reader, whether it be meet for any, otherwise better exercised, to spend time to answere any thing, which he saith, who in time answeres himselfe, and no time is euer himselfe certainely? Necessi­tie laid vpon 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 truely, as he hath manifested himselfe, that if God so please hee may see him­selfe by himselfe, and some whose persons I yet heartily wish well vnto, may take heed betime to leaue him, and o­thers to keepe from him as an instrument of Sathan, raised vp to deceiue the simple hearted.

Now it remaines to reply vpon his answeres to my Rea­sons, giuen against popular gouernment; but for that his Answeres may easilie be ouerthrowne, by any vnderstan­ding Reader: to preuent tediousnesse, I commend both our endeuours to the iudgement of the wise, onely thus much I entreat them; first, to compare my former Booke with his Answere; for hee puts in his Answere more then I say sometime: secondly, take heed of his Paralogismes, and inconsequences: thirdly, iudge rightly of my words, that the sense be not wrested: and fourthly, beware of his false Analogies which hee makes from the old Testament to the New. As in his first Answere, he would type out by the Leuites, the Priests and Kings in the old Testament, the bodie of the Church in the new Testament; so as, looke as they had the gouernment then, so haue the people now. This his proportion ouerthrowes the Rule of Kings in Office, and makes the people a King: and if this be so, why then doth not the superioritie of Aaron, and degrees among the Priests, type out superioritie now? Suppose not (Christian Reader) that I passe him by, as not able to answere him, for I protest vnto thee, I finde no such cause in his answere, why thou shouldst so thinke, either touching this, or what remaines to be answered; neither, I thanke God, finde I altogether such weaknesse in my selfe, as not to be able to manifest his fraudulent dealing, though I see (in his pride) hee attempts greatly to vilifie mee, and my labours: but it is, that his Answere and my Reply, both to him and M^r. Ainsworth, might not grow to a tedious Volumne.

Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this seauenth Errour.

MAster Ainsworth disclaimes this, as none of theirs ei­ther in practise or iudgement; therefore M^r. 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 themselues, in their seuerall companies. But let vs see what he saith:

Reason. 1 First, he professeth, that none is to separate for faults and corruptions, but by due order to seeke redresse thereof: his rea­son is, because faults and corruptions will fall out, and arise in the Church, so long as it consists of mortall men. And sithen he deliuers such a truth, which I gladly imbrace, IWe may not separate who­ly from true Churches for Corruptions. will to his reason as the first, adde moe for confirmation; as a maine truth against themselues: viz. that we may not se­parate for Corruptions.

Reason. 2 Secondly, because the contrarie is the condemned schisme 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 re­proofe, but nocause of separation from the church, but only of priuate vnnecessarie familiartie with particular offenders. [Page 206] In what cases a totall separation may be, see my other Booke, page 108.

Reason. 4 Fourthly, because the godly is rather to mourne, then separate, Ezech. 9. 4. Mat. 5. 4 Psal. 119. 136. 139. 158.

Reason. 5 Fiftly, because if wee should separate vpon euery cor­ruption, we should neuer ioyne to any Church, or not con­tinue in it; no nor in our selues, but liue alone, or goe out of the world.

Reason. 6 Sixtly, because by separation, there should be no pra­ctise of patient forbearing and teaching the vntoward, to see whether at any time God will giue them repentance. 2. Tim. 2. 25. Cal. Instit. 4. 1. 16 19.

Obiection. 1. Obiect. It is lawfull to separate from a Church for ill go­uernment.

Answere. Answ. No; the Gouernment was ill in the time of the Iudges, when euery man did what he listed, when there wasIudge. 18. no King in Israel, and much abhomination then commit­ted. So in our Sauiours time, Heretikes and Sectaries had Rule and Gouernment, false high Priests, Symoniacal, and temporarie, contrary to the Lords Institution. Corruption in gouernment also in the dayes of Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose. In the dayes of the Apostles Diotriphes vsed tyrannicall pride, vsurped authoritie, and yet neither Pro­phets, nor Christ, nor Apostles, nor the Ancient Fathers did teach or practise any such separation, as is made in these dayes.

Obiection. 2. Obiect. But we may separate because of a mixt Com­pany, openly wicked, liuing with the godly.

Answere. Answ. No; first, because the Holy Ghost saw this in the old Testament: Ezech. 22. 26. Mal. 1. 7. 8. and re­proued some for it, but neuer taught Separation vpon it: secondly, the Apostle saw in Corinth, and the Angel in the Churches of Asia, a mixt companie, and neuer either com­manded the godly to separate therefore, nor left any pra­ctise for example to vs: thirdly because it makes not a true church, either false or no church: fourthly, because the god­ly are of more force to sanctifie one another, then some [Page 207] wicked to pollute all in there standing considered simply in it self: fiftly, because such as mourne, as priuately auoid fami­liaritie with wicked, labour in their place to reforme them, so continuing are not, nor cannot be polluted by others.

Obiection. 3. Obiect. But we may separate, for mens vnworthie com­ming to the Sacrament.

Answere. Answ. No; first, because some vncleansed came with the godly in Hezechias dayes vnworthily (2. Chro. 30. 28.) to the Passeouer; 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 remedie; but exhorts euery man to examine himselfe. 1. Cor. 11: thirdly, Iudas was at the Passeouer, and some thinke, at the Lords Supper; and Christ knew him to be a diuell, and yet permitted him without pollution to himselfe, or the rest: yea, though o­penly he told them, that one should betray him; and saw that the diuell then had put it into Iudas heart: fourthly, because this is onely a blemish in the Church, greatly to be bewayled and a defect of Discipline, but no ouerthrow of any of the true essence or any Doctrine, which is the life of the Church.

Obiection. 4. Obiect. But we may separate, when men are let alone, and sinne not punished.

Answere. Answ. No; first, impunitie makes not a nullitie: se­sondly, it is onely (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 sinne was vnpunished, among the Iewes, Iude 21. 25. Among the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 5. and yet no separation for it: fourthly, because pu­nishing of sin is not euery mans office, but theirs to whom it appertaineth: is their neglect, the sin of priuate persons? fiftly, because wee are rather to vse meanes to such as are in authoritie to get sinne punished, rather then to flie and runne away: by the one may we doe good, by the other do mischiefe: sixtly, because by our godly conuersation, in being among them, we may win them.

Obiection. 5. Obiect. But we may separate, from such as cast off the externall gouernment of Christ.

Answere. Answ. No; First, because some part of gouernment, be­sides the word is not of the essence of the Church: second­ly, because many may be ignorant of that gouernment, and so reiect it; is such ignorance a iust cause of separation? thirdly, because it is a great controuersie which is Christs external gouernment, & therefore in such a case, a Church may not be forsaken: fourthly, because the Iewish Church cast off Gods gouernment, & yet no separation taught, but the people exhorted to amendement. 1. Sam. 8. 7. 8. Iere. 3. 13. 20. fiftly, may children leaue their fathers house be­cause their mother his wife is rebellious, and will not be gouerned by him?

Obiection. 6. Obiect. But we must separate from that Church, where be false Ministers.

Answere. Answ. If all be so, we may; but if some onely be so, then may we not, but we must follow the godly Sunamite, leaue Baals priests, Ieroboams Calues, and Idoll shepheards; and get vs to Elisha the Prophet. First, because there was false Prophets in Israel; secondly, Hereticall Saducees, hypo­criticall Pharises, false teachers and euill liuers, and yet our Sauiour commanded no separation from the Church, but permitted to heare them with warines: thirdly, A false Pro­phetisse in Thiatira tollerated, 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 approue them or no; and also it is to be certainly knowne who are false Ministers: the spirit of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets; it is not in the skill of ordina­narie persons to iudge and giue sentence: euery one hath authoritie to try the spirits, but it is meant of such as can try and so iudge, and yet not vpon their owne head, but by holy conference with the Church, and Ministers of God, to proceed to a definitiue sentence within themselues, as out of Gods word, by Gods spirit, and the voyce of Gods Church in such a case.

Obiection. 7. Obiect. But surely we may separate from that Church wherein the worship is corrupted.

Answere. Ans. Not so: first, because vnder the law there was corrup­tion in worship reproued, Esay. 29. 13. but no commande­ment therefore to leaue the Church, neyther did any leaue it: secondly, the like in Christs time: Mat. 15. 9. Thirdly, so in the Apostles dayes among the Galathians, & else where; yet no separation from the Church for it: Fourthly in S. Augustines time complaint was made of humane Cere­monies burthensome, yet no separation: fiftly, because the godly men did oppose them, and suffered patiently for o­mission of these when authoritie did presse them; but fled not away for feare of trouble: peaceable withstanding cor­ruptions, is a meanes to reforme, and not a Schismaticall rending of mens selues from the whole church, pretending a Separation, to lead away simple people captiues, and to auoid therby affliction for righteousnes sake. And therfore as Mr. Ainsworth saith, wee may not separate for corrupti­ons, but must labour in our place to seeke a redresse of them; except the Church become no Church, full of ey­ther Heathenish, or Israelitish Idolatry, as in Ieroboams time, when the Lord hath remoued his Candlesticke. But if this before set downe, be their iudgement indeed, then let M^r. Ainsworth tell me first why doe they not stay with vs, and seeke redresse, if any thing be amisse among vs; by due order, wayting the Lords leasure in raising vp his owne meanes to reforme disorders, which is the authoritie of the Magistrate: for this see the iudgement of that wise, holy, learned and moderate, yet truely zealous spirited man Zanchie, vpon Esay 2. in his Booke De Ecclesia, page 225. Secondly, I demand, why then doe they flye the Commu­nion of the Dutch Churches, and the Marchants Church in Amsterdam, excommunicating such as occasionally ioyne vnto them? if the differences betweene 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 downe by M^r. Ainsworth, eyther is [Page 210] not their iudgement, or else they practise contrary to their iudgement: so like Scribes and Pharises, that is, Separa­tists Hypocrites, they teach and say, but doe not; and are guiltie of that which they would blame in vs: And if this Position be true, then be they Schismatickes; for to breake peace with the Churches, where we may and ought to hold communion, is Schisme: See Zanch. ibidem, Page. 119. 120. &c.

Reply. Secondly, hee tels vs, what they hold, in briefe it is thusThe Separa­tists iudgement touching pol­lution. much: that if one conuict of Adulterie, Blasphemie, &c. be by the whole Church let alone; not rebuked, but pleaded for against such as call for iudgement, all such are sinners them­selues, and such an Assembly is not Gods Church; neyther can it be said, that any holy thing is lawfully administred in such a societie, for the sinne of them all pollutes them. M^r. Smith answeres him Page 71. and saith; this affirmation, and his deniall of the Position are contradictorie, so there is a lye in the one. And my answere hereto is, that hee hath affir­med more then hee hath proued, or can be able to proue, if such a Church were as hee supposeth: but hee is herein his meere imagination; for what Church of Christ is so giuen ouer, that all euer did, or doe plead for Adulterers, Blasphemers, and such like? And I aske him what be those that do call vpon the Church for iudgement, are they mem­bers? then all the Church doth not defend the wicked man: his absurd supposition hath in it also a contradiction; for hee supposeth the whole Church to plead for the wicked man, and yet supposeth also then there to be some pleading against the wicked man: hee cannot tell what he saith. I in­treat him, the next time to teach his Schollers better, to speake more wisely, and if hee can, let him shew 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 Beniamin suc­couringIudges. 20. Gibeah is very vnapt, 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, [Page 211] against the whole. Secondly, that such an Assembly, where one is so tollerated, is not the Church of God. Thirdly, that the holy things are there vnlawfully administred, so as the godly there who call for iustice must needes separate as hee by this doctrine intendeth, then hath hee spoken to the purpose, and somewhat for his cause. In the meane space he tels vs, that except the whole Church doe agree together Obserue this speech. to maintaine open iniquitie, and doe despise the word of the Lord calling them to repentance, hee holds it not lawfull to se­parate from them in any wise, in any thing, till all holy and or­dinarie meanes be vsed for their reclaiming. Page 181. And in Page 179. hee saith, it is a sinne to make a separation from a Church for matters controuertible and doubtfull. And yetFor what & a­bout what doe the Separatists most contend. for such matters doe they make separation: for what and a­bout what doe they chiefely contend? is it not for and about matters of outward gouernement; not about the substance of things neither, but about circumstances, more about the manner, then the matter, which maketh the controuersie endlesse. I deny not but the thing commaunded must be done, & also must be well done, & prudence is required to obserue circumstances, that good things be thereby done seasonably and well, for the time, place and person: but this is ill, for circumstances not obserued exactly, to deny the truth of substances, to hold them false, and to iudge things done substantially, as not done; for that they be not per­fectly circumstantiall, especially where both the matter and manner of such things be very controuertible, as about the circumstances of externall gouernment and discipline of the Church: which herein I will make manifest to the vnder­standing of euery Christian Reader, and especially I intend it for this end; to stay the mindes of many: first, of youngA Caueat to young Di­uines. Students in diuinitie, who in a godly zeale desiring the glory of God in the amendment of all mens manners, are sodain­ly ouer the eares, at the very first on-set, in the controuersie of discipline, before they haue learned in any small measure to speake rightly of the common principles of Christianitie. Secondly, to stay the mindes of Country people in manyTo Country people. [Page 212] places, who speake so certainely, so peremptorie of this point, as if they were the profound Doctours of Ancient times, wiser then many of their deliberate and learned tea­chers. Both these meane well, their affections are for good and against euill; but herein is it amisse, that they doe pre­sume to be too soone ripe, aduenturing boldly to runne ere they can creepe, much lesse goe: and all this ariseth vpon their erroneous conceit, that these points of discipline and Church-gouernment, are supposed by them to be so easily discerneable, so apparant by scripture, as that seely men may iudge rightly wherein the truth thereof doth stand.

Therefore to let them see how farre otherwise it is, I willIt is not an ea­sie thing for e­uery one to iudge rightly of Church-go­uernment and discipline. lay open the intricatenesse hereof, by the inconstant mindes of learned men, their varietie of opinions, some holding this, some that; euen plaine contradictories in somethings. What herein is the truth, and who do hold it, is not for me to determine: I leaue euery man to iudge freely, and the Lord guide him to the best.

First, some hold no gouernment at all, which is but a Fa­milisticall conceit, yet haue they their reasons, making a distinction of a double person in one man, a Citizen and a Christian; these deny Ecclesiasticall gouernment, and the Anabaptists Ciuill gouernment, to which they may easily draw some seely Brownists, as daily they doe, and that from the force of their owne grounds: the Separatists hold all to be voluntary professours; now voluntarinesse is taken away by being vnder any gouernment: to be subiect and ruled is an estate farre from freedome; Christians loose thereby Christian libertie. Christians Saints neede no constraining power, they be led by the spirit; but what proceed I to speak further of the fanaticall frensie of these two generations of men: their reasons haue beene confuted long since.

Secondly, it is held that there must be an externall go­uernmentThere must be a Gouern­ment in the Church. and that rightly, for the well ordering of exter­nall meanes of mens saluation among the professours of Christs name, the reasons for it are: first, because Christ gaue Gouernours to his Church. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Secondly, [Page 213] the Apostle exhorted some to rule diligently. Rom. 12. 8. Thirdly, hee mentioneth such as were ouer the Churches in the Lord. 1. Thes. 5. 12. Fourthly, hee allowes to such double honour, that is, reuerence and maintenance, euen for their well gouerning. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Fiftly, for that in the Scripture is a Commandement 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 necessitie there is required a rule and a gouernment both to see things and persons orderly dis­posed and so also kept. Sixtly, the vntoward nature of man, which resists order, and desires to wander loosely and at li­bertie, requires gouernment: without which experience tels vs, that the Church cannot remaine in safetie, but Sathan would intrude his instruments vpon the Church, and poy­son it with false doctrine, rend it by Schisme, and pollute it wholy with prophanenesse of mens liues. Seauenthly, the Church of Christ is called a kingdome: Mat. 13. 41. 2. Thes. 2. 12. now in a kingdome is gouernment. Eightly, if no so­cietie of men can be without gouernment, neyther in king­dome, Citie, nor Towne, then cannot the Church be with­out it, so long as it consists of mortall men, though neuer so deuout, yet alwayes herein an imperfect state, and needs gouernment. Ninthly, till Christs time from the worlds be­ginning, before and in the time of the Law, was there go­uernment in the Church of God: and therefore are we not to thinke, that our Sauiour when he came, would make all that professed him Libertines, and free from all outward gouernment. Tenthly, wee read how the Apostle was, euen in his time, constrained to vse his power giuen him of Christ to rule, 1. Cor. 5. and did punish some. 1. Tim. 1. 20. Eleauenthly, the iudgement of reformed Churches mani­fest by practise, all of them yeelding to gouernment. That there is gouernment is certaine, and this is also as certaine,How Ecclesi­asticall Gouer­nors ought to behaue them­selues. that Gouernours ought to rule well: 1. Tim. 5. 17. with di­ligence: Rom. 12. 8. and without pride and tiranny: 1. Pet 5. 3. Mat. 20. 25. Luke. 22. 25. 26. But in this firme and [Page 214] most certaine truth is very great vncertaintie: for though it be generally held, that there is an Ecclesiasticall gouern­ment, and that there is a delegate power of Iesus Christ for well ordering and ruling his people, called the Church, yet herein is great controuersie, and very hote contentions a­rise on one side and on an other, as men are perswaded of a truth.

Some hold not onely a gouernment, but also that in Christs Some hold a perpetuall go­uernment. testament is appointed a perpetuall and an vnchangeable forme of gouernment in particular, to which all particular Churches are bound to receiue, and to subiect themselues vnto, as an es­sentiall part of the Gospell vpon paine of damnation: of this opi­nion besides the Separatists haue beene others.

Others hold that Christ in the new Testament appointed no Others, that it is not certaine. certaine kinde, or perpetuall forme of gouernment, but that the same is alterable vpon iust occasions; as may serue best to the Churches welfare: so as in some place may be the Presbiterian power; in others Episcopall authoritie, both indifferently lawfull; as may best fit the people and state in euery such place: of this opinion are not a few, and they haue their reasons: thus doe men vary about the very nature of gouernment itselfe: so also is there much differing about the persons in whom that power of ruling is, next and immediately from and vn­der Christ.

Some hold it to be in the Pope with his Consistory of Car­dinals: Papists. but this is held the deuise of man, and condemned of all reformed Churches, which haue forsaken the Romish Synagogue, to be abhorred as vsurped authoritie, and An­tichristian tyranny.

Some hold it to be in the body of the Congregation, as mayAnabaptists. be seene here before: others flatly deny it, as a confused popular gouernment; all in gouernment, and so none go­uerned. How can this confused Chaos execute their go­uernment, and vpon whom must they execute it? them­selues vpon themselues; or if they put it off to some, then belike a power is giuen to such as cannot performe it them­selues, but euer by others; they haue it, and others must [Page 215] execute it; Authoritie they haue without euer abilitie to do the duties thereto belonging, but by Substitutes. If the As­sembly doe any thing, that must be in Christs name; for that they haue their authoritie from Christ; but Ministers must by this opinion, doe all in the Churches name, preach, administer the Sacraments in the Churches name. But how this squareth with holy writ, let all iudge.

Some hold Christs ministeriall power to be in the Presbiterie, Reformists. with the Churches consent: but here also is great varietie touching the Presbiterie: Some holding that it ought to be in euery Congregation: others, in some speciall place, and the same to be ouer diuers congregations. Some hold that this Presbiterie doth by diuine authoritie consist of Cleargie and Laitie: others denie vtterly lay Elders, and that all Elders in the new Testa­ment are, as wee vnderstand the word Church-men, Bishops, Pastours and Teachers. Some hold these Church Elders all equall: others directly oppose it, and doe defend SuperioritieProtestants. of Ministers in some men called Bishops, whose reasons briefely are; first, for that they doe thinke them to haueReasons for au­thoritie of Su­perioritie. See Bishop Bil­sons Perpetuall Gouernment. Doctor Fields 5. booke. cap. 27 page 134. And cap. 28. and 29. and 30. beene in and from the Apostles dayes, confirmed by Eu­sebius, who deriueth the succession of Bishops in the foure principall Churches of the world: viz. in Ierusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria: from Iames at Ierusa­lem; from Peter at Antioch; from Peter and Paul at Rome; and from Marke at Alexandria; and the same continued from time to time: for further knowledge hereof, let any, that will, read Bishop Bilsons booke of perpetuall Gouernment, Page 260. and Doctor Field. Secondly, because the Scrip­ture mentioneth a Superioritie, some Apostles, some Pro­phets, some Teachers; and they be reckoned in order, by first, second, and third, 1. Cor. 12. 28. as degrees one ouer another. Thirdly, because God himselfe in the old Testa­ment ordained a Superioritie among Ecclesiasticall per­sons: there were the high Priest, and chiefe 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 Doue of Church Gouernment, by whom [Page 216] that text is expounded at large: If they erre, let it be shew­ed. Fourthly, because the ground for Superioritie is alike in the new Testament, as in the old; to preserue order, as 1. Cor. 14. the Apostle commands to maintaine peace, and to preuent Schisme, which began in the Apostles dayes. For these causes was the superioritie among the Church-men with the Iewes, 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 ouer another for good gouernment sake. Fiftly, because God hath by instinct of nature in all socie­ties, moued people to approue of a Superioritie: yea, in his workes there is set a supereminencie of one creature aboue another: thus in the workmanship of the World, God ap­proues it; in natures inclination he confirmes it; in the Iew­ish policie he commanded it: what makes it odious in the Christian Church, sithen it is experienced, that men now are as proud, as affectionate to singularitie, as opinionate to priuate courses, as vnwilling to be in subiection, all which require a curbing power, as euer heretofore at any time? Sixty, because such as would haue an equalitie, do maintaine an inequalitie in their gouernment, and are thereto con­strained to keepe order, and to preuent confusion: they make the Pastor superior to the Teacher, when others hold them both one; and they haue a Super-intendent ouer ma­ny Churches. Thus wee see the great difference among the best learned of all sorts, about the persons that should go­uerne.

There is also differing opinions concerning the punish­mentDifferences a­bout the pu­nishment of of­fenders. of offenders; Some hold that no externall power of refor­ming sinners belongeth to the office of Ministers, but onely as by the word they can worke through the spirit, vpon mens consci­ences, by publike admonition and reprehension; rebuking such openly as sinne openly: affirming that other punishments whatso­euer appertaine to the Magistrate, when God bestowes them vpon the Church: Others thinke that Ministers may suspend, and superiour Ecclesiasticall Gouernours withall excommuni­cate. And againe, there are which vtterly deny any suspension [Page 217] from the communion; affirming that there is neyther pre­cept nor practise in all the new Testament, nor any place whereupon it may necessarily be gathered; but onely an excommunication from all the holy things of God. Others peremptorily deny excommunication, and doe account it but the Popes painted power, an inuention of man, without ey­ther Commandement or example in the new Testament: that it is first found among the Scribes and Prarises, Christs enemies; that Heretickes and Schismatikes who despise the authoritie of Princes, make it their arme and power to con­iure their Spirits in Communion with them: they say, the word is not in all the new Testament, as prescribed eyther by Christ or his Apostles, neyther the thing intended by it, the deliuering of a man vp to Sathan being an other thing, an1 Cor. 5. extrarodinarie Apostolicall power: about this matter Beza and Erastus are long and tedious.

To conclude the 18. of Mat. verse 15. 20. and Leu. Mat. 18. diuers­ly expounded. 19. 17. are by some held to be the order to be obserued in pro­ceeding with an offender before sentence be giuen; but in this is as great varietie as in any of the rest: for others auouch confidently that the places do nothing at all concerne Discipline, and Beza is taxed of great ouer-sight, for grounding his Discipline vpon Mat. 18. which belongeth nothing to it. Read the booke intituled, Theses de ritè gubernanda Ecclesia, the Authour without name, and yet an ouer-sea Presbiteri­an, who proueth that discipline Ecclesiasticall hath there no foundation, but it is meant, saith he, of priuate and perso­nall iniuries, which he proueth 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 Peters question, and the last words of Christs answere.

Now because this place is so much in euery seely mans mouth, so much exalted by the Separatists, by the Anabap­tists, so troublesome to the mindes of many, and so much desired to be put in practise by some who yet here see it neg­lected, and being perswaded that here the same cannot be [Page 218] put in practise, and yet ought to be obserued as the true rule of Church Discipline, ordained by Christ, by which some runne from vs, others remaining yet dislike vs, as carelesse of Christs gouernment: I will shew the iudgement of Diuines, who endeuour by reasons to declare how these men are vtterly mistaken, and are cleane from the true meaning of this place; as they doe thinke. Heare therefore what is, and may be said, touchign this 18. of Mat. verse 15. 16. 17.

First, the Coherence with that before in the ChapterCoherence. is thus; Christ our Sauiour tels of scandals and of offences that shall be giuen, and admonisheth his disciples of them, and teacheth to auoid them, verse 5. 6. 7. &c: Then comes hee to iniuries offered, and shewes how men must carry themselues towards such as doe offer them wrong, in verse 15. 16. 17. &c. That this is the order, the Text may shew, and the matter fitly doth agree together; for hee first ad­monisheth his to take heed of offending others; and then declareth how they are to cary themselues towards such as doe trespasse against them.

Secondly, the occasion of these words was (as is thought)Occasion. the state of those dayes in our Sauiours time, wherein the Iewes were in subiection to the Romanes, hauing their au­thoritie of Elders greatly diminished by the Romanes, who were Heathen, to whom some Iewes became seruants: these were Publicanes; of which was Zacheus, yea, and Matthew, one that sat at the receipt of custome; for which they were to the Iewes very hatefull, but therein seruants to the Romanes, and so freed from the power & authoritie of the Iewes, with whom (as with the very Heathen & Gen­tiles among them) what Iew soeuer would haue to doe for any wrong which they offered, that Iew must call these pub­licanes before Romane authoritie, and conuent them there, and not bring them into any Iewish Court; from which they were exempt by their seruice to the Romane state: which libertie was also graunted to any other priuiledged Iew, which would make an appeale to the Romane Gouernour, [Page 219] as did Saint Paul: to whom the Iewes might haue recourse if they would to recouer their rights, or redresse wrongs of­fered them.

Thirdly, the scope of our Sauiour, is held in this case hereThe scope. to be a moderating of the Iewes passions, arising one against another for wrongs receiued, that so they might not runne into extremities, as mans nature is both hastie and desirous of the vtmost reuenge at the first; he aduiseth them there­fore not to deale at the first one with an other, as they must doe with Publicanes and Heathen, men hatefull to them, and exempted from all that power, which yet remained a­mong themselues; and against whom they held it lawfull to vse all extremities to the vtmost: but to proceed lo­uingly; first, after the rules of Charitie, which prescribeth, first, all gentle meanes, and when these will not any way preuaile, then to vse extremitie.

Fourthly, the meaning then of the words is; if thy bro­therThe meaning of the words. Here be three degrees of proceeding, and a threefold help in reclai­ming the tres­passer. 1. The rule of charitie. 2. Moses order of policie, as much as then remained thereof. 3. And lastly, the Romane Soueraigntie. a Iew doe iniurie against thee that art a Iew, goe thou to him, and tell him of it betweene your selues alone; and if he acknowledge the wrong, and doth giue thee satisfaction, thou art to cease further to call him into question, as being reconciled, and hee wonne vnto thee by this thy louing carryage: but if hee doe despise thee (as but one to one) yet vse not extremitie; but againe goe to him, and take with thee one or two, before whom thou mayest manifest the wrong receiued, that they may beare witnesse of it, as also of thy charitable proceeding, and may be a meane to the same partie for thee, to consider of his euils, to make thee recompence for the same: but if hee regard not their counsell neither; then complaine to the authoritie of the Iewish Synedrion, and let them perswade him to deale well with thee, to satisfie in what hee hath done the iniury in. But if he become so gracelesse and so wickedly obsti­nate that he despise it, and so no such meanes as these will doe him good; then vse (if thou wilt) the vtmost remedie, deale with him, as if hee were not a faithfull Iew; that is, bring him before the Romane power, and sue him at [Page 220] Caesars barre, as if he were a Publicane or Heathen. So then the place is vnderstood of priuate and personall suites and quarrels betweene man and man Iew and Iew, as the state stood then, of which our Sauiour did speake.

Fiftly, this to be the sense, reasons are alledged: first, the Reasons to proue the in­terpretation. custome of our Sauiour in speaking, whose manner was to speake according to the time, & to teach the Iewes then duties of loue one towards another, as he before did, Mat. 5. 23. 26. In which place he speaketh Ecclesiastically and also ciuilly to the Iewes capacitie, as they might reape bene­fit, and gaine good by his doctrine, euen so in this place. Secondly, the Apostle Peters so vnderstanding our Saui­our, as appeareth by the words of his question, made vp­on our Sauiours speech, verse 21. Thirdly, our Sauiours an­swere agine vnto Peter, in a Parable, in which he speakes of such causes as fall out betweene man and man, priuate mat­ters and personall, in which one man hath right to retaine or remit the offence done against himselfe. Fourthly, our Sauiours conclusion with a generall sentence, concluding the whole matter. verse 35. Fiftly, the words & proprietie of speech in the Text proue as much; for against thee, shewes the offence to be priuate, and personall, and such as one partie offended might remit: againe, the word Brother, shewes how our Sauiour meant the Iewes then, for no Iew, nor as yet any Disciple of Christ did account any other for brother but a Iew. Further more the speech, thou hast gained or won thy brother shewes a priuate alienation of mind in the party, that doth the iniurie: which by the gentle dealing of the partie offended, is as it were, recouered againe vnto him: besides our Sauiour sending of the offender backe a­gaine to the plaintiffes censure, after hee hath complained to the Church in these words, Let him be to thee; by whichBeza Annot. by this reason vnderstands the very word Church, to be meant of the Iewes. is euident such a Church to be meant, as the offender might not regard, and the Plaintiffe not get remedie by, but is dismissed to further proceeding: so the matter is still personall. Lastly, the words Publican and Heathen, words of reproach then among the Iewes, (who onely of [Page 221] all Nations did then disdaine the Gentiles) doe declare Christs meaning to be of the Iewes 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 downe, then it is here.

Obiection: 1. Obiect. The word, [...], is of a generall signifi­cation, and is not to restrained to be a particular kind of offence, as to personall wrongs and iniures.

Answere. Answ. The word I grant is generall, which maketh therefore great varying about it, some translating it sinne, some trespasse, some offend or scandalize: So as men cannot tell what is hereby truely meant; Snecanus saith, it hath aDe dis. pa. 461. proper signification to sinne; Beza saith, not all sinnes areB. de presb. p. 46. meant, but such as are called stumbling blocks to mens con­sciences; Snecanus saith, but all sinnes are here vnderstood,Snec. pa. 460. as well against God, as iniuries against man; Beza, Christpa. 458. B. pa. 57. speakes not here of iniuries committed: Gelasius contra Alex. Christ speakes here of common faults, and not ofInst it. l. 4. ca. 12. sect. 4. most hainous: Cal. Christ speakes here of all sorts of sins, euen the greatest that may be. And thus doe they contrary one an other, and therefore the Objection being of vncer­tainties, is not of force to hinder what is said: sithen though the word be generall, yet the Text it selfe restaineth it to a particular, euen to personall wrongs: for it is said, not simply if he trespasse; as vnderstanding it generally of any sinne to God or to men, but thus; if hee trespasse a­gainst thee, conuince thou him alone, as a matter betweene two; thee and him. And the Apostle Peter vseth these words, verse 21. sinne against me, and I forgiue him; as vn­derstanding Christs words of personall matters, where one man had authoritie to forgiue, as an offence done against his owne person. And whatsoeuer Beza in his Contro­uersie with Erastus, saith, yet his noted instruction out of this place is this; We must labour for Concord, not to reuenge iniuries: by which it seemes in the general he deliuereth the truth, and hee vnderstands iniuries offered, and that our [Page 222] Sauiour doth ayme at concord, and suppression of mans desire of reuenge herein.

Obiection. 2. Obiect. But the word Church cannot be taken for the Iewish Synedrion, or the Assembly of authoritie among the Iewes, which was then as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall.

Answere. Ans. First, the word Church in the holy Scripture, is not alway so strictly taken, as men doe now vse it, but is vsed for the assembly of good or bad, Christians or Infidels, met to­gether to consult and determine of causes, whether Ciuil or Ecclesiasticall, Psal. 26. 5. Where the Septuagint, doe 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 himselfe byBez. An. the word Church, vnderstandeth it as spoken here of the Iewes; that is, the Elders assembled, who exercised iudge­ment in those dayes: which Assembly of Iudges 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. Iosh. 20. 6. 9. The Exposition therefore stands war­rantable by the word, and this objection is also of no mo­ment against it.

Obiection. The 3. Obiection ariseth out of the ver. 18. where mention is made of binding and losing; as if Christ had before esta­blished a rule of Gouernment to his Church, & herein de­clared the authoritie and power thereof, bestowed first vp­on the Apostles, and then vpon the Ministers or Elders their Successours.

Answere. Ans. First, the face of this Objection is from mistaking the application of the words, binding and losing, as properly and only to be vnderstood of Christs Ministers in this place, when yet we doe see in the former words, a binding and lo­sing to be allowed to priuate persons: for what is, thou hast wonne him, verse 15. but a losing, if the offender heare him? and what is, be he vnto thee as a Heathen and a Publican vers. 17. if hee will not heare, but a binding? and yet these [Page 223] allowed to one man or two, though priuate persons, if the sense were as the obiectour would haue it, and not to Mi­nisters onely. Againe here is no mention made of any Mi­nisters; neither doth Christ in this Chapter speake of any particular office of publike persons, but of such things as concerned the people of God, euen the Iewes 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 agree with the rest? for although these words may carry such a shew, as to draw this verse to the Ministerie onely, by the foresaid mistaking, yet if it be obserued: first, that the words are generall: secondly, that therefore the exposition of a generall may be brought to a necessarie co­herence of diuerse particulars: thirdly, that our Sauiour in some sort expounds this difficultie 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 confirme the peace made betweene the two parties, eyther alone, or with their witnesses, declaring how acceptable it is to God, least it should be despised: there is no cause why this 18. verse should make a iarre in the apt exposition of all the former and latter verses, agreeing very fitly together. To conclude, it cannot be denyed, but that to binde and lose, be­long vnto the Ministerie, which power our Sauiour gaue his Apostles afterward: Iohn. 20. 23. which they did, and Ministers now doe performe by vertue of their office stan­ding in Christs roome and stead, and so doe they binde and lose otherwise then doe common Christians, yet it there­fore followes not, that these Christians doe not or may not binde or lose at all. Ministers doe pray, teach and endeuor to bring men to Christ, and this is his office, and as publike persons; yet others may teach also: so are Parents com­manded,Deut. and euery Christian man is bound to edifie his bro­ther, 1. Thes. 5. 11. but not by authoritie of speciall office, or as publike persons, such as Ministers be. And therefore we see this Ob­iection also doth nothing hinder the exposition.

Sixtly, therefore hence may be concluded, that this place [Page 224] is not, nor cannot be a rule for discipline, though it be chosen as the foundation whereupon the gouernment 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-go­uernment ab­solutely.

Reason. 2 Secondly, because Christ Iesus neuer did intermeddle in any outward gouernment, no not so much as to controle the abuse which then was publike through the high Priests Simonie; much lesse did hee erect a new gouernment by publike doctrine.

Reason. 3 Thirdly, because it is confessed, that by the word Church is meant the Iewes Sinedrion, & therfore if Christs gouernment be here established, it should be answerable to the Iewish Si­nedrion; but the Apostles in no place euer set it vp, or any like it, neyther giueth the least taste thereof in any of their writings; and saith a learned man, I rest secure that no ancient father euer made the gouernment of Christ answerable therunto. That no such thing was in the Apostles dayes these reasons shew: the Apostles prescribe no order, nor giue instruction to them: in Churches out of order there is no reproofe 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 vse; which with all or some of these things, should some where haue beene mentioned, if any such thing had beene.

Reason. 4 Fourthly, if here gouernment be established, it is eyther [...] [...]. 18. Popular, E iscopall, or Presbiterian: but saith Beza not Po­pular, and auoucheth that such as doe take here the word Church for the assembly of the whole multitude, doe erre very grosely: and say others, not Episcopall authoritie: and say wee, not the Presbiterian power mixt, as wee say of Lay men and Church men; and therefore if all these say true, there is here constituted no gouernment at all.

Reason. 5 Fiftly, if here be a rule of discipline from Christ, then is it eyther perfect or imperfect; if they say imperfect, let them declare where else is a more perfect rule for it, or any supply [Page 225] made else where to perfect it in all the new Testament. If they say it is perfect, then is all sorts of sinne here brought in, subiect to the Churches censure, wherein the Church may intermeddle; then also here is comprehended all the parts which they doe make of discipline. But first, here a man is not to proceed against his Brother for any sinne; as not for sinne against God, for sinne against the Magistrate, for sinne against another: but for trespasses against himselfe, as the words be, trespasse against thee, which in the LordsMat 6. Prayer, and in this Chapter wee be taught to forgiue: butMat. 18. by what warrant can a man remit trespasses done against another? how can hee pardon rebellion against God? or publike crimes against the Magistrate? if a man commit murther, by the order here, the partie which first seeth him, must tell him of it; and if the Offender shew penitencie, the other is to rest silent, contrary to reason and religion else­where; and therefore as before is said, here onely is vnder­stood personall iniuries to a mans selfe, and no discipline ordained to vrge priuate persons to proceed thus for sinnes against God, against Magistrates and other men. Againe, this is a rule for sinnes priuate and more secret, but not for publike and open sinne. Secondly, it is no perfect rule for the parts of discipline, not for suspention, if any such thing be, it is here wholy 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 deliuered to Sathan, or put out him from among you: but let him be as a Heathen and Publicane; by which our Sauiour doth permit the partie oppressed to seeke further remedie, 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 ought, but referres him ouer againe to the plain­tiffe, the priuate partie offended, which in the order of discipline is not so. Thirdly, our Sauiour in all the degrees of proceeding, doth make the first partie offended the principall; hee must admonish, hee must take witnesses, he must [Page 226] tell the Church, and to him must the man he as a Heathen and Publicane. In all which is plainly a proceeding in a personall action betweene partie and partie. Fourthly, our Sauiour saith not, when he speakes 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, hee would haue done, had he herein intended to aduance the Churches authoritie in disciplinarie causes: but let it be noted, that here our Sauiour makes not the Church Oyer and determiner, no nor to doe more then the very witnesses, neyther doth it proceed further then they, but onely the partie offended is allowed to goe on. Therefore may it be concluded, that our Sauiour herein did not in­tend to aduance the Churches authoritie and gouernment thereof, but a priuate and personall 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 publike punishment, for hee allowes the Plaintiffe to tell the Church, the delinquent despising the Church, shee is not taught here to excommunicate him, but onely to send him backe to the Complainant: but thus it is not in Church discipline.

Reason. 7 Seauenthly, if discipline were here grounded; then the Church must iudge in euery cause between partie & partie, and so intermeddle in ciuill affaires, and enter vpon the bounds of Magistracie: which how well the same may be de­fended, is not yet manifested: albeit some haue brought it into act vpon their vnderstanding so this place, allowing themselues vnder the name of sinne, of offending a brother: to bring any matter, that may fall out betweene man and man before the Church; euen to a Taylors making of a Dublet and a paire of Hose.

Reason. 8 Eightly, if here be the rule of gouernment, then cannot the Church of it self call by Summons any offender before it: but must stay till any offended will come & informe the Church of the person offending, for here is it only expres­ly set downe. Now the Disciplinarian course altereth from [Page 227] this place, and therefore they erre from their ground in this point, without warrant from hence.

And thus it appeareth how litle this place (as Diuines doe expound it, doth serue for Discipline in christian Churches. If any doe aske, why I alledge not the Authors of eueryWhy testimo­nies of men are not alled­ged. Reason; my answere is, for that I see reasons to receiue pre­judice by the persons: a weake reason is by the countenance of a man of fame made stronger then it is; and a sollide rea­son of one of no great note, is condemned through the meane estimation of the person: wee doe conclude by rea­son, and liue by the faith of the word of God, which two are sufficient to guide euery reasonable Christian man, though the parties alledging the same be not nominated.

And thus haue I euidently layd open, what varietie of iudgement there is in this matter of Gouernment, as aWhat manner of gouern­ment is to be wished. point vndeterminable by meane wits: for my part, I wish gouernment to be such, as may agree with the generall A­postolicall rules of guiding particular actions, most for the furtherance of the Gospel, the peoples saluation, the main­tenance of sound Doctrine, the reformation of the ill dispo­sed: that most may serue for the ouerthrow of Antichrists Kingdome and power, and for the preseruation of vnitie in the whole Church, and in the particular members of the same, not neglecting for worldly policie the holy Scrip­tures, or lightly esteeming of the Apostles practises, or ap­proued antiquitie, an vniuersall consent of the Churches of God; which hee grant vs for his glory and praise for euer. And thus much may serue for Reply, to M^r. Ainsworths answere to this seauenth Errour: for touching that he saith, Where all sinne, they be all subiect to punishment: it is not de­nyed; and is idle, and nothing to the matter in question: which is: Whether the sinne of one notorious man, defileth the whole Congregation, though many therein lament it, and are vexed in their soules, for that such a one is not punished by lawfull authoritie? He maketh one to sinne, and all other to sinne with him, and so to deserue the same iudgement, which is a matter not called into question. But ere I end [Page 228] with him in this, let it be well obserued, what a people hee onely allowes men to separate from: first, an Assembly, What people only M^r. Ains­worth allow­eth men to separate from. not Gods Church; secondly, which with an high hand sinneth and blasphemeth the Lord; thirdly, whose sacrifice is abho­minable; fourthly, that wherein it cannot be said, that any holy thing is lawfully administred; fiftly, wherein all doe agree to maintaine open iniquitie; sixtly, which doth dispise the word of God calling them to repentance: If they doe not thus (saith he) wee hold it not lawfull to separate from them, nor in any wise at any time, till all holy and orderly meanes be vsed to re­claime them. Whence therefore it may necessarily be ga­thered that M^r. Ainsworth either doth censure vs to be such a people (and if so, what more accursed diudgement can be giuen against vs?) or els their separation, by his owne mouth condemning it, is vnlawfull.

Mr. Smiths Answere to this seauenth Errour, and a Reply thereunto.

Master Smith would prooue the position true, by onePage. 71. maine Reason, that Christs Ministeriall power is giuen to the Church: whence he concludeth a pollution in euery member, that liueth where any open knowne sinne is suffe­red, as a consenter thereunto; if the partie offending be not reformed, & separation made for the same, after due admo­nition. Hauing thus laied his ground, he gathereth conclusi­ons. But I haue already shewed els where before, that the Mi­nisteriall power is not giuen to the Church; and the chiefe proofe for that is, Mat. 18. which how Diuines expound it, is also shewed: therefore his immediate ground for de­fence of this Errour being very false, and the ground of that ground very vncertaine, his Conclusions are vaine, and nothing worth.

For the place to the Corinths. 1. Ep. chap. 5. verse. 6.1. Cor. 5. 6. Answered. where a prouerbiall speech of the Apostle is vrged: I an­swere, that the words be a similie, and must be inlarged no [Page 229] farther then the nature of the thing is: it is true that sinne is as Leauen, and the people in one Assembly is as a lumpe, in which a wicked man is as Leauen; but we must know the Leauen leaueneth not the whole lumpe wherin it is put but as it is mingled with the whole lumpe, and as euery part of that same taketh the Leauen, els it is not leauened: So is it with the Church, such as allow and any way communicate with the wicked man in his sin, they are leauened; but such as Cloe, reprouing the offender, and complaining there­of, seeking as they may in their place Reformation, they are not leauened, because they doe not take Leauen. Be­ware of the Leauen of the Pharises (saith our Sauiour) he willeth not his disciples to leaue the Assemblies: but to take heed they take no Leauen of them: shewing thereby, that a godly and carefull Christian may be where Leauen is, and yet not be leauened with them. Againe the Apo­stle doth not say that the Corinthians are leauened, but rather the contrary in the same place, Yee are vnleauened: Verse 7. which the Apostle would neuer haue said, if the incestu­ous man had leauened them Further more the Apostle no where doth teach men to draw this Doctrine of poluti­on, and so separation from it, though he had cause often speaking of sins and corruptions to vrge it, had he euer in­tended it, as this man doth vrge it. He cyteth some pla­cesNum. 19. 13. 20. in the old Testament, precepts ceremoniall, which hee applyeth to the new (as he pleaseth) to which I haue madeHag. 2. 14. answere before, and now I say onely this; let him proue by Gods spirit, that is, by the words of the holy Ghost in the new Testament, any such intendement of Doctrine shadowed out therein vnto vs, as he frameth to himselfe, and then he thereby neither shall be deceiued, nor deceiue others. If any such thing had beene meant thereby, the Apostle who had iust occasion to speake of it, in 1. Cor. 5. 6. where hee speakes of Leauen, would not haue forgot­ten such places to haue vrged them here; or in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, or some where that the Church of Christ might not haue erred from the true vse thereof, nor haue [Page 230] lost the great benefit which might haue come to it there­by. His last reason is, because Kings and Priests neglecting their dutie were polluted with the sinnes of such as they should haue punished: and therefore saith hee, so is the whole Church now. The force of this reason is, because he maketh the people, euen all common Christians, now Kings and Priests, euen in externall gouernment, as the Kings and Priests ruled in the old Testament. But how here­by he ouerthrowes the Kings Supremacie; how falsely he interprets the names of Kings and Priests giuen to Christi­ans now, I leaue for all to iudge. This Error of Popular pow­er is his ground-worke also for his answeres to my reasons, against this seauenth Errour, on which stringe hee often harpeth in seeking to confute my arguments.

In my former Booke, Page 103. I shew first what is notWhat it is, not to consent to sinne. a consenting to sinne, and so on the contrary what it is to consent: first not in iudgement to approue of it, after the measure of his vnderstanding: secondly, not in affection to like of the same: thirdly, not to be silent at it, but in place fitly to reproue it: fourthly, in countenance to mani­fest dislike thereof: fiftly in life to be contrary, and to pra­ctise vertue: sixtly, not to be carelesse of it, but to seeke the reformation thereof in his place, as farre as hee is able; this I say, is not to consent to sinne in others, though the party offending remaine in the congregation, and though such a partie not consenting, come to the holy things of God, when the other commeth also.

M^r. Smith to this answers, that I do falsly interpret con­sent,Page 73. M^r. Smiths Answere. for saith he, a man may doe all this, and yet consent: and he would proue it by Ely, 1. Sam. 2. 12. 23. who did all this (as he imagineth) and yet for that hee did not to the vtmost which the word required at his hands, to wit, to put his sonnes to death, hee did consent to them, and so forth: In like manner (saith hee) except men make a sepa­ration, they doe not to the vtmost of the word, and so doe consent.

Reply. M^r. Smith thinkes I come short in setting out consent, Page. 73. [Page 231] and I thinke that he farre ouer-reacheth: for though Ely did not all he ought, yet can it not be said, that he consen­ted vnto them This should he haue proued, but he leaues it because he cannot proue that consent is when men shew dislike of sin, as I haue said, and yet doe faile in some de­gree. Ely was not guiltie of sinne, for consent to their sinne, but for neglect of part of his dutie. Againe, his example is not fit; Ely was a publike person, and a Iudge, but our speech was of priuate men: Ely went not so farre as hee might and ought, but priuate persons can goe no further to reforme then in the degrees mentioned. Touching sepa­ration for personall faults I haue shewed it not to be lawfull, but Schismaticall. His alledged Scriptures to prooue sepa­ration, the first, Act. 2. 4. is altogether idle, the secondAct. 2. 4. and 19. 9. Act. 19. 9. vnderstood of separation from blasphemers of Christ, and a people which thereby became no Church, and therefore is nothing to proue a priuate man to separate from a true Church, for the personall 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 haue shewed what is not to consent to sin, I proue in the 104. of my former Booke byGodly are not polluted by some wicked comming to the Sacra­ment. many reasons, that such as doe not consent as is before de­clared, are not polluted by the sinne of an other obstinately im­penitent therein, though the godly come to the holy things of God, and that wicked partie come also to the same.

Reason. 1 First, I say, there was no sacrifice for such a pollution vn­der the law, and yet for all other; and therefore this was not vnder 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 Ioab no doubt, also the soones [...]ly, with whom were some fearing God; yet doe we neuer read, that it was accounted a sinne to the godly, neither did they euer of­fer sacrifice to make an attonement vnto God for it, as a pollution, that we read of.

But he saith there was a sacrifice appointed, & he bringsPage. 74. Obiection. the example of Beniamits consenting to sin, Iud. 19. and 20 [Page 232] the Israelites fearing for the Altar made, Iosh. 22. and A­chans sinnes, for which wrath came on Israel. Iosh. 7.

Answere. But what of all these, Reader? is here any mention of any sacrifice for godly men comming to Gods worship, because wicked men came too? Hee lost his wits as he did here the question when he alledged these. But hee saith, there was a sacrifice for the sinne of the whole Congregation. Leu. 4. 13. Ergo, a sacrifice for the godly being in Gods seruice with some wicked. How the place proueth this and his reason­lesse reasoning maketh good his purpose I see not.

Reason. 2 Secondly, I say, that godly people in the old Testament are neuer any where reproued for being at the administration of ho­ly things, though wicked men were there. It is not mentioned by any Prophet to be a sinne; there is no precept forbidding it; there is no example of punishment vpon any for so do­ing: it is not therefore a sinne. Indeed the Priests were re­proued for not separating the cleane from the vncleane,Ezech. 22. 26. because it was their office so to doe.

M^r. Smith to this answeres thus: first, that their com­munionPage. 74. Obiection. then was typical, and their persons typically cleane, though wicked in their liues, and so could not pollute one another: secondly, hee saith, that the carnall Priests in the old Testament, were type of the Saints in the new Testa­ment, who succeeded as spirituall Priests, and therefore are polluted by not distinguishing and separating the cleane from the vncleane now.

Answere. But this typicall conceit, is but a tipp of his fantastical­nesse: hee doth not denie my reason giuen, onely he would take it away by this his dreame. My reason being most strong against him, and without contradiction in all the old Testament, he nor any of the Separation being able to ouerthrow it, this deuise is coyned from his forge, vn­couth and vnheard of heretofore, and now barely auouch­ed without proofe: when hee doth proue his typicall toy­ing by any Apostolicall exposition out of the new Testa­ment, hee shall receiue answere answerable thereunto. Hee would make the people of God in the old Law a carnall [Page 233] generation, to be meerely in shadowes, as if the Law mo­rall were not in their couenant, that wicked men then could not pollute, for onely sacrifycing some beast, and yet no­thing now, no professe of faith in Christ, no asking pardon for sinne, as men doe, that say the Lords prayer, and in the Assembly, euery Lords day, confesse their sinnes, and craue pardon, can preuent pollution, but eyther 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 Iude ver. 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. Iude verse 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. The first shewes wee are called in Christ, Kings and Priests: Ergo, so outwardly in the church by office? Proue this Consequence. How doth it follow to reason from carnall, as hee cals it, to spirituall; from an outward office, to inward grace? hee is void of wit and grace, who reasoneth thus to deceiue the simple. The second place, by which at his breaking out here he deceiued so ma­ny, is expounded and fully answered by M^r. Ainsworth inA booke inti­tuled, A defence of the holy scrip­ture, &c. pag. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. his Answere to M^r. Smiths Booke of Differences, in which Answere Mr. Ainsworth doth note in Mr. Smith, Dotage, blindenesse of heart in iudgeing spirituall things; blasphemie in wretchedly expounding this place; that hee was induced to this impietie by being deceiued by Sathan; and that hee interpreteth Scripture after his owne fantasie: all which hee by reason manifests vnto him, in confuting his false exposition, and giuing a more likely sense of it himselfe, to which I incline, and so I commend it to him, as my Answere hereto at this time. The third Scripture is to no purpose: the last, which hee brings in so often, haue I answered before. Hee makes an obiection himselfe, and answeres it himselfe, so as it is out of his owne braine; the summe whereof is, what before Page 30. hee deliuered, touching typicall cleansing, though the party were morally vncleane: to which Mr. Ainsworth in the foresaid booke, Page 119. answeres, and saith, that herein Mr. Smith is not onely a typicall but a reall Seducer and deceiuer of mindes indeed: and giueth both reasons to [Page 234] manifest Mr. Smiths absurdities, and also alledgeth many Scriptures to confute his folly herein.

Reason. 3 Thirdly, I say, that the Prophets neyther taught this doctrine, neither made separation from holy things, for the wickednesse of other men, which they would haue done had it beene sinne: for they mentioned many euils, rebuked both Priests and people; commanded also Separation where the Lord commanded; but such a corruption as is here suppo­sed they neyther mentioned by word, nor shewed by practise. Therefore vnder the Law, there was no such thing.

To this Mr. Smith answeres principally to two things: first,Page 76. Obiection. that the people then made no Separation, because the vtmost meanes to reforme abuses was in the Magistrate, and so ought to depend vpon the Lord for redresse of things, to wit, by the Ma­gistrate.

Answere. Marke Reader, how he passeth by one thing; that I say, the Prophets taught no such thing; so he leaueth the doctrine, the rule of practise, and bables of Practise, before he proue the former: and yet what he saith is very much for vs, who haue christian Magistrates, whose authoritie cannot be now lesse vnder Christ, then vnder the Law; which if he deny, then must hee recall his oath, which he hath sworne for the maintenance of Princely supremacy vnder the Gospell. A lawlesse man, in a lawlesse place may not say any thing a­gainst God and against his Soueraigne.

Obiection: Secondly, saith hee, in the old Testament the people were necessarilie tyed to the Kingdome, Priest-hood, and Temple, for the worship and obedience of God.

Answere. If this be true, then was it no sinne that good men and openly wicked were mixed; for God doth not tye men ne­cessarily to sinne: and being no sinne then, it is no sinne now: all sinne now is morall, and the summe of it is com­prehended in the Law morall; if then it could not thence be gathered, neyther can it now there-from be collected. So as his reasons are good for vs not to make such a Separation, and against himselfe.

Reason. 4 Fourthly, I say, that the holy Scripture plainely teacheth the contrary: and that many wayes.

First, by acquiting him that is godly from the transgression of other men, though they be mixed together in the partaking of Gods ordinances, as these Scriptures proue. 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 beWhat may be collected from these scriptures. read, and the vnderstanding Reader may see, first, a diffe­rence betweene the godly and wicked: secondly, one mans transgression is not laid to the charge of another: thirdly, that God approues of the godly, though intermix­ed with the wicked: fourthly, that godly men may keepe themselues vndefiled, 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 speake of pollution by the sinne of another, and yet if he had intended any such doctrine, in these places he had most fit occasion for the same.

M^r. Smiths idle answere is thus much in effect, that the Page. 77. Obiection. places doe not acquite men, who are eyther principals or acces­saries to other mens sinnes.

Answere. This I deny not, neyther is it my intendment in the alle­gation: for he that is eyther a Leader or an abettour of o­thers in sinne, is a sinner himselfe, not because the other sin­neth, but for that the person himselfe counselleth to wic­kednesse, or maintaineth it. But if a man doe auoid sinne in the degrees elsewhere mentioned, hee is not polluted. And againe he passeth by my drift to proue that by these places those that feare God may pertake of holy things, though the wicked come thereunto, and not be polluted: hee omitteth this, and tels vs of men partaking together in sinne, which is not in question.

Secondly, by declaring it to be a sinne, for the godly to leaue the worship of God, for the wickednesse of other men comming thereunto. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17. Where the place is plainely con­tradictorie to his assertion, and the translation is good, as learned and iudicious Diuines doe hold, and haue so written [Page 236] vnto him in priuate, answering him fully, what he could ob­ject against this place, by a Reioynder of theirs vnto his Reply, to which (euer since he fled from vs) he hath beene silent; and albeit the pride of his heart, will not let him acknowledge his false glosse; yet hee lets his hold goe, and runneth to his former, vaine, and carnall conceite of the onely Ceremoniall cleannesse in the old Law, sufficient, asPage. 78. he thinkes, to keep them from all morall pollution of any sonne of Belial: of which enough is spoken before, vnto so an absurd and vnproued Assertion.

Thirdly, (which is in my other Booke my first reason,) the Holy Scripture admitteth men, and granteth them libertie to come to the holy things of God, though wicked men openly sinning be there, so be it that a man walke well himselfe, as it becommeth him towards God, and without doing wrong to his neighbour, Mat. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. whereMatt. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. the Apostle speaking of abuses among the Corinthians pre­scribes a remedie, euery man to examine himselfe, and so to eate: hee commands not to examine an other; nor to marke how others haue liued, but how they haue behaued themselues; hee tels not that any comming vnprepared polluteth the Congregation, but the offender eateth dam­nation to himselfe: hee speakes nothing of pollution, no­thing of separation, which had beene very necessarie vpon this occasion to haue taught, if Gods spirit had euer in­structed them therein: especially if wee consider how after once or twise admonition, they did not amend. 2. Cor. 12. 21.

M^r. Smith answers that of Mat. 5. 23. 24. by giuing thePage. 78. Obiection. Exposition of it; that a man not rebuking his brother, doth hate him.

Answere. But who seeth not his abusing of the word, and therein Gods spirit, by peruerting his meaning: for the word Re­concile, and to win his brother againe, importeth iust cause of displeasure in the partie to be reconciled, taken from the partie going to sacrifice, which cannot be for not repro­uing him; for who is so offended because another man [Page 237] rebukes him not, as for it, he will be out with him? and for which the partie omitting of his duetie, is not to proceed on to worship God? It is meant of personall wrongs and iniuries, and not of omitting the dutie of admonition: none but a man compounded of santasies, and audaciously bold in his conceits, would euer vnderstand the place so, con­trary to the iudgement of all men, the proprietie of speech, and common reason it selfe. Our Sauiour speakes before of ill tearmes, and railing, and then doth conclude this rule thereupon: neither are the wordes thus, if thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thou Mat. 5. 23. 24. hast some what against thy brother; to wit, a dutie of admoni­tion to be performed, for his offending thee: but the words are, that thy brother hath ought against thee: so is it not an ill in him not reproued by thee, but an ill in thee, for which thou oughtest to giue to him satisfaction. The place, Leui. Leuit. 19. 17. Expounded. 19. 17. alledged to shew, that such as doe not rebuke an­other for any sinne they see him commit, doth therefore hate him, is (as I take it) misalledged: for it is vnderstood of hatred arising in mans heart for wrongs receiued by an­other. A man iniured, naturally hateth the offending par­tie,Example in Absalom. 2 Sam. 13. 22. and rather willeth to goe on with hatred in his heart, then to come vnto the offender louingly to tell him in plaine tearmes of it, to cause him to surcease to sinne. Now the Lord here meeteth with this cankered corruption of the heart, & willeth euen the partie receiuing wrong, rather to goe and deale plainely with his aduersarie to winne him, then to let him rest in his wrong doing, and himselfe still to carry hatred against him also for the same. The place is meant therefore of personall wrongs, as the very next verse 18. doth declare, where he speakes of auenging, and of mindefulnesse 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 shew that omission of our dutie to rebuke, is hatred of our brother, but that plainely to rebuke him, is a meanes to winne him, and so to remoue hatred out of our owne hearts.

His answere to 1. Cor. 11. 28. is, that it is meant of suchPage 78. 1. Cor. 11. 28. Obiection. an examination, as hath regard of the rule in Mat. 18. 15. 17. wherein if we faile, we are polluted, and so cannot eate and drincke without hurt and iudgement.

Answere. 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 haue shewed what Diuines doe thinke.

To the 2. Cor. 12. 21. hee answeres, that I must prouePage 78. 79. 2. Cor. 12. 21. Obiect. to make this good, that the Corinthians were impenitent in sinne; first, that they despised Pauls second admonition: and secondly, that then the faithfull did keepe communion without sinne.

Answere. My proofe 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 sinne; neither had sinned, though some had not obeyed at the Apostles second admonition: for that (as I haue pro­ued) this doctrine of pollution is not warranted by Gods word, though impenitent men remaine in the Assembly of the Saints. And to stand vpon their not regarding the se­cond Admonition of the Apostle, it is needlesse: first, si­then 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 euils were open, & not secret or priuate, which must not be therefore proceeded in after Mat. 18. Thirdly, because one Admo­nition of an Apostle, was more then two of priuate men; yea, not onely equall, but greater then the admonition of the whole Church, so as to despise but once his Admoniti­on was as much as if they had beene admonished in the third degree, according to the rule in Matthew, as hee would here ignorantly haue it. Thus that which hee held to be too hard a taske for me, I haue easily gone thorow, and how sufficiently to satisfie an indifferent Reader, I leaue others to iudge.

Reason. 5 Lastly, I say, that this his doctrine of pollution by commixion [Page 239] with the wicked, dissolues the bonds of allegeance betweene God and his people. As if because another doth sinne, I may not doe my dutie to God: Hee will come to the Sacrament, therefore may not I? he offendeth God, therefore may not I serue him? What Diuinitie is this? what King may haue subiects, what Master his seruants by this doctrine full of folly and confusion?

M^r. Smiths answere is, that communion must be kept,Page. 79. Obiection. but not with Iewes, Turkes, Pagans, Papists, and that com­munion must be performed after a holy manner.

Answere. All this I acknowledge, what is this to the Argument? hee doth not apt it to the matter, when he doth his answere shall be thereafter. He tels vs that the bond of allegeance is preserued by their doctrine, to wit, by their position, that is, this seauenth Errour before mentioned; because he saith they may not keepe among impenitent sinners, and that their communion must be kept after a holy manner. The first of these vnderstood according to his instances deliue­red, is not to the question, and vnderstanding it of wicked in a true Church, is the matter in question, and so he would proue the same by the same. For the latter, it needeth also proofe; that communion with God and godly men is not kept holy betweene them, because some ill disposed come in, and pertake of that communion visibly. As if the guests at the feast had not beene 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 lesse accep­table, and he onely punished; so is it with the godly and wic­ked in the Church comming together to the Lords Table.

In the third and last place, in my former booke, Page, 108 by certaine principall heads, to which all the causes of true separation may be reduced, I doe shew how men may see the dec [...]i [...] of the Separatists in vrging scriptures for separation from vs impertinently. Places vnder the Law are referred to theseTo 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 Iudah from Israels calues. [Page 240] 3. From ceremoniall pollution. Places vnder the Gospell are to be referred to these topick places. 1. From Iewes not recei­uing Christ, but rayling on his very person. 2. From Gentiles without Christ. 3. From Antichrist and his assemblies, where he is acknowledged head, and whence all receiue their power, as the now Church of Rome, and all in subiection to it. 4. From priuate familiarity with open offenders and excommunicate per­sons, in a true christian Church, vnnecessarily; when neither Religion commaunds, Charitie bindeth, nor our speciall cal­ling warranteth vs so to doe. If all the Scriptures may be re­duced onely to these heads, and so intended, and not other­wise, then all places are peruerted which be alledged, first, to separate from true Churches for personall corruptions, or for When places alledged for separation are peruerted. some defects, or for some superfluous things: secondly, to sepa­rate our selues from the holy word and Sacraments, because some impenitent liue vnreformed in the same: thirdly, for the separatists to abuse any of the places, speaking of separation to maintaine their Schisme, and to apply them against vs, except they can proue vs to be some such as the Scriptures intend, and that we be some of these.

Indeed M^r. Smith saith, for what will he not say? that we Page 80. are Idolaters, and that we make Idols of the true God, &c. But sithen he but saith it, and what he saith is as very false, as foo­lish, and as absurd, as farre from truth, I end this here with him, as vnworthie answere, as the Reader may iudge.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this ninth Errour.

NOw I come to M. Ainsworths Answere to my former Booke, in which, as now more at large in this, I speake of the gifts, calling, &c. of our Ministers so qualified.

Obiection. Obiect. To this he maketh this answere, that it is a boast­ing Page 186. as Papists and Anabaptists will doe, &c.

Answere. Ans. I answere his imputation of boasting is but a fruit of his owne vanitie, who in their way of singularitie by an ouer-weening of themselues, doe measure vnto vs, what a­bundantly flowes from themselues. The Papists (saith hee) doe obiect such things, but doe they, or can they so truely obiect them to vs, as wee by the warrant of the word, can obiect them to these men? if not, his casting the Papists boasting vpon vs, is idle: hee doth dislike the Anabaptists boasting; out of that let them liuely see their owne Picture, bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, as naturall chil­dren, liuely sprung from their immediate Parents. For the grounds of the Brownists, Schismatically Separating from vs, are the Anabaptists foundation, on which they built their hereticall brotherhood. But I come to the particulars, which in my other booke hee doth except against.

Obiection. Obiect. First, he denieth that qualification with good gifts is Page 186. a proofe of a lawfull Minister.

Answere. Answ. To which I answere that by dismembring what I haue conioyned, he doth but deceiue the Reader: for thisM. Ainswroth doth seuer de­ceitfully what I conioyne to­gether. reason with the rest together, reckoned vp in my former Booke, and whereof I haue now in this also before largely spoken, doe shew and proue who is a true Minister. Hee vseth in the beginning this deceit with his Reader, as I haue noted in my reply to his answere vnto my Probabili­ties. I neuer dreamed that one qualified with gifts for the Ministery 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 hee a true Minister of Christ Let this his setting a sunder of the particular branches of my whole reason be noted, that hee lead thee not from that truth, which I auouch.

Obiection. Obiect. Secondly, hee excepteth against our Ministers Page 187. calling, and his ground is, because (saith hee) our Church is not a true Church.

Answere. An. But wee see this his condemning of our Church to be altogether from his imagination, and now also proued to be flat against the euident truth: his sandy ground hath made his building weake. Touching his other questions, I refer him for resolution, to the practise of our Church, the Lawes, and Constitutions therof, as also to the statutes and ordinances of our nation, by which hee may be instructed and receiue satisfaction to his scoffing demands, and for further information he may read the bookes of diuers who haue written at large of the same.

Thirdly, whereas I haue auouched in my former Booke, that there be many Ministers, Preachers in & of the Church of England, who doe preach the true doctrine of Christ, admi­nister onely his Sacraments, performe their office faithfully, liue conscionably, and haue Gods gracious assistance in their mini­sterie to the benefit of many, &c.

Obiection. Obiect. He saith, these be faire words, &c. as but barely affirmed without proofe.

Answere. Ans. Surely, I must confesse, that I had not though [Page 305] any of them so farre voide of shame to denie this truth. Is it possible that such as pretend such a care to maintaine truth, should so hood-wincke themselues, as they dare so impu­dently deny this truth, euidently shining among vs, the beams whereof spread forth vnto all the reformed Churches in Christendome? But how would hee disproue my speech? forsooth, for that there be some carelesse of teaching a­mong vs, and of loose life, (whose amendement or remo­uall I heartily wish,) and for that some be dumb and cannot preach; a thing greatly to be lamented. But how doth this ouerthrow what I say of many others, where did hee learne to conclude thus, where some are bad, all are nought; where some cannot preach, there none can preach? and yet this is his manner of reasoning, if hee did frame his superfluitie of words into a more solide reasoning, as the vnderstanding Reader may well see. Hee shewes a gibing and mocking spirit, in speaking of our ordinarie prayers, wherein he takes pleasure, it seemeth, to haue vs in dirision, but as he doth it prophanely, so also hee writeth of vs lyingly: for mentio­ning only such things, as be appointed in common & daily prayer, as occasions fall out, hee saith, that this is enough for Priests (so hee in contempt doth tearme vs) to doe in the Country Parishes: and yet hee omitteth to reckon the reading of the holy Scriptures, which is appointed by the same Booke: likewise hee may see that euery Minister vpon paine of suspension, is to Catechise his people euery Lords day, and euery one that can, is to preach also euery Lords day, by our late Ecclesiasticall constitutions, and therefore it is vntrue which hee saith, that the bare reading of ordinary prayers is enough. They professe a loue vnto the truth, & yet dare against truth belie the church of God, & their mother.

Obiection. Obiect. Fourthly, hee sayth, that my speaking of Mi­nisters Page 189. conuerting soules, is but a vaine boasting. His reasons be: First, because of our (as hee saith) disordered and idola­trous estate, &c.

Answere. Ans. I answere, first, this is more then he hath proued, hee barely saith it, but giueth no reason, as was meete in so [Page 306] grieuous an accusation of a whole Church. Is it true that wee be Idolatrous, because M. Ainsworth saith so? when his words are a diuine and an vnerring Oracle, hee may be be­leeued: till then, his words are herein, but as winde. Second­ly, I answere, that therefore by his reason, it is more likely that our Ministers here should conuert some, because many are bad, for if all were good, there were no matter to worke vpon. If hee meane that all are Idolatrous, and disorderly, all lamentably ignorant and prophane, hee is as impious in himselfe for so thinking, as ill conceited of vs.

Obiection. Obiect. Secondly, he would proue our conuerting of some to be but a vaine boasting, because such as be conuerted are (as hee saith) Infidels before, and yet are members of our Church, which how it can stand with the rules of Gods word, hath (as hee confesseth) neuer yet beene shewed.

Answere. An. Well therfore, I will shew: first, that here is conuersion in the Church, and secondly, that yet such so conuerted, were not before that conuersion Infidels.

The first I thus proue: If men in our Church formerlyThere is true conuersion in our Church. prophane and irreligious in many things, haue visibly for­saking that lewd course, by no compulsarie law of man, but by an inward feare of God wrought by Gods word preach­ed,Many of the latter sort de­parted from vs. as themselues haue confessed, then haue such men beene conuerted, and so a true conuersion wrought in our Church by the Ministerie of the word. The latter will not be denyed, if the former be proued: for what is a mans vi­sible conuersion, but an outward confession of sorrow for sinne, a leauing of the same, and an endeuour to doe well voluntarily, after the good pleasure of God, manifested vnto him? Prou. 28. 13. Mat. 3. 6. Luke 15. 18. 21 24. But such a conuersion hath beene, and is daily wrought in our Church, and the instances are infinite. For proofe of this, I referre him vnto many thousands now with vs, who will auouch thus much, and I also appeale to the hearts and consciences of such of themselues as are departed from vs. Did they not here leaue off to doe wickedly, as na­ture first led them? did they not reioyce in the word, which [Page 307] before they carelesly neglected? did they not suffer mocks of others, once like themselues, for not still running to the same excesse of ryot, as in times before? And did they notEzech. 18. 30. out of compassion to others, seeke as they were comman­ded, the soules safetie of others? and all this by the word, and voluntary subiecting of themselues vnto the same; God, Angels, and their owne consciences doe witnesse this to be true, if they dare denie it. But I hope better of some, who I trust (at the length) will see our Church to be a true Church, and returne, as some haue done to their mother againe, or at the least will reforme their opinions, vnto the godly iudgements of the reformed Churches, as they hold of vs, and louingly consent with vs, that God may shew them mercie in this their great schisme, and gricuous ren­ding of Gods Church, to the hinderance of the Gospell, and the great aduantage of the enemies thereof.Men conuer­ted in our Church, were not before In­fidels.

The second point, viz. that such so conuerted are no Infidels before, I manifest, first, by distinction, for there is a double conuersion, 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 Romanes, Corinthians, Ephe­sians and the rest conuerted from Gentilisme to Christi­anitie: the other is secondarily to sanctification of life, and this is of members in the Church, who are not borne in perso­nall holinesse, but are brought to a godly conuersation by the word in their appointed time. And thus is the word to conuert or returne vsed in Scripture, and vnderstood 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. Iere 31. 18. 19. Luk. 22. 32. and therefore this conuersion doth not presuppose infidelitie, as the not pro­fession of Christ doth. Secondly, If where conuersion is, there must needs be also before infidelitie, then when men doe sall to Idolatrie from God, and be brought backe a­gaine, that is, be conuerted; then must there be a rebapti­sation; for Infidels are to be baptised. This man, M^r. Ains­worth and M^r. Iohnson also, doth acknowledge a conuersion [Page 308] now from Antichristianisme, are therefore all such before Infidels? then hath not M. Smith done ill to be againe baptised: for whosoeuer in the scripture are called Infidels, are wholy without the Church, and must by baptisme be admitted into the Church: hee vseth to quote Scripture often, if he vse but a word, or doe but allude vnto a place of Scripture, why doth he not here quote Scripture to proue the vse of the tearme Infidell? let him (if hee be able) shew that any by the Scriptures are called Infidels, who pro­fesse the Name of Christ, though very lewd in life and con­uersation: if hee cannot, as I am sure hee cannot, why doth he herein leaue the Scripture, and take vpon him besides and against Scripture, so to conclude as here he doth?

Two Scriptures I quoted in my former Booke Rom. 10.Page 129. Rom. 10. 14. 1. Cor. 9. 2. 14. 15. and 1. Cor. 9. 2. joyntly with the other reasons, to proue that these are true Ministers, which finde the blessing of God vpon their Ministerie. The first place in the Ro­manes hee passeth ouer, as belike, not knowing well how to answere it, for that the holy Ghost there euidently tel­leth vs, that such Preachers which so preach, as people thereby doe heare, beleeue and call vpon God, are sent of God, and to be receiued with gladnesse, whose feet are beau­tifull and doe bring glad tydings of peace and good things. But he falleth vpon the second Scripture taking or leauing as he best aduantageth himselfe. But what is his answere?

Obiection. Obiect. First (saith he) Apostles were sent to conuert Hea­then, and for this hee quoteth Scripture, to prooue that which no man maketh doubt of. But Pastours are set (saith he) for to feed conuerted Christians: for this also hee hath his Scriptures which we doe not gainsay.

Answere. Answ. But the Scriptures say not that Pastors are to feed onely conuerted Christians, for who then shall feede such little ones as are borne in the Church, and reclaime such as fall to wickednesse in the Church to conuert them to sanctification?

Obiection: Obiect. Secondly, saith he, The worke and seale of Paules Apostleship was seene in Corinth, by separating the beleeuers [Page 309] from infidels, and gathering the saints onely into the communion of the Church vnder the officers giuen by Christ.

Answere. Ans. Marke here this mans answere, who first speaketh not a word of the Apostles doctrine, as if separation and the rest had beene or could be before the power of his ministrie in conuerting them; belike separation maketh men belee­uers. He is wondrously in loue with this point of separation, and would make his schollers belieue that it can do strange­ly, make of Infidels belieuers without preaching the word before, else why omitteth hee to speake of the Apostles preaching? for by this God wrought vpon the people to make them his, before a separation was made, or before they were called Saints and in Communion vnder Christs officers. Separation and gathering of the Saints is not con­uersion it selfe, but the fruit of conuersion, and signes of men conuerted, the one arising from hate of wicked men, and the other from loue to the godly, which are euer more or lesse in men conuerted. If the Apostles worke and seale of his ministerie was not before officers were set ouer the people, what, and whose worke 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 ouer them, verse. 23.

M^r. Ainsworth after this doth but repeat what I haue alledged and made answere before vnto, and giuen reasons thereof, page 129. to which hee could not answere, yet would hee make the same obiection againe. Belike hee thought men would read his answere without comparing it with my booke, indeed if so men doe, it were easie to carry away a cause, and much labour should be spent in vaine, nothing said, and much said, yet neuer the neare to giue a­ny man satisfation. He quoteth 2. Cor. 6. 14. &c, to proue that the worke and seale of Pauls Apostleship was separa­tion2. Cor. 6. 14. of beleeuers from Infidels; If the man were in his right minde and that the conceited excellencie of his se­paration had not bewitched him, hee would neuer so ab­surdly haue alledged the place to proue this point.

First, the place neither mentioneth the Seale of his [Page 310] Ministerie, 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 shewes 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 it selfe, the iudgement of Diuines there­on, and the exhortation in it owne nature doth plainely euince: the Apostle saith, be not vnequally yoked with In­fidels, Ergo saith M^r. Ainsworth they had made a Sepa­ration. A ridiculous consequent; by as good a reason wee may conclude that all gods people are come out of Baby­lon, because Iohn (Reu. 18. 4) bad them to leaue 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 Schismaticall departures, neither haue wee by his Doctrine any wicked among vs, for we haue exhorted, and doe still dehort men from their prophanenesse of life and conuersation, and then why maketh hee with his a separation? Therefore si­then by his consequence from hence wee be separated, as hee would conclude of me, so say I that M^r. Ainsworth is a false Doctor (as his workes shew) if he be any at all.

Hee skips ouer an Objection and an Answere, made con­cerning our Ordination by Byshops, Page 142. and also the place of Iohn 10. Page 143. hee passeth by, and com­meth with a sleight answere vnto 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 practise is layd downe in my former Booke, page. 144. 145. hee answeres nothing particularly to the seuerall rea­sons and Scriptures as hee ought, and as hee would, if hee could haue opposed the truth with any shew of truth, but the streame runneth too cleare from the worlds beginning for him to throw in durt and not be seene; or to turne the force of such a current, and hee not be drowned with re­sistance, yet will hee blunder the water with his feet, and withstand the streame as well as hee may, and therefore hee [Page 311] saith, that because I say that wee haue the calling of our Obiection. first Ministers from out of the Church of the Papists, as that learned and renowned Mornai, doth in his Booke of the Church confesse also; therefore I teach a plaine Aposta­cie from the Gospel vnto Poperie. Answere. But the Argument fol­lowes not; for true Church is amongst them, Reu. 18. 4. I then demaund, may not Gods truths and his ordinance receiued among the wicked, be carryed foorth from a­mong them, and the same be acknowledged to be thence receiued, but we must needs thereby teach to goe backe a­gaine vnto them? The Babylonians tooke away the ves­sels of the Lord, and afterward the Iewes receiued them againe, at the hands of such as were wicked and Idolatrous, might they not receiue them, but must needs teach that therefore men must leaue Ierusalem, and turne backe into Babylon? Doth not M^r. Ainsworth, know, that it is one thing to receiue once a good thing with corruptions igno­rantly, and another thing hauing receiued that good and cast off the corruptions, to returne againe, to receiue the good with corruptions, when there is no cause? Againe, I demaund whether the Apostacie of Antichrist ouersha­dowing the Church of God, doth make a flat nullitie of all Gods truths, and his ordinances, so as they be no truths nor ordinances of God, because the same passe by them, and for that we receiue them from them? If hee say no, then why doth he dissallow our ordination absolutely? If hee say yea, then are wee not baptised neither they them­selues, and so are no visible Christians receiued into the vi­sible Church by Baptisme, for wee receiued our Baptisme from them by succession? If our Baptisme must needs be held true, then why not ordination? What disanulleth one ordinance of God more then an other? and if the holding of our receiuing the Ministers calling from them, make them a true Church, what lets but the same may be conclu­ded likewise from Baptisme? and that more strongly, si­then Baptisme being a visible badge of the visible Church of Christ, and the knitting of the members together, which [Page 312] are by the word wonne to the profession of the faith?

To the retorted Argument of the Papists against vs, which he doth bring, if what I haue said do not content him, let him send to the first framer of the argument, who is ableDoct. Sutcliffe. enough to winde him out of this his supposed laborinth. For my part when I plead with a Papist, as I now doe with a Brownist, hee shall see mee answere as I may, or if he had framed the Papists Reason from him, eyther to maintaine themselues against vs, or to ouerthrow vs in what wee doe stand in against them, hee should haue had a present An­swere. To conclude this, Mr. Ainsworth hath not yet ouer­throwne my Reasons made against their course in making of Ministers, but that they doe stand as no Ministers, be­ing made so as no Scripture doth giue warrant, nor any pra­ctise of the like recorded in the word of God, from the worlds beginning. All hee hath said against vs to defend himselfe, and his fellowes, is but his imagination of some supposed absurdities that may follow thereupon; but if any absurditie should follow, yet the Argument is not dissolued,

Touching Mr. Gyffords complaint of such euils as are a­mongst vs; I answere, that albeit he hath iustly so lamented, yet his testimony will not proue what this Answerer doth bring it for; to wit, that we doe vainly boast of conuersion, but indeed haue no effect of our Minsterie, let any marke, but why he bringeth in that record, and frameth it in an Ar­gument, then the vanitie of this his allegation will there in appeare.

Reply to Mr. Smiths Arguments against our Ministers.

MAster Smith, as M. Ainsworth hath done, opposethPage 92. this truth, which I hold concerning the lawfulnesse of our Ministers: and would proue vs all false Ministers, his Arguments are these:

Reply to Mr. Ainsworth.

MAster Ainsworths answere is, that they doubt not to Page 194. Obiection▪ affirme our worship to be false, euen an humane inuen­tion: and his reasons are, because Apocripha bookes are read; because Sacraments are administred by vnpreaching Ministers, by our seruice Booke; because of our obseruation of holy dayes, &c,

Answere. My reply hereunto is, first, that these be not all our worship, as is now fully shewed, to which hee hath yet made no answere: secondly, graunt his reasons good to proue his assertion, which yet are very absurd, yet then when the Apocripha is not read, as some daies it is not appointed, and also where preaching Ministers are, and the worship performed on the Lords day, he cannot belike then proue our worship to be false and idolatrous, sithen his reasons haue then no force, as being at sometime, in some places out of date.

But first, he bids mee proue Apocrypha to be the truePage. 194. word of God. This I leaue him to doe, if hee can; who a­mong vs doe hold it Canonicall? do not we in our writings witnesse the contrary, and that we approue them not, far­ther then they doe agree with the Scriptures?

Secondly, hee willeth mee to proue the Sacraments administred by vnpreaching 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 Christs Sacraments, and being none of Christs, they be truely and indeede no Sacraments at all; and so M^r. Ainsworth, and many of his companie, baptised by such, must needs runne with M^r. Smith, into Anabaptistrie. The circumcision in Israel in Ieroboams time, was neuer reiected of God, nor condemned of the Church in Iudah, in Hezekias time, but such were admitted to the Passeouer as truely circumcised, els they should not haue beene allowed to eate therof. There is, the water, sprinckling of it, and the words of Institution added therto, which are the external & essentiall parts of Baptisme. Lastly, it is vniuer­sally held, that Baptisme among the Papists, administred by popish Priests, is true Baptisme, albeit therefore it doth not follow that Christians wel instructed should carry their children to them, if they may haue their children baptised by other: There is one who giueth many reasons for this.Buca. cap. de bapt. loc. com. 47.

He tels mee, that I doe not meddle with their reasons giuen out in many bookes, but he cyteth none, against ma­ny things which we vse, and they deny, and what then? are [Page 331] therefore their reasons good, and wee the worse? so may then I say, that they doe not meddle with many mens rea­sons printed in seuerall Bookes, to defend, what they op­pose, and therefore their reasons good, and M. Ainsworth in the Errour. And thus haue I made Reply to M. Ains­worths answere to the tenne Errours of their way: Hee hath made answere, as I doe charitably thinke, to haue vs reforme our corruptions, as hee iudgeth them, and I haue made a Reply, to haue them forsake their Errours in con­demning vs for a false Church most vniustly. If they doe well, who enuieth them? wee wish that they may see our good, and cease vniustly to be troublesome both to vs and themselues.

Reply to Mr. Smith.

MAster Smith, to proue our Churches worship to be a false worship, maketh Reasons, such as they be, which are these: