Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 6
The ſixt Errour of the Browniſts.
THat the power of Chriſt, that is, authoritie to preach, to adminiſter the Sacraments, and to exerciſe the cenſures of the Church, belongeth to the whole Church, yea, to eueryevery one of them, and not to the principall members thereof.
I hauehave in my former Booke ſhewed this poſition, to be Reaſons againſt popular gouernment.an Errour, Page 88.
Reaſon. 1 1. Becauſe it is a meere popular gouernment, diſorderderly therefore, and full of inconſtancie, like the vnſtable multitude: yea, full of pride and contention, for that eueryevery one is made equall to his fellow: it is partly the enemie of vnitie, and it brings contempt to the Miniſterie.
Reaſon. 2 2. Becauſe this is the ground of that wretched ſchiſme, of rending members from members, & walking one from another, ſo farre as they differ in opinion, as is now the practiſe of Anabaptiſts: hence they conclude a pollution of publike communion by priuate perſons, contrarie to the truth, as is aforeſaid: other abſurde Errours ariſing from hence, hauehave I noted in my booke, Page 89.
Reaſon. 3 3. Becauſe if it be contrary to the welfare of a Commonwealth; to wit, this popular gouernment, *See Bell, in his laſt booke of the beſt gouernment. page 6.Monarchical being by a common conſent approued as the beſt, then why not ſo in the Church?
Reaſon. 4 4. Becauſe it is contrary to Gods order eſtabliſhed; firſt, before the Law, for it was in Adam, in Noah, in Abraham, Iſaac, Iacob, Ioſeph, and not in the bodie of their Families: ſecondly, vnderunder the Law, the gouernment lay vponupon Moſes, then diſtributed in part to the ſeuentie Elders; the charge of the Temple to Aaron: this continued all the olde Teſtament, after the Leuits were choſen for the firſt borne, and Princes giuen alſo by God to rule in Iſrael; in which time the people were ſubiects, and had not dominion ouer them: and this power beſtowed vponupon ſpeciall perſons, was not conferred vntounto them by the peoples authoritie, but by the Lords choiſe and commandement; whereto the people were to aſſent: and note alſo, how the Scriptures were committed to the Leuites and Elders for all Iſrael, and not to the multitude to giuegive to them, Deut. 31. 9. to which Chiefe, he gaue the charge to ſee to the reſt, verſe 28.
Reaſon. 5 5. This popular gouernment was not in the Apoſtles dayes; For firſt, the people attempted nothing without the Apoſtles leaue, guidance, and direction; the Apoſtles themſelues ordained officers, not the people without them. Act. 14. 23. Secondly, becauſe the Apoſtles called for the Elders, as the chiefe, and conferred with them, without the people, Act. 20. 17. Thirdly, the Elders did (as it may ſeeme) ſit in a Conſiſtorie, with Iames their Byſhop at Ieruſalem, without the people, Act. 21. 18. and did decree a matter from their owne iudgement, without asking the people their voice: verſe 23. Fourthly, the Elders are preferred before the people, as ſuperior to them, and therefore ſet before them. Act. 15. 22. 23. The Apoſtles and Elders made the people acquainted with the matter here,A preuention. who conſented, but it therefore followes not, that they had power and authoritie, without which the Authoritie of the Apoſtles and Elders ſhould be nothing. Experience ſhewes vsus, that ſuperiours do ſometime require an Aſſent of ſuch as hauehave no authoritie with them, onelyonly for peace and louelove.
Reaſon. 6 6. It is againſt the Commiſſion giuen by Chriſt vntounto his Apoſtles, and to ſuch as ſhould ſucceed them. Mat. 28. 19. and 16. 19. Iohn. 20. 21. 22. 23. Marke 13. 34. And againſt the Apoſtles ſubſtituting of Timothie and Titus; not vnderunder, or in equall ſtate, but ouer the Church. Of this ſee more in my other Booke, Page 92.
Reaſon. 7 7. Becauſe, if a ſort of perſons profeſſing Chriſt together, without officers, hauehave the power of ſuch officers in themſelues; they hauehave a charge from God, to doe all that which the officers may doe: but the whole multitude were neuer commaunded to goe & preach, nor to adminiſter the Sacraments, but onelyonly ſpeciall perſons qualified and called of God, for that purpoſe.
Reaſon. 8 8. The place of the Ephe. 4. 11. 12. is againſt this popular gouernment: firſt, becauſe it is ſaid, that Chriſt gaue officers to the Church, not power to the people to make them, ere they be: ſecondly, becauſe the officers are firſt nominated; as called of God, to gather a Church and repaire it, and to build it vp, all this charge layed vponupon ſome, and not vponupon all: thirdly, becauſe the Church there is compared to a bodie, now a naturall body hath ſpeciall members receiuing power from the Creator, to rule the bodie, which facultie and power is preſerued in the bodie, but not giuen of the body; as ſeeing, is giuen to the Eye: hearing, to the Eare, and that from God to theſe members for the good of the body, but they receiue not ſeeing, and hearing from the body, for then all the bodie ſhould ſee and heare, becauſe it cannot giuegive that power to another, which it ſelfe hath not: Euen ſo is it with the Church.
Reaſon. 9 9. In the old Teſtament, which ſhewes the practiſe of eſtabliſhed Churches: the people were not reproued for the diſorders in Church or Common-wealth, but the Princes, & the Prieſts; on whom the charge of Reformation lay. So Reuel, 2. and 3. the Angels, that is, the chiefe in the Churches, are reproued, (not the people) for the abuſes ſuffred: and according to the generall courſe, muſt that particular place, 1. Cor. 5. be vnderſtood; and not ſo, as1. Cor. 5. it ſhould oppoſe a conſtant courſe in all other: that one place muſt yeeld to many, and not many to it.
Reaſon. 10 10. This is againſt that of the Rom. 12. 6. 8. in which wee ſee the gifts and power of gouerning, to be beſtowed vponupon ſome, and not on all, and alſo againſt theſe places; 1. Tim. 4. 14. & 5. 16. 17. where Rule is euidently taught to be in ſome, and not in all.
Reaſon. 11 11. This is againſt the truth of receiued and approued witneſſes, ſithence the Apoſtles times, that the Supreame power ſhould be in the people.
Reaſon. 12 12. This ouerthrowes the power and authoritie of chriſtian Magiſtrates in the Church, when God giues themOf Authoritie of ciuill magiſtrates in Church-matters, ſee Bels Regiment of the Church. to the Church, as being ſubiect themſelues to a common multitude in matters concerning the Church; contrary to the euident witneſſe of the old Teſtament, to which we muſt goe, to ſee how the gouernment was in the dayes of their Kings and Iudges: for in the new Teſtament this is not clear, for that in the Apoſtles daies God gaue no Chriſtian Magiſtrates to the Church.
Reaſon. 13 13. In the new Teſtament there be plaine Commandements to the people to be ſubiect to authoritie, and to obey ſupreame power, as Magiſtrates: Rom. 13. 1. 2. 3. this vnderſtood of Magiſtrates then, much more now being Chriſtian: So 1. Pet. 2. 13. 14. Tit. 3. 1. So Eccleſiaſticall perſons Ouerſeers. Acts. 20. 28. Heb. 13. 8. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 5. 1. Tim. 5. 17.
Reaſon. 14 14. There can be no inſtance giuen in eyther Teſtaments, eyther of Precept, that the people ſhould rule; or of Practiſe, that they did rule ouer their Teachers: let the Aduerſarie bring but one Precept or one practiſe to ſatisfie his Reader; I profeſſe I can find none. The place in Mat. 18. 17. is expounded, and that expoſition confirmed by many reaſons in my former Booke, Page. 94. 99.
Reaſon. 15 15. It is againſt reaſon that the Fathers ſhould be ſubiect to their Children; the work rule ouer the work-man, the ſeedſ-man to be ordered by the Corne: for thus are the Paſtours and people compared.
Reaſon. 16 16. This is againſt the office and dignitie of Chriſts Miniſters, who by office repreſent Chriſts perſon, and ſo doe not the people: and therefore we read not that the people made Miniſters, but Miniſters made Miniſters, and ſuch as ſtood in Gods ſtead remoued them from the Miniſterie, as Salomon did Abiather, but the people did it not.
Reaſon. 17 17. It is full of abſurditie; if the body gouerne, who is gouerned? belike it ſelfe is both Lord and Seruant, Prince and Subiect: of whom the Prouerbe is true: Command, and doe it, it ſelfe.
Reaſon. 18 18. Becauſe the people are neuer tearmed by any name which might ſo much as inſinuate any Soueraigntie, but ſubiection; as the name Sheepe, Brethren, Saints, Houſhold of Faith, the Wife or Spouſe, Children: but Miniſters are called Ouerſeers, Elders, Fathers, and ſuch like; declaring authoritie ouer the people. If any ſtumble vponupon Reu. 1. 6. where the faithfull are called Kings; I anſwere it is not vnderſtood of any outward power to rule among and ouer men, of which wee here diſpute; but of an inward power of Gods ſpirit ſanctifying the Elect, by which as Kings they rule ouer their owne corruptions, to which by nature they be in ſubiection.
Reaſon. 19 19. The ſpeech of Chriſt is plaine, that the Miniſters are to rule ouer the people, which is his owne ordinance: Mat. 24. 45. where mention is made of a Seruant, that is, the Miniſter ruling; and the Houſehould, that is, the Church ruled.
Reaſon. 20 20. Wee doe read of power and authoritie of Seruants, that is, Miniſters; Mark. 13. 34. but not giuen to the houſehold or Houſe, which is the Church: So to Apoſtles; 2. Cor. 10. 8. and 12. 13. and in them to godly Church-men, but not to the people.
Reply vntounto 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 vponupon 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 other, nor yet among themſelues. I am glad that Mr. 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave, 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 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 hauehave theſe men made a Separation; ſo in louelove 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 vponupon 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, 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 vntounto Adam, whom hee ordained in his place, to teach the ſucceeding age; after him God raiſed vp one after another, in order vntounto 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 vnderunder the Law.
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.
Thirdly, in the Scripture of the new Teſtament there is Reaſon for Succeſſion.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 onelyonly Eccleſiaſticall perſons, as a matter onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.
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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 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 eueryevery 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly frames reaſons ſophiſtically, making abſurd conſequences vponupon 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 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 onelyonly 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 vponupon them in their ſtate of Chriſtianitie, ſo as if there were none left in a country but Miniſters, yet there in them may 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 hauehave 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 afford, if men abuſe what they hauehave 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 hauehave 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, vnderunder 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 vsus hitherto: but that there ſhould be impoſition of hands vponupon widowes; who euer heard to this day?
His ſeauenth argument, by which he thinkes he may cryMr. Smiths ſtrongeſt argument in his owne iudgement, is yet from the que ſtion. 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 onelyonly: 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 onelyonly 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. Mr. 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, vntounto 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, and not onelyonly 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 Mr. 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, hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave Chriſts 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 vponupon eueryevery 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſpoken of it before, which is nothing for him, no more is this 18. chap. of which alſo hauehave 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 Mr. Smiths, expounding it otherwiſe.
His third Scripture is Mat. 28. 16. 20. whence he dothPage 53. Mr. 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 hauehave equall power in gouerning: theſe hee calles here Brethren, or the bodie of the Church, or Diſciples, and this hee grounds vponupon 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 onelyonly, to ſuch as ſucceed them in the Miniſterie; when firſt, in verſe 16. hee nominates onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 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 eueryevery 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 vsus. What is this to Mr. 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon them, ſo would they hauehave 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 vntounto 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 reaſoneth. Ʋnto whom the promiſes, the Couenant, the bleſſing His ſixt argument for popularitie.is giuen, vntounto them the Miniſteriall power of Chriſt is giuen: But the Promiſes, the Couenant, and the bleſſing is giuen vntounto 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 vntounto Chriſt. This argument is diſeaſed with an Homonymie of Anſwered.words; for Promiſes, Couenant, and Bleſſing are eyther generall appertaining to eueryevery Chriſtian; or ſpeciall, which concerne particular ſtates of men. Againe, therebe Promiſes, Couenants, and Bleſſings, onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 nothing. Ah wretched Corah! who art thou that dareſt breed ſuch Confuſion, eleuate baſe ſpirits, ſuppreſſe Suprioritie Anabaptiſtically; and bring a Familiſticke Communitie, euen eueryevery 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 Mr. 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, vntounto 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 onelyonly 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 eueryevery one in outward gouernment, becauſe they hauehave Chriſt their King, Prieſt and Prophet, then would it follow, that eueryevery Chriſtian man, yea, and woman, may directly and immediately take vponupon 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 hauehave the Miniſteriall power giuen, as they hauehave 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 is here laid of all diſorder and confuſion; yea, and of intollerable inſolencie and ſwelling pride in eueryevery 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 vsus all to death, how ſhall he not with him giuegive vsus 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 vsus more to vnderſtand in all things, Riches, Wiſedome, Learning, Regalitie, and what not, as well as hee to include Miniſteriall power; ſithen eueryevery 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 vsus 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 Mr. 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 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 hauehave 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 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 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 vponupon 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 onelyonly vponupon 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 vponupon 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 hauehave a true Miniſterie: fourthly, that the whole cauſe of the Separation lyeth in the duſt: fiftly, that they muſt diſclaime their Schiſme, which they hauehave 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 vponupon any other of his anſweres to the poſitions following, which Mr. 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 layeth all vponupon 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 Mr. Smith is in his conceits. in him, great boldneſſe to attempt any courſe more then a common confidence in eueryevery 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 vponupon 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 vponupon 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 vntounto, 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 vponupon 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, onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 Mr. Ainſworth, might not grow to a tedious Volumne.