Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 1
The firſt Probabilitie or Likelihood, that their wayThe firſt Likelihood, that the way of the Separatiſts is not good. of Separation is not good, nor to be approoued, Is the noueltie thereof, differing from all the beſt Reformed Churches in Chriſtendome.
IN my former Booke, Page 21. Firſt I ſhew, why I made this my firſt Probabilitie, whereto Mr. Ainſworth ſaith nothing: he happily thought my wordes idle, as his owne be, and that I did runne into by-matter, when he either doth not, or will not vnderſtand me. This Likelihood, I ſet downe to preuent, what I obſerued, did endammage theWhy this Likelihood was propounded. miſleading of the people. Mr. Smith and others, vrged the Reformation in other Churches, and lay that as a baite to catch ſeely fiſhes, and went about to perſwade the people, that the way of the Separation, and other Churches reformation was all one; which is vntrue. Which if it had ſo beene, neuertheleſſe the Separation from vsus is not good. Firſt, ſaith Mr. Smith, now they be vnnaturall children forHis Booke of differences and Charecter. their Separation, and their way alſo an Antichriſtian way. Secondly, It is plaine that the Scripture teacheth no Separation from a true Church, with condemnation of it, as a falſe Church. Thirdly, no example in Scripture giuen of any ſeparating from true Churches for corruptions; but eyther for groſſe Idolatrie, viſible Pictures ſet vp to be worſhipped, as among the Iſraelites; or for open blaſphemie againſt Chriſts very Perſon.Act. 19. 9.
Secondly, I ſhewed how their way was Noueltie, in differingHow the Separatiſts way is noueltie. not only from vsus, but alſo from all reformed Churches, to ſet forth that ſingular difference was the drift of my whole booke, as alſo to ſhew that that ſingularitie is Noueltie: which ſcope, both thoſe Anſwerers either not perceiuing,The Scope of my former Booke. or not regarding (albeit in the Epiſtle to the Reader, I admoniſhed them of it,) they trifle in anſwering: Mr. Ainſworth alſo beating withall and hammering vponupon his oldThey dare not ſet out their ſingular courſe by it ſelfe, but ouerſhadowes it with other things to deceiue the ſimple. ſtaffe, which I purpoſely auoyded, to bring them to giuegive anſwere vntounto the ſingularitie of their way, differing from other Churches as well as from ours, that ſo the newneſſe of their way, might be of all diſcerned plainely.
Thirdly, I proued that they *They differ from all the reformed Churches.differed from the reformed churches: firſt, by not ioyning with them: ſecondly, by Barrows railing on their manner of gouernment, and he alſo approued herein by theſe Browniſts now liuing: thirdly, I alſo adde the Excommunicating of ſuch as goe but to heare ſometime the Miniſters of the reformed Churches, if they were ſo minded to continue. To this Mr. Ainſworth ſaith little: Mr. Smith (who deceiued the people with a pretending of agreement with Reformed Churches) nothing at all.
Laſtly, I concluded therefore this ſection from the firſtIt is leuitie, dangerous and proud preſumption, haſtily to entertaine that way. probabilitie, that it was both Leuitie, dangerous, and proud Preſumption to entertaine that way ſo ſodainly, as they doe which goe into it: the reaſons of all three are ſet downe: of which theſe two Anſwerers ſpeake not a word. If this be to Anſwere ſoundly, and thou Reader, ſo iudge, I do commend thee ouer to Browniſme, as one fitter to runne of affection, then guided by iudgement, to doe what thou doeſt with laudable diſcretion. Theſe two Champions mocke at my likelihoods; but ere I conclude, they ſhall finde them of more moment, then to be laughed out of countenance, and hereby themſelues cauſed to change colour with ſhame of their owne folly.
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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſuch like, but the ſame: for things not the ſame, but like, are not ſo eueryevery 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 vsus of Nouel…ie, Schiſme, &c. as we hauehave herein to condemne you? Mr Ainſworth eyther bring good proofe for this, elſe men 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 vsus by the Scriptures, prouingThough the Papiſts cannot iuſtly condemn vsus 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 Mr. Ainſworth. Will it follow becauſe we can free our ſelues from Noueltie againſt the Papiſts, (betweene whom and vsus, 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, andMr. 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 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 hauehave euer practiſed, nor any approued Hiſtories made mention of, in and from the Apoſtles times hitherto: but hauehave beene onelyonly among Schiſmatickes, theſe differences are Noueltie: ſuch are not our differences fromOnelyOnly Schiſmatickes hauehave ſo ſeparated themſelues from churches, as theſe doe from vsus. the reformed Churches: but yours (Mr. Ainſworth.) Shew vsus, 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 vponupon ſuch grounds, as you forſake now all Churches for: If you hauehave 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, onelyonly 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 vsus Brethren, & doe giuegive vsus the right hand of fellowſhip, as a true Church of God with them, they account not vsus eyther Antichriſtian, or falſe Churches, but wee heare them: and they vsus, 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 giuegive 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 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 vsus, for this cauſe for which the Separatiſts ſo much condemne vsus.
In the concluſion of his anſwere to this firſt Probabilitie, His Anſwere.he blameth me for ſtanding vponupon the hard words which ſome of them hauehave vttered againſt the Preſbiterie, and tels me, (if I had not a partiall and euill eye) I might hauehave ſeene many moe hard, and reprochfull tearmes vſed by ſome of vsus againſt the ſame, &c.
Reply. Still (marke Reader) that this Anſwerer doth not cleare himſelfe, but accuſeth vsus 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 giuegive hard words of the Preſbiterie, and accuſe vsus 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 vsus who hauehave written againſt it, vſe reuerend ſpeeches of the chiefe ſupporters thereof, and if any particular perſons of our Church hauehave beene ouer ſharpe in their inuectiues againſt the Presbyterians, I am not to iuſtifie eueryevery particular mans proceeding herein.
I acknowledge Reprochfull tearmes become none, the diuell may not be rayled vponupon: and therefore Mr. Barrowes out-rage herein is deteſtable, though you cannot finde him worthy of reproofe: and yet doth he raile vponupon the Presbyterians. You approoue the Reformed Churches conſtitution, you will be alſo in it, pretend it to the ſimple, and yet rayle vponupon them, and ſpeake euill of that you allow, becauſe eueryevery way they ſquare not to your Rule. Your weapon ſtill ſtickes (Mr. Ainſworth) in your owne bowels: all you hauehave 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, onelyonly 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 hauehave beene maintained from time to time againſt the Papiſts, till Luthers dayes, and the preſcription of a thouſand yeares, were onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 eueryevery 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 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 vsus 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 Mr. 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: giuegive me leaue to make mine owne, I can ſet an edge vponupon 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.