Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 3
The third Reaſon.
AN other Reaſon is drawne from their perſons grieuouſlyIn my former Booke. Pa. 47. ſinnin in their way, and is grounded vponupon a principle of their owne doctrine and practiſe, which is, that they may not ioyne with men openly wicked, obſtinately maintaining their corruptions, eyther in life or doctrine: whence I thus reaſon, and frame my argument.
Thoſe that openly tranſgreſſe, obſtinately maintaining their The Separatiſts are not to be ioined vntounto.corruptions, are not to be ioyned vntounto.
This propoſition is their owne, whether ſtrong or weake it is not materiall, a weapon of their owne making, is of force enough to ſmite themſelues.
The Separatiſts openly tranſgreſſe, and do obſtinately maintaine their corruptions.
And therefore not to be ioyned vntounto.
The Minor proued, the argument ouerthrowes mens allowing of them: three things I lay downe and am to proue: firſt, that they doe tranſgreſſe: ſecondly, openly: thirdly, obſtinately.
That they tranſgreſſe, I hauehave ſhewed in my former BookeThe ſinnes of the Separatiſts. by ſixe particular inſtances, as:
Firſt, by ſeparating from eueryevery one of vsus, and condemningPhariſaicall Separation. Pharaſaically the moſt godly men, whoſoeuer they be, as too polluted, and vncleane for them to ioyne with, contrary to Acts. 10. 15.
To this Mr. Ainſworth ſaith, I begge the queſtion, and make an idle repitition, and ſo deſerue rather pitie then anſwere. But whether the queſtion be begged, ſee what I before hauehave ſaid, of their thus departing. In ſaying that it is idle, hee may in ſo iudging finde himſelfe idly conceited: one reaſon may be brought for diuers ends, and be to good purpoſe without idleneſſe. Seauen times brings hee this reaſon, the Papiſts doe ſay, the Papiſts may ſay, yet hee iudgeth not himſelfe to be idle. He ſo much deſpiſed mee, as hee omitted to anſwere vntounto the place in the Acts. 10. 15. his terme of pitie, is but a word of mockery, but I let it paſſe, as Mr. Smith doth my words wholy here.
Secondly, by Ʋnthankefulneſſe, as I hauehave ſhewed, firſt, The Separatiſts are vnthankful.vntounto God by denying here their conuerſion, or by calling it a falſe conuerſion: ſecondly, to the Church of England their mother, by deſiring to make her a ſtrumpet, by forſaking her before the Lord refuſe her, by accounting her a falſe Church, and ſo none of Chriſts, and by holding vsus baſtards that remaine with our mother.
Reply vntounto Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere.
Page. 163. 164.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 vsus of blaſphemie, perſecution, &c. Mr. Ainſworth belike reaſons thus; becauſe he ſaith they be thankfull, though they abuſe vsus, and will acknowledge no particulars receiued, yet therefore muſt they be iudged of vsus 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 vsus: 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 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 vponupon.
Page. 131.MAſter Smith, as afore maketh a Sillogiſme, but therein frameth onelyonly 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 directlyMr. Smiths Confeſſion. and plainely, then Mr. 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 onelyonly 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 giuegive 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 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 vsus, 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 hauehave declared doth ſhew. If Mr. Ainſworth, hold not with Mr. Smith, in this opinion, to wit, that here with vsus is onelyonly 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 vsus?
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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 louelove. 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 hauehave ſo cenſured vsus, 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 vsus, wiſh vsus well, ſpeaking what they beleeue and know, to conuert vsus, and ſo to couer a multitude of ſinnes. Thus would hee be held charitable: Good wordes: but let them louelove in deed and truth. They pray for vsus, 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 giuegive no other Anſwere. Mr. Fr. Ieſ. Turkes, Iewes, and Papiſts, with whom they yet will hauehave as ſoone ſpirituall communion as with vsus. What is then their charitable iudgement of vsus, in their ſo praying, with ſuch a ſeparation from vsus? Wee pray for them, yet for all this, hee ſaith, wee are vncharitable. They ſpeake (ſaith he) to conuert vsus, 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 vponupon their followers, and for vsus, 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 vsus, &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 Mr. Gyffard, and iudge whether the perſons be cenſured or not. I nominate certaine ſpeeches, whereto hee makes no anſwere, as was meet to hauehave done; and not barely to denie, what by proofe is auouched.
Fourthly, He accuſeth vsus 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 vsus vſe reproachfull ſpeeches, I confeſſe it is a fault, as alſo to giuegive any tearmes to men in hate, choler, malice, & for reuenge, otherwiſe then in louelove, by thoſe tearmes to diſcouer their ſinne, as the Holy men in Scripture hauehave 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 vsus 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 vponupon this ground held, that our Church is a true Church of Chriſt. If the true Church be the body of Chriſt, do they not in forſaking the body forſake Chriſt? And albeit a particular Church be but a member of the whole, yet the caſe is all one. A finger forſaking the hand, therein forſakes the communion with all the reſt of the members, and of the whole 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 hauehave cut off themſelues from Chriſt, and are (as Mr. Perkins ſaith) Excommunicatours of themſelues, and to be held as Heathen and Publicans.
Laſtly, for his bare accuſation of vsus, 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 vsus, but from the innumerableneſſe of his imaginations againſt vsus, 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 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 giuegive 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 hauehave the preaching of the word extinguiſhed among vsus, and ſo Egyptian darkeneſſe to come vponupon vsus, 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 vsus, 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 vsus, though couered with fine and ſmooth termes. Who ſaith; Firſt, That Egyptian darkeneſſe couers our land. Mr. Ainſworths vile report of our people, Church, and Miniſters.Secondly, That the true light of the Goſpel is not yet riſen among vsus. Thirdly, That our land is Vr of the Chaldees. Fourthly, That wee walke in the light of the fire and ſparkes which men hauehave 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 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 onelyonly 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 vsus. Hee ſaith nothing to my proofes, touching the hearing of GodsPage 52. 53. 54. of my former Booke. word euen from vsus. Theſe he ought to hauehave refelled, had I erred therein, els hath he anſwered nothing, but turned onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 vsus, rather then it ſhould be preached by any of vsus in the Miniſterie. I ſay not that they wiſh it ſimply, but reſpectiuely, this he yeelds vntounto, 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 hauehave ſaid: forMr. 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 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 hauehave we, and allowed by his Maieſties authoritie, and therefore are ſuch among vsus 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 vsus, 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 Mr. Smith ſaith, but proueth not what he ſaith.hauehave 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 vsus is ſet an Antichriſtian Miniſterie, worſhip and Gouernement: 4. that wee doe maintaine it, and refuſe wholy all Reformation offered. All ſaid ſoone, and onelyonly ſaid; hee prooued none of theſe things, neither confuteth ſuch as hauehave 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, hauehave we not renounced Antichriſt, and his power ouer vsus? doth not our Profeſſion and Lawes ſeparate a Proteſtant from a Papiſt? And how can we be called a Church Reformed, if we hauehave refuſed all reformation? Is it true then, which here he auoucheth againſt vsus vponupon onelyonly 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 vsus, 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 vntounto Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere.
Page 166.MAſter Ainſworths anſwere is, that they reioyce at goodMr. Ainſworth equiuocates in his reioycing▪ things among vsus; 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 vsus; 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 hauehave 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 vsus, and for which wee are to reioyce and praiſe God.
What ſorrow ſome men, as hee ſaith, hauehave 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 hauehave gouernement in their hands by Authoritie, ſo eueryevery 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 hauehave imaginations: and no end is of out-roads, if the power of authority reſtraine them not. My hearts deſire is, that what amongſt vsus 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 hauehave printed, it is a falſe report receiued of him. The Author thereof I challenge here, therein to hauehave ſlandered me. Indeed I gathered from their workes, what poſſibly might hauehave been ſaid in the worſt manner againſt vsus, onelyonly 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 Mr. Ainſworths charge, that is, to him and his 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. Mr. 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 hauehave 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 vsus: 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 giuegive 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 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 vsus, except he can proue vsus falſe Prophets, and Heritiques. He can eaſily call vsus 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 vsus, 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 vponupon 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 onelyonly referres the Reader ouer to my third probabilitie, & to their Bookes, and ſo do I. Mr. Smith denyes not this, but excuſeth himſelfe by ignorance,Page. 134. if he hauehave ſo done, by not remembring the places, and would hauehave 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 againſt him: and doth diſcouer fully his audacious dealing with Gods word. And thus hauehave 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, cannotMr. 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 giuegive, and whereby I ſhew them to be wilfull. If the next time, hee anſwere not to what I hauehave 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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. Hee ſaith that the Papiſts as eaſily call vsus 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 vsus, 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 vsus. Ieſus Chriſt in plaine words commands vsus to come out of her; Reu. 18. 4. There is no Schiſme in forſaking that Antichriſt: neyther are wee condemned of any, but onelyonly of the Papiſts themſelues for Schiſme, as the Separatiſts be of all: and wee ſay, that the Papiſts condemnation of vsus, is nothing in the partiall defence of themſelues, and vniuſt cenſure of vsus. Secondly, to vphold their departing from vsus, 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 vsus is more, then betweene vsus and the Papiſts. Mr. Ainſworth before equalled the cauſes of their departing from vsus, and our departing from Rome, but this man makes our corruptions greater between them and vsus, then betweene vsus 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 hauehave I ſet forth at large in my former Booke from Page. 70. to 78. and by the word hauehave 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, heeMr 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 vsus preach painefully, and liue religiouſly, are called by the holy Ghoſt, rauening wolues, Angels of hell, and that vponupon 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 hauehave 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 vsus, that firſt, hee approues of Barrowes Scripture-phraſes, as fitly applyed againſt vsus: 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 vnderunder 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 vsus. 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 eueryevery 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 eueryevery mans indifferent iudgement to hauehave beene ſilent, and to hauehave let him flye without purſuite. Hee hath out-runne himſelfe with vsus, 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 louelove with an Harlot: may they not by this hauehave 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 vntounto, but to be auoided as Schiſmatickes.