Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 2 – Part 3
The ſecond Errour of the Browniſts.
OƲr Churches Conſtitution (ſay they) is a reall Idoll. Page 79.My former Anſwer to this was, that the Scriptures mention no ſuch Idoll, neyther take an Idoll in this their ſenſe. And to confirme this, I ſhewed my diligence in ſearching the Scripture touching this, and alſo noted the great labor of Marlorat, who ſets downe a perfect Catalogue of all the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and numbreth ſome 47. and yet none of them in this ſenſe. And therefore this their reall Idoll, is but a reall idle conceit of their owne braines: Laſtly, I conclude, that if a conſtitution may be an Idoll, they make theirs an Idoll; for that, as vntounto God, they make it the ſanctifier of all things, and without which, no word of God, no Sacraments of Chriſt, no prayer, no preaching true out of ſuch a conſtitution as theirs is.
Reply vntounto Mr. Ainſworths AnſwerePage 172. to this ſecond Errour.
MAſter Ainſworth at firſt boggles at it, as if hee durſt not challenge it for the groſſe abſurdities of it, but after bethinking himſelfe, hee defends it, but very ſeelilie. His anſwere conſiſts of two points: firſt, that I hauehave ſaid nothing to diſproue it, but that it may for any thing I hauehave ſaid be an Idoll, as he thinkes. For that he makes my reaſon to be this, becauſe I ſee it not, and Marlorat names it not, Ergo, no Idoll; but the Reader may ſee, that my argument is, the Scripture makes it not an Idoll, neyther is the word Idoll, in the Scriptures ſo taken: therefore it is not an Idoll. Hee ſaith I doe not ſee all that the Scripture teacheth: I confeſſe it, and if hee doe not the ſame, he is arrogantly proud; but I ſpeake of my ſight in this particular, and if I be ouerſeene,The word Idol, is not vſed in Scripture for a conſtitution. he ſhould hauehave giuen ſome inſtance where the word Idoll, is taken for ſuch a Conſtitution as ours is; but this could hee not doe.
To Marlorats paines hee anſweres, that both hee and I Mr. Ainſworth a Cauiller at my words.may as ſoone number the hayres of our heads, as reckon vp all the Idols in the world. Marke Reader, I ſay Marlorat numbers vp the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and hee ſuppoſeth that I ſpeake of his reckoning vp all in the world; ſo hee puts the word World, for the Scriptures: what a cauill, or blindneſſe, or wilfull miſtaking is this? three times in eight lines, I nominate the word Scripture, and not at all the word World and yet hee puts one for the other: but hee that is ſo blinde to take the World, for the Scriptures, no meruaile it is that hee takes Schiſme inſtead of the ſincere truth, and their inuented conſtitution for Gods order in religion. Secondly to proue it an Idoll. If it be a falſe conſtitution, as before is proued (ſaith hee) ſet vp inſtead of a true, what is it better then a very Idoll? I anſwere, here is a weake proofe, for ſuch a confident cauſe on their behalfe, and in their iudgement of ſo great moment: hee ſhewes not what is an Idoll, nor proues a falſe conſtitution to be an Idoll, by eyther reaſon or ſcripture: but firſt comes with an iff, ſuppoſing to be what isHis reaſon is ridiculous. not: if our Conſtitution be falſe, then is it an Idoll; this is ridiculous; for his argument is the very queſtion: as if hee had ſaid if our conſtitution (as he cals it) falſe, be an Idoll, then it is an Idoll. Secondly he askes a queſtion; a falſe conſtitution being ſet vp inſtead of the true conſtitution, what is it better then a very Idol? I anſwer that firſt, his ground is weake, for our Churches Conſtitution is not falſe; ſee what is aforeſaid for this. Secondly, I ſay, that an Idoll is falſely defined by the terme Conſtitution, without warrant of Scripture, as in my former booke I auouch, which he hath not refuted, nor giuen yet thereto any reaſon to the contrary. Thirdly, I ſay, that hee himſelfe, it ſeemes, dare not call it an Idoll, but demands of others what it is, and ſaith, what is it better then an Idoll? hee durſt not ſay; what is it but an Idoll? Well then, our Conſtitution is no Idoll at all, for ought this man hath ſaid, but this their errour remaineth vponupon them. Hee calles me in the end of his anſwere a vaine man; but Vanitie it ſelfe is vponupon him, as his Anſwere ſhewes, which the Lord remoue from him: this is my recompence for his railing.
Reply to Mr. Smiths AnſwerePage 9. 15. to this ſecond Errour.
MAſter Smith here fals to the matter, but withall after a diſcourſing faſhion, holding ſome truths, but teaching many errours: but two things hee auoucheth touching this ſecond errour? firſt, that a falſe Conſtitution is a reall Idoll, Page 9. Secondly, that it is greater and more abhominable Page. 14.then any Idoll that can be in a true Church.
Touching the firſt, he tels vsus; firſt, what is a falſe Conſtitution, a mixt company, becauſe it is a falſe matter, and ſo a falſe Conſtitution; this hee proues not, but ſets out his erronious thought, by a beaſtly Similitude of a Horſe and an Aſſe engendring, bringing out a third thing, a Mule: ſo good and bad conioyned, produce a third thing, that is, (ſaith he) a falſe Church. I anſwer; firſt, that a mixt company is no falſe matter, as is before ſhewed: ſecondly, he ſpeaketh onelyonly of the matter, and omitteth the forme, which alſo is in the making of a conſtitution: thirdly, hee proues nothing by a Similie, much leſſe by this filthy one: fourthly, his ſimilie ouerthrowes himſelfe; for a true Horſe and a true Aſſe doe produce a true creature, though not like either, and not a falſe one. Againe, good and bad men are not ſubſtantially intermingled, as the ſeede of an Horſe and an Aſſe, to bring out of themſelues a third creature: if they doe, that, ſo brought out is a true creature, and cannot be called a falſe one: and if the qualities be noted, good and bad in one third, the ſame third cannot be called good, nor bad; but good bad, or bad good; becauſe it conſiſtsMr. Smith doth put a beaſtly ſimilie in his Catechiſme. by mixture of both: but thus much, and two much of a beaſtly ſimilie; wherein hee compareth the godly, eyther to an Horſe, or to an Aſſe, but vsus all to Mules. And for the holineſſe of this Similie, it is alſo in his Catechiſme, to be learned belike as one of his principles of Deuilitie.
Secondly, hee proceeds to proue a falſe ConſtitutionPage 9. an Idol: firſt, hee ſaith it is Idolatry, and againſt the ſecond Commandement. What then Mr. Smith, is it an Idoll? Is Idolatry an Idoll? you miſerably are deceiued, and would deceiue. But a mixt aſſembly, is neyther Idolatrie, nor an Idoll, nor condemned in the ſecond Commandement: for no word condemneth ſuch a companie for Idolatrie, if otherwiſe they be not Idolaters. Secondly, hee would ſeeme to hauehave the Scripture for him, and his firſt place is, 2. Cor. Firſt Scripture. 2. Cor. 6. 16.6. 16. of which much is ſaid before: his reaſon is fetched from theſe words: what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? Hee elſe were is full of his Sillogiſmes, ſo framed as they be, but here he is onelyonly in expoſition, becauſe elſe his abſurditie would more hauehave appeared. Gods true Church is his Temple: Ergo, a falſe Church an Idoll, for here (ſaith he) they be oppoſite. I anſwere, firſt, if any ſuch oppoſition be, it is betweene the Temple of God, that is, the true Church, and the Temple of Idols, for hee ſpeakes figuratiuely, and puts Idols, for a people worſhipping Idols. Secondly, if this expoſition be true, that a company mixed be an Idoll, who are the Idolaters? This is ridiculous foolerie. Thirdly, I anſwere, that the holy Ghoſt intendeth not to ſet out an expoſition of a true and falſe Church, but rather a Church and no Church; the beleeuing Chriſtians, and Heatheniſh Idolaters: which is the true ſenſe of this place. Fourthly; if there be an oppoſition, it is betweene God and Idols; as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, you Corinthians are ſuch as worſhip the true God, and among whom he will be, as in a Temple, therefore yee cannot giuegive worſhip and honour to Idols; ſo contrary is God and Idols, as if indeed you be the Lords people, you cannot agree with them: for the godly hate Idols, as vtterly againſt the honour of the true God, whom they doe worſhip. Thus his falſe expoſition being ouerthrowne, whereupon his argument doth ſtand, his ridiculous reaſon fals alſo to the ground.
His ſecond Scripture is, 1. Iohn. 5. 21. Babes keepe your 1. Iohn. 5. 21.ſelues from Idols. Here firſt (he ſaith) Antichriſtian Idolatrie is eſpecially meant: but this is moſt falſe; hee onelyonly ſaith, it is enough for mee to deny it: but who knowes not that Iohn writ to the faithfull dwelling among Idolatrous Heathen? which Idolatrie is chiefely here meant, and ſo being generall, may be applyed againſt Idolatries of all times. Secondly, hee ſaith, Antichriſtian Idolatrie is meanes inuented to worſhip the true God in or by: but this is another falſhood, if hee meane that it ſtands onelyonly in ſuch meanes: for Antichriſt with his, doe worſhip Angels, Saints, and the breaden Idoll to be very God: and if he meane not onelyonly, then hee defines his Antichriſtian Idolatry falſely: thus two errours appeare in his expoſition, for vſually, what elſe are his curſed gloſſes but peruerſion of Scripture, and falſe interpretation. But how proues hee from this place, our Churches Conſtitution a reall Idoll? Euen as hee falſely expounds, ſo hee ridiculouſly proues it thus: Whatſoeuer meanes is deuiſed out a mans braine, and vſed as a meanes to honour God in or by, is an Idoll. A deuiſed Conſtitution is of that nature: Ergo, an Idoll.
I anſwer, firſt, that it is no argument; his third tearme is the ſame with the firſt tearme in the queſtion. His poſition is; A deuiſed conſtitution is an Idoll: and his reaſon to proue it, is; Whatſoeuer is deuiſed, which is thus much, whatſoeuer is deuiſed, &c. is an Idoll, but a deuiſed conſtitution is ſo deuiſed: Ergo, an Idoll. Hee befooles his Schollers, with hisMr. Smith fooliſieth his ſchollers with childiſh Sophiſtrie. Zach. 11. 17. childiſh Sophiſtrie. Secondly, I deny his maior as an Elench of a falſe deſcription of an Idoll. Hee proues it not, but examplifieth it, from a falſe Miniſter called an Idoll, Zach. 11. 17. where hee vſeth another deceit; for Zacharie meanes not that ſuch a one is an Idoll; but ſpeaketh by way of ſimilitude, that he is as an Idoll. In calling a deuiſed Conſtitution an Idoll, this man meanes ſimply, and the Scripture is vnderſtood comparatiuely: ſo hee doth reaſon a dicto ſimpliciter, ad dictum ſecundum quid. Thirdly, I alſo deny the Minor, as hee vnderſtands a conſtitution deuiſed, to wit, that it is a mixt company; for it is not a deuiſe of a mans braine, as before is ſhewed; and let him ſhew, what hee meanes by worſhipping God in or by it. Fourthly, hee maketh a flouriſh with Col. 2. 23. Mat. 15. 9. and henceCol. 2. 23. makes a proofe thus, that will-worſhip, and vaine-worſhip,Mat. 15. 9. is forbidden there; and it is a tranſgreſſion of the ſecond Commandement, and therefore Idolatry, and ſo the church wherein it is offred is an Idoll. So then hee thus reaſons; in what Church vaine-worſhip is that Church is an Idoll. Not all his deceiuableneſſe of vnrighteouſneſſe, nor all Sathans Sophiſtrie can euer proue this. Hee ſaith, that hee is blind-fold that ſeeth not theſe things manifeſt, ſo ſay I, but to wit, manifeſt folly in him, and manifeſt falſhood in the things.
In Page 11. and 12. hee diſcourſeth faire in ſhew, but partly without truth, partly ridiculous, but wholy full of deceit; as may appeare by what is ſaid, and the things themſelues conſidered of a wiſe Reader will ſhew: IMr. Smiths Argument full of folly and alſo falſhood. come therefore to his other Sillogiſme. That which is contrary to a true Church, is an Idoll: But a falſe conſtituted church is contrary to a truely conſtituted Church: Ergo, a falſe conſtituted church is an Idoll. I anſwere, firſt, that the propoſition is a fallacie of a falſe deſcription of an Idoll, as is before in the former Argument declared, ſo the propoſition is falſely conſtituted: which ſtands in need of proofe.
Againe, it is full of abſurditie; if eueryevery thing contrary to a true Church be an Idoll, then eueryevery vngodly man, that liues diſorderly, contrary to the holy orders of the Church, is an Idoll. Who worſhips his Idoll? who doe hold in him a diuine power, as Idolaters hold in Idols? An Aſſembly of Iewes or Turkes, is contrary to the true Church, they diſclaime Chriſtianitie, is ſuch a Company an Idoll? Where euer, eyther in Scripture, or other writings, is a company of men knit in one, called an Idoll? Idolaters ſuch may be, but not an Idoll: they worſhip an Idoll, and if they be an Idoll alſo, then an Idoll worſhips an Idoll. Browniſts in Schiſme, and Anabaptiſts in their Hereſies are contrary to the true Church of God; therefore Idols by his reaſon, and ſuch as doe eſteeme them are Idolaters. The Churches of Aſia, were againſt the Church of Rome in the obſeruation of Eaſter, were they therefore Idols? Secondly, I anſwere to the Minor, that it hath ouer-throwne the Conſtitution of his Sillogiſme, by altering the tearme of the Propoſition, putting in for a true Church, a truely conſtituted Church, which is againſt the rules of right reaſoning: for there may be a true Church, which may not be truely conſtituted; for true reſpects the matter, but truely the manner alſo; in which there may be ſome errour. Againe, in the tearme falſely conſtituted is an ambiguitie, it is not certaine whether he meane wholy falſe, or but in part: if he ſay wholy, then he takes it not here, as hee did before, Page 10. line. 8. for an aſſembly of vnfaithfull men, with ſome faithfull among them, and then the queſtion is changed: if hee ſay but in part, it makes the propoſition the more abſurd, and the Minor deceitfull, which muſt onelyonly be vnderſtood reſpectiuely. And thus his reaſon is without reaſon.
He brings in againe, 2. Cor. 2. 6. But thereto hee hath2. Cor. 2. 6. his anſwere already. Yet hence he now frames an idlement, I ſhould ſay, an Argument: That which is contrary to the Temple of God, is an Idoll. But that which is contrary to the true Church, is contrary to the Temple of God; for the true Church (ſaith he) is the Temple of God: Ergo, that which is contrary to the true Church is an Idoll. This ſeely ſchiſme is without a proofe, there is no tertium argumentum; for the proofe & the ſubiect of the queſtion are both one; and his owne words, which he brings for the proofe of the Minor, ſhew it, that to be contrary to the Temple of God, is to be contrary to the true Church: ſo then frame his reaſon after his owne expoſition, putting for the Temple of God, the true church, it is this: That which is contrary to the true church of God, is an Idol; but that which is contrary to the true Church, is contrary to the true Church; therefore that which is contrary to the true Church is an Idol. Hauing thus ridiculouſly reaſoned (if I wrong him, looke vponupon his ſyllogiſme, thou that haſt reaſon and iudge mee herein) hee Thraſonically with ſcorne calles vponupon me, and ſaith; Now Mr. Bernard, with all your learning auoid this place, and I will yeeld, &c. I beſeech thee Reader, now iudge betweene vsus; and if I hauehave ſhewed him his extrem folly, to abate his pride herein, marke whether he the next time ſhew himſelfe a man of his word, and yeeld vntounto me. Truly God confounds the proud, whom he euer reſiſts. Not hauing done with this, he ads one reaſon more, to cloy me with; and thus he frames it: A falſe Chriſt is an Idol; a falſe church is a falſe Chriſt, Ergo, a falſe church is an Idol. Here againe is Sophiſtrie, for falſe Chriſt is taken in the Maior properly, in the Minor figuratiuely, which ought not to be in right arguing, which is euer without Equiuocation, ambiguitie, & variation in the three tearmes. And thus much touching his firſt poſition, that a falſe conſtitution is a reall Idol; for if it be not at all an Idol, as reaſon ſhewes, and his reaſons proue not, then it is no real politicall Idol; which is a new Idol of his diuiſing, neuer heard of before.
Touching the ſecond aſſertion, that it is a greater and a more abhominable Idol, then any Idol that poſſible can be in a true Church, Pag 14. I anſwere; firſt, that it is no Idol, he hath not yet proued it, but by ridiculous ſhewes of reaſons, and therefore his 'Predicates periſh where his ſubiect vaniſheth. Secondly, If it were an Idol, yet may a greater and a more abhominable Idol be found than it; as Moloch, which was brought into the true Church: A mixt people profeſſing Chriſt, doe honor to Chriſt, the better ſort truely: but Moloch is no God; it thruſts out the remembrance, the worſhip and ſeruice of the true God, and makes the worſhippers cruell murtherers of their children, in offering them to be burnt for his honour. Is a mixt Aſſembly of Chriſtian Profeſſours, ſuch as the Church of England is, a greater and more abhominable Idol then Moloch? Hee isSee Zep. Page 164. abhominably idle brained that dare auouch it. Thirdly, further to proue it, hee brings in another groſſe Errour; one falſe-hood to maintaine another; to wit this, for that a falſe miniſterie, worſhip, and gouernment may be in a true Church; but a true miniſterie, worſhip and gouernment cannot be in a falſe Church. Strange Paradoxes; the latter ſhould be otherwiſe then he affirmes, by the Argument of contraries, and in the firſt hee inſinuates moſt groſſely that contraries may agree, and each keepe their proper nature: that is, a Miniſterie, worſhip, and Gouernment falſe, in a Church that is true, and yet he denieth a true Church to be where ſome men be lewd in conuerſation: as if ſome men in priuate conuerſation wickedly behauing themſelues, did more take away the truth of a Church, then a falſe Miniſterie, falſe worſhip, and a falſe gouernment. Hee will ſay any thing, that will publiſh this for a truth, yea, and hold it as a principle to defend other Errours withall.
The third Errour of the Browniſts.
THat ſuch as are not of a particular conſtituted Church (to wit, ſuch a one, as theirs is) are no Subiects of Chriſts Kingdome.
In my former Booke, I gaue foure Reaſons, againſt thisPage. 81. their Aſſertion; I now adde further, that firſt, this ſecludes all inuiſible members from Chriſts Kingdome: ſecondly, this denyeth the Catholike Church to be Chriſts Kingdome: thirdly, all that are ignorant of their viſible conſtitution, to be none of Chriſts kingdome: fourthly, that their conſtitution is the onelyonly viſible Circle of Chriſts Dominion; in which if men be not, they be not vnderunder Chriſt: a heauie condemnation to all that either hauehave beene, or now are, or ſhall be, and yet not of it.
Reply vntounto Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere to this third Errour.
MAſter Ainſworth to this ſaith; firſt, that I ſet it notPage. 173. downe in their words. What then? I therefore, ſaith he, doe cauill, for that they grant many of Chriſts Subiects; for want of meanes doe not liue in a true conſtituted Church. The poſition was Mr. Smiths in his Browniſticall way, which Mr. Ainſworth diſclaimes, and acknowledgeth many out of their way, by his diſclaiming of this, to be Chriſts Subiects viſible; for of a viſible Conſtitution I ſpeake. So then with mee he holds this an Errour, and the Errour remaines vponupon Browniſticall Mr. Smith the Authour; who defended the Browniſts Conſtitution, (which is onelyonly meant in this poſition) to be the onelyonly entrie into life, as the onelyonly true Conſtitution of Chriſts Church. But now Anabaptiſticall Mr. Smith, hath renounced that Conſtitution, for as very a harlot as Rome, in his laſt booke, called the Charecter of the Beaſt, publiſhed, Anno 1609. And ſo herein we all agree: I ſay it is an Errour, Mr. Ainſworth diſclaimes it as an Errour, and now Mr. Smith renounceth it, though before his Anabaptiſtrie he did defend it; ſo hath he herein preuented my reply to him, and eaſed me of great labour.