Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 5
The fift Errour of the Browniſts.
THat onelyonly Saints, that is, a people forſaking all knowne ſin, of which they may be conuinced, doing all the knowne will of God, increaſing and abiding euer therein, are the onelyonly matter of a viſible Church.
My reaſons againſt this in my former Booke are many; from page. 83. to 88.
Reply vntounto Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere to this fift Errour.
MAſter Ainſworth diſclaimeth the poſition, and ſaith,Page 174. that they doe hold that Saints by Calling, are the onelyonly matter of a true viſible Church. He ſhewes not what he meaneth, when he ſaith, Saints by calling; it had beene fit,He expounds not what is a Saint by calling. to hauehave explained himſelfe, for if thereby he meane, that Saints by calling, may be any other people, then ſuch as forſake all knowne ſin openly, & do all the knowne wil of God: what difference make they of their Saints by Calling, & ours by profeſſion? belike they may be Saints, who forſake not all knowne ſinne, openly committed in the face of the Church, and doe not obey the knowne will of God, & then, what an idle ſtirre hauehave they made to condemne vsus for ſome of ill conuerſation among vsus? ſithen ſuch may be Saints, elſe why denyes hee this poſition? If hee meane Saints by calling, to be onelyonly ſuch as liue vnblameably in a holy conuerſation before men, without open taint. I anſwere, that Gods viſible Church conſiſts not of ſuch Saints onelyonly, but alſo of other, euen a mixt company.
Firſt, the Church is a mixt company of good in appearance,The true Church doth conſiſt of a mixt company, and not of Saints onelyonly outwardly holy. and alſo of bad perſons in outward ſhew: this I proued in my other Booke, Page 87. whereto he anſweres not a word.
Secondly, becauſe no Church of God in the old or new teſtament, after the very planting, in any ſpace of time, can be ſhewed to be ſuch: but had openly looſe of life, mixt with the reſt. Mr. Iames his Retrait proues this at large.
Thirdly, becauſe the Scripture defines not ſo the viſible matter of the Church, if any place ſhew it, let them the next time produce it.
Fourthly, becauſe there could then be no conuerſion in the Church to Sanctification, for all keepe in the ſtate of Repentance, which is contrary to Ieremie. 23. 22. Ezech. 18. 30.
Fiftly, becauſe the Apoſtle to the Corinthians had erred, in calling all Saints without exception, and yet many among them had not repented of euill. 2. Cor. 12. 20.
Sixtly, becauſe the Iewiſh Church ſhould not hauehave beene Saints for that ſo many wicked liued among them, bloudy Ioab, cruell Saul, falſe Prophets, and others.
Seauenthly, becauſe this holy conuerſation, which is but one way, by which men are called Saints, condemneth all the other reſpects by which men are ſo called, and if otherwiſe, they be Saints alſo, then not onelyonly Saints by a godly life, are matter of a true Church.
Men are called Saints being in one Aſſembly: firſt forWhy men are called Saints. coniunction with the better part: See Page 86. of my former Booke. Secondly, becauſe of birth, borne of beleeuing Parents. 1. Cor. 7. 24. Rom. 11. 16. Thirdly, in reſpect of the thing whereto they be called, as to the profeſſion and worſhip of Chriſt, which is an holy calling. 1. Theſ. 4. 7. 1. Cor. 1. 1. Rom. 1. 7. Fourthly, in reſpect of Baptiſme, by which they are ſaid to put on Chriſt: Gal. 3. 27. to be partakers of Chriſts death: Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 12. to hauehave remiſſion of ſinnes. Acts. 2. 39. Fiftly, in reſpect of the couenant made with God, and worſhip performed to him: Pſal. 50. 5. and reuerend hearing of Gods word. Deut, 33. 3. Sixtly, in reſpect of Gods viſible preſence, as Exod. 3. 6. Mat. 4. 5. Seuenthly in reſpect of Gods mercy, who will not ſee the euill of his people. Num. 23. 21. Ier. 50. 20. If by any of theſe wayes men be Saints, they are allowed to be matter of the Church, and ſo the better ſort with them, and they with the beſt are Saints; and ſo all are Saints.
Reply to Mr. Smiths Anſwere to this fift Errour.
MAſter Smith, hee auoucheth the expoſition, as true,Page. 27. 28. that a Saint is one, firſt, forſaking all knowne ſin: ſecondly, doing all the knowne will of God: thirdly, growing in grace: and fourthly, continuing to the end. For an Hypocrite, ſaith hee, is no true member of the viſible Church; becauſe it conſiſts of an inward and outward communion. All this would hee proue by a company of quoted Scriptures: Rom. 6. 4. 5. 8. 11. 22. 1. Pet. 3. 11. 2. Pet. 3. 18. 1. Iohn 2. 19. Reuel. 3. 5. compared with Rom. 1. 7. Eph. 1. 4. Reuel. 11. 2. and 22. 14. 15. and 18. 2. compared with Deut. 14. 2. 3. 11. 2. Cor. 6. 16. compared with 1. King. 5. 12. It is his manner where hee can make any open ſhew, though but Sophiſtically, to deduct reaſons from his Scriptures, but here hee but muſters them, and ſets them in battle aray, but ſhewes not how eyther they fight for them, or againſt vsus; this is the tricke of the older Browniſts and onelyonly hereby to deceiue with ſhew of Scripture. Let any vnderſtanding and indifferent Reader carry this his poſition to theſe places, to wit; That a viſible member is no Hipocrite, but a Saint, and ſuch a Saint as forſaketh all knowne ſinne, doth all the knowne will of God, groweth in grace, and continueth vntounto the end, and hee ſhall ſee no truth in his allegation. Rom. 6.Rom. 6. ſheweth what men be, that are truely in Chriſt; and not what they be, that are in the viſible Church. 1. Pet. 3. and 2. Pet. 3.1. Pet. 3. doe ſhew what men ought to doe and be, but not what they2. Pet. 3. are. 1. Iohn. 2. 19. is directly againſt him; for it ſpeakes of1. Iohn. 2. 19. the apoſtacie of ſome viſible members, who were Hypocrites, and had not theſe foure properties: and when hee ſaith, they were not of vsus, hee excludes them not from being of them viſibly, but for not being of the Elect number. So the Reader may iudge of the reſt, as impertinently alledged: theſe hauehave I mentioned as a guide to the reſt; marke but his Poſition well, and his deceitfull abuſing the Scriptures may be ſoone perceiued.
After this hee comes to anſwere my obiections againſt his aſſertion: I ſaid, that by his defining of a Saint and a viſible member thus, as is aboue ſaid, that he defines not a viſible member, but one elect, and of the inuiſible Church. His anſwere is by a queſtion, whether I thinke one ſo qualified with the foure properties before men, are ſaued before the Lord? I anſwere directly, as hee doth will me, that I beleeue ſo, and all men are bound to thinke they are ſaued before God: and who dare thinke otherwiſe, but onelyonly Mr. Smith? If we may not be perſwaded, that he which leaues knowne ſinne, doth Gods knowne will, walkes and growes in grace, and continues to death therein, is before God ſaued, whom may wee not thinke to be damned? He threats to ſhew me my folly for thus thinking; but in the meane ſpace, he may be iudged worſe then madde, for his thinking otherwiſe, and for writing that it appeareth not to vsus, what Steuen, the bleſſed Martyr was in Gods counſell.
To my ſecond Reaſon drawne from the Saints of the old Teſtament, who did not anſwere to theſe foure properties; hee anſweres by a diſcourſe of the difference of the nature and conſtitution of the old Teſtament from the new, onelyonly to bleare the eyes of the ſimple. When hee cannot auoid the argument, (to wit, that Dauid, Hezechias, Aſa, and other Saints did ſinne openly, and in ſome things were not wholy reformed, (ſee my other Booke for inſtances, Page 83. 84.) and yet were true viſible matter of the Church in the old Teſtament; and therefore men not qualified like his deuiſed viſible Saints, may be now alſo true matter, and ſo his opinion groſſely erroneous,) then hee fals to ſtrange expoſitions, and vnheard of paradoxes, vttered from his owne braine, without proofe, as here Page 29. 30. hee tels vsus; firſt, that the Iſraelites were a holy people literally: ſecondly, no true holineſſe was required in that conſtitution: thirdly, that all was typicall onelyonly, as typicall Conſtitution, Worſhip, Miniſtrie, Gouernement: and fourthly, that a Saint, was a typicall Saint; an Hypocrite, a typicall Hipocrite; and a wicked man, a tipicall wicked man; ſo as there might be the Sonnes of Belial; yea, and the beſt might liue in open ſinne, and yet be Saints; to wit forſooth, typicall Saints. And his ground is his owne conceit, (he brings no Scripture for what hee thus monſtrouſly auoucheth) becauſe ſaith hee, their morall communion was onelyonly inuiſible, and no true holineſſe required of them viſibly, and True holineſſe required in the old Teſtament, contrary to Mr Smiths brutiſh imagination of it.none were morally polluted in their communion. All which is againſt the manifeſt truth of God; for the couenant made between God and his people is the ground of the churches communion and fellowſhip. Now the couenant in the old Teſtament was alſo morall and ſpirituall, and true holineſſe required by it: firſt, the ſumme of it was, that God was their Exod. 20.God, and they his people, which is ſpirituall, and a holy couenant.Ier. 31. 1. Secondly, at the making of the Couenant with Abraham, God did require ſinceritie, Walke before mee, and be vpright: Gen. 17. 21. and that couenant was ſpirituall alſo. Gal. 3. 17. Acts. 3. 25. Thirdly, the morall Law is called then Gods Couenant, which morall Law, is true holineſſe. Exod. 34. 28. Fourthly, the Lord required in plaine tearmes true holineſſe. Pſal. 51. Thou requireſt truth in the inward parts. read Deu. 10. 12. Fiftly, the Sacraments were in and of their viſible Couenant, and ſo communion for circumciſion is called the Couenant: Gen. 17. 10. now a Sacrament is a Sacrament, for that there is a viſible ſigne and ſeale of an inuiſible grace, the conſideration whereof is required of all that doe receiue the outward ſignes. Sixtly, there were promiſes made to the old Iſraelites, euen in the very conſtitution: now the apprehenſion of promiſes require faith, which is an inward grace of true holineſſe. Seuenthly, eueryevery doctrine commanded to be taught openly to that Church, as then to be receiued, and for which the true worſhippers were commended, was part of their Couenant; but true faith was taught Heb. 2. and commended to be the grace, for which they were approued, as is manifeſt, Heb. 11. which doctrine of faith is a doctrine of true holineſſe: ſo alſo feare and louelove. Deut. 6. 2. 5. 6. 7. Eightly, there were Sacrifices appointed for morall tranſgreſſions, as well as for ceremoniall vncleanneſſes. Leu. 6. 6. So Aaron made often an attonement by Sacrifice, for the morall tranſgreſſions of the people, and not onelyonly for typicall pollutions: now theſe Sacrifices for ſuch morall offences, were of their conſtitution. Ninthly, the word ſhewes they were defiled by morall vncleanneſſe, bloudſhed defiled the Land, and they polluted it by that ſinne: Num. 35. 33. and alſo Gods name by Idolatry: Leu. 18. 21. and themſelues and the Land by morall vncleanneſſe. ver. 24. 25. Tenthly, and laſtly, there was open rebuke and threats for morall tranſgreſſion, and the Tranſgreſſours were ſaid to caſt off God in ſo doing, which argues it to be a part of their viſible Couenant; yea, their typicall ſeruice was abhorred, when men ſinned morally againſt God: ſee Eſay. 1. 9. 15. and 58. 2. 10. And Dauid ſpeaking comparatiuely betweene true holineſſe, and outward ſeruice ceremoniall, hee ſaith, God required then not this, in reſpect of the other. Pſal. 51. 16. 17. Away then with this dreamers Anabaptiſticall frenſie, of typicall wicked men, and typicall Hypocrites, and literall holineſſe, without true holineſſe: in which hee makes the God of Iſrael to delight then onelyonly in an outward ſlaughtering of of beaſts, and the godly in thoſe dayes to be in their viſible communion carnall, and brutiſh, contrary to the euident truth as is declared manifeſtly.
But to ſtop my mouth, that I ſhall not once mutter, as hee ſaith, (oh the admirabilitie of the man!) hee reades me as hee thinkes a riddle, to the amazement of all his intoxicated Diſciples, and frames his argument both againſt the truth and me thus. If in the Old Teſtament their viſible typicall Mr. Smiths Riddlement.communion was tipically polluted by typicall and ceremonial vncleanneſſe vncleanſed: then in the new Teſtament our ſpirituall viſible communion is really polluted by morall vncleanneſſe vncleanſed; that is, ſinne vnrepented of. But in the old Teſtament, their viſible typicall communion was typically polluted by the typicall and ceremoniall vncleanneſſe vncleanſed: Ergo. Surely, ſuch of his as were blinded with his Hereſie, and affected with his folly, were too-tooly moued with a merry conceit at this riddlement, as not to be anſwered; through the obſcure profunditie of his reaſon ouer-reaching our poore apprehenſions: which made him ſay, hee would ſtop my mouth for muttering; but let vsus ſee how I can mutter againſt it. What, a Goliah? then ſee the ſtrength of a pibble ſtone in a ſling; hauehave at a Goliah, let him ſaue his head; for by his contrarying ſo daily himſelfe, it ſeemes his braines be already crackt. But ere I anſwere, I read him againe this riddle: If in his laſt old yeares, their Separatiſticall communion was Browniſtically polluted, by a Schiſmaticall rending of themſelues from the Church of England, for ſome ſuppoſed ceremoniall and Antichriſtian vncleanneſſe vncleanſed: then in this his new yeare, their Anabaptiſticall Communion is Smithically polluted by their but halfe Anabaptiſtrie, new vnheard of Hereſies, euen ſpirituall and morall vncleanneſſe vncleanſed, that is, their ſinne not yet repented of. But in his laſt old yeares, their Separatiſticall Communion was Browniſtically polluted, by a Schiſmaticall rending of themſelues from the Church of England, for ſome ſuppoſed ceremoniall and Antichriſtian vncleanneſſe vncleanſed: Ergo. And now to his argument. His Maior (ſaith hee) cannot be denyed, for it is a iuſt Analogie and proportion from the type to the truth, from the ſhadow to the ſubſtance. Obſerue Reader, that the proofe ſtands vponupon his owne coyned Analogie and proportion, he ſaith it is ſo, but doth not proue it by any euidence of holy writ, not one ſillable brought for it. But his then followes not: for firſt, marke what he proportioneth, viſible to viſible, typicall to ſpirituall, communion to communion, typicall pollution to reall pollution, ceremoniall vncleanneſſe to morall vncleanneſſe, vncleanſed to vnrepented: if this be ſo, why is not a like proportion from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, from their Order of Gouernment, to our Order? Which hee denyes; and if this Analogie cannot ſtand, neyther can his. His wit, is no more a warrant to make a proportion in ſome, then mens vnderſtanding here is to make an Analogie in other ſome. Secondly, it is vtterly falſe, that their typicall pollution, did repreſent any reall pollution in our Communion: for there is not taught in the new Teſtament, that any perſonall pollution really pollutes the Communion of Saints; this Browniſticall Hereſie, and cauſe of all the Separations, ſhould hauehave beene proued, but is not, for indeed it cannot. If therefore there be not ſuch a pollution in the new Teſtament, it is friuolous to tell vsus of a type of it in the old Teſtament. Now to manifeſt to all men, that in the new TeſtamentOne mans ſin pollutes not an other. there is no ſuch reall polluting of our ſpirituall communion, theſe reaſons ſhew it:
Reaſon. 1 1. Neyther Chriſt nor his Apoſtles were polluted by Iudas in their Communion.
Reaſon. 2 2. The Apoſtle Paul reproued corruptions among the Corinthians: the Angell the Aſian Churches, and neuer1. Cor. 11. taught pollution.2. Cor. 12.Reu. 2. & 3.
Reaſon. 3 3. The holy Ghoſt commendeth ſome liuing well in places where corruption was, and puts no charge vponupon them of Separation, for any pollution, but to hold what they hauehave: Reu. 2. 24. 25. yea, this cenſure of holding them polluted who liue in a polluted eſtate, as righteous Noah in the World, or iuſt Lot in Sodome, is reproued. Acts. 10. 15.
Reaſon. 4 4. Our Sauiour allowes the hearing of lewd Teachers, in which is a ſpirituall Communion: Mat. 23. 2. yea, and to communicate in other things, ſo men doe looke to themſelues. Mat. 5. 23. 24. So the Apoſtle. 1. Cor. 11. Read my former Booke, Page 106.
Reaſon. 5 5. This was the Phariſes pride, who ſeparated themſelues, as the name of Phariſe imports; and this pride is condemned, Eſay. 65. 5. Luke. 18. 14. yea, and the Lord iuſtifieth the poore publicane before ſuch. This is alſo the Luciferian pride of the old Donatiſts: Caluin, Inſtit. 4. 13. 16. Oſiander againſt Anabap. Page 140. 142.
Reaſon. 6 6. Morall pollution did not pollute in the old Teſtament, this hee grants; therefore not in the new; ſithen ſinne is not now ſince Chriſts comming more contagious then before.
Reaſon. 7 7. Ceremonial pollution did not pollute that Communion, ſaue onelyonly particular perſons, who did touch, and were touched with any thing vncleane; and therefore no ſuch polluting of communion now: the truth of this reaſon ſhall be further confirmed, when I come to anſwere his Minor.
Reaſon. 8 8. If the religious communion be polluted, why not the fellowſhip in ciuill ſocietie? and if this, then muſt we goe out of the world.
Reaſon. 9 9. I demaund whether the holineſſe of the ordinances of God, by which men are made holy; and godly mens graces, by which theſe ordinances are declared to be holy, be not of more force to preſerue pure the Communion, then ſome wicked to pollute it: ſithen in the word it is recorded, that for ſome godly mens ſake, God hath pardoned many wicked?
Reaſon. 10 10. If the Communion be polluted, then the holy things of God, the vſe whereof are part of the Communion, defile and pollute ſuch as come with reuerence vntounto them: for things vncleane maketh vncleane, but they doe not pollute any, but rather makes men holy.
Reaſon. 11 11. To hold the Communion, that is, the whole ſocietie polluted, for ſome particular perſons, is to caſt the ſins of one vponupon the back of another, contrary to Ezech. 18. 14. 17. 20. and 14. 18. 20. and 23. 9. Tit. 1. 15. Reu. 3. 4. and 2. 24. 22. 23. Gal. 5. 10. and 6. 5. One mans conſcience, ſaith Mr. Perkins, Reuel. 2. 2. is not polluted by another; yea, ignorance of other mens ſinnes exempts ſuch as know them not, from the puniſhment which the offenders receiue for their tranſgreſſion. Deut. 1. 39.
Reaſon. 12 12. The godly are neuer reprooued for being at the Miniſtration of holy things, though others did communicate that were wicked: but on the contrarie, it is accounted a ſinne to leaue the holy things, for other mens offences. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17.
Reaſon. 13 13. This were to make the dignitie and efficacie of the word of Couenant, and of the Sacraments the ſeales of it, to depend vponupon the worthineſſe of man: contrary to the iudgement of the word, yea, and all worthy Diuines. Rom. 3. 3.
Reaſon. 14 14. If this were true, then were we not onelyonly to admoniſh others, but to examine their liues alſo; which the Apoſtle in a great pollution of the Sacrament neuer thought of. 1. Cor. 11. 28. neither is it any where impoſed as a charge belonging to eueryevery one.
Reaſon. 15 15. EueryEvery one muſt liue by his owne faith, Hab. 2. 4. and anſwere for what hee himſelfe hath done in the fleſh; now if it were, as he ſaith, then is he to anſwere for others, & liue in a ſocietie vnpolluted by the grace of others, as wel as his owne, ſithen, except others liue well, he is polluted.
Reaſon. 16 16. Saint Paul ſaith, that the vnworthy eate condemnation to themſelues, he ſaith not, to another.
Reaſon. 17 17. Mr. Smith himſelfe, if euer hee were himſelfe, teacheth the contrary on the Lords Prayer, Page 88.
Reaſon. 18 18. Communion is a common vnion, many partaking of and defending one thing, wherein they doe agree: now the Common vnion of the good and bad in one ſociety, is not in euill, but in profeſſion of the word, in receiuing of the Sacrament, & other holy ordinances, and exerciſes: when therefore ſome doe ill, the Communion in ſpirituall things is not polluted, becauſe euil is no part of the vnion in common one with another, but the errour of man by himſelfe, out of the Comunion, for which he himſelfe ſhall anſwere, and ſuch alſo as hauehave fellowſhip with him in euil, by which they hauehave a common vnion, that ſo agree therein,How men may be guiltie of the ſinne of an other. by counſell, conſent, commandement, prouocation, neglect of duty, flatterie, excuſe, or defence thereof: but if a man doe none of theſe, then is he not of the euil in common with the wicked, though the wicked be in the common vnion of good with him, in which communion he is, not as a wicked man, but as one agreeing with the godly in the beſt things.
Reaſon. 19 19. No one Scripture ſpeakes of ſuch a generall poluting of all by ſome particular offenders, but onelyonly as by partaking ſome way with ſuch, and thoſe ſo partaking doe make the ſinne of an other thereon, and then they be poluted of themſelues.
Reaſon. 20 20. As this poſition is altogether falſe, ſo is it pernitious and breeds Schiſme, and ſuch Browniſticall and Anabaptiſticall out-roads, as now be in practiſe among our late Separatiſts from vsus, alſo among themſelues, one from an other.
Thirdly, I anſwere to the Maior, and demaund whether the viſible typicall communion, did not repreſent the inuiſible Communion of the Elect: and as the typicall vncleane were not cleanſed till they were waſhed, and offered vp ſacrifice by the Prieſt; ſo the ſpirituall member offending ſhould not be cleanſed, but by repentance and by offering vp, by the hand of Faith, heartie ſupplications to God, in the Name of Chriſt our high Prieſt, who hath ſacrificed himſelfe for vsus? If it be ſo, then their viſible typicall communion, did not prefigure a viſible communion of men, but the inuiſible communion of Saints, the Elect of God.
Now to his Minor, which I denie to be true, that the typicall Anſwer vntounto the Minor.Communion was polluted: perſons were polluted, and others touching them were polluted, but their communion was not: Firſt, becauſe there was no ſacrifice appointedThe Communion in the old Teſtament, was not polluted by the ſin of one. for any ſuch pollution, as came vponupon all for the ſinne of one or moe. Secondly, though the Prophet reproue the Prieſts, for not ſeparating the cleane and vncleane; yet hee teacheth not, that for neglect thereof, the Communion is polluted. Ezech. 22. 26. Thirdly, the Prophets cryed out of the peoples vncleanneſſe, but neuer tooke the Communion to be polluted, and therefore held with the Church in ſpirituall Communion. Fourthly, becauſe particular perſons were for their particular vncleaneneſſes to offer vp ſacrifices themſelues for themſelues, and not all for them and themſelues, as polluted in their Communion, though the polluted abode in his vncleannes, for ſome time: let him produce euident Scripture for this particular if he able.
His Minor, he goes about to proue by three Scriptures;Num. 19. 13. 20. Num. 19. 13. 20. Hag. 2. 14. Acts 21. 28. 29. The firſt place proues not that the Communion was polluted: But that one polluted, and wickedly perſiſting and not purging himſelfe, defiled the Lords Tabernacle; (to wit) to himſelfe; for the puniſhment is threatned onelyonly againſt himſelfe. The place in Haggai, is of ceremoniall pollution, but yet ſpeakethHaggai. 2. 14. of what one vncleane toucheth, making it vncleane thereby, and not of one liuing in vncleannes, thereby polluting the whole Aſſembly. Againe, he ſpeakes not of polluting the holy ordinances adminiſtred in the Congregation, as the ſacrifices in the Prieſts hands, which yet appertained to all, but of what the polluted partie touched himſelfe. As if it were ſaid in like caſe; a wicked prophane man comes to the Lords Supper: hee pollutes not what the Miniſter is performing, nor what others receiue, but what hee himſelfe doth touch▪ and receiue, eating to himſelfe 1. Cor. 11.iudgement, as the Apoſtle ſaith, and not to the reſt. The laſt place, Acts 21. 28. 29. was but a ſpeech of a furious people,Acts 21. 28. 29. falſly accuſing Paul, and ſuppoſing a pollution where none was. And let him ſhew me, where it was forbidden any Stranger without exception, to come into the Temple: In Deu. 23. 3. is a forbidding of the Iſraelites to admit the Moabites, and Ammonites, for a long time, into the commonwealth of Iſrael: but what is that to this matter?
An other exception which I take againſt his poſition is, that they take places of Exhortations, admonitions, Commanments, &c. which are onelyonly effectuall in the inuiſible ſaints, the Elect, among others of the Church, to deſcribe eueryevery viſible member by; as if they did reaſon thus: God exhorts and commaunds his people to be ſuch and ſuch; if not, then are they none of his. If they be not (ſaith he) what Mr. Smiths comfortleſſe Aſſertion.God commands, they are none of his people. What child is his fathers, what ſubiect his Princes, what wife her husbands by this reaſoning; for who are as they be commanded?
Againe, the Lord takes a people to be his, before he command them; commandements are for his people to rule them, and to cauſe them to obey, not to make them his people. A mans commandement maketh not a ſeruant, but declares a power, that ſuch a one is a ſeruant already, that is, vnderunder his power to be commanded The reſt of the Section is but wrangling a confident auouching of his owne will, but not an euident and plaine anſwere to the reſt of the particulars of my former Booke, and therefore I paſſe them ouer to the Reader, to compare them, and come to the next Aſſertion following; being the ſixt errour, which he ſtands vponupon ſo confidently, as if it be confuted, he will acknowledge the cauſe of Separation to lye in the Mr. Smiths hazard of all vponupon one ſtake.duſt, and they muſt diſclaime their Schiſme which they hauehave made, and the Hereſies they hold; yea, hee will acknowledge the Churches of England, &c. to be true Churches of Chriſt, &c. Therefore ſeeing he hath iumpt all vponupon this point, all the reſt may be paſſed ouer, as idle expence of of time, the victorie being in this particular either won or loſt. I had purpoſed once to hauehave come to this, and omitted the reſt before and after, but that it would hauehave beene thought of his Schollers, that what was omitted, was vnanſwerable; for their Mole-hilles, are in their owne eies huge mountaines.