Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 3
The third Likelihood.
THey in ſo bad a manner defend their cauſe, as it cannotThe third probabilitie. likely be the truth: firſt, by ſtrange expoſitions, becauſe they be ſo differing from the generall and conſtantThe ſumme of that which is in my former Booke. Page 25. 30. opinions of Diuines both old and new. Secondly, by impertinent allegations, pulling and writhing the Text of Scriptures to their purpoſes, which in my former*Page 26. booke, I hauehave ſhewed to be done foure manner of wayes, neceſſary to be obſerued of ſuch as would ſee their deceit in their allegations. Thirdly, by Sophiſticall concluſions, deducting vponupon a falſe ground one thing out of another, inferring this thing vponupon that thing: by which they lead the ſimple into a labirynth, out of the which they cannot wind themſelues, but runne farther into errours and Sects of Religion, from Browniſme to Anabaptiſme, from this to Familiſme; one Sect concluding for the grounds of another, as manifeſtly appeareth among them at this day.
Reply to Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere toPage 156. this third Likelihood.
IF it were not to ſhew this mans folly, and to lay open to my owne people his vanitie, with the falſhood vſed in anſwering, I would ceaſe to make Reply vntounto him, but would let giddy heads runne, that would with ſuch an anſwere be carryed away. In this Anſwere hee abuſeth intollerablyMr. Ainſworths idle Anſwere vnworthy of Anſwere. the vnaduiſed Reader, that compareth not my Booke and his anſwere together. Firſt, he changeth my Probabilitie in the Text, and takes the Marginall Note: ſee and read both. Secondly, he paſſeth ouer my three proofes of the Likelihood; the Expoſition of the firſt Proofe, the ſecond wholy, and the third; alſo the foure waies plainly laid downe, ſhewing how they doe abuſe the Scripture: of which not one word, but he ſnatcheth at two Inſtances giuen. Reader, I pray thee read, obſerue well and iudge. In his Anſwere he is as idle, as deceitfull in his ouer-skipping of my reaſons. Firſt, ſaith he, I walke in the Papiſts ſteps, which is idlely repeated of him now three times. It ſeemes this man thinkes eueryevery thing to be hatefull and to be auoyded, which the Papiſts doe, we may not eate, weare clothes, wee may not reaſon in that forme, and alſo vſe thoſe Arguments truely, which the Papiſts vſe Sophiſtically and falſely. Hee is much beholden to the Papiſts, for I ſee not how he could hauehave made anſwere to my Likelihoods but for them. If itSee Oſiander againſt Anabaptiſts. be ill for vsus to vſe Papiſts arguments, why doe they the arguments of the Anabaptiſts. I ſay they vſe ſtrange expoſitions, which alſo I hauehave declared in my former booke, to be ſuch as are contrary to the generall and conſtant opinions of Diuines, Orthodoxall Writers, ſuch as the Church of God neuer receiued: the inſtances I omitted, but ſhewed that they were confuted by many vnderunder hand writing, and were in the hands of Mr. Smith, whom I expected ſhould hauehave beene the firſt Anſwerer to my Booke. Beſides this Anſwerer and his Fellow, is by one challenged for this point, and twentie Poſitions ſet downe, which are in ſome of their hands, this I auouch in my Booke; beſides Doctor Allyſons booke againſt them. To all hee anſweres, that thoſe to whom their expoſitions ſeeme ſtrange, are (ſaith hee) themſelues ſtrangers from God: Alluding to Eph. 2. 12. as it ſeemeth: whether ſo or noe, this is an accurſed proud ſpeech. It is moſt vncharitable ſo to cenſure all, not approuing their expoſitions: it is high arrogancy to appropriate ſuch ſingularitie to themſelues in expounding, as who ſo hold them ſtrange, are ſtrangers from God, that is, withoutWho are ſtrangers from God. the true God, without Chriſt, hopeleſſe of heauen; for ſuch are ſtrangers from God. Hee leaueth to the Godly wiſe, to diſcerne of their expoſitions; and ſo doe I his Anſwere here, except he meane by his Godly wiſe, ſuch as be of his owne ſtampe, as I ſuſpect.
My inſtance giuen Acts. 20. 21. hee firſt Cauils at, ſuſpecting my faithfull dealing in citing it truly, as one doth alledge it: but the place is a proofe to an anſwere made to a queſtion in a Catechiſme of Mr. Cliftons; whom in pittie and louelove to his perſon I was loth to name: and yet ſorrowing for him, whom I truely and entirely loued in our way, as a man deuoted to God, and eueryevery way worthy of louelove, for his vnreprouable life and conuerſation: I hauehave dealt truely with his labour herein, as the place with queſtion and anſwere compared doth ſhew. Let this vncharitable Anſwerer ſuſpect and ſuppoſe what he pleaſeth.
Secondly, he fals from the matter into a by-point, and would proue that wee, whom hee in contempt cals Prieſts, teach not all the truth of God in England, by our practiſe, and by our Lawes and Canons. Hee findes fault with mee, but not vnderſtanding me, for impertinent diſcourſes, but who doth roue now? I doe proue that they doe miſalledge Scripture: he takes occaſion from the Scripture to tell vsus that we teach not all the truth of God. When this is the queſtion betweene vsus, he ſhall receiue an anſwere from vsus fully: this now ſhall ſuffice, I ſay that we doe teach all Gods truth knowne to vsus, if he meane their conceits, wee doe no… teach them, we approue not them for truths.
Thirdly, hee runneth vponupon vsus for miſalledging Scripture, by which, as is ſhewed before in another caſe, hee reſpecteth not to grant themſelues abuſers of Scripture, ſo that they may hauehave companions in euill. Hee referres the Reader ouer in ſome other things, to the former Treatiſe,The former Treatiſe is an anſwere of his to Mr. Spr. and ſo doe I, there to receiue his anſwere.
To the places by me brought forth in my Booke, page 82. which he cauils at in his booke, Page 167. I anſwere, that firſt, he confuteth them not, but doth aske a queſtion, whyPage 158. hee may not miſalledge Scripture out of the Pſal. 106. 39. Ierem. 23. 15. 21. againſt vsus, which are miſalledged? to which I ſay hee may not: albeit I had miſtaken any place, hee may not doe wickedly, becauſe others doe ill. Peruerting of Scripture is great impietie againſt God: Is this a Doctor to aske ſuch a queſtion? Secondly; he changeth in the end my poſition, which he firſt rightly ſet downe, and for which the places were brought; I ſay wee are Gods people,We are Gods people. and I proue it: firſt, becauſe he hath giuen vsus his word and wrought effectually by the ſame, and by that effectualnes of the word in conuerting, I ſay it is the voyce of the Sonne of God: for all which I quote Pſal. 147. 19. 20. Ier. 23. 22. Iohn. 5. 25.
Now he would make the Reader beleeue, that I ſay, that England hath Gods word, becauſe Iſrael had it: and for thisPage 157. purpoſe doe bring theſe Scriptures. Is it not wofull, that the man will needes be blinde? Wilfulneſſe deſerues correction. If hee were ſo ignorant and ſeely as hee ſeemeth, hee ſhould be more worthy pitty; then an anſwere. The other place which he would make anſwere vntounto, is in 1. Peter 2. 9.Lib. de Eccleſ. q. pr. pag. 80. 125. which I ſay is properly meant of the Church inuiſible, as Doctor Whittakers vnderſtands the firſt verſe, and vrgeth it againſt Bellarmine, and ſaith it cannot be vnderſtood of viſible particular Churches. The Apoſtle writeth a Catholique1. Pet. 2. 9. is vnderſtood of the inuiſible Church. Epiſtle to the diſperſed Chriſtians, of whoſe Election he was perſwaded; he ſpeaketh alſo of a Generation choſen, Elect, of a kingly Prieſt-hood, a holy Nation, a people ſet at libertie, ſuch onelyonly are thoſe which are in Chriſt truely, and viſible Churches are not ſuch; experience ſheweth, and the Scripture in all Ages, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks thus vntounto men profeſſing Religion, the Reaſon, for that in charitie hee perſwadeth himſelfe that of all men, thoſe which openly profeſſe Chriſt, in a care to pleaſe him, are the liklieſt to him, to be the Elect of God, & of the inuiſible Church, & the reſt in the viſible church not ſo reformed, he hopeth well of, that they are the Elect before God, though not yet ſo manifeſt to men. All the Elect, holy, liuing ſtones, ſpiritual houſe, are inuiſible, and not diſcerneable to the Eie of the bodie, but Tytles belonging to the Catholique Church, as Doctor Whittakers ſaith, and onelyonly ſeene by the Eie of Faith. If it were meant of the viſible Church, then may the Elect vtterly periſh; a holy Nation be prophane, people ſet at libertie, turne againe to bondage: yea, Chriſts bodie, which is the true ſpirituall Houſe, a royall Prieſthood periſh, contrarie to his word. Againe, men are ſo called in reſpect of Chriſt their Head, and not in reſpect of their outward holineſſe.
Anſwere. 1 Now to his reaſons why it is meant of the viſible and ſenſible Church. Firſt, becauſe (ſaith he) the Apoſtle writ to the viſible Chriſtians.
Reply. I anſwere, it followes not by this Reaſon to be meant of the viſible Church: for ſo he would conclude no mention at all in the Scripture of any Church inuiſible, becauſe all, All the Scripture was written to the viſible Churches, and eueryevery thing therein; yet not all therein ſpoken, ſpoken of it. It ſpeakes of the Church Tryumphant, of heauen and of hell, doth it ſpeake therefore of the viſible Church? This Reaſon is altogether without reaſon, let his wiſe Reader iudge. Saint Paul writeth Ephe. 1. 4. Hee hath choſen vsus in him, before the foundation of the world; this was ſpoken to the viſible Church: was it therefore meant of it, or rather of the Elect members ſuppoſed to be in it? If he ſay, of the viſible Church then in Epheſus, it muſt needs then follow (which is contrary to the truth) that a people choſen in Chriſt before the foundation of the world may periſh; Epheſus became no Church at length. Anſwere. 2 Secondly, Becauſe (ſaith he) Moſes ſo ſpake to the Iſraelites: Exod. 19. 6. Reply Where vntounto I anſwer, firſt, againe as immediately before I to the place of Moſes. Exod. 19. 6.hauehave ſaid to his other reaſon: ſecondly, the place expounds it ſelfe to be meant of the inuiſible Church, though ſpoken to the viſible; it is with a condition of true hearing, and obeying the Lords voyce, verſe 5. Now ſuch as truely heare and doe Gods commandements, are onelyonly the Elect ſaith Doctor Whittakers, Lib. de Eccleſ. Pag. 80. towards the end: thirdly, theſe titles might be ſpoken of the Iewiſh Church typically; the high Prieſt was a type of Chriſt, and the people of the Church of Chriſt, it cannot be therefore ſaid now ſo of particular viſible Churches, though it was then ſo. Anſwer. 3 Thirdly, for that ſaith he, the Apoſtle mentioneth their calling to that dignitie. Reply. But this end proueth that the Apoſtle doth meane the members of the inuiſible Church, in the viſible. He ſaith, they are a choſen generation and ſo forth: this is his charitie, but he doth not ſay, that they ſhew 1. Pet. 2. 9.forth the vertues of Chriſt, but that they ſhould ſhew thē forth. Declaring the end of Chriſts calling, and withall, giuing them a token, to know who they be indeed that are called effectually, and are of the choſen Generation, royall Prieſt-hood, and holy Nation: not all that are called are Elect, not all in the viſible Church, are of the inuiſible, but onelyonly ſuch as truely ſhew foorth the holy vertues of Chriſt our Sauiour.
Now whether this place appertaine properly to the inuiſible Church or no, though ſpoken to the viſible in charitie, I leaue it to eueryevery ſound Diuine to iudge. He puts it ouer to eueryevery member of the viſible Church to iudge: this man (it may ſeeme) ſuppoſeth eueryevery true member of the Church able to iudge of that wherein hee himſelfe is greatly miſtaken: great humilitie in eſteeming well of other mens good parts, but great ſeelineſſe with all.
Doctor A…iſon is anſwered in a word; in their Iudgement, his labour is vnworthy a Doctor of Diuinitie, ſaith he, and ſo hauehave they thought beſt to paſſe him ouer: good cauſe why, if they could they would hauehave made anſwer to him. His courſe is a death to their cauſe; he puls off theirSee Ainſworth, Page 116. 124. vizard, ſhewes of Scripture, the abuſe whereof by them is intollerable.
If they would but explaine their Scriptures, and ſhew how thence doe ariſe their ſingular opinions, no more need to be required of any vnderſtanding Reader to diſcry the falſe-hood of their way, and vaine (if not impious) ſhews of Scripture which they will muſter in the margent, if they allude but to the phraſe in Scripture. See the places alledged by them in the Preface to the Reader, in their Booke to his Maieſtie. Page 6. 7. marke the matter, and the Scriptures, and ſee how little they accord. This I profeſſe for my ſelfe, that there impertinent allegations of Scripture wrought in me a iuſt ſuſpicion of perſonall ill entents, and after by due tryall a reiection of their cauſe, as the forgeries of their owne heart, which by abuſe of Gods moſt holy word, they would make him Author off.
Reply to Mr. Smiths Anſwere to thePag. 126. third Probabilitie.
HIs Anſwere is onelyonly a framing of what I ſay into this Sillogiſme. That is not the truth, the teachers and profeſſors This is not my reaſon.whereof ſometimes doe giuegive ſtrange Expoſitions, and thereby doe wreſt the Scriptures.
But the teachers and profeſſours of the Separation, doe ſtrangely expound and wreſt the holy Scriptures:
Therefore the Separation is not the truth.
Reply. He that deuiſeth an Argument of his owne, in ſtead of what another maketh, if thereby he would ouerthrow an Aduerſarie, hee is much conceited of himſelfe, that any thing may paſſe from him as currant, or he iudgeth him whom hee oppoſeth, to be exceeding ſimple. What Mr. Smith thinketh of himſelfe, or of me, I let paſſe. But my reaſon from the third Likelihood, is thus framed.
The way which is defended by the teachers and profeſſours thereof with ſtrange Expoſitions, impertinent allegations, and Sophiſticall concluſions, is likely not to be the truth.
I vnderſtand not ſometime, as he ſaith in his propoſition, but vſually, if not alwayes, whether it be of ignorance, or wilfulneſſe I diſpute not; it is probable, that ſuch a way, being alſo a ſingular way differing from all, is not the good way of God, and the way of truth. But the way of the Separation is defended by teachers and profeſſours thereof, with ſtrange Expoſitions, impertinent allegations, and Sophiſticall concluſions.
By the way of Separation, I meane not any truth which they hold with vsus, or with Reformed Churches, but onelyonly that, wherein they doe walke apart from all Churches of God in the world, as Schiſmatickes, and in the Browniſme which they maintaine ſo as is aforeſaid.
Therefore the way of the Separation is likely not to be the truth, and good way of God.
The Minor, I hauehave partly ſhewed to be true in my formerThe Separatiſts foure wayes principally do abuſe Scripture: See my former Booke, Page 26. 28. Booke, by ſetting downe foure ſeuerall wayes of their abuſe of Scripture, to vphold their cauſe: by which (as generall Rules) the particular places may be tryed: partly in this Booke, in giuing anſwere to ſeuerall places alledged falſly, by Mr. Ainſworth, in defence of his way: If Mr. Ainſworth require ſpeciall inſtances, I referre him ouer; firſt to Doctor Alliſon, who handleth this very point, and onelyonly this, in a good bigge booke, it is not yet anſwered, and therefore he herein ſhall ſaue me labour. Then to Mr. Smith himſelfe, who expoundeth the places brought by Mr. Ainſworth & his companie, to maintaine their threefold Preſbiterie, otherwiſe then they do, & condemneth them as falſe. Alſo to Mr. Bradſhawes challenge, which is not yet publikely by them ſet forth, if they could anſwer him in this, they be not ſparing of their labour. Laſtly, I ſet him ouer to the places by him alledged, and of me anſwered in this booke afterwards.
If Mr. Smith doe require (as hee doth) that I produce particular places, I referre him ouer to anſwere Mr. Iohnſons company, condemning him in their iudgement, as an Hereticke, for the opinions which he holdeth by Sophiſtrie, and abuſe of Scriptures: So alſo I will him to looke vntounto the Reioynder of diuers Miniſters, who hauehave ſhewed him his falſe expoſition vponupon Math. 23. 2. 3. and many other out of the New and Old Teſtament: to all which he hath made no anſwere, that we know of; I may therefore ſaue my paines, either to adde more, or repeate what others ſay, ſithen they be not anſwered.