Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 4
The fourth Likelihood.
THey hauehave not the approbation of any of the Reformed Churches for their courſe.
They publiſhed their Confeſſion but not openly by theThe ſumme of my former Booke. Page 30. Reformed Churches allowed: They write to learned Iunius, but hee allowed not of their ſo proceeding, and though they remaine as tollerated, yet are they not in their way by them maintayned.
Reply to Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere toPage 158. 159. this fourth Likelihood.
Reply. HEe paſſeth by the proofe of my Likelihood, which is, that it is a propertie of the Church of God, to be ableA true Church can iudge of a true Church. to diſcerne of a true Church: els none can. The proofe of this Mr. Ainſworth acknowledgeth, for he ſaith; that men endewed with Gods ſpirit, can diſcerne the Church, 1. Cor. 2. 15. Now all the Churches beyond the Seas acknowledge vsus forSee Page 125. true Churches, but allow not of them ſo ſtanding: it is likely then we be in the true Churches, and they in a Schiſme, forſaking vsus as falſe Churches. For this ſee more in my booke, Page 177. lightly paſſed ouer by this Anſwerer, and his fellow helpers.
His reaſons giuen to refell my Likelihood are none at all: yet what he ſaith let vsus ſee.
Anſwere. 1 Firſt, hee maketh this Likelihood much like the firſt, and ſo ſuppoſing the firſt to be anſwered, he concludes this to be anſwered alſo. Reply. But they be nothing like, neither as thou maiſt ſee (Reader) hath hee anſwered the firſt, and ſo this remaineth vnanſwered.
Anſwere. 2 Secondly, he ſaith, that this is a maine proppe to vphold our Church of England, and that we louelove to make fleſh our Arme. Reply. Hee is wicked in imputing ſuch an idolatrous affection to the Church of Chriſt, contrary to our doctrines in writing, and daily preaching. Neither make we it a maine proppe; it is denyed plainely in my booke, Page 177. And in this place I account it but a likelihood, or probable coniecture: what an ill ſpirit is this man led with, who will needs make vsus belieue wee hold that which plainely by word, writing and practiſe we diſclaime.
Anſwere. 3 Thirdly, he refers his Reader ouer to his Anſwere in his former Treatiſe, and ſo doe I, to expect thereto a Reply: Reply. if he had dealt particularly with me, I would hauehave anſwered him in particular: other mens labours, beſt vnderſtood of themſelues, I leaue to themſelues; not that I cannot make anſwer to what he there ſaith, but I know the party with whom he dealeth, is eueryevery way ſufficient to encounter a greater Aduerſarie then this Anſwerer, though he help himſelfe with Anſwere. 4 all the power he can with his confederates. Reply. Againe, he refers men ouer to Iunius Letters. ſo doe I: for they be Letters publiſhed to their diſgrace, if they were capeable to apprehend ſhame. Anſwere. 5 Laſtly, he puts me ouer to the Church of England, becauſe we there ſay, that the truth of the Goſpel of Ieſus Chriſt, dependeth not vponupon counſels; nor as S. Paul ſaith, vponupon the iudgement of mortall creatures. Reply. This is true, it is worthy to be acknowledged: but it is nothing to this our purpoſe in hand. The Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the truth of the Goſpel it ſelfe: wee here of a Church profeſſing the Goſpel there, whether the Goſpel depend on mans authoritie: here, whether it be not a probable coniecture and likelihood, that the Church is a true Church, which the beſt Reformed doe acknowledge ſo, and that particular perſons oppoſing all their iudgements therein, be not in a Schiſme by ſo departing with condemnation.
Reply to Mr. Smiths Anſwere to thisPage 126. 127. fourth Likelihood.
AS before, ſo firſt here he frameth a reaſon of his owne head, making his diſciples beleeue the ſame to be mine, his Argument is thus ſet downe:
They that are not approued, by the Reformed Churches That is not my reaſon neither, but he abuſeth me, and playeth with his owne ſhadow.hauehave not the truth.
But the Separation is not approued by the Reformed Churches.
Therefore the Separation is not the truth.
Next he giueth an Anſwere thereunto. Firſt, to the Minor denying it, by prouing that the Reformed Churches doe approue of their Separation. But the reaſon brought to proue it, is not ſufficient: which is becauſe the Vniuerſities and Iunius hauehave not diſallowed, but being ſilent, hauehave conſented to them. It ſeemeth that he thus reaſoneth:
Whoſoeuer doe paſſe ouer with ſilence mens publiſhed writings, Mr. Smiths weake reaſon, to proue themſelues to be allowed of the Reformed Churches.wherein they hauehave been deſired to ſhew their iudgement, they conſent and allow of ſuch writings.
This is ſeely and weake: Men may keepe ſilence, not for that they approue, but diſallow the matter propounded, which ſufficiently doth condemne it ſelfe: and for that they ſee the Publiſhers to be men of a contentious ſpirit, and will not be ſatiſfied, neither will ſee what is amiſſe, though it be ſhewed vntounto them. And this is the cauſe of many mens ſilence in this matter among vsus, and why not the cauſe alſo in others.
But the vniuerſities of the Reformed Churches paſſe ouer with ſilence the publiſhed writings of the Separatiſts, wherein they hauehave beene deſired to ſhew their iudgement.
And therefore they conſent and allow of their writings.
Reply. A ſuſpicious cauſe, which can get no better approbation of ſo many famous Churches, and learned men, but bare ſilence for conſent. A meere coniecturall approbation from fanſie, becauſe the Vniuerſities be ſilent, yet ſome Churches ſpeake & ſhew their diſlike: let Amſterdam it ſelf witneſſe this againſt them. If it be a good reaſon to concludeBy Mr. Smiths owne Argument, the Scripture doth approue the Baptiſme of Infants. a conſent where the matter is with Silence paſſed ouer, I demaund of Mr. Smith, why hee diſalloweth the Baptiſme of children, ſithen by this his reaſon, the holy Ghoſt conſenteth vntounto it? if with all he conſider the generall commandement for baptiſing all, Chriſts allowing of children to come vntounto him, the Circumciſing of Infants vnderunderMany reaſons ſummed together for Baptiſme of Infants. the Law, the Analogie and proportion of one with the other, the largeneſſe of the Couenant to the Father and his ſeed, as to Abraham and Iſaac after the promiſe, ſo to the beleeuing Chriſtian Father, and to his childe after the promiſe: As Faith in Abraham begate Iſaac his childe, after the power of the word of Promiſe to be a viſible member of Gods Church: ſo Faith in a Chriſtian Father begetteth a childe, after the power of the word of Promiſe, to be now a viſible member of Chriſts Church: Iſaac was not the ſeed by naturall Generation, but Iſmael, hee was of the word of Promiſe; ſo Iacob, and ſuch as came of him, were accounted the children of Promiſe, becauſe he was promiſed, and Abraham beleeued againſt Nature and reaſon of hope, and ſo had him. Adde hereto, that the grace vnderunder the Goſpel extendeth it ſelfe as far and to as many, as Gods fauour did vnderunder the law. If therefore a childe was by the parents faith, in the couenant vnderunder the Law, much more the children of Beleeuers now vnderunder the Goſpel. Examples there be of whole families baptiſed, & the Scriptures doe not diſallow Infants; Children of beleeuing Parents are holy by their parents Faith: yea, God hath out of the mouth of Babes and ſucklings made perfect his praiſe: Dauid hoped in God hanging vponupon his mothers breſts: Iohn Baptiſt beleeued, and leapt in his mothers wombe for ioy. If children then be holy, if they may beleeue, if leape for ioy, if laude and praiſe God, if they be in the Couenant, if God be their God, and all Hyſtories ſhew it to be the Churches practiſe to baptiſe Infants, & not any mans inuentions, can Mr. Smith iuſtly condemne it? If the Scripture be ſilent in it, God alloweth and conſents vntounto it, by his owne reaſon, whereby he condemneth himſelfe in that he alloweth.
Secondly, he anſwereth to the Maior, to wit thus. They thatThe Separatiſts regard not the iudgement of any Church. though they be not approued by the Reformed Churches, and hauehave not the truth in their iudgement: yet he ſuppoſeth, firſt, that they may hauehave the truth, though no church approue of them: and ſecondly; that they may hauehave the allowance of Gods Churches, planted by the Apoſtles, though not the approbation of the Church now: and thus they ſooth vp themſelues with ſuppoſitions, to be wiſer then all Churches, to know more of the Apoſtolicall Churches then any, or els to hauehave more conſcience to follow them then all: one of theſe they muſt needs imagine to be in them, if they choſe either, it is pride and folly. Laſtly, he telleth me that the Reformed Churches doe vtterly diſallow our Church, in regard (ſaith he) of the Prelacie. He may in this be anſwered, firſt, with his owne anſwere to vsus, ſufficient to turne his owne weapon vponupon himſelfe: but ſecondly, it is not true, he ſaith, as the Epiſtle of Beza and Sadeel, in the name of the whole Vniuerſitie at Geneua, manifeſtly declareth, as elſewhere is ſhewed. And thus much for his anſwer, and reaſon framed as he liſted, which I renounce: this is my Argument:
Whom the Reformed Churches approue not of in their way, The reaſon from the fourth Likelihood.but allow rather what thoſe deny, it is likely that ſuch are not in the right way.
But the Reformed Churches approue not of the Separatiſts in their way: but allow vsus for a true Church, which they deny.
Therefore it is likely they are not in the right way.
It is a ſpeciall propertie (as hath beene ſaid) of the true Churches, to hauehave the Spirit of diſcerning who are true Churches, who are not: the Spirituall man diſcerneth all things; 1. Cor. 2. 15. Amongſt theſe, all things, muſt be comprehended the knowledge of a true viſible Church. For if all theſe Churches of God, cannot diſcerne a true Church, but ſo far ſhould erre, as to approue the Church of England for a true Church and yet be none, and not allow of the Separatiſts who challenge ſo to be: & I ſay, approue vsus for a true church, whom the Separatiſts condemn, how ſhould a true Church be knowne, if a true Church (nay ſo many true Churches) can iudge no better of a true Church? If it be granted that the Churches hauehave this ſpirit of diſcerning, then as it is likely that we are Gods Church, becauſe they approue of vsus; So is it likely, that the Separatiſts way is not good, or that the Reformed Churches approue it not.