Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 2
The ſecond reaſon, drawne from the entrance,In my former Booke pag. 46. I thus frame.
THat way which vponupon the entrance thereinto, forceth on The way of the Separation forceth vntruths vponupon the receiuers of it.them that do enter many vntruths, is not to be approued. But the way of the Separation, vponupon the enterance thereinto, forceth on them that enter many vntruths.
This I proue by theſe particulars, which are vntruths, which eueryevery Separatiſt is to yeeld vntounto, and to hold as truths.
Firſt, That their way, in their ſingular walking from all (ſo I vnderſtand euer their way) is the way of God, when it is a proud Schiſme, as before I hauehave ſhewed.
Secondly, That their definition of a Church, is a true definition and ſound Doctrine, to which all Churches muſt agree, or els are not true Churches: the definition is their third poſition in their Booke to his Maieſtie, if they denyPage 44. that to be ſound, then they ſtriue for a Church, and yet cannot tell what it is; if they hold it currant, then I will ſhew it to be falſe, thus:
A true deſcription of a Church giueth not God, his Prophets, and Apoſtles the lie.
But the Separatiſts deſcription of a Church, giueth God, his Prophets and Apoſtles the lye.
And therefore it is not true, but falſe and blaſpemous.
The Minor I proue from the Scripture plainely, and I wil ſhew the deſcription in three reſpects to be falſe, in ſaying that it is a company ſeparated from all falſe wayes in the world.
Firſt, for God called Iſrael his people, and ſo his churchA people ſtanding in corruption may be a true Church. in the dayes of Ely: 1. Sam. 2. 29. yet were they then not ſeparated from all falſe wayes, and Elyes Sonnes wicked liuers remaining among them. 1. Sam. 2. 12. Moſes calleth the Iſraelites Gods people when hee was vponupon the Mount: Exod. 32. 11. and yet they were not a people ſeparated from the wickedneſſe of the world, but at that time were in their act of Idolatrie. ver. 1. 6. In Sauls time, Samuel calleth the people Gods people: 1. Sam. 12. 22. and yet had they grieuouſly rebelled againſt God. In Eſayes time were they called Gods people: chap. 1. 3. yet exceeding great wickedneſſe among them: Magiſtrates wicked. Chap. 1. 10. 23. and 3. 14. 15. and 5. 7. and 19. 16. and 28. 14. 15. The ſtate of the Churchill. Chap. 1. 21. 22. 29. and 2. 6. 8. & 65. 11. So Teachers. Chap. 3. 12. and 14. 16. and 29. 10. Women. Chap. 3. 16. 18. 23. Rich men. Chap. 5. 8. The Chiefe. Chap. 10. 1. 2. and 36 3 And all the people in generall: Chap. 24. 5. and 25. 13. and 29. 11. 19. 21. 22. and 48. 4. 8. and 57. 3. 4. 5. and 1. 2. 6. and 3. 8. 9. and 5. 11. 19. and 28. 7. they were ſunck deepe in Rebellion: Chap. 31. 6. yet Gods Church and people; which this definition denyeth. So in Saint Paules time, the Corinthians were called the Church of God. 1. Cor. 1. 1. 2. and yet at that inſtant time were ſome in an Hereſie, ſome in inceſt, ſome that had not repented of their filthineſſe. 2. Cor. 12. 20. 21. So the Churches of Aſia. Reu. 2. and 3. which title of true Churches could not hauehave beene giuen them, if this definition of the Separatiſts were true, and agreeing to eueryevery true Church of God at all times, as it ought: elſe it is not a generall definition, but onelyonly for the Church at ſome time, which to affirme is ridiculous. But what need I proue this further, that a true Church may at that very time be a true Church when in the generall eſtate of it, it is idolatrous, and therein obſtinate? ſithen Mr. Iohnſon himſelfe acknowlegeth ſo much, contraryIn his anſwere to Mr. White. Page. 15. to his owne defining of a Church, which yet he would ſalue with a double anſwere: Firſt, that ſuch a Church yet may be Gods people by a former calling: from which then this followeth, that ſuch as once hauehave beene called, thoughMr. Iohnſons words yeeld vsus a proofe to be a true Church. they after become Idolaters, and liue therein obſtinately, may be Gods people. If Gods act hold them in, when their owne caſts them out, what lets vsus to be a true Church, ſeeing wee hauehave had a former calling of God, when hee brought vsus from Gentiliſme, hauing caſt off Idolatry, and recouered from Poperie the true word, and the true Sacraments, the Couenant of God, and the ſeales thereof, giuen in the firſt conſtituting of it? If this his anſwere be true, hee muſt acknowledge vsus a true Church of God. Secondly, hee thus anſwers; that by Gods mercy to them, and in reſpect of his owne Name, which is called vponupon by his Church and people, ſuch may remaine a true Church. This anſwere alſo is for vsus ſtill, except hee can deny vsus Gods mercy, and that God reſpecteth not his name, which is here called vponupon: Thus his anſwering for the corruptions in the old Church, grants vsus to be a true Church by the ſame anſwere.
Secondly, I proue the deſcription falſe in this, that theSecond reaſon to proue his deſcription falſe. Church by it muſt be a company called onelyonly by the word of God, as excluding all other meanes; and yet many ſtrangers came out of Egypt, and ioyned themſelues to Gods people, not by any conuiction of heart by the word, but through the wondrous workes of God, for any thing wee can tell, and yet were not reiected, but allowed to be of Gods people. Ezod. 12. 38. 48. So many in Mordecaies time became Iewes for feare, and ſo were accounted. Eſt. 8. 17. And many in Ezekiels dayes, brought by poſtes, as it2. Chron. 30. were by ſound of the Trumpet.
Thirdly, the deſcription is not true, becauſe it requirethThird reaſon againſt it. onelyonly ſuch as ioyne themſelues voluntarily to profeſſe the truth: by which is ſecluded the Church of God in Ioſias time, for that Ioſias did compell many to ſerue the Lord,2. Chron. 34. 33▪ that were found in Iſrael, and yet a true Church. And thus we ſee their principall doctrine to be an vntruth.
Thirdly, they that enter muſt hold that we here are falſeAnother falſe doctrine of the Brovvniſts. Chriſtians, for ſo they iudge and cenſure vsus; and with this condemnation they leaue vsus. But they that profeſſe the true Chriſt, and his truth, and hauehave receiued true Baptiſme, are true Chriſtians. For ſuch be eyther true Chriſtians or no Chriſtians; no Chriſtians they be not, and therefore true Chriſtians, though in many things otherwiſe corrupted. But we doe profeſſe the true Chriſt, (euen Ieſus the Sonne of Mary, the Iewes Meſſias,) and his truth, and hauehave receiued true Baptiſme.
Therefore are we true Chriſtians.
Againe, I thus proue it: Saints are true Chriſtians, but we are Saints. Therefore true Chriſtians.
Such as hauehave on them the outward calling of Chriſtianitie, and hauehave put on Chriſt, are Saints: for ſo the Corinths were called. But we hauehave on vsus the outward calling of Chriſtianitie, and hauehave put on Chriſt by Baptiſme. Gal. 3. 27. And therefore are we Saints.
Laſtly, falſe Chriſtians are no Chriſtians, but no Chriſtians are wee not, and therefore not falſe Chriſtians. A falſe Chriſt is no Chriſt indeed; ſo is a falſe Chriſtian no Chriſtian at all: A Iew and not a Iew, ſaith Saint Paul, Rom. 2. 28. 29. Called Iewes and are not, but of the Sinagogue of Sathan, as Iohn ſaith, Reu. 3. 9. It is not ſaid a true Iew, and a falſe, no more can it be ſaid, a Chriſtian indeed, and a falſe Chriſtian, but no Chriſtian. Thus wee ſee ſome vntruths, beſides what after ſhall be manifeſt in them to be falſhoods and errours, which thoſe that enter into the way of the Separation, muſt of neceſſitie maintaine.
Therefore the way of the Separation is not to be approued.
Reply to Mr. Ainſworths Anſwer hereunto.Page. 162.
Anſwer. FIrſt, he denyeth that they retaine any vntruths; Reply. now I hauehave here proued it, and it ſhall be further confirmed afterward. Anſwere. Secondly, whereas I ſay that our Church is not a falſe Church, becauſe they ſay the difference betweene vsus and them are but certaine corruptions: now corruptions doe not make a falſe Church, but a corrupt Church, as corruptions in a man maketh but a corrupt man, and not a falſe man. Hee anſwereth, firſt, and ſaith, that it is groſſe to ſay no corruptions can make a falſe Church: the word no, I vſed not, Reply. but I affirme that the corruptions which they mention (in the end of the Booke of their Confeſſion) if they bePage 68. corruptions on our part, doe not make a Church (otherwiſe ſound) to be a falſe Church: becauſe they in ſome things are diſputable, in ſome true; but not euident in all particulars: and are rather of circumſtances and manner, then of matter; and concerne ſome outward order and forme, with priuiledges for the well being, and are not of the very eſſence and being of a Church; and therefore a Church may be a true Church without them, as far forth as we and they differ, but eſpecially without ſome of them, which are falſe doctrines, as the third and fourth, the fift in part, the ſeauenth, the latter part of the eight, the tenth, as they vnderſtand faithfull: and therefore the want of theſe cannot make vsus a falſe Church, if withall, that be true which Mr. Smith auerreth, that there may be a falſe Miniſterie, Page. 14.Worſhip, and Gouernement in a true Church.
Anſwere. Secondly, hee endeauours to proue that corruptions make a falſe Church, from Zeph. 3. 7. and Moſes, Deu. 32. 5. which places ſhew they corrupted their wayes, and were as no Children, or worthy to be no Children; Reply. but they confirme not what he ſaith, that corruptions make a falſe church; for what is true cannot euer be falſe; but good, by corruption becommeth naught; but that which hath beene a true Church, what corruption ſoeuer in any degree be in it, is euer a true Church, but corrupted, till the Lord remoue theWhen a Church becomes no Church. Candleſticke, and giuegive a bill of diuorcement, and it become no Church of Chriſt, but the Aſſembly of Antichriſt, the Synagogue of Sathan.
Anſwere. Thirdly, hee anſwereth my Similie, that the ſimilitude of a man is not fit in this caſe, and his reaſon is, A man is a ſubſtance, but a Church conſiſts in relation or reference to Chriſt, as a wife to her huſband: but if a wife play the whore neuer ſo often and openly, ſhee may be (by Mr. Bernards diſtinction, ſaith hee) eſteemed a corrupt, but not a falſe wife: Such a diſtinction (ſaith hee) may I carry to the ſtewes. Reply But this buſineſſe I leaue for him to doe, hee dwelleth nearer the place where ſtewes be, then I. It is a meruaile how his pure pietie could admit ſo foule a thought of ſo filthy and ſtincking a place, being employed in this his holy defence. But are not Mr. Smiths Horſe and Aſſe engendring, and Mr. Ainſworths Stewes, comely Separatiſticall Meditations think you? I wiſh them to write hereafter their more cleanlySee George Iohnſons booke and Mr. Whites. thoughts. Let Mr. Ainſworth know, I make no diſtinction to vphold baudrie, nor to couer Inceſt, nor Buggerie, ſuch ſpeeches occaſion their owne ſhame. But to his Reaſon.
My Similitude fits not, why? becauſe a man is a ſubſtance, Page 136.but a church conſiſts in relation to Chriſt. He ſhould hauehave ſaid more directly and plainely; A man is a ſubſtance, a Church is not a ſubſtance, but conſiſts of relation onelyonly to Chriſt; ſo had the vanitie of this anſwere better appeared as euidently, as if hee had ſaid, a Church without a ſubſtance, a wife without a woman; for the truth is alike in both. I aske him, is not a Church a relation with ſubſtance alſo? if a ſubſtance, then the ſimilitude is good and fit; if not a ſubſtance, but a meere relation, without reſpect vntounto the perſons and their conditions, betweene whom and Chriſt the relation ſtands; then I demand why they leaue the conſideration of the relation (which as they ſay, maketh a people the true Church and Wife of Chriſt) when they ſpeake of vsus, and other Churches, and doe conſider of our perſons, that is, of our ſubſtances, and our walking in our profeſſion? The ideacal reference betweene Chriſt and a people his Church, holdeth them holy in eueryevery mans ſight, though in themſelues conſidered many be very prophane. In the relation, they be Saints, the body of Chriſt without ſinne, in their owne perſons beholden, ſinfull. Therefore if the Church be alway in relation, and ſo euer to be conſidered without the perſons as they walke in themſelues, there is no pollution, let them hold to a meere relation, and they ſhall anſwere for their fanaticall ſeparation, as others ſhall for their Anabaptiſticall inſpiration.
But becauſe my ſimilitude fits not his purpoſe, he bringethThe Similitude of Huſband and wife fitteth well to ſet out Chriſt & his Church. in another of a husband and wife: this hee holdeth a fit Similie, and ſo doe I: and becauſe he may not afterwards ſtart from it, I will ſhew that it is a moſt apt Similitude, vſed by the holy Ghoſt himſelfe, to ſet out thereby Chriſt and his Church, as Husband and Wife, with the circumſtances of marriage making. Firſt, a man chooſeth a wife, and taketh liking to her, as did Sampſon: ſo doth Chriſt. Iohn. 13. 18. Secondly, Parents take the woman for their ſonne, as Sampſons Parents did: ſo God the Father giueth the Church vntounto his Sonne. Iohn. 6. 37. Thirdly, the parties are betrothed as Ioſeph and Mary: ſo is Chriſt and his Church. 2. Cor. 11. 2. And making a couenant declared by words, the man giueth to his Spouſe tokens of louelove, as Iſaacks Seruant did to Rebecca: So Ieſus Chriſt giueth his word vntounto his church, Sacraments as pledges of his fauour and the graces of his ſpirit, the earneſt of his louelove, Ezech. 16. 8. 14. Fourthly, the parties doe marry, and are full man and wife: ſo doth Chriſt marry his Church. Oſea. 2. 19. 20. Fiftly, they doe dwell together: ſo doth Chriſt with his Church. Iohn. 6. 56. and 14. 23. Reu. 21. 2. 3. Sixtly, the husband loueth his wife, as Iſaac did Rebecca; comforts her, and defendeth her: ſo doth Chriſt his Church. Eph. 5. 25. Iohn. 13. 1. Cant. 2. 6. Pſal. 110. Act. 9. 4. 5. Eph. 5. 23. Thus hauehave I declared the truth of the aptneſſe of this Similitude, for that it is moſt fit to ouerthrow their cauſe. If wee be the wife of Chriſt, then are wee the Church of Chriſt. But that wee are his Wife, (if any particular Church may ſo be called) it is euident,The Church of England the Wife of Chriſt, as well as any other particular Church. becauſe hee hath betroathed vsus vntounto him, by giuing vsus his Word, his Sacraments, and hath beſtowed the graces of his Spirit vponupon this Church, and in other things hath ſhewed himſelfe a husband vntounto vsus, in dwelling among vsus, and mercifully defending vsus, as hee did his people Iſrael: if any deny theſe things, the ſpirit of madneſſe is vponupon them, and they are depriued of ſenſible apprehenſion. Here, from this Similitude, I propound theſe queſtions, to make euident the cauſe which we hold againſt them.
Queſtion. Queſtion 1. Whether a woman diſobedient, may be for all that her diſobedience, a true wife.
Anſwere. Anſwere. Yes: Michol mocked her husband: Zephora was raging: the Leuites wife runne from her husband:Iudges. 19. Iobs wife vexed him: yet all true wiues. For a woman is a wife, not becauſe ſhee is obedient and louing, but becauſeDiſobedience makes not no wife, but an ill wife. ſhe is betroathed and married: her obedience or diſobedience argueth eyther the goodneſſe or badneſſe of a wife, but maketh not her more or leſſe a wife: a bad woman married, is as truely a wife, as a good woman. If the husband command his wife to doe his will, to ſee to the familie in his abſence, to educate his and her children well, to correct offenders, and ſo forth; if ſhe be careleſſe of all this, is ſhee not a wife? If they ſay no, and can proue it, many bad wiues will curſe them; but ſome husbands that hauehave them, will be glad and thanke them, for finding out ſuch an ouer-ſea crotchet to make a riddance of them. If ſhee be a wife for all this, as indeed ſhee is, then diſobedience and rebellion diſanulleth not the marriage. Thus alſo it is with the Church. As what before hath beene ſaid of the Churches wickedneſſe in Eſaias time doth prooue: nay, though the wife continue obſtinate, yet is ſhee a wife; ſo is the church, Gods Church, though ſhee will not heare. Pſal. 81. 11. 2. Chron. 36. 13. 14. 16. and yet verſe 15. hee calleth them his people, though he did ſeuerely puniſh them.
Queſtion. Question 2. What if a wife play the whore openly and often, is ſhee then a wife?
Anſwere. Anſw. Such a one deſerueth a diuorce, and hath loſt her power of her husbands bodie: but euen then ſhee is a wife, ſo long as the husband will ſo account of her; as Dauid did his wife Mychol, marryed to another; which marriage2. Sam. 3. was adulterie, eſpecially if ſhe did voluntarily liue ſo: Bethſheba after h…r adulterie, is called the wife of Vriah, and2. Sam. 11. 26. Mat. 19 9. a woman marryed that may be diuorced for adultery is called a wife, and ſo is, vntill the husband renounce her, and giuegive her a bill of Diuourcement, as none of his wife. If ſhe were not his wife, he could nor retaine her. Thus is it betweene God and his Church; which, though ſhe commit Idolatrie, (which is ſpirituall Adulterie, and is ſo called in the Scripture. Ezech. 23. and 16.) and that ſhe commit it openly and continue in it, yet is ſhe the Church of God, whilſt the Lord will ſtand to his Couenant as hee ſaith, Ezech. 16 60. and will acknowledge them his people,Ezech. 23. 5. as he did when they liued in adulteries: vntill he giuegive her a bill of Diuorcement, of which, read Eſay. 50. 1. & that he doth remoue the Candleſticke out of the place, as he ſpeaketh, Reu. 2. And therfore, albeit we were an Idolatrous people; yet that maketh not vsus no wife of Chriſt, nor Church of God, vntill they can proue that God hath diuorced vsus,We are to be accounted Gods Church, till they can ſhew that Chriſt hath diuorced vsus, & remoued the Candleſticke. and taken away his Candleſticke from vsus. If they will iudge vsus to be diuorced, and the Candleſticke to be remooued: then let them ſhew, firſt, what is Gods diuorcement, and what is the Candleſticke: ſecondly, that that Candleſticke is taken away, and the diuorcement made: thirdly, how theſe be done; that ſo we may take true notice of it: let them by Gods word teach vsus plainely theſe things, and if they doe, we hauehave cauſe to hearken vntounto them; till then, we muſt hold our ſelues the Church of God, being neither in Conſtitution nor publike practiſe Idolaters, intertaining no other louers, but doe hold Ieſus Chriſt, our onelyonly head and husband, and therefore are his wife by his owne word, Sacraments, and holy graces beſtowed vponupon vsus, and not yet taken from vsus: bleſſed be his holy Name. Amen.
Queſtion. Quest. 3. Whether a lawfull marryed woman, through her misbehauiour, diſobedience, rebellion and adulterie, can be a falſe wife?
Anſwere. Anſw. Falſe, is taken two wayes: firſt, for deceitfull, or fraudulent, or lying, or corrupt: ſecondly, for the counterfeit of a thing, not the thing, but onelyonly in ſemblance like it. In the former ſenſe, a wife wickedly diſpoſed may be called a falſe wife, but yet is ſhee a wife, and truely and rightly as a woman a wife well diſpoſed: as in this ſenſe may a Church be called a falſe church, and yet be a church of God. In the latter ſenſe a woman ſeeming to be marryed, and yet by reaſon of immoueable impediments not truly marryed, cannot be called a falſe wife; but indeed, is all one with no wife: for in this ſenſe a falſe wife and no wife is all one. A woman that is a wife, is not a falſe wife, in this ſenſe, how diſorderly ſoeuer ſhe be, but is a true wife, diſorderly liuing. When I ſay a true wife, I meane only a woman that is indeed a wife in lawfull marriage, & a falſe wife is the counterfeit woman not marryed lawfully, but going vnderunder the name of one lawfully married as a true man in this ſenſe is one verily that is a man, hauing the liuely eſſentiall parts & properties of a man: a falſe man is one but in ſemblance like a man, a portraiture of a man; yet indeed is no man.
Thus may we learne what to thinke of a Church, when it is called a falſe church: corruptions in the firſt ſenſe maketh it a falſe church but cannot make it no Church. But an Aſſembly,We muſt note the diſtinction, of a falſe church and no church. in the latter ſenſe, called a falſe church, is all one with no Church. This diſtinction muſt be diligently obſerued, to ouerthrow their condemning of vsus to be a falſe church. If they vnderſtand it in the firſt ſenſe, yet are wee then neuertheleſſe a Church of Chriſt, for all the corruptions which they falſly lay to our charge, and can neuer proue ſuch corruptions to make an nullitie of a Church. If they hold our Church a falſe Church, in the latter ſenſe, then muſt they prooue our Church, to be no Church of Chriſt at all. For in this ſenſe can wee call a Church of Chriſt no more a falſe Church, then a woman marryed lawfully and liuing honeſtly no wife.
The word, Church, (as is well knowne) is vſed for the AſſemblyHow the word Church, is taken. of wicked, called the malignant church; this howſoeuer it is called and ſhewes it ſelfe, is a counterfeit, a falſe church, that is, it is no Church of Chriſt, but the Synagogue of Sathan, as it is tearmed by the holy Ghoſt, in Reu. 3. 9. The word, Church, is alſo taken for ſuch as profeſſe Ieſus Chriſt, which in the firſt ſenſe by corruptions may be called a falſe church, but not ſo in the latter ſenſe: for a true Church, that is, a Church of Chriſt indeed, can be no more a counterfeit, that is, no Church of Chriſt, then true Chriſt may be tearmed a falſe Chriſt. A true Chriſtian is the ſincere profeſſour, one ſo indeed, like Nathaniel before God, as he ſhewes himſelfe to be before men; the falſe Chriſtian is the Hypocrite who reſembleth the true Chriſtian before men, (for before God there are none ſuch) but indeed is no Chriſtian at all before God, but a very diuell; as Iudas was, before he was reuealed to man, as Chriſt called him. ToIohn. 9. conclude this, The Church (ſaith Mr. Ainſworth) ſtands in relation to Chriſt. Then, ſay I, that which hath right reference to Chriſt is true, as he is true; as hee is verily Chriſt, ſo is that Aſſembly which hath true relation to him verily his Church. And if wee doe call it a Church, and dare not call it the Church of Chriſt, but a falſe Church, then we ſpeaking plainly, wee hold it no Church of Chriſt at all. As a falſe Chriſt, is not Chriſt but a diuel, ſo that Church, which is a falſe church, and cannot be called truely the Church of Chriſt, is the church of the diuell. If therefore they dare not call our Church, the Church of Chriſt, then let vsus ſee their impudencie, if they dare call it a Church of the diuell.
In the end of this his anſwere, he teacheth three things: Firſt, that corruptions may be in true Churches, and inſtancethCorruptions may be in a true Church. Pergamus, and Thyatira, which I confeſſe to be true; and in theſe two churches greater corruptions, then in ours, which I wiſh him ingeniouſly to confeſſe: for there was the Doctrine of Balaam, of the Nicolaitans, a woman Ieſabel, teaching and deceiuing the people, to make Idolaters and fornicatours: which doctrines our Church abhorreth. How then are we a falſe church, with leſſe corruptions, and they true, with moe and greater? Secondly, that ſome corruptions make a true Church falſe, as he calleth it: but indeed, the ſcripture alledged by him out of Re. 17. 2. & 1. 8. 2. proue not his Aſſertion, but euidently ſhew the Church of *So it is, as it is conſidered in the Apoſtaſie and Idolatrie thereof, but not as it was or is in the Conſtitution. 2. Kings. 17. 27. 28.Rome to be the Synagogue of Sathan; the habitation of diuels; & therefore the church of Antichriſt. Thirdly, that a church may from the firſt conſtitution, by corruptions, be a falſe church, though it imbrace much truth: his inſtance is in 2. King. 17. 27 28. &c. But this church was no church of God, but a congregation of Infidels in the firſt conſtitutution; a people brought from Babylon, from Cuthah, Aua, Hamath, Sepharuaim, and placed in Samaria in ſteed of Iſraelites, Gods people; they worſhipped diuels, and no Gods, Succoth-Benoth, Nergal, Aſhima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adrammelech, Anammelech, and knew not at all the God of Iſrael, in their conſtitution; afterwards a Leuite was ſent to teach them to know and feare the God of Iſrael, as if a Chriſtian Teacher ſhould beſent now among Pagans, would yet any for that call that people from the firſt conſtitution a falſe church, or rather no Church of God at all? He ſpeaketh of much truth held, & corruptions in the conſtitution, & that church falſe in that conſtitution. Here let Mr. Ainſworth deale vprightly with his people, and with all the world: firſt, ſhew by Gods word plainely, what is A taxe for Mr. Ainſworth and h…s com…anie, by which the truth will be more fully laid open, then yet hitherto it hath beene.a Conſtitution, ſecondly: what is a falſe church, a true church, and no Church; and withall, the euident difference between a falſe Church, and no Church by Gods written word: thirdly, what truths in the conſtitution a Church may hold, and yet be a falſe Church, and what corruptions may fall into a true Church in the conſtitution, and thereby become a falſe Church: fourthly, when it becommeth a falſe Church, and whether then it may hauehave relation to Chriſt, and be called a falſe church of Chriſt, or elſe no Church of Chriſt. The true manifeſtation of theſe things, will fully lay open the errour where it is, and will demonſtrate to eueryevery one, whether we or they hauehave the truth in this point; to wit, whether wee be a true Church of God or no, better then any thing which hitherto they hauehave ſaid and written againſt vsus. If he and they louelove the truth in ſinceritie, let them manifeſt theſe things plainely, but not by bare quoted Scriptures, but by explanation of the Scriptures brought, and then drawing their arguments from thence, ſhew how ſuch places of Scripture proue what they hold. I doe profeſſe, if God will be mercifull vntounto me, that the truth I will embrace with my heart, if herein I ſhould ſtand in errour.
Reply to Mr. Smiths Anſwere to this.
MAſter Smith hath gathered vp my two Reaſons into one, and giueth ſuch an anſwere as it is, vntounto both; which I hauehave before replyed vntounto. And thus much for the reaſons from the entrance into the way.