A Defense of the Holy Scriptures, Observations
A FEW OBSERVATIONS UPON SOME OF M. SMYTHES Censures, in his answer to M. Bernard.
Mr Smyth in his “printed 1609.late book, caled Parallels, censures &c. seeks occasion to censure some things which I had written in answer to Mr. Bern. but cheifly insisteth upon the question of ecclesiastical goverment, wherabout he chargeth me with antichristianisme. If it were not for others that may stumble at this reproch, I would bear it in silence; minding my adversarie so fickle and unconstant, as he holdeth almost to nothing that himself hath written; and I would restin Gods work, who as already he hath made this man †Psal. 83. 13.like unto a wheel, so, if he repent not, in due time will make him † like stubble before the wind. For from the faith which he defended in that his book he presently after, in great mesure fel away himself. The constitutiō of our Church, (in which estate himself then professed to be with us,) he writeth of it thus “Parall. pag, 15.I am bould to pronounce &c. our true constitution to be the most honorable and bewtiful ornament of our Church; more glorious then our true Ministerie, worship, and goverment. Contrary to this, a few dayes after, he setts out The character of the Beast, wherin (having dissolved & forsaking his former true and glorious constitution,) he exclaimeth against us, (as before *pag. 3.I hauehave shewed,) as having a false Church falsly constituted, and therfore no one ordinance of the Lord true among us. Thus †Rev. 8. 10. 11▪Wormwood fell from heaven.
Agayn in this answer to Mr. Bernard he acknowledgeth, “Parall. p. 14. & 23.the apostate Church of the 10. tribes in the old Testament to be a Church falsly constituted; and so the Churches of Antichrist in the N. Testament: contraryweise in his Character of the Beast, seking shifts for his anabaptisme, he sayth †Char. pag. 48.Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church, but Antichrists doeth, &c. I leave these and other like flowers of contradiction, for others to gather that deal in that controversie. OnelyOnly because his answer to Mr. Bern. seemeth to be written in defence of our cause, and so may be taken of posteritie: I would have the reader take notice, that the silver there is mixt with drosse and the wine, with the *Deut. 32. 33.gal of aspes. As where Mr. Sm. sayth, that “Parall. p. 30.to the constitution of the typical Church, (meaning the church of Israel) there was not required true holynes but ceremonial cleannes. This is a false and blasphemous assertiō, injurious to Gods holy majestie, as making him to constitutea Church of hypocrites: & it is evidently overthrown by the covenants made between God and them; Gen. 17. Exod. 19. 5. 6. 8. Exod. 20. and 21. &c. and 24. 3. 4. 7. 8. Levit. 19. 2. with 1. pet. 1. 15 16. Deut. 5. 1. 2. 3. and 26. 17. 18. 19. and 29. 10. 11. 12. 13. &c.
So when he sayth, the Israelites *Parall. p. 30.did worship to repentance, we doo worship from repentance: therfore they might and did worship, therby to reconcile themselves to God, we being reconciled to God and accepted in Christ, doe proceed to offer to the Lord the calves of our lips, the best grace we have with us, first men declare their repentance▪ and then we receive them into our cōmuniō to worship with us: with thē first men were received into typical cōmuniō, and then they were trayned up to repentance and faith in Christ &c. These & the like distinctions Mr. Sm. hath fetched out of his own hart, not from the word of God: for although ther be differences many between them and us, as touching outward rites and services, ended & abolished by Christ, (as the Epistle to the Ebrues sheweth;) yet as touching the substance of their religion, worship, constitution &c. as touching repentance, faith, reconciliation to God &c. ther was no such differences as Mr. Sm. feighneth. They had the law to shew them their fyn, and to bring them to Christ: so have we. Mat. 5. 17. Rom. 3 30. 31 and 7. 7.—12. 21. &c. Iam. 2. 8. 9. 10. 11. We have the gospel, to shew us our righteousnes by Christ, without works of the law: so had they, Heb. 4. 2. Levit. 26 42—45. with Luk. 1. 54. 55▪ 72. 73. Deut. 30. 1.—12. 13. 14. with Rom. 10. 5. 6.—8. Gen. 15. 6. Psal. 32. 1. 2. with Rom. 4. 6. &c. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hebr. 11. OnelyOnly in the manner of administration the Law & gospel, ther be differences manifested.
Also when he *Parall. p 30.sayth, that the Iewes moral uncleannes did not pollute their ceremonial communion; that their real wickednes did not pollute their ceremonial or typical CHURCH, worship and communion; but lawfully they might have typical communion in typical worship, that were typically clean, though they were wicked in deed: these assertions, manifest M. S. to be not onelyonly a typical but a real seducer and deceiver of minds in deed; who would make us beleeve that if a man in Israel had but touched his own wife lying †Levit. 12. 2. 5. & 15. 19. &c.in her child-bed, or put aapart for her disease; if he came to worship in …e tabernacle, and had not washed and clensed himself according to the law, he polluted the Church and communion of the Saincts: but though he had committed adulterie with his neighours wife, and came into the tabernacle in his syn to worship, without repentance; yet he polluted not the Church, but lawfully mought have communion in the word, prayer, sacrifices &c. which unclean doctrine is evidently condemned, by these and many other like scriptures. Levit. 4. 2. 3. 13. 14. 22. 23. 27. 28. 35. Levit. 6. 2—7. Num. 15. 22. 23. 24. 27. 29. 30. 31. Levit. 19. 17. Levit. 18. 29. 30. Iosh. 22. 16. 17. 18. 20.
But upon these and like rotten grounds, M. S. hath now sought to build his towr of Anabaptisme, which the breath of the Lord, wil throw down upon his head.
Although therfore the cause which M. S. then had in hand was good, and many good things are in that book; yet the *Eccles. 10. 1.dead flyes have caused to stink, and putrified the ointment of the apothecarie: as in these so in other points, which the wise must observe. Leaving therefore those things, I come to the matter which he maketh against me, and in his foresayd book of Parallels, pag. 67. hath thus inveighed.
But Mr Ains. steppeth up with a new kind of Antichristianisme, never heard of before: and he teacheth us, if we wil beleeve him, that Christs ruling power is in the Eldership; and that the Pope and Prelates, ar *I sayd; ar antichrists, not for taking. &c.not Antichrists, for taking into their hands the power of the multitude, but the power of Christ.
Here first Mr S. maketh his owne collection, to be my assertion. I sayd not, neyther would say thus absolutely, Christs ruling power is in the Eldership, my words are these (Counterp. pa. 176) We acknowledge Christ to have ordeyned a *1 Tim. 4. 14.Presbyterie or Eldership, and that in †Tit. 1. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Act. 14. 23.every Church: for to “1 Tim. 5. 17.teach and rule them by his owne word and lawes.
That which I wrote, I plainely confirmed by scriptures in the margine, which the reader may serch and judge of: neyther hath this adversarie taken them away; or sayd ought against them; or yet set them downe in his book (where he *pag. 68.printed my words) for his reader to take notice of.
That which I have written, is further confirmed, for the substance of it, by Mr Sm. himself, in the very same book of Parallels, the last page but one, where he hath set down this argument. The goverment of the primitive Apostolik institution, was by a college of Pastors, or presbyterie. The goverment of the English assemblies, is by an antichristian M. S. Argument.Prelate and his officers. Therfore, The goverment of the English assemblies is not the primitivs Apostolik goverment. The maior is evident; &c.
Agayn, in this very passage, where he treateth of popular goverment, he is driven into such straits, as force him to say: †pag. 55.We dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not: but we dispute who hav the negative voice, &c. and a little after: yet we say the Elders are to lead and govern al persons and causes of the Church. Who now wil not wonder, at this mans malice, to charge me with Antichristianisme for my writing: and himself in the same book, to write as he hath doon.
And were i… in deed Antichristianisme, as he sayth, which I have stepped up with: yet he overlasheth with his tongue, in calling it a new kind, & neverheard of before; considering what he had heard before of M. Bernard, (if not of others) as the opinion of those that he caleth Puritans. But let us turn the edge of his own argument against himself, thus: The goverment of the primitive Apostolik institution, was by a college of of pastors or presbyterie. (This M. S. himself defendeth,) But popular goverment by the multitude, is not the goverment by a college of Pastors or presbyterie. Therfore, popular goverment by the multitude (which yet M. Sm. would also plead for,) is not the goverment of the primitive Apostolik institution.
Agayn his argument helpeth me thus, The goverment of the primitive apostolik institution is not Antichristianisme. The goverment which J plead for, in answer to M. Bern. is the goverment of the primitive Apostolik institution; (for it is the goverment by the Presbyterie,) Therfore the goverment which I plead for is not Antichristianisme.
Thus mought M. Sm. have been better advised what he censured in me: if he had duly weighed, what he wrote himself.
In his confutation of my writing, he first would *pag. 67.have it remembred, that the power of Christ which they speak of, is a ministeriall delegated power, given to man &c. I answer, that I had to deal with M. Bernards book, and knew nothing at all, of … which had passed between M. S. and him: but finding him to have set down things so badly, as that he mought make his reader beleev, there was no other difference, between Papist, protestant, puritan, and Brownist, (as he caleth them,) concerning church goverment; then onelyonly who should administer the same: whither the Pope, or a Prelate, or the presbyterie, or the multitude: I thought it needful in my answer, to shew the reader a furder difference, even in the power and jurisdiction it self, which whosoever do administer, they make themselves Antichrists: seeing the Pope & al Papal prelates, challenge such ruling power, as incrocheth upon Christs own right: besides their usurping of the power of the church.
And where I say that the Pope is Antichrist, not for taking into his hands the power of the multitude, but of Christ, to rule and govern the church as head of the same: my meaning was not altogither to free the Pope of Antichristianitie, for taking the power of the multitude, which I acknowledge to be a heighnous syn in him: but for to shew by way of comparison, that the other syn is much greater, to usurp the power of Christ. And thus I write, not onelyonly from the general equitie of the law, which †Mat. 22. 37—39. 1 Sam. 2. 25maketh a syn against God, to be much more then a syn against man: but also from the like speeches in the scriptures. For when Ieremie sayd in the Lords name to Israel, *Ier. 7. 22.J spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them when J brought them out of the land of Aegypt, concerning burnt-offrings and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, obey my voyce &c & when Paul “1 Cor. 1. 17sayd Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach, &c. neyther of them denyed simply, the things which God had plainly †Num. 15. Lev. 1. &c.spoken, & *1 Cor. 1. 16Paul practised; but onelyonly by way of comparison: even so doe I. And yet if I should stand upon fit and proper termes, I would not cal the Pope Antichrist, for doing that which the people in Christian libertie should do: but for doing that which Christ onelyonly is to do, who is L. and head of the church. Even as the Apostle Iohn maketh such to be Antichrists in his dayes, as denyed Iesus “1 Joh. 2. 22. 2 Joh. 7.to be the Christ, or come in the flesh: so al that in these dayes, deney or oppugn Christ, are properly Antichrists: and they that bereave the brethren of their libertie, are tyrans & oppressors of the church. But as things ar some time taken largely, he that synneth against his neighbour, may be sayd to syn against †Gen. 39. 9God & *1 Cor. 8. 12Christ. Anabaptists, Arrians, and al other heretiks, ar Antichrists: & so I acknowledge the Pope for robbing the church of her power, may be called Antichrist.
But M. Sm. to help the Pope, if therby he may think to hurt me, pleadeth “pag. 68.that the Pope doth not assume that power which Christ as king hath in his own hands reserved to himself. This is catholikly spokē of him and very favourably on the Popes part: but how truly, let the sequel shew. The The pope assumeth this power, to be Rector of the universal church; director of the Lords universal flock: (P. Bonifac. 8. Sexto. decretal. cap. vbi.) To be Cephas, that is (by his interpretatiō) Caput, the head of the Apostolik church. (Anaclet. dist. 22. cap. sacrosācta.) To be Lex animata in terris, a living law in earth; whose sentence & judgment must stand, as given out of heaven by the mouth of Peter himself. Sext. decret. c. Ab arbitris. glosa. P. Agatho. dist, 19. c. sic omnes. which sentence no man must break nor retract, no mā must dispute or doubt of. (P. Nicol. 9. q. 3. c. patet. P. Jnnoc. 2. Art. 17. q. 4. Si quis.) The Pope assumeth this power, to be-set of God over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up, and to root out &c. even to judge the princes of the earth; to be one and the same head with Christ of the visible church: and therfore every earthly creature if he wil be saved, must of necessitie be subject to the Pope. (Bonifac. 8. Extrav. c. unam sanctam. De maior. & obed.) He by Romish religion, is that one †Ioh. 10.Pastor, over the one fold: God himself and he his vicar, have but one consistorie. (Hosti ens. in cap. Quant. de trans. praeb.) under his feet are al things subdued, *Psa. 8.sheep and oxen & beasts of the field, fowls of heaven, and fishes of the sea, that is to say, (in catholik interpretation) Iewes, heretiks, pagans, Christen men of al sorts, Angels in heaven, and sowles in purgatorie Antonin. sum. maior. 3. part. dist. 22. As for emperours and kings, (whom God himself honoureth “Psa. 82.vvith his ovvn title of Gods,) they may serv to hold the Popes stirrop, or kisse his foot: for they be more inferior to him, then lead is inferiour to gold. P. Gelasius. Dist. 96. cap. duo. Wherfore his doctors have kept decorum, in giving him the titles of the highest God; as Optimus, Maximus, most good and most great, & Supremum in terris numen, (Staplet. in princ. fid. doct. praef. ad Greg. 13) Yea Dom. Deus nosterpapa, our Lord God the Pope, Can. Extravag. Iohan. 22. c. cum inter. In glosa. These and many moe like testimonies vvhichwhich might be alleged, vvil tel every wise hart, whither the pope assumes not the power which Chr. hath reserved to himself: and whither M. S. had not a greater splen against me, then against the Pope: when to contradict what I had written, he sets down, *Paral. pa. 68.that properly the Pope is not antichrist, for chalenging Christs kingly power proper to himself: & in another place also sayth, †pag. 41.The pope is not Antichrist, for that he usurpeth that regal power which is proper to Christ: but is antichristian for usurping the delegated power. &c.
As for his freindly qualifications, *pag. 68.that the Pope claimeth to be a ministerial head▪vnderunder Christ, & in that he dooth many actions proper to Christ himself, it is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial headship, not understanding how far it extendeth, &c. these are but colours to hide the filthines of that skarlet whore, who surmounting in arrogancie all the children of pride, yet wil needs be called servant of the servants of God. But I sett downe, not what the Pope and papal Prelates say they be; (for the Divil wil say he is an Angel of light,) nor what they plainly professe to doe: but what they be & do in deed; though yet they professe so much, as any forehead might blush to say, the Pope claims not the power proper to Christ alone.
And what if I would presse Mr Smythes words as much for the Pope on the other hand, namely that he claimeth to be ministerial Bishop under Christ, & in that he dooth many actions propre to the Church, it is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial office, not understanding how farr it extends, &c. and hereupon conclude, that properly the Pope is not Antichrist for challenging the Churches ruling power propre to it self; would not this plea be as good as Mr Smythes? And thus the Pope mought be freed from being Antichrist properly at all; or els Mr. S. pleading is but litle worth.
Agayn, for Papal Bishops among the Protestants, however they utter not such speeches of their power, (being curbed through fear of the civil magistrate:) yet their Lordly jurisdiction, which they challenge and usurp over many parishes and provinces, togither with the names of blasphemie upō their foreheads as Lords-spiritual, Archbishops &c. do prove them toincroch upō Christs kingly power, and usurp the same; though neyther they, nor the Pope, nor Belial himself, wil say so much.
Next for the goverment by Elders which I proved by scriptures; Mr Smyth, neyther answering, nor once mentioning the scriptures quoted, seeketh to blind his reader with a *pag. 69.Wee say, and a general disclayming of myne error, (as he calleth it,) without conviction. And let the reader observe his manner of disputing against me. At the first, he sayd to me, †pag. 67.This of you deney M. Ains. (which I think you doe not) I say you are therein departed from the faith. Behold how his own hart checked him, when he began his invective against me; it told him, that I denyed not the truth. But he proceeds; and after he had shewed his own faith, he comes vponupon me with an other Jf, and conceles his owne thought, saying, “pag. 68.If you hold any other faith, it is not the faith of Christ. After drawing to an end, he concludeth a gainst me thus *pag. 69.I doe therfore vtterly disclaim this your error Mr. Ains. as one part of Antichristianisme in your Church. First let us see what mine error is, and then how it is convinced. Is it mine error to hold that Christ hath ordeyned a Presbyterie in everie Church? why the scriptures which I cited proue it to be truth; and mine adversary hath nothing to say against it, but yeeldeth it himselfe in the last leaf of his book as before I shewed. Or is it mine error to hold, that this Presbyterie is to teach and rule the Church by Christs owne words & lawes? This seemeth in deed to be the scandal, which Mr. Sm. stumbleth at, & would thus spurn away. The power ministerial of the Elders (sayth he) is rather a leading power, then a ruling power: neyther ar the Elders in al the new Testament (to my knowledg) caled rulers Archontes, but overseers leaders, elders, prohistamenoi: wherby the holy ghost would teach, that their power is not to rule but to lead and direct. I doe therfore vtterly disclaim this your error &c.
I answer that Mr. Sm. dooth sophisticate & dally with the word Rule, whiles he maketh it to answer onelyonly to the greek word Archein; which signifieth to rule and reign as Princes; Mark. 10. 42. Rom. 15 12. wheras he knoweth or may know that other vvords also are fitly translated Rule; as poimainein, Rev. 2. 7. and proistasthai, Rom. 12 8. and he savv before his eyes, hovv I alleged for teaching and ruling 1. Tim. 5. 17. vvhere this later vvord is used. Which he not knovving, as it seemeth, hovv to translate better, and yet not vvilling to brook the vvord Rule, sayth they are not caled Rulers archontes, but prohistamenoi. He might as vvel have sayd, neyther ar they caled Overseers but Episcopoi, nor Leaders, but hegoumenoi, nor Elders but Presbyteroi; and so have bleared the simple readers eyes, vvith al Greek vvords, to spoil Christs Ministers of their authoritie, and to make men beleeve they stand but for ciphers. If he be so ignorant of the Greek tongue as he pretendeth, that he vvil neither allovv Prohistamenoi to be translated Rulers, (vvhichwhich so many Greek authors vvil allovv,) nor give us an other English vvord for it, I vvil leav him to his ignorance or frowardnes rather, and referr the reader to 1 Tim. 3. 4. 5. 12. where this same Greek word is applied to the ruling or governing of a howse, and of children, which the Apostle after in 1. Tim. 5. 17. and other places, applieth to the ruling of the Church by Elders. So that Mr Sm. may as well teach househoulders, they must not rule their howses or children: as that Elders must not rule the Church, because they be not called Archontes princely-rulers, but prohistamenoi, rulers standing before or over them.
Again if this reason of Mr S. be good it hath broke the neck of his popular government; for it is this; If Elders be not called Archontes (Princes or Princely-rulers;) then are they not to rule the Church of God. But Elders are not called Archontes. Therefore &c. Which I return upon himself thus, If the multitude of brethren be not called Archontes; then are they not to rule the Church of God: but the multitude of brethren are not called Archontes; if they be, let M. S. shew where. yea I might add, that they are not called Overseers, nor Leaders, nor Elders, nor prohistamenoi; Therfore neyther are they to rule the Church; and so it is to be without rule or government of man at all; which if M. Sm. doe hold, it wil be found that himself deneyes the faith. For however it be true, that onelyonly Christ himself (who is the *Rev. 1. 5.Archon or Prince of the kings of the earth,) is properly the Archon or princely-ruler of the Church, and imperiall power perteyns to him alone: yet he hath given ministerial power and authority to his servants, †Act. 20. 28.poimainein & “1 Thes. 5. 22.proistasthai, to feed, rule, govern, go before and direct his Church: and who so refuseth them whom he hath sent and set, *Ioh. 13. 20.refuseth him.
Wheras I further added of the Elders set to teach and rule, that vntounto them all the multitude, the members, the saincts, ought to obey and submit themselves, as the scriptures teach; Heb. 13. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 5. thisLuk. 10. 16 wholsom doctrine Mr. Sm. before misliked and kicked against, in answering Mr. Bern. & seeks to turne it away, with this peremptorie and perverse answer “Parall. p. 65.To the place Heb. 13. 17. J say the Apostle doth not intend to teach that the whol body of the Church must yeeld to the voice of the Elders, in every thing that they lyst. O notable cavil! who sayth they must yeeld to every thing the Elders lyst? Is this a fit answer to casshier the government of the Elders? Then away also with his popular goverment: for I say, no scripture intendeth to teach that eyther minister or member, must yeeld to the voice of the multitude, in every thing they lyst. If so; then Aaron had been blamelesse for making the golden calf; because it was the peoples lyst, and they importuned him thereto Exod. 32. 1. 22. 23.
But M. S. proceedeth, saying; nor that the Eldership hath in their hands the power of Christ to rule contrarie to their liking. I answer, the Elders are to teach and rule the Church by Christs own word and lawes, as I have “Counter. p, 176.expressed. And herein I presuppose that both the Elders wil teach and rule according unto godlynes, & the people wil obey the godly doctrines & directions of their Elders, without mislike or discontentment. For Christs sheep wil hear his voice; his kingdom is peaceable; his subjects loyal and obedient. Now whiles I speak of the ordinary power that the Elders have to teach and rule the Church, as Christ hath constituted it in peace; it is but from a contentious humour, to obiect, that they have not power to rule contrary to the peoples liking, as if there could be no rule, but when the Elders and brethren are at warr one with another. Of the Church it is written, †Act. 4. 32.the multitude of them that beleeved were of one hart and of one sowl; yet none (I think) doubteth, but ther was rule & goverment amōg them. And of such quiet rule spake I, though M. Sm. would disturb it with his exception; which he mought also have alledged against the Presbyteries authoritie to pray preach and administer the sacraments; seing these ar no more to be done contrary to the peoples liking, then rule and goverment: for God hath caled us in peace. So for ought that is yet sayd; the government by Elders standeth fast.
The last battry foloweth. But (sayth M. S.) the intent of the Apostle is to show, that all the particular members in all their affaires, must submit themselves to the instruction and guidance of the Elders. For although Christ hath placed the Elders as stewards over the servants yet he hath not appointed them as Lords over his spowse & wife. Your argument therfore (sayth he) is a fallacian a coniunctione & divisione thus; Al the particular members must obey the elders in their lawful instructions and their wholsome admonitions severally; Ergo the whole body must ioyntly obey the voyce of the Elders.
Here M. Sm. running himself into a fallacie, by dividing those that are joyned togither of the Lord, would bear himself out in his evil, by blaming an other first, but without al equitie, as the judicious reader may easily perceiv. For his reason is to this effect, Jf Elders be stewards over the servants, and not Lords over the wife (the church): then is not the church to obey or submit unto them. Where learned the man this logik? Is there no obedience or submission, thinks he, but unto Lords? Then is there no obedience ecclesiastical, which the church may yeeld to any save unto Christ, for he is the †1 Cor. 8. 6. Mat. 23. 8. 10.onelyonly Lord. But this man is blinded with his erroneous conceipt. For as in civil goverment we are to obey and submit, not onelyonly to the King as unto the superior, but *1 Pet. 2. 13. 14.also to the governours that are sent of him: so in goverment ecclesiastical we are to obey and submit, not onelyonly to the King Christ, but to “1 Pet. 5. 5 Heb. 13. 17the Elders his ministers sent of him: to the one we submit as to the Lord and King: to the other as to servants and ministers, set over us by the Lord. Agayn, I would fayn know, whither Mr. Sm. thinketh the Elders to be Lords over the particular members? If he say, yea, I abhor his pride, for it is injurious to Christ the sole Lord of al & every one in the church: if nay, then I detest his sophistrie; for by the same reason that he disswadeth the whol flock from obedience, he mought also disswade each particular member: which yet he dooth not, but yeeldeth the contrary. Now that the Apostle intendeth not onelyonly the particular mē bers, but the general flock also, is apparant; First, by his reason which he annexeth, †Heb. 13. 17.for they watch for your soules as they that must give accounts. Al good Elders, I ween, do watch as well for the publik church, as for the private members, and shal give account for the whol. If then the Apostles reason be of weight; the vvhol flock, as vvel as the particular sheep, must obey and submit to such as vvatch over them. Secondly the Apostle sayth elsvvhere, to the Elders of an other church, *Act. 20. 28.take heed to al the flock, wherof the holy ghost hath made you overseers: poimainein, (that is to feed, rule, govern, guid, direct and doe al other duties of good shepheards unto) the church of God. Novv these vvords flock & church, mean not particular members, but the general company under charge & guidance. And if the holy Ghost have set Elders and shepherds over the whole flock: can any man doubt, but they must teach rule and direct the whol? & if they must doe this by authoritie from God: is not the whol flock bound to be taught ruled & directed by them in the Lord? What perverting of the scripture then is this, that when the Apostle writing to a whol church, to obey and submit unto their guides: it should be restreyned unto particular members for to obey? Such doctrines fitt rather the confusion of Babylon, then the holy order & goverment of Sion. But it seemeth the stinch of this restreynt, went up into the nose of the man himself as he wrote it: for presently he seeketh to sweeten the yll savor with these flowers: that *pag. 66.Al the saincts shal yeeld obedience to the Elders in things commanded by God: and the Elders shal al of them obey the voyce of the church in things commanded of God. He might also have added that both Elders and people should obey the voyce of any particular person, in things commanded by God. For if the whol church doe syn, and “Lev. 4. 13 &c.any one make it known unto them, and shew them the law of God: they are bound to obey him, & submit to his good coūsel in the Lord. But what is this to the purpose? The question is into whose hands Christ hath committed the ordinarie teaching guiding governing and ruling of his saincts here on earth. The scriptures *Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. 1 Cor. 16. 16. Heb 13. 17.teach, and we accordingly have long since “Confess: art. 17. & 19.professed, that it is into the hands of the Bishops or Elders. This is that which I defend in my answer to M. Bernard: for this, if for any thing, M. S. also inveigheth against me: being indeed against himself also herein. For besides the testimonies fore alleged out of his book, he hath further in the same book written thus, †paral. p. 86Christ is not their king, seing he onelyonly ruleth by his own lawes and officers, and not by Antichristian Lords and lawes &c. And agayn, *pag. 107.You refuse Christs testament and his kingdome, and will not have him to reign over you in his own offices and lawes, which is contrarie to these places, Luk. 19. 27. Apoc. 14. 9. 10. 11. Loe here the truth which I defend, confirmed by my adversaries owne penn; for this is the onelyonly thing which I plead, that Christ ruleth his people, onelyonly by his own lawes and officers, as mine opposite himself granteth: & yet see, what an outcrie he maketh against me, as teaching such Antichristianisme, as was never heard of before. But by his former dispute against the Presbyterie, himselfe is found to be one of those enimies, that wil not have Christ to reign over them, by his own offices and lawes.
Wheras he putteth †pag. 66.the question thus, how farr the sheep must obey the Elders which ar shepheards: that is not the point between Mr. Bern. and me, neyther medle I with it: yet if any be desirous to know my mind in general, it is. So farr as the shepheards doe teach rule and direct the sheep in the wayes of Christ, by his owne word and lawes; so farr at they al jointly and every one severally, bound to obey and submit to their shephards, and no further. For although this be the ordinary way of teaching and governing the Church; yet if extraordinarily it fal out, that the shepheards walk and lead awry, and the sheep go aright; then is neyther the whol flock, nor any one sheep to follow or obey them, unlesse they wil fall togither into the ditch.
Neyther wil that reason, which M. Sm. so laboureth about, namely that the Ministery is not by succession but by election of the church; make ought against me: unlesse the man thinketh this consequence good, If Elders be chosen by the Church, then are they not to teach and rule the Church by Christs word and lawes. The contrary rather is true. For if the Church be authorized and commanded of Christ to chose and set Elders over them, for to teach and rule them by his own word and lawes; and are also commanded to obey and submit themselves unto their Elders: then are the Elders to teach & rule them by Christs word and lawes, and the Church is therin to obey. But the first is true, as the scriptures and reasons forealleged prove; Therefore alsothe latter.
No more wil that similitude of a body, (which as all parables will easily be perverted, being streyned beyond the purpose of the holy spirit) help ought against the truth I defend. For as God *1 Cor. 12. 18.hath disposed the members every one of them in the body at his own pleasure, & given them severall faculties, so as all the members have †Rom. 12. 4.not one work; and as the eye for seing, the ear for hearing, the mouth for speaking, &c. doo administer, not for particular mebers onelyonly, but for the whol body: even so the Church hath many members with “1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6.diversities of gifts, and diversities of offices or ministeries; which they †Rom. 12. 6 7. 8.are to attend unto and execute for the whol body: & the whol, (not the particular members onelyonly, as this man fansieth) are to obey and submit unto these distributions & administrations, being al of the Lord, as the Apostle teacheth. And as al the members of the body have not the gift of speaking, seeing, smelling &c. but these are bestowed on special members for the use of al: so in the church, al *vers. 29.are not prophets, or al teachers, or al governours &c. but “ver. 8.to one is given the word of wisdome, to another the word of knowledge &c. unto the administration of which gifts, by the due offices or members; al the body is to submit, and obey in the Lord. So that a wonder it is any man should have the face to blame me with Antichristianisme, for disclayming that position which M. Bernard imputed unto us; namely, that the power of Christ, that is, avthoritie to preach, to administer the sacraments, and to execute the censures of the church, belongeth to the whole church, yea to overy one of them: or for affirming, some special authoritie to be committed to the Elders for reaching and ruling the church by Christs own word and lawes, unto whom the other brethren are to obey, alwayes in the Lord. What would it be but a mere confusion and abuse of the holy ordinances of the gospel, if every one in the church should administer & perform the works of al Christs ministers: which they may, if the power and authoritie perteyneth unto them: for who may abridge the saincts of these things?
And most strange it is, that M. S. (if any thing may be strange in him,) would thus inveigh against me: when in handling this very poynt against M. Bern. he writeth thus *Para… ▪ p. 61.Wherefore I say unto you, that the gifts of preaching, administration of the sacraments, and governing are given unto some men, but the offices and officers indued with these gifts are given unto the church &c. If but some men in the church, have the gifts of preaching, administration of sacraments & governing: wil M. S. blame me for deneying this position of M. Bernard, that Christs power and authoritie to preach, administer the sacraments &c. belongeth to every one in the church. Have they authoritie to preach or govern, which have not the gifts of preaching or government? I leave the judgment of this controversie, to every wise hart.
And this I hope may suffice for clearing my self of Antichristianisme, in that which I wrote about church goverment: being the mayn thing which M. Sm. hath wrested against me. Other things there are which he girdeth at breifly: and which I omit to strive with him about, whom I see to be set upon debate. And how adversarylike he dealeth with me, in mangling, corrupting and depraving my answers, for his advantage: they that compare them with his book may see. Let this one be an instance. To an objected error against us, I thus answered: †C…n. p. …73.Neither is this position set down in our words, (to my knowledge) neither doth Mr. Bernard take away, but confirm rather the thing that we hold: for he granteth that they offend God, which may and doe not ordinardie (having meanes offred) live in a church rightly constituted: & we grant, that many of Christs subiects for want of meanes, doe not live in a true constituted church. If therfore he were not a caviller, he would not have reckned this among our errors.
This my answer M. S. of his liberalitie hath set down in *Parall. p. 16.his book thus.
M. Ains. answering M. Bern. pag. 173. vseth these words. Neither is this position set down in our words, (to my knowledge:) if therfore M. Bern. were not a caviller, he would not have reckned this among our errors. Thus having dealt more injuriously with my words, then the unjust steward “Luk. 16. 6. 7.did with his Masters reckning, in abating more then half of my writing, without so much as any note or mark to intimate of further matter in my answer, (which he maketh almost senselesse): he procedeth to charge me with forsaking the defence of the truth and then runns on to justifie that he had written to Mr. Bernard which I knew not of.
But for his injurious dealing with me, and persecuting this poor church (which deserved better of him) with his pen in publik, as the world now may see he hath don in high measure: I leave him unto God for mercy or judgment. Whose hand as it is heavie upon him already, in giving him over from error to error, & now at last to the abomination of Anabaptisme: so wil the same hand stil follow him unto furder judgement if he do not repent. But I vvish he may find grace in the eyes of the Lord.
FINIS.
Faults escaped▪
Pag. 12. line 2. for tunea read tuned.
pag. 15. line 2. for alled, read called
pag. 98. in. the last line, read wel ruling, and painful. Other faults may easily by discerned and pardoned.
End of the text · Henry Ainsworth, A Defense of the Holy Scriptures (1609)