Plaine euidences The Church of England is apostolicall, the separation schismaticall. Directed against Mr. Ainsworth the Separatist, and Mr. Smith the Se-baptist: both of them seuerally opposing the booke called the Separatists schisme. By Richard Bernard, preacher of the word of God at Worsop. ... Set out by authoritie. Anno. 1610.

Reply vnto Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this second Errour.

MAster Ainsworth at first boggles at it, as if hee durst not challenge it for the grosse absurdities of it, but af∣ter bethinking himselfe, hee defends it, but very seelilie. His answere consists of two points: first, that I haue said

nothing to disproue it, but that it may for any thing I haue said be an Idoll, as he thinkes. For that he makes my reason to be this, because I see it not, and Marlorat names it not, Ergo, no Idoll; but the Reader may see, that my argument is, the Scripture makes it not an Idoll, neyther is the word Idoll, in the Scriptures so taken: therefore it is not an Idoll. Hee saith I doe not see all that the Scripture teacheth: I con∣fesse it, and if hee doe not the same, he is arrogantly proud; but I speake of my sight in this particular, and if I be ouer∣seene, he should haue giuen some instance where the word Idoll, is taken for such a Constitution as ours is; but this could hee not doe.

To Marlorats paines hee answeres, that both hee and I may as soone number the hayres of our heads, as reckon vp all the Idols in the world. Marke Reader, I say Marlorat num∣bers vp the Idols mentioned in Scripture, and hee supposeth that I speake of his reckoning vp all in the world; so hee puts the word World, for the Scriptures: what a cauill, or blindnesse, or wilfull mistaking is this? three times in eight lines, I nominate the word Scripture, and not at all the word World and yet hee puts one for the other: but hee that is so blinde to take the World, for the Scriptures, no meruaile it is that hee takes Schisme instead of the sincere truth, and their inuented constitution for Gods order in religion. Second∣ly to proue it an Idoll. If it be a false constitution, as before is proued (saith hee) set vp instead of a true, what is it better then a very Idoll? I answere, here is a weake proofe, for such a con∣fident cause on their behalfe, and in their iudgement of so great moment: hee shewes not what is an Idoll, nor proues a false constitution to be an Idoll, by eyther reason or scrip∣ture: but first comes with an iff, supposing to be what is not: if our Constitution be false, then is it an Idoll; this is ridiculous; for his argument is the very question: as if hee had said if our constitution (as he cals it) false, be an Idoll, then it is an Idoll. Secondly he askes a question; a false con∣stitution being set vp instead of the true constitution, what is it better then a very Idol? I answer that first, his ground is

weake, for our Churches Constitution is not false; see what is aforesaid for this. Secondly, I say, that an Idoll is falsely defined by the terme Constitution, without warrant of Scrip∣ture, as in my former booke I auouch, which he hath not refuted, nor giuen yet thereto any reason to the contrary. Thirdly, I say, that hee himselfe, it seemes, dare not call it an Idoll, but demands of others what it is, and saith, what is it better then an Idoll? hee durst not say; what is it but an Idoll? Well then, our Constitution is no Idoll at all, for ought this man hath said, but this their errour remaineth vpon them. Hee calles me in the end of his answere a vaine man; but Vanitie it selfe is vpon him, as his Answere shewes, which the Lord remoue from him: this is my recompence for his railing.

Notes

• Page 172.
• The word Idol, is not vsed in Scripture for a constitution.
• Mr. Ainsworth a Cauiller at my words.
• His reason is ridiculous.