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.

The first Probabilitie or Likelihood, that their way of Separation is not good, nor to be approoued, Is the noueltie thereof, differing from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendome.

IN my former Booke, Page 21. First I shew, why I made this my first Pro∣babilitie, whereto M^r. Ainsworth saith nothing: he happily thought my wordes idle, as his owne be, and that I did runne into by-matter, when he either doth not, or will not vn∣derstand me. This Likelihood, I set downe to preuent, what I obserued, did endammage the misleading of the people. M^r. Smith and others, vrged the Reformation in other Churches, and lay that as a baite to catch seely fishes, and went about to perswade the people, that the way of the Separation, and other Churches refor∣mation was all one; which is vntrue. Which if it had so beene, neuerthelesse the Separation from vs is not good. First, saith M^r. Smith, now they be vnnaturall children for their Separation, and their way also an Antichristian way. Secondly, It is plaine that the Scripture teacheth no

Separation from a true Church, with condemnation of it, as a false Church. Thirdly, no example in Scripture giuen of any separating from true Churches for corruptions; but eyther for grosse Idolatrie, visible Pictures set vp to be wor∣shipped, as among the Israelites; or for open blasphemie against Christs very Person.

Secondly, I shewed how their way was Noueltie, in diffe∣ring not only from vs, but also from all reformed Churches, to set forth that singular difference was the drift of my whole booke, as also to shew that that singularitie is Nouel∣tie: which scope, both those Answerers either not perceiuing, or not regarding (albeit in the Epistle to the Reader, I ad∣monished them of it,) they trifle in answering: M^r. Ains∣worth also beating withall and hammering vpon his old staffe, which I purposely auoyded, to bring them to giue answere vnto the singularitie of their way, differing from other Churches as well as from ours, that so the newnesse of their way, might be of all discerned plainely.

Thirdly, I proued that they differed from the reformed churches: first, by not ioyning with them: secondly, by Bar∣rows railing on their manner of gouernment, and he also approued herein by these Brownists now liuing: thirdly, I also adde the Excommunicating of such as goe but to heare sometime the Ministers of the reformed Churches, if they were so minded to continue. To this M^r. Ainsworth saith little: M^r. Smith (who deceiued the people with a pre∣tending of agreement with Reformed Churches) nothing at all.

Lastly, I concluded therefore this section from the first probabilitie, that it was both Leuitie, dangerous, and proud Presumption to entertaine that way so sodainly, as they doe which goe into it: the reasons of all three are set downe: of which these two Answerers speake not a word. If this be to Answere soundly, and thou Reader, so iudge, I do com∣mend thee ouer to Brownisme, as one fitter to runne of af∣fection, then guided by iudgement, to doe what thou doest with laudable discretion. These two Champions mocke at

my likelihoods; but ere I conclude, they shall finde them of more moment, then to be laughed out of countenance, and hereby themselues caused to change colour with shame of their owne folly.

A Reply to Mr. Ainsworths Answere to this first Probabilitie.

[Answere.] HEe answeres, first, generally, and would ouerthrow all my likelihoods, and make them vnlikely, and he thus reasoneth:

If such likelihoods as these haue beene obiected by the Pa∣pists, against the Church of England: and the Heathen enemies the like against the Church of Christ, with as much colour and truth, as now these same be obiected against them, then are all the likelihoods vnlikely.

But the former is true, to wit, the Papists and Heathen ob∣iecting the like likelihoods, the one against the Church of Eng∣land; the other against the Church of Christ, and with as much colour and truth as these be obiected against them. Therefore are all my likelihoods vnlikely.

[Reply.] The Latter part of the Maior followes not, except the likelihoods be all one: it is not enough to haue such like, but the same: for things not the same, but like, are not so euery way like, but that there is some difference to discerne one from another, which difference may force a differing conclusion.

The Minor is most false, and set downe without any proofe from him: In this he iustifieth the wicked words of Heathenish & of Antichristian enemies against the Church of Christ, against his Mother, to grace him and themselues for strength in error. Had the Heathen as much colour and truth, to condemne Christs Church, and the Papists vs of Nouel••ie, Schisme, &c. as we haue herein to condemne you? M^r Ainsworth eyther bring good proofe for this, else men

will condemne you as foolish and forlorne, and that deser∣uedly.

Secondly, he answeres particularly to the Likelihoode after his discoursing manner, and would free themselues from Noueltie.

First, because Kelison the Papist, would bring the Reformed Churches within the compasse of Noueltie, which they seeke to remoue by looking for antiquitie by the Scriptures.

[Answere.] Belike he reasoneth thus; If we doe remoue the Papists imputation of Nouelties from vs by the Scriptures, pro∣uing our antiquitie, then doe they the same also. This con∣sequence rests yet to be proued by M^r. Ainsworth. Will it follow because we can free our selues from Noueltie against the Papists, (betweene whom and vs, is euident matters of difference plainely recorded in Scripture, and wherein we with the Reformed Churches, do accord fully against them) that therefore the Separatists can acquite themselues of No∣ueltie, whose conceits (wherein they differ from Reformed Churches, in this matter of Separation) are strange from the Scriptures, and vnheard of in Orthodoxall Churches? Let him defend the singularitie of their way from reformed Churches, and their owne so standing from Noueltie, and then doth he write to the purpose: but herein is hee and all of them mute; he thought belike that the very naming of Scriptures would manage their Separation, and fray the simple from condemning them of Noueltie.

Secondly, (saith he) If it be Noueltie to differ from the re∣formed churches, then the Church of England is to be blamed, because it differs in many things from them, &c.

[Answere.] First, what is this to the purpose for clearing themselues? it seemeth this Answerer is content to be killed himselfe, so that he may runne an other thorow with the same sword. A guiltie party to accuse another of that whereof hee is faultie, saueth not his owne honestie, but he is still one and the same.

Secondly, I doe not meane, that to differ in some or moe things, any way from the reformed Churches, (as it seemeth

he taketh my words) is matter of Noueltie, but first, such differences, as the word doth not warrant, neyther any Or∣thodoxall Churches haue euer practised, nor any approued Histories made mention of, in and from the Apostles times hitherto: but haue beene onely among Schismatickes, these differences are Noueltie: such are not our differences from the reformed Churches: but yours (M^r. Ainsworth.) Shew vs, what approued true Church of God euer vsed your course of Separation, from such Churches as you separate from, for the same causes: bring forth your Records and Stories of times for it: if you attempt it, you shall finde your selues of kinne to Lucifer, Donatus, Andius, Schis∣maticks first, & afterwards Hereticks: if you boast of Scrip∣ture it's vaine boasting, for it helps you not; it approueth a Separation, but not your Separation vpon such grounds, as you forsake now all Churches for: If you haue faith in this point, and truth in you at all, quote any practicall place of example for Separation, and let the world see, if you be able to shew it, your separating from all Churches now, onely so, and no otherwise; if you cannot manifest this, cease to trouble Gods Churches with your Noueltie any longer. Againe, I vnderstand such differences, as vniustly cause the Authors thereof, to make a diuision from the Churches of God, to rend in sunder brother-hood from the true people of God. But such is not our differences with refor∣med Churches, for they doe acknowledge vs Brethren, & doe giue vs the right hand of fellowship, as a true Church of God with them, they account not vs eyther Antichristi∣an, or false Churches, but wee heare them: and they vs, as occasion serues in the seuerall congregations.

Yea, which is more, Reuerend Beza, and Learned Sadel, doe giue our chiefe Church Gouernours honourable titles, and stile the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie thus: To the most reuerend man and Father in Christ, the Lord Arch∣bishop of Canterburie, Counsellor to the Queenes Maiestie, Primate of all England. And Beza saith thus to him, my Re∣uerend Lord, and speaketh much to cleare him, and the

whole Church with him, of suspition of arrogancie, as hee calleth it, if they should account otherwise of them (he mea∣neth our Bishops) then their godlinesse, and dignitie, and mu∣tuall brother-hood doth require, so farre off is that Church of Geneua, from making diuision from vs, for this cause for which the Separatists so much condemne vs.

In the conclusion of his answere to this first Probabilitie, he blameth me for standing vpon the hard words which some of them haue vttered against the Presbiterie, and tels me, (if I had not a partiall and euill eye) I might haue seene many moe hard, and reprochfull tearmes vsed by some of vs against the same, &c.

[Reply.] Still (marke Reader) that this Answerer doth not cleare himselfe, but accuseth vs to be guiltie with him, a miserable defence of himselfe: they are Nouelists, his defence is, so are we: they are Raylers, his defence is, we doe raile also. If he cleare himselfe thus, then belike he disputeth after this manner:

If the Church of England be in some things Nouelists, and some of them doe giue hard words of the Presbiterie, and ac∣cuse vs to be Nouelists and Reprochers of the Presbiterie: then are we no Nouelists nor Reprochers of the Presbyterie.

But (saith he) in some things the Church of England are Nouelists: and some of them vse Rayling speeches against the Presbyterie.

Therefore are we no Nouelists, nor Railers of the Presby∣terie.

Our Church vseth no rayling speeches against the Pres∣biterie, but those of most eminent note among vs who haue written against it, vse reuerend speeches of the chiefe sup∣porters thereof, and if any particular persons of our Church haue beene ouer sharpe in their inuectiues against the Presbyterians, I am not to iustifie euery particular mans proceeding herein.

I acknowledge Reprochfull tearmes become none, the diuell may not be rayled vpon: and therefore M^r. Barrowes out-rage herein is detestable, though you cannot finde him

worthy of reproofe: and yet doth he raile vpon the Pres∣byterians. You approoue the Reformed Churches con∣stitution, you will be also in it, pretend it to the simple, and yet rayle vpon them, and speake euill of that you allow, because euery way they square not to your Rule. Your weapon still stickes (M^r. Ainsworth) in your owne bowels: all you haue said, hath not pulled out of your sides yet my throwne dart of Probabilitie, that your way is Noueltie.

A Reply to Mr. Smiths Answere to this first Likelihood.

THis man in his answere to them, frameth formes of my supposed Reasoning, onely to make my Likeli∣hood (to the simple Reader) friuolous, but he neither fra∣meth my Arguments right, neither ouerthroweth them, whilst he would shew in me folly, he very much therein befooleth himselfe. He frameth my first Likelihood thus:

[Answere.] Noueltie is not the truth: the Separation is Noueltie. Ergo not the truth.

[Reply.] He taketh the Maior for granted, as he may well, for all diuine truth is Antiquitie: though for the manifestation of some particulars thereof it may seeme to be new.

The Minor he would denie, for that I might so con∣demne (saith he) Luther and Caluins opinions, because they were new, and so commend Poperie, which had a thousand yeeres prescription against Caluin.

But his consequence followes not, and it is also vntrue which he saith, that Caluins opinions were new. For Hy∣stories shew, that the Protestants opinions haue beene maintained from time to time against the Papists, till Lu∣thers dayes, and the prescription of a thousand yeares, were onely the darke time of Antichristianisme, ouershadow∣ing the cleare light of Caluins, or rather Gods truth, which shone in the Churches Apostolicall, and in the times after, till Antichrist arose and preuailed.

Againe he erreth; First, in making new opinions & Nouel∣ties all one, when Opinions may be called new, in respect either of late manifestation, or recalling of them againe to minde, which were vtterly forgotten, and yet be auncient truths: but Noueltie is neuer truth, as euer contrary to true Antiquitie.

Secondly, by supposing that I take Noueltie to be the publishing of true opinions a fresh, after they haue some long time been hid, which is far from my thought. But No∣ueltie is that, which is contrary to the truth, and true An∣tiquitie, where and whensoeuer it be set abroach: and this I affirme their way to be, and thus I frame the reason:

That which is contrarie to the truth and true Antiquitie, is Noueltie. But the singular way of the Separatists, from all the Churches, is contrary to truth and true Antiquitie. And therefore it is Noueltie. The Minor will appeare to be true, if men will weed out their differing way from all Churches, and shew that way distinctly from the same, and try it by Scripture, and true Antiquities, they shall finde it not practised in, or by any true Church of God. And thus we see that his framed Reason is against himselfe, though hee made it against me, and to shew therein my simplicitie, which he saith he pitieth in mee. But in deed he frameth not my Reason aright, as euery vnderstanding Reader shall iudge, which therefore I thus set downe: And let me see what both the former Separatist, and this strange Se-bap∣tist, withall their best Associats, can say to the same.

Such a Noueltie diuised in diuine matters, as causeth a dif∣ference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christendome, is likely not to be the good way of God.

But the way of the Seperation, is such a Noueltie as causeth a difference from all the best Reformed Churches in Christen∣dome.

And therefore the way is likely not to be the good way of God.

That it is a Likelihood cannot be denied. First, because New wayes from all Churches, are a probable coniecture

of affected singularitie, & also contempt of other Churches, and therefore likely not to be good. Secondly, because the holy Scripture commendeth the good way of God, from the Antiquitie of it, to be the old way. Ier. 6. 16. Deut. 32. 7. And therefore a new course from all other, affords a likeli∣hood against it not to be the good way. Thirdly, be∣cause the word commendeth to vs the custome of Gods Churches. 1. Cor. 11. 16. and therefore it is a Likelihood, that a new way which ouerthrowes the Custome, and brea∣keth peace with all Gods Churches is not the good way. Can it be lesse than a Likelihood to be in a new differing way from all? The Minor is graunted of them, and proued here before, and in my other Booke against them. Is it not likely then that their way is not the good way of God?

Now M^r. Smith, pitie not me, but lament your owne in∣stabilitie and folly. Make hereafter your owne Arguments, let mee frame mine owne. Your labour shall be rewar∣ded with small thankes at my hand. You offer mee a counterfait weapon, and too blunt to cut: giue me leaue to make mine owne, I can set an edge vpon it to smite with, though you thinke farre otherwise. Be not too highly conceited of your selfe, yeeld to truth, and studie to be quiet, & endeuour as much to see your owne errors in run∣ning on, as you gaue your selfe to finde out corruptions whilest you were here: be indifferent, and we doubt not of your returne from your self, as some now be returned from you: blessed be God.

Notes

• The first Like∣lihood, that the way of the Separatists is not good.
• Why this Like∣lihood was propounded.
• His Booke of differences and Charecter.
• Act. 19. 9.
• How the Sepa∣ratists way is noueltie.
• The Scope of my former Booke.
• They dare not set out their singular course by it selfe, but ouershadowes it with other things to de∣ceiue the sim∣ple.
• They differ from all the reformed Churches.
• It is leuitie, dangerous and proud pre∣sumption, ha∣stily to enter∣taine that way.
• Page 153.
• His first reason why their way is not Nouelty.
• Though the Papists cannot iustly condemn vs of Noueltie, yet may wee condemn these Separatists of Noueltie.
• M^r. Ainsworths taxe to be per∣formed.
• His second rea∣son.
• What differen∣ces make No∣ueltie.
• Onely Schis∣matickes haue so separated themselues from churches, as these doe from vs.
• In their Epi∣stle to the Lord Archbishop. Septemb. 15. Anno. 1589. Letter. Mar. 8. Anno. 1591.
• His Answere.
• See the vanitie of his owne reason.
• Page 125.
• New, and No∣ueltie, are not one.
• The Separa∣tists way is Noueltie.
• Se-baptist.
• Likely reasons that their way is Noueltie.