A DEFENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIP­TURES, WORSHIP, AND MINISTERIE, used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist: Against the challenges, cavils and contradiction of M. Smyth: in his book intituled The differences of the Churches of the Separation. Hereunto are annexed a few observations upon some of M. Smythes Censures; in his answer made to M. Bernard. By Henry Ainsworth, teacher of the English exiled Church in AMSTERDAM.

Imprinted at Amsterdam by Giles Thorp in the yere 1609.

The chief things handled in this treatise.

OF worship. pag. 5. &c.

The Iewes worship scanned. pag. 11. &c.

Prophesying or preaching; whither it be worship. pag. 16. &c.

Singing of Psalmes, pag. 21.

Of scripture, or books in general. pag. 22.

Of the original scriptures. pag. 24. &c.

The hand-writing of ordinances, Coloss. 2. pag. 28.

Whither Christ, Luk. 4. ended the law of reading. p. 31.

Whither reading be the ministratiō of the letter. 2 Cor. 3. pag. 32.

Of the law and gospel given in books & tongues. p. 37.

Of the cōmandements to read the scriptures. p. 39. 41. &c.

Of translations of holy scripture. pag. 45. &c.

Of the 72. Interpreters in Israel; and whether they synned in translating the Bible. pag. 51. &c.

Argumēts against the use of translations in Gods worship, answered. pag. 57. &c.

Arguments for the use of translations▪ &c. mainteyned. p. 69. &c.

Of the Hellenists, or Iewes that [...]pake Greek. p. 73. &c.

Of the Ministerie and Eldership. pag. 88. &c.

Reasons against 3. sorts of Elders, refuted. pag. 89. &c.

Reasons for 3. sorts of Elders, defended. pag. 97. &c.

Of the Treasurie pag. 114.

Observations upon M. Smythes censures, against Church▪ government by the Eldership, pag. 118. &c.

IT is true of an haeretik which Solomon sayth in parable, Prov. 9. 13. a foolish woman is troublesome: experience hereof wee have in this adversary whom I deal against. For he not content to manifest with mouth, nor to write with pen, nor to print in publik once, his owne follyand shame, with calling vpon us to Differen. Preface. justific our proceedings or repent of them; dooth in an other book the second time Parall. p. 105. require an answer, and fretting in himself that we passed over his vanitie with silence, he biddeth us battel with the third alarme in his book The character of the beast, lately published. Wherin, (to shew how near he is allyed to those which say, Rev. 13. 4▪ who is like unto the Beast, who is able to warr with him?) he Charact. in the epist. requireth, nay chargeth, yea challengeth us (as he saith) to the defense of our errors vawnting moreover against us, that we are guiltie in our consci­ences of our disabilitie to defend them, and therefore subtilly draw back and pretend excuses; triumphing also over vs, as they that hitherto in craftines have withdrawn from the combat, in the matter of the translation, worship and presbyterie.

Thus hath he lifted up Psal. 75. 5 his horne on high, and spoken with a stif neck; as if even the mightie were Iob. 41. 16. afraid of his majestie, and for fear fainted in them­selves. In regard of which insolencie; all men I think may see, it is now time, if ever, to take up sheild and sword against him, and hew his hornes that so have pushed the flock of Christ, wherof not long since he professed himself to be a member with us: though now having left the truth to folow leasing, he maketh open warr with the saincts. And wheras among other 2 Pet. 2. 18. swelling words of vanitie, he sayth, Charact. epistle. Loe we protest against them to have a false wor­ship of reading books: we protest against them to have a false go­vernment of a triformed Presbyterie; we protest against them to have a false Ministerie of Doctors or Teachers, &c. I have taken in hand to set forth our iust defense, in these particulars, and to shew the frawd and malignitie of this boaster: leaving the other point about the constitution of our Church in baptising of infants, to others that have already begun to con­vince his heresie therin. And this which I have undertaken is rather for others (who may be troubled with his writings) then for his own sake, who yeeldeth smal hope of good, seing he procedeth so fast in evil; and out of a Prov. 28. 25. proud hart hath stirred up strife. Wherin also such hath been his ficklenes, as Psal. 5. 9. no constancis is in his mouth. For (not to speak of Princip. &c. Differ. &c. Cha­ract of the Beast. three sundry books wherin he hath shewed himselfe of 3. several religions,) in this one book which J deal against, he say­eth [Page] and unsayeth and contrarieth his own grounds for to shift and hide his blas­phemies, that litle needed him so earnestly to have caled for an other mans sword to peirce the bowels of his errour; when his own hand fighteth against himself, and the spear which he tosseth, turneth into his hart. I had much rather have folowed more cōfortable meditations, in the peaceable practise of the truth; thē thus to cōtēd with those that seek strife, & that fight against the faith which themsevles once professed; having found such by experience, to be above others, most malignant enemies: but truth oppugned, may not be for saken; and Mat. 7. 15. wolves that would ravin, must be beaten from the fold, least the sheep be devoured or scattered. Now therefore I being to encounter this false Prophet, doe hum­ble my self under the good hand of God whose power is made perfect in mans in­firmitie; whose mercie susteyneth in violence of the enemie; whose truth is a sheild and buckler. He blesse these my labours unto his people; that Psal. 107. 42. the righ­teous may see and reioyce, and all iniquitie may stop her mouth.


A DEFENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTVRES AND WORSHIP OF God, used in the Christian Churches of the Separa­tion: against the calumnies of M. Smyth.

THe book intituled The differences of the Churches of the separation, which we are chalenged by the Author to answer: carieth in the very name therof, a delu­sion of the Reader. For if he look for plaine diffe­rences, what they affirme and we deny; he shal not find them expressed: if he take the differences to be implied, as that whatsoever Mast. Smyth affirmeth we deney, and what he deneyeth we affirme; then is the Reader much abused, & we injured; who hold in that book, truth & error to be unequally mixed. Seing then neyther expresly nor implicitly the Reader can see the Differences: what are they but delusions?

The many questions which he asketh in the end, conteyning the summe of al his book, manifest the Authors frawd: for if he know & dare say wherin we differ, what need he desire our direct answer? It became him to refute, & not for to fish with hooks of demands, wherin we would differ from him.

Ther was one onely difference between M. Smyth and us, when first he began to quarrel; though synce he have increast them, and increaseth dayly, with deadly feud and open opposition, as al men may see.

That difference was this. He with his followers breaking off cō ­munion with us, charged us with synn for using our English Bibles in the worship of God; & he thought that the teachers should bring the originals the Hebrew and Greek, and out of them translate by voice. His principal reason against our translated scripture was this. [Page] No Apocrypha writing, but onely the Canonical scriptures, are to be used in the Church, in time of Gods worship. Every written translation is an Apocry­pha *This is the third of his fower general ar­guments, which he offred to our Church in writing, at the secōd dayes pub­lik cōferēce writing, & is not canonical scripture. Therfore every written translati­on is unlawful in the Church in time of Gods worship. Why he counted every translation apocrypha, and what he meant therby, appeareth by these words of his In the reason annex­ed to his se­cond gene­ral Arg. Differēce &c. pag. 12. a written translation (sayth he) or interpretation is as wel & as much an human writing, as an homilie or prayer, written & read. The like impietie he hath also printed in his book, saying A translation being the work of a mens wit & learning, is as much and as truly an humane writing, as the Apocrypha (so commonly called) writings are, and seeing it hath not the allowance of holy men inspired, but is of an hid­den authoritie, it may be iustly called Apocrypha &c. And therfore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read.

That this point of the translation was the onely difference, as it is known to al that then heard his publik protestatiō; so his words in writing shew it. In a reason annexed to the 1. gene­ral argu­ment. Translations written (sayth he) are not refreyned in the case of scandal, for we desired that they might be refreined for our sakes, that we might keep communion, & it would not be yeilded.

So if we would have layd aside our translated Bibles, communi­on (they say) should have been kept with us.

Now for the true differences on our part, at that time and stil, they are thus. We agree with M. Smyth herein, that Onely canonical scripture is to be used in Gods worship; & that no apocryphal writing is to be used in Gods worship. But we disagree & deney, that every written tran­slation is an Apocryphal writing; affirming that the Scriptures in English and other languages, rightly translated out of the Originals, are Canonical; & so to be read in the Church in the worship of God.

After much time spent about this controversie, he mani­fested other differences, touching the ministerie and treasurie; and soon after published this book of Differences: wherin, ha­ving his latter thoughts (as he thought) better then his former, he [Page 3] Differēce &c. in the preface. retracted a former book of Principles &c, and al other his writings, so farr forth as they were overthwarted by this his last book. He also acknowledged the in the same pre­face. ancient brethren of the separation (as he calleth us) are to be honoured, that they have reduced the Church, to the true primitive and Apostolik constitution, which consisteth in these three things, 1 The true matter, which are Saincts onely, 2 The true forme, which is the uniting of them to­gither in the covenant. 3 The true propertie, which is a communi­on in al the holy things, and the power of our Lord Iesus Christ, for the mainteyning of that communion. To this blessed work of the Lord wherin those ancient brethren have laboured, I know not (sayth he) what may more be added, I think rather there can nothing be added. And was he now setled in his course? nothing lesse, for the strange womans Prou. 5. 6▪ pathes are moveable, they cannot be known. Soon after this God stroke him with blindnes, that he could no longer find the door of the Church, out of which he was gone by schisme, and which he had assaulted with er­ror. Our entring in by the covenant of God with Gen. 17. Abra­ham to the faithful and their seed, hath been as a brazen wal, whereagainst he hath runn himself, to his utter ruine, if God in mercie raise him not up. And now as a man be­nummed in mynd, he cryeth out against us, contrary to his former fayth and confession; Charact. of the beast in the Epist. Loe, we protest against them (sayth he) to bee a false Church, falsly constituted in the baptising of infants, and their own unbaptised estate. And agayn, We protest against them, that seeing their constitution is false; therfore there is no one or­dinance of the Lord true among them. Thus Pro. 20. 1. wine sheweth it self in M. Smyth to be a mocker, & strong drink to be raging: whiles he having drunk Pro. 4. 17. the wine of violence proclaymeth open warr, against Gods everlasting covenant.

[Page 4]The defense of which grace, being already in the hands of two worthy soldiers of Christ, Mr Clifton whom he hath printed against, and Mr Robinson, whom he next threatneth: I leave vnto them; not doubting but God their strength, will Ps. 144. 1 teach their hands, to fight, and their fingers to battel, in so good a cause against this ene­mie. But because he still vrgeth his former quarrels of the scriptures and Ministerie: I purpose with Gods grace to set against him in these; desiring the Lord my Rock, to Psal. 18. [...]2. gird me with strength, and to make my way entyre.

Touching the first, namely, the vse of translated scriptures in the worship of God: M. Smyth thus summeth vp the difference, in the forefront of his book.

  • 1. We hold (saith he) that the worship of the new testament properly so called, is spirituall, proceeding originally from the hart: and that▪ reading out of a book (though a lawful ecclesiasticall action,) is no part of spiritual wor­ship: but rather the invention of the man of syn, it being substituted for a part of spiritual worship.
  • 2. We hold that seing prophesying is a part of spirituall worship: therefore in time of prophesying it is vnlawfull to have the book as a help before the eye.
  • 3. We hold that seing singing a Psalm is a part of spirituall worship; there­fore it is vnlawful, to have the book before the ey, in time of singing a Psalm.

Here first let the reader observe, that the mayn and true diffe­rence which was between M. Smyth and us, about the translation, is not mentioned: but is brought in after, as by the way, in hādling these matters; and other points never controverted between vs, are made heads of the differences. In which doing, M. Smyth hath graced the very portch of his building, with imposture and frawd.

2. In saying, of himself and his brethrē, We hold &c. he giveth the reader to vnderstand, (vnlesse he meant to delude him,) that they whom he dealeth against, hold the cōtrary: wheras he neither dooth, [Page 5] nor is able to produce any proof hereof against us; neyther (I dare say) can he tel what we hold, of these points. Thus secondeth he his fraud with injurie; and maketh these two, as Iachin & Boaz, the pil­lars for to bewtifie the temple of his book.

Now because his whol battel against the translated Scriptures, is cheefly out of this bulwark of spiritual worship, wherin he hath in­trenched himself, and flyeth therto at al assayes, when other shifts fayle him: I wil begin with it, as himself also dooth, and come to Translations anon.


Wheras the word Worship is diversly used, somtime more largely, somtime more straightly; by reason wherof it hath not at al tymes a like proper signification: M. Smyth spying this, (as by his limitati­on of properly so called may appear;) takes advantage to himself for to bolster out his former blasphemies, & to deal against us for Idola­ters, & the holy Bible for an idol; under the aequivocatiō or double meaning of this word worship; restreyning it wher he should not, & inlarging it where he ought not. And though he treateth of this thing at large, handling the fountaine, the helps, the essence or nature, with the parts and kinds of worship: yet the divers use of the word which was needful first to be shewed, (if he meant not to deceiv,) he hath quite omitted; that, therfore I wil first manifest.The homo­nymie clea­red

Worship, in our English tongue, and as it is used to expresse the original scriptures, is diversly taken. Somtime largely, as when it expresseth the Greek word latreuo; as Philip. 3, 3. we ar the circum­cision which latreuontes. worship God in the spirit: & Act. 24, 14. so latreuo. worship I the God of my fathers. And thus both the English & Greek answereth to the Hebrew ghnabad, which properly signifieth to serve, Exod. 3, 12. Deut. 10, 12, 2 Sam. 15, 8.

Also when it expresseth the Greek word sebomai; as Act. 18, 13. to sebesthai. worship God contrary to the law; & Act. 18, 7, Iustus a sebomeno [...]. worshipper of God. And so both it & the Greek answer to the Hebrew jaré; which properly signifieth to fear or reverence, as Mat. 15, 9. in vaine they sebontai. wor­ship me; for that which in Hebrue is, their fear towards me Isa 29, 13. [Page 6] So Iob. 1. 9. Ion. 1. 9. Iob. and Ionas, as the Hebrew sayth, feared, as the Greek translateth, Worshipped God. Also when it interpreteth the Greek word threskeuo, as Col. 2, 18. the Worshipping of Angels; and vers. 23. in wil-worship; or voluntary religion. Thus worship is largely used, for the feare and service of God, or any religious action.

More strictly and properly, worship is vsed to English the Greeke word proskuneo; as Mat. 2. 2. We are come to proskune­sai. worship him; and Rev. 11. 16. they prosekune­san. worshipped God; Rev. 13. 4. they prosekune­san. worshipped the Dragon, &c. And so both it and the Greek word, doe expresse the Hebrue hishtachavah, which properly signifieth to bow downe or prostrate ones self. Exod. 20. 5.

Thus the worship of God generally, comprehendeth the perfor­ming of all duties required in the first Deut. 5. 6—15. table of the Law: specially and properly, to worship is to bow downe & supplicate vnto God.

The meaning of the word being thus distinguished; let vs now see how M. Smyth dooth deal in the point. He, where he Differēc. pag. 18. pro­fesseth to handle the nature or essence of spiritual worship, and the essentiall causes and kindes thereof, sheweth these things in two particulars; first in the essentiall causes; 2. in the proper kindes or parts of the worship of the N. testament.

The essential causes are matter and forme. The matter of Gods worship (sayth he) is the holy scriptures, which conteyneth the word of God or the Gospell, the subiect whereof is Christ Iesus: The forme or sowl that quickeneth it, is the spirit Col. 3. 16. with Ephe. 5. 18. 19. 20.

Then he illustrateth this, by the ceremoniall worship of the old testament. And the matter of that he maketh to be beasts, incense, oil, fat, corn, wine, and the like creatures whereof the sacrifices &c. wer made, with all the actions thereto perteyning. Mark 9. 49. with Levit. 2. 11 13. & 9. 24 1 Cor. 5. 6▪ 8.

The forme he sayth appeared in 4. things; 1. honey, and 2. leven which must be absent for the most part; and 3. fyre and 4. salt which must all­wayes be present. Then for the kindes of spirituall worship, he sayth they are praying, prophefying, and singing Psalmes. Psal. 50. 14—17. 1 Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 15. 17. 26. Iam. 5. 13. Rev. 19. 10.

[Page 7]I wil not here stand to scan the good order which M. Smyth hath used in handling the nature and essence of worship, whiles omitting the efficient causes, obiects and ends, which properly perteyne to the discourse of actions: he insisteth vpon matter and forme which he calleth essentiall causes: so taking that which is more vnproper, & difficult. But seing he hath chosen this way, I will follow him therein.

And first I observe, how he intending to shut out the reading of the scriptures from spirituall worship; yet maketh the scriptures to be the matter of worship: now how the matter of a thing, should be shut out and vnlawfull to be there, it requireth some skill to know. Secondly, the scriptures being (as he sayth) the matter, and the spi­rit the form of this action of worship; (though properly the spirit is the Act. 2. 4 & 11. 28. efficient cause;) it would be knowne why M. Smyth in an other place sayth that Differēc. pag. 1. actions of administring the Church or kingdom of Christ, are not actions of spirituall worship properly so called, making those actions to be admonition, examination, excommunication, paci­fication, absolution &c. are not these to have the matter of the scrip­tures, and form of the spirit, as well as prophesie which th' Apostle sayth, is a speaking 1 Cor. 14. 3. to edifying to exhortation and to comfort? Are we not aswell bound to the scriptures in admonishing, as in exhorting and must not the same spirit give life vnto both?

Let Paul himself be our example: he teacheth that 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. the whole scripture is profitable, as for doctrine so for elenchon. rebuke or conviction, and for correction; and he in practise, rebu­king and opposing against Elymas, saying, Act. 13. 10. O ful of all subtilty and of all mischief, child of the Divil &c. did this by the holy spirit, wher­of he is noted then to be vers. 9. ful. In preaching to the men of Antiochia, he admonished them Act. 13. 40. 41. by the word of the prophet A­bakuk: in preaching to the Iewes in Rome, he rebuked them Act. 28. 25.—28. by the word of the prophet Esaias; And Peter in his Sermon at Ierusalem pacified their pricked consciences, by the promise of God, to them and to their children; Actes 2. 37. 39. [Page 8] So the word and spirit were matter and form of their rebukes, ad­monitions, pacifications, &c. even as of their other doctrines & exhortations, and therfore by Mr Sm. owne grounds, were spiri­tuall worship; and so his first plot where he made pag. 1. actions of opposi­tion, difference, plea & strife, not to be actions of spiritual worship; is a wagmire wherinto this his conceipt of prophesie or preaching to be spirituall worship, is sunk, and by it overthrown. And sure the Prophets and Apostles and Christ himself never observed this new coyned difference, for Isa. 1. &c. Jer. 2. &c. Mat. 5. & 6. & 7. &c. Act. 7 & 13. &c. they in their prophesying or preaching of the word, did intermixe rebukes with comforts, admonitions with exhortations, and opposed against syn and synners vsually in their sermons, as the whole historie of the Bible sheweth. Now by Mr Smyths divinitie they worshipped not God, when they spake by way of opposition, difference, plea or strife, in their doctrine; but when they spake to edifying exhortation or comfort; this was the worship of God properly so called. If this distinction be not true, then M. Sm. is a deceiver, properly so called; who to make things serve his he­reticall humour and hide his blasphemies against our reading of the holy scriptures in the Church, hath digged thus deep to find a pit whereinto to fell the righteous; though himself by Gods iudge­ment be fallen into the same.

And here, by the way I will briefly note M. Smyths methode in contriving of his book for the advantage of his cause. The three offices of Christ, in prophesie preisthood and Kingdome; he redu­ceth vnto two, 1. kingdome and 2. preisthood; Differenc. p, 27. comprehending prophesie vnder the preisthood as a branch of it. Deut. 33. 10. Rev. 1. 6. with 1 Cor. 14. 31. Act. 2. 17. 18.

Whereas by the same ground of Deut. 33. 10. he mought have made the kingdome also a branch of the preisthood; for the Preists were to teach Iaakob Gods judgements and Israel his law, as well in cases of Deut. 17. 8. 9. 11. 12. controversie plea and strife, (which M. Smyth maketh actions of administring the Kingdome;) as in other doctrines of exhor­tation and comfort. But I find in the scripture that Moses (not Aa­ron the Preist,) is made a figure of Christ Act. 3. 22—26. as a Prophet; and Pro­phets there were many in Israel of other tribes then Levi: seing then Moses & the Prophets caried types of Christs prophesie; Aa­ron [Page 9] and the Priests, of his priesthood; David and the kings, of his kingdom; I would not now confound the priesthood & prophesie in Christ, any otherwise then the priesthood and kingdome; but keep a like distinction in them al; & as in Christ the head, so in the Church his body. Againe as in heavenly order the 1. manifestatiō of mans syn and miserie by the law, of his justice & happines by the gospel; also the 2. work of mans redemption by sacrifice; & 3 the conservation of this grace wrought for the Church, against al ene­mies; are three distinct things, one following another: so Christ in his administratiō observed this order & distinction; first, Mat. 5. &c. vnto Mat. 26. teaching the Church as a Prophet, above three yeares; then Mat. 26. and 27. offring up him­self as a Preist & sacrifice to his father for his Church; and lastly ri­sing & Luk. 24. 51. ascending into heaven to the right hand of God, there to Psal. 110. 1. with 1 Cor. 15. 24. 25. reign as king until al his enemies be made his footstool. Now M. Smyth maketh prophesie one with the Priesthood, because he would have these two to be Gods worship: & the kingdome he speaketh of first; and excludeth al the actions of it from Gods wor­ship. Whereas the Gospell is called Mat. 13. 19. the word of the kingdome; and Christ when he preached (or prophesied) is sayd to Luk. 4. 43 preach the king­dome of God; and the doctrines which he taught, were the Luk 8. 10 secrets of the kingdom; and the Apostles in their sermons Act. 20. 25. & 28. 23. preached, expoun­ded and testified the kingdom of God. Wherefore they be deep waters which M. Sm. hath found; that the actions of administring the kingdome should not be worship: and yet the preaching of the gos­pell, or prophesying, shalbe worship, and that in the highest de­gree, properly so called. If he followed not fansy in these things, ra­ther then sound judgement; let the prudent iudge.

Like vanity he sheweth in this, that having made the scriptures to be the matter of our worship now, he makethnot them to be the matter also of Gods worship in Israel, but beasts, incense, oil, fat, &c. and the form of our worship to be the spirit, but the forme of theirs to appear in honey, leven, fyre & salt. What, had not they the Deut 31. 9 written word of God, for a ground of their religious actions, as well as we have the Joh. 20. 31 written word? had not they Nehem. 9 20. the good spirit of God to in­struct them, as we have? had they not Nehem. 9. 3. 4. 5. &c▪ 1 Sam▪ 10. 5. 6. praying prophesying, singing &c. by the spirit, as we? How is it then, that this man maketh the [Page 10] matter and form of Gods worship in Israel, to consist in such car­nall things? There is a depth of abomination herein, which is the ground of his anabaptising heresie. For wheras th'Apostle mag­nifieth the Rom. 3. 1. 2. 3. & 9, 4, 5. & 11. 1, 17. 18. &c. Iewish Church, above the Gentiles in many respects: this proud Gentile disgraceth them extremely, saying Charact. of the beast p. 16. that their Ministerie worship & government was carnal; that faith and repentance was not required to the matter, that is, the people of that Church, but onely a carnall holynes; with many such like vituperies, which out of his car­nal hart he uttereth against them.

But for their worship which we have in hand, let him shew if he can, what one thing we have which they had not before vs. He maketh the parts of our worship to be three, praying, prophesying, sing­ing; all these they had, and vttered them by the spirit, as the scriptures every where manifest: and though they had many carnal rites with these, as sacrifices, incense, &c. yet was not their worship carnal: for we have also some carnall rites, as washing with water in baptisme, the eating of bread & wine in the Lords supper; have we therefore a carnall baptisme, a carnall supper? if not, neyther had they a carnal worship, though carnall rites were adjoyned unto their worship. But as God whom they worshipped was a spirit, so worshipped they him in spirit, and with faith, exspecting that pro­mise which God made vnto them of salvation by Christ; as Paul te­stifyed of the whol body of that Church; that Act. 26. 7. the twelve tribes in­stantly serving (or worshiping) day and night, hoped to come vnto it: shew­ing further, that the gentiles are of the same, or Sussoma Ephe. 3. 6. one joynt body with them; fellow-heyres, and partakers of the promise in Christ.

M. S. having shewed (as he thought) the matter and form of the Iewes worship, inferreth vpon it thus. Differēc. pag 19 Hence it followeth (sayth he) that the worship that beginneth in the book or translation commeth not ori­ginally from the spirit, but from the letter or ceremony, and so is not properly of the new Testament, but of the old, 2 Cor. 3. 6.

If this followeth, upon the former description of their worship and ours, I think it comes a great way behind, that few wilbe able to see it. For, did the matter of their worship, the beasts, incense, oil, &c. proceed out of the book? or did the form seen in fyre and [Page 11] salt, come from the book, any otherweise then our praying, prea­ching, and ministring of the sacraments dooth or must doe. Did they look on a book when they kindled fyre on the altar, or cast salt on the sacrifice? if not, how followeth this halting inference?

That the worship performed in reading the scriptures procee­deth originally from the spirit, even from God, whose spirit is in his word, and who hath commanded it to be read: and that such reading is not the ministerie of the letter spoken of, 2 Cor. 3, 6. shall through Gods grace, anon be proved; in handling the second point, of the scriptures.

Here next followeth to be considered Mr Smythes allegories & opening the worship of the new testament, by the type in the old.

Their Differ. pag, 20, 21 Church, Ministery, worship, government, &c. as he sayth, were all literall and ceremonial. Their litterall or typicall worship, was per­formed in two places, 1. the holy place, 2. or the court. The worship in the holy place, typed (sayth he) most properly the worship of the new Testament, which was typed by the holy place, Rev. 11. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Heb. 8. 2. and 9. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 5. The worship of the tabernacle or holy place, consisted of 3. parts, 1. that which perteyned to the brazen altar, 2. that which was performed at the golden altar, 3. that which concerned the table of shew bread, Exod. 37. & 38. with Exod. 29, 38. & 30. 7. 8. 34—38. Levit. 24. 1.—9. At the brazen altar were offred sacrifices propitiatorie and eucharisticall, signifying, prayer, thanksgiving, prophesie. At the golden altar was perfume, signifying prayer, thanksgiving, preaching the gos­pel. Upon the table of shew bread was the candlestik, and 12. loves with in­cense. The candlestik signifyed the Church; shining by doctrine, &c. The shew bread, signified the 12. tribes or Church, present before the Lord, fed with Christ &c.

As the holy place with the altar and Preists, did properly signify (saith he) the Church, Worship, and Saints, Rev. 11. 1, 1 Pet. 2. 5. under the new testament: so the court without the holy place whither all the people came, & the typical service performed there, did signifie the confused as­semblies of antichristian persecutors, & their ceremonial worship, Rev. 11. 2. which the spirit in that place caleth gentiles or hethen in these respects.

The parts of typical service performed in the court, were reading and mu­sik, wherein the Levites were cheif agents; though the preists also and any [Page 12] of the people might read and sing. The scriptures read and tunea musically, are prophesies, prayers, thanksgivings.

In this discourse God would let the Reader see, how M. Smyth is given over to blindnes of hart, in judging spiritual things: by that blyndnes which is in him in discerning carnal things, & which are set before al mens eyes.

For, to make the legal shadowes serve his fansie, he placeth the brazen altar in the holy place or tabernacle with the golden altar, ta­ble and candlestik: wheras the scripture sheweth it was set in the court-yard of the tabernacle Exod. 40. 6. 28. 29. before the doore, and that a good distance off, having the Laver ver. 30. 32 between the tabernacle and it, in which the preists did wash when they went into the tabernacle. And to this place at the dore of the tabernacle, did Exod. 29 42. 43. Lev 1, 3. & 8. 3. 4. the people assemble, & it was Lev. 6. 16 26. holy. If M. Sm. saw not this in the scripture, yet reason mought have taught him not to make a chimney of the Lords ta­bernacle covered & hāged with imbroidered curtayns. The boards of the tabernacle were but Exo. 26. 15. 16. ten cubits high, (the brazen altar be­ing Exo. 27. 1 three cubits; the & 40. 19. tent and coverings were spread over them on hie, and a vayl ver. 28. hanged at the door. Vpon the altar was a fyre Lev. 6. 12 13. always kept burning, & here whole sheep and oxen were burned to ashes, many at once, sometime 2 Chro. 1. 3. 5. 6. a thowsand. Can any reasona­ble man now think, that this was within the tabernacle, which was so low & little a place? would the Lord have the curtayns to be Exod. 26. 1. 29. embrodered with cherubims, the boards to be covered with gold, that al mought be dight with smoke and swoot; & continually in danger to be set on fyre? yet M. Smyth wil needs have it there, be­cause he thought it would fit his turne wel. With like discretion he placeth the candlestik upon the table, though Moses plainly tel­leth, that it (being very great, of a Exo. 25. 39. talent of gold, about 160 pound weight,) was Exo. 40. 22—24. set on the south side of the tabernacle, & the table with shew bread on the north. But his eye sight fayled not so much in the shadow, as his hart was blinded in the shadowed thing. For he maketh the 1 tabernacle, 2 altar, & 3 Preists, to signifie the 1 Church, 2 worship, & 3 saincts under the new testament: the 1. court of the tabernacle, he wil have to signifie the assemblies of Antichrist; the 2 Israelites there assembling, to signifie the antichristian perse­cutors: [Page 13] 3 the typical service in the court, as reading the scriptures, & singing them with musik; to signifie the ceremonial worship of an­tichristians. For none but antichristians (as he thinketh) do read the scriptures in their worship. Behold unto what great impietie he abuseth the word of God. The body of the Church of Israel, the Exo. 4. 22 son and first born of the Lord, his Ps. 135. 4 chosen and cheif treasure, Deut. 7. 6. 7. precious unto him above al peoples of the earth, on whom he set his love, Deut. 33. 26. riding upon the heavens for their help, & on the clowds in his glorie; a people vers.. 29. blessed and saved by the Lord, the sheild of their help and sword of their glorie: this people he maketh to sig­nifie the antichristian persecutors, hated of God, children of the Divil, for whose overthrow and confusion Christ Revel. 19. 11—21. rideth on the heavens in his glorie with a garment dipt in blood, and a sword for to slay them, and fil al the fowles of the aier with their flesh.

The worship and service commanded by God unto his people, and his good word to instruct them, by which he caled them Lev. 17. 2 4—7. from the service of Divils: this false prophet maketh to signifie the ser­vice of antichristian idolaters, which Rev. 9, 20 worship Divils.

Thd Lords Lev. 6. 16. holy courts, wherein they that dwelt were Ps. 65. 4. blessed, for which the sowles of the Saincts Psal. 84. 2. 10. longed and fainted, counting one day there better then a thowsand otherwhere: is now made to signifie the Synagogue of Satan, and place where the Divil dwel­leth.

So then the Israel of God which according to his wil worshi­ped and served him 2 Chro. 29. 27—29 with song and sacrifice; the prophets, preists, Levites, yea Christ himself and his Apostles, which often went thi­ther to worship God and teach the people; these al were figures and significatiōs of antichristian persecutors; excepting the preists one­ly whom M, Smyth of his courtesie, maketh figures of Christians, when they did their service in the holy place. By this interpretation, when Zacharie the priest was Luk. 1. 9. 10. &c. in the temple burning incense, and the whole multitude of the people were without in prayer, wayting for his coming out to Num. 6. 23. Lev. 9. 22. blesse them: he & his service, signified Chri­stians and their worship of God; they with their prayers, signified antichristians and their worship of the Divil. Yea God himself is highly blasphemed by this wretched exposition: for seeing by types & figures he taught his people how for to serue him, & led thē by [Page 14] earthly signes to heavenly things signified; how can it be sayd or thought without blasphemie, that the publik worship of the whol congregation appointed by God himself, did signifie hellish things, and antichristian idolatries?

But what may we think induced M. Sm. to this impietie? Even Satan deceived him by one place of scripture which he pag. 21. citeth in his book; viz. Rev. 11. 2. where Iohn was willed in a vision, to castout the court which is without the temple, and not measure it, for it is given to the gentiles. Hence doth M. Smyth gather that the Israelites which were wont to worship in the courts of the Lord, did signifie the gentiles, that is the Antichristians, and consequently the court must betokē Antichrists Church, and the worship Antichrists worship. Thus one dark scripture is alleged to overthrow the cleare doctrine that shineth throughout al the prophets. Yet even this place it self mought have taught him better. For first the commandment to Rev. 11. 1. measure the temple, altar, and worshipers, signified the restoring or repayring of Gods Church and people, after some destruction & desolation; as the like visions shewed Ezek. 40. 3. 5. Zach. 2. 1. 2. to Ezekiel and Zacharie, af­ter the destruction of Solomons temple, do manifest. Secondly, wheras the court and the holy citie was not mesured here by Iohn; as before by Ezek. 40. 47. & 48. 30. Zach. 2, 2. the other prophets, they were, and as afterwards Rev. 21. 15. Iohn did see: it may teach us, that as yet there was not a ful restauration of Gods Church and worship, from the defection of Antichrist.

Thirdly in that the court is here sayd to Rev. 11. 2 be given to the gentiles, & the holy citie should be troden under foot of them, & a time limited how long, two & fourtie moneths: this argueth that the court was not made, nor the citie builded for them: but by Gods permission, for the chastisement of men, was given unto them for a season, during which tyme his two witnesses should prophesie against them. And thus it is said of the figure the first temple and city, Jer. 12. 7. I have given the dearly beloved of my sowl, into the hands of her enemies. So al Iu­dah Ier. 20. 4. was given into the hand of the king of Babel: and Isa. 63. 18 Esaias complayneth how the adversaries had troden down Gods sanctuarie, as here Rev. 11. 2 they tread down the holie citie. And if the court of the temple must needs signifie Antichrists court, because it was given [Page 15] to the gentiles; then must the holy citie, (by which name Neh [...]m. 11. 1. Isa, 48, 2. & 52 1, Mat. 4. 5. Ierusa­lem is often alled): signify also Antichrists citie & Church, because it was troden downe of the same gentiles; but all the Prophets Psal: 51. 18. & 87. & 122. Isa: 60, Re­vel: 21. shew that it signified the Church of God.

Fynally, if M. S. would have interpreted scripture by scripture & not by his own fansie, he mought have seen a figure of those gentiles, Rev. 11. set forth by the Psalmist, Psal. 79 1. O God the Gentiles are come in­to thy inheritance, thine holy temple have they defiled, and made Ierusalem heapes. Where by Gentiles are not meant the Israelites, but Baby­lonians or other hethen persecutors: and the very name Gentiles Rev. 11. whereby Antichristians are called, should have taught him to look for their type, not in the Church of Israel, but in their ad­versaries; as Antichrists Church is called Rev. 17 Babylon, and Christs Rev. 21 Ierusalem. And as the gentiles of old, exposed Psal. 79. 2. the dead bodies of Gods saints, unburied, to the beasts and birds: so these gen­tils Rev. 11. 9 here, having killed the Lords witnesses, would not suffer their carkesses to be put in graves. But M. Smythes base account of Israel to be but a carnal people, brought him to this dotage; to make them in their assemblies and worship, to be figures of An­tichristian persecutors. This being thus cleared; the reader may tast, how unsavoury and bitter M. Smythes wormwood is, who to abolish the reading of Gods word out of his worship and service; would make the reading of it in the Church of Israel, to signify it should be read in the Churches of Antichrist, but not of Christ.

Having handled thus the essential causes, of Gods worship, with the types in Israel; next folow the parts and kinds of the same, which M. Sm. sayth are 1. praying, 2. prophesying, 3 & singing psalmes. Psal. 50. 14. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 15—17. 26. Iam. 5. 13. Rev. 19. 10.

Worship, properly so called, whereof he would seem to intreat: is not so large as here he makes it: and if he mean worship in ge­nerall, it is more large then these three particulars do expresse.

Worship strictly taken, for that which in Greek is proskunesis, be­tokeneth a prostrating or supplicating vnto God: & is in scrip­ture applied and annexed vnto prayer, Exod. 34. 8. 9. vnto thanksgi­ving, [Page 16] Gen. 24. 26. 27. vnto offrings & sacrifices, (after whichit was performed,) 1 Chron. 16. 29. with 2 Chro. 29. 29. unto the bringing of first fruits, with acknowledgement of Gods goodnes, Deut. 26. 2—10. vnto confession praysing and blessing of God; Nehem. 9. 3. 2 Chron. 7. 3. 1 Chron. 29. 20. Iob. 1. 20. 21. and sometimes it is set downe absolutely, where these or some of them, are to be un­derstood. Act. 8. 27. Exod. 4. 31. Wherefore it is truely and pro­perly applyed vnto all manner supplication or calling on the name of God. But that it may fitly be applyed unto prophesying, no scrip­tures that I know of, manifest; neyther will the nature of the ac­tion bear it.

Prophesying (to speak properly of it, as is meet in such contro­versies,) is one of the extraordinary gifts of God vnto his Church by his spirit; as we have example in Israell, Num. 11. 25. 26. as was foretold by Ioel to be at Christs coming, Ioel 2. 28. 29. and as was fulfilled vpon the Apostles & members of the primitive Churches. Act. 2. 4.—17. and 19. 2.—6. 1 Cor. 14. Now why M. Sm. should choose out this one gift, and neglect all others (except singing a Psalme:) and make it above the rest, properly worship, I cannot tel. If he vse it for that which generally is called the preaching of the word, it is not fit in this place, where propriety is by himself plea­ded for, and should in deed be vsed. He mought have seen in the same 14. to the Corinthes, fowr wayes of teaching noted by the Apostle, vers. 6. eyther by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesie, or by doctrine; and examples of these fowr, in the Christians practise: For Paul spake of revelations to the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 12. 1. 2. &c. and Iohn by revelation, to the Churches in Asia. Rev. 1. 1. 2. 4. 9. 10. &c. and by knowledge the same man spake to the Church in generall, when he reported that which they had seen, heard, handled and knowne to be true; Ioh. 19. 35. 1 Ioh. 1. 1. 3. and Peter dooth the like; 2. Pet. 1. 17. 18. by prophesie, when by secret instinct of the spirit, they wer moved to speak somthing which tended to the edifying exhortation & comfort of the Church, 1. Cor. 14. 3. 29. 30. 31. Act. 19. 6. by doctrine, when they scanned the scriptures and gathered doctrines, and exhortations from them, Heb. 4. 3. 4. 7. & 7. 1. 2. &c. Rom. 4. 3. 4. &c. Luk. 4. 17. 18—21.

[Page 17]And this latter is the surest way and safest now for the Church, when by the scriptures they are taught the wil of God: the other extraordinarie and miraculous gifts being ceased. Therfore the E­vangelists and ordinarie ministers of churches are not exhorted to prophesie, but to feed, preach, read, teach, exhort comfort &c. Act. 20, 28. &c. 1 Pet. 5, 1, 2, &c. 1 Tim. 4, 13—16. 2 Tim: 4, 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1, 9. though prophesie was not to be despised, 1 Thes. 5, 20. Even as the Preists and Levites in the Law, were not appointed or­dinarily to prophesie but to Deut. 3 [...]. 10. teach, which they did by Neh. 8. 7. 8. reading & expounding the scriptures: and prophesie was Eze. 1. 3. Ier. 1. 1. 2. extraordinary to them or any other of what tribe so ever. Although therfore the preaching of the word now among us, may be called prophesying, for the like use and effects in the church: yet have we not that pro­per gift or exercise, any more then of tongues: which we attayn by ordinary labour and stvdie, they had without studie. Act. 2, 4. and 19, 6.

But however M. Sm. taketh the word, I deney prophesying to be worship properly so called: and wil consider his reasons, vvhich are tvvo, 1. praying & prophesying are ioyned togither (pag. 19. sayth he) as parts of worship, 1 Cor. 11, 4. and men must be uncovered at both of them. Agayn, 2. Pro­phesying and Psalmes are coupled togither for the same purpose. 1. Cor. 14. 26.

The first reason is insufficient, for in 1 Cor, 11, 4, praying & pro­phesying are joyned indeed togither, but not as parts of worship pro­perly so caled, that is of the glosse, not of the text. The thing there spoken of concerneth al ecclesiastical actions: & tvvo differing ech from other are named, to imply al the rest. For Paul speaketh of the habit of men and women, vvhich became them to have in al publik meetings: vvhich vvas, that vvomen should be veiled, men unvei­led on their heads: and this not onely because of the vvorship of God: but also 1 Cor. 11. 10. because of the Angels, which are not to be worshiped; and because of the man, ver. 7. whose glorie the woman is: yea be­cause of ver. 14. 15. nature it self, which by giving women long hayr, teacheth them therby, that their heads should be covered. And by the man vers. 4. having on (or over) the head, is not meant the having of a hat, cap, or bonnet upon his head, for that was lawful even in Gods wor­ship, [Page 18] the Preists having Exod. 28. 40. Ezek. 44. 18. bonnets upon their heads, by Gods ap­pointment; and to this day, the Eastern countries put not off their bonnets or tucks when they pray or worship. But it was the having of a covering or veil (called by the Apostle peribólaion & catacálum­ma,) which was a signe of vers. 4. 8. dishonour and subjection, unmeet for men which were principal in the assemblie, & caried Gods vers. 7. image and glorie upon them; but meet for women, which were inferior to men, both by vers. 9. creation and otherweise, and therfore were to have vers. 10. power upon their head, that is, a veil, signifying the power & au­thoritie which men had above them, as in al places, so cheifly in the church assemblies, wher women mought 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 11. 12. not speak, for the same cause. And that it was a shame and dishonour for men to have their heads covered, appeareth by other scriptures; as Ier. 14. 4. the plough­men were ashamed they covered their heads. So David & his men in their sorow and affliction 2 Sam. 15 30. had their heads covered; and Haman Est. 6. 12 in his mourning covered his head; where the Greek hath the very phrase (kata kephales) which th'Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 4. here useth. And that among the Greeks also, (such as the Corinthians were) the like custome was for men to cover their heads in dishonour, reproch, and grief; Plutar. in vita De­mosthenis. hu­mane histories do record. But bonnets or miters on the head, were a sign Exo. 28. 40. Zach. 3. 5. of honour: even as with us, the masters wear hats, when ser­vants stand bareheaded. Whereas therfore the Apostle willeth wo­men to be veiled or covered, it is not onely for the worship of God properly so caled, but because of Gods worship in general, yea be­cause of reverence and submission to men and Angels. So it fol­loweth not, because men must be unveiled at prayer and at prophe­sie, therefore these two actions are of one and the same nature: for they mought not be veiled in the Church at al; unlesse perhaps in extraordinary time of mourning and sorrow, they covered their heads, as I have shewed examples in Israel.

The other reason from 1 Cor. 14, 26. where prophesying & psalms are coupled togither (as M, Smyth sayth) for the same purpose; is more weak and lesse to the purpose. For prophesie is not named there; but if it had been named, it would not have proved it worship properly, any more then tongues, revelations, interpretation, doctrine, which there are named, be parts or kinds of worship. And if because things [Page 19] are named togither we must therefore count them of the same na­ture, then 1 Cor. 13. 13. fayth, hope, and love coupled togither, and many other things in other scriptures, must be esteemed the same: which is vanitie to affirme. Yea in this 1 Cor, 14 very chapter, Mr. Smyth mought have learned the contrarie; for it is sayd v. 24, 25. if al prophesie, and one that beleeveth not come in, he is rebuked of al &c. and so he wil fal down on his face and worship God, and say plainly that God is in you indeed. wher Paul sheweth a difference between prophesie & worship, as in name so in gesture, by faling down, whereas at prophesie they ver. 30. sate. And if men should kneel or prostrate themselves at the ministerie of the word and sacraments, it were liker idolatrie then seemly behaviour in the church: but at worship properly so caled, kneeling, bowing, falling down &c, are the most fit gestures: so as one is put some­time for another, as when Mathew sayth the leperMat. 8, 2. worshiped Christ, Luke recording the same sayth, Luk. 5, 12. he fel on his face and besought him. And how often throughout the scriptures is bowing and falling down joyned with worship? So in Israel, at the ministerie of the word, the people Neh. 8. 5, 6, & 9, 3 stood up; but at the worship of the Lord they bow­ed down. Moreover worship being directed unto God himself, (for he that boweth, kneeleth, prayeth &c. doth these things unto God, as by the Angel it is commanded Rev. 19, 10. worship God:) and prophesie be­ing directed unto men, (as Paul sayth 1 Cor. 14 3. he that prophesyeth speaketh unto men;) also the next end of worship, being the glory of God (Ex. 23, 14—17. with Ioh. 12, 20. Act. 8, 27.) but the next end of pro­phesie being the edifying exhortation & comfort 1 Cor. 14 3. of the church, these things may teach us that prophesie is not worship properly so caled, that is proskunesis: but onely in a general sense, as latreia or sebasis, even as reading the scriptures (which is for mens edifying, exhortation and comfort as prophesie is) and al other like ecclesi­astical actions. And this word latreuo, Paul Rom. 1, 9. applieth to himself, in his preaching of the gospel; of vvhom we may learn vvhat manner of vvorship prophesie is.

Whereas therfore M. Smyth hath accused us of idolatrie, for reading the scriptures in the church (vvherein vvee doe but that God commanded, in that manner and to that end) and the man himselfe calleth and esteemeth prophesie [Page] [...] [Page 19] [...] [Page 20] to be worship in the proper sense: he is taken in the snare which he set for the righteous; and if any be idolaters for such things, him­self is one and principall. Or, how ever it be for that, all men may see how he hath sought to abuse vs by his aequivocation, & to shrowd himself in a conceited fansie.

Yet one thing more I will observe touching the sacraments, which M. Sm. speaketh not of in this place; but elswhere in that book sayth thus; Differ. p. [...]. The publishing of the covenant of grace, and the put­ting to of the seales: is onely one concrete action or part of worship: for the pu­blishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales: otherweise, breaking bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank. Here first I note by the way, how M. S. acknowledgeth the Lords supper and baptisme to be seales of the covenant of grace; (as in Pag. 23. another place also he cal­leth them;) yet now being put to his shifts for defense of his anaba­ptisme, he is driven thus to say, Charact. of the beast pag. 26. I deney that baptisme is the seal of the covenant of the new testament. Thus the windie clowd carieth him­self to and fro, and rather then he will forgoe his error, he wil con­tradict that which before he had well written; though it may be al­so confirmed by the testimony of the holy ghost, who calleth cir­ cumcision (the figure Col. 2. 11. 12. of our baptisme,) a seale of the righteousnes of faith. Rom. 4, 11. But, to the point in hand, if the publishing of the covenant, and the putting to of the seal as baptising with water; breaking, giving, taking, eating of bread &c. be one concrete, that is, one joynt action or part of worship (as I grant it is, taking worship generally:) why is not the reading and expounding or preaching of the word, also one conjoyned action and part of worship: es­pecially seing they were joyned together in Israel, as Nehem. 8. 8. They read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense &c. If the Preists and Levits then whose office was to Deut. 33. 10. teach Iaakob Gods judgements and Israel his law; did thus teach with reading: and if it be true that th'Apostle sayth, Act. 15. 21. Moses of old time hath in every citie them that preach him, he being read in the synagogues every Sabbath: and if Christ himself first Luk. 4. 16 17—21. read the text of scrip­ture and after that preached from it: have wee not as good ground to say that reading and preaching is one joynt action and part of worship, as preaching and baptising? But it was Satans policie [Page 21] to disgrace the reading of Gods book, and seek to thrust it quite out of the worship of God; that men mought prophesie (as now they use to speak,) out of their harts; and honour that as Gods proper worship; and so the serpents word if it were mixed with the Lords, mought the more easily be unespied, the scriptures being absent. But God hath joyned his Isa. 59. 21 word together with his spirit: that his people should not be deceived by such as Mic. 2. 11 1 King. 22. 24. walk in the spirit, and ly falsly.

Singing of Psalmes. M. Sm. wil have to be the third part of wor­ship; because praying and singing Psalms are put together (Pag. 19. sayth he) in the same sense, (that is, as parts of worship.) 1 Cor. 14. 15 17. Iam. 5. 13. Act. 16. 25. And prophesying and psalmes are coupled together for the same purpose. 1 Cor. 14. 26.

Here agayne M. S. omitteth the needful distinction of Psalmes and singing of them. For some Psalmes are written in the Bible, as canonical scripture, given to the Church for to be read, expoun­ded, and sung: which M. S. himself granteth, even of the transla­tion, saying, Pag. 17. It may be read in the Church and sung in tunes. And this singing is with harmonie of voices. An other kind of Psalm there is, which one man vttereth in the Church, and others hear him: of which sort the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 14. 26. when ye come togither, as every one of you hath a Psalm, or hath doctrine, or hath a tongue, or hath a revelation, or hath interpretation, let all things be done to edifying. This kind is far inferiour to the other, as being utte­red by men subject to err as wel in singing as in teaching, and it is to be tried by the psalms in scripture, and other authentik books. This was an extraordinary gift as strange tongues and the like. Yet M. S. loving to handle things confusedly, that his error might lesse appeare, speaketh here of singing Psalms as of one sort, and nature. Again, that he might make all serve his own fansie, he describeth singing of Psalms to be Pag. 20. the shewing of our thanksgiving to God, by the manifestation of the spirit, Philip. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 14, 15—17. Wheras we find in the scripture many Psalms directly penned for Psal. 1. & 49. & 78. & 91. &c. doctrine and instruction to the Church, as othersome are for thanksgiving to God: yea matter of all sorts, historie of things past, prophesie of things to come, rebuke, threatning, comfort, lamentation, and what not, is mixed in songs of the scripture, and why such Psalms [Page 22] might not by the spirit be suggested to Christians in Pauls time, (as wel as thanksgivings,) I know not any reason at all. So that his rea­sons of prayer & song mentioned togither, are insufficient to prove them both of one nature properly; as before is noted of prophesie: rather we are to distinguish praying, singing, prophesying, as three severall gifts and works of the spirit: and all of them Gods worship and service in the Church according to their severall kinds and na­ture. But it seemeth strange vnto me, that M. Sm. should now both allow of the scriptures to be sung in tunes in the Church; and al­so make the singing by gift of the spirit, a part of Gods proper wor­ship in the new testament; and yet he & his disciples to use neither of these in their assemblies. If it be an ordinary part of worship, why perform they it not, but quarrel with vs, who accounting it an ex­traordinary gift now ceased, do content our selves with joint har­monious singing of the Psalmes of holy scripture, to the instructi­on and comfort of our harts, and praise of our God. Separating our selves (as the holy Ghost 1 Tim. 6. 4. 5. willeth vs) from such as dote about questions and strife of words, whereof cōmeth envie, contention, and many other euils.


HAving ended the point of worship, with the nature & parts of it: it remayneth now to see, how this thing is applied by M. S. against reading of the scriptures. And first in the generall touching all manner writings, he sayth that Differen. pag. 4. books or writings are in the nature of pictures or images, and therfore in the nature of ceremonies, and so by consequēt reading in a book is ceremonial.

If M. Sm. can prove books & images to be both of a nature, & both alike ceremonies: he may be a Proctour for the Pope, who hath brought images into the Church, for laie mens books. And if the book be to him that readeth, of the nature that an image is to him that gazeth: who would not plead for them both alike, to be used or rejected? But what if an other would come and say, that words or speaches are in the nature of trumpets or bells; and therefore in the na­ture of ceremonies; and so by consequent as the Num. 10 2. silver trumpets; & Exod. 28. 33-35. gol­den bells in the Law were ceremonies, & ended by Christ: so speaking or preaching of the word is likeweise ceremonial & men now must▪ [Page 23] be all taught by the spirit. Hath not this as good a colour against the audible voice, as the other against the visible writing? For as the sound of the voice affecteth the eare and understanding of the hearer; so the sight of the letter affecteth the eye & understanding of the reader: and as far dooth a book differ from an image, in this respect, as a man from a bell. A bell when it soundeth in the eare, yeeldeth no distinct articulate voice, for the edifying of the hearer; but a man when he speaketh, is vnderstood of the hearers, & his rea­nable voice dooth edify: so an image when it is looked vpō, affoar­deth a man no edification (no not if it were an image sent frō hea­ven, unlesse it had a Iob. 4. 16 voice withall:) but a book when it is read, infor­meth the mind, and feedeth not the eye onely, as dooth a picture. An image & picture hath a Ps. 1 [...]5. 5 mouth & speaks not; no spirit or breath of life is in thē: but the book of God, is 2 Tim. 3. 16. theopneustos, inspired of God, his spirit & life is in it; it is not a dumb teacher, but Rom. 4. 3. & 9. 17. speaketh & Joh. 5. 39 testifyeth the mind of God; and by that which is there written the spirit Rev. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29. speaketh to the Churches. Wherfore a mayn difference is to be put between livelesse pictures & Gods lively oracles in his book; & so in all writings. And if M. S. continue in this mind that a book and an image are both of a nature, I could with he would set out no more books, but images in their sted: so should lesse harm come un­to mens soules, then now dooth by reading his hereticall writings.

But if books and writings be in nature of ceremonies, & reading (as he sayth) ceremonial; wherof he giveth this reason, for as the beast in the sa­crifices of the old testament was ceremonial, so was the killing of the beast cere­moniall:) how is it, that he sayd before of reading, that it is a lawful ec­clesiastical action; dooth not the Prov. 12 19. lying tongue vary incōtinently? For shall we have legall ceremonies, (the Col. 2. 17 shadow of things to come, whose body is in Christ,) to be used as lawful ecclesiasticall actions? may we not then have pictures & images of Exod. 25 cherubims &c. for ecclesiastical use; as we have the holy scriptures, which by M. S. reli­gion, are in the nature of images & ceremonies. In another pag. 22. place he sayth, As musicall instruments and playing vpon them was typicall, be­cause it was artificial: so reading of a book was typicall also, because it is meer­artificial. So then the playing on the organs, and the reading of the scriptures are both of a nature, both types and ceremonies, & so a­bolished.

How near these reasons & groūds do reach to Iudaism & Familism, [Page 24] I leave unto the wise to judge; and future things wil shew more: for as yet the Iude. 13. wandring starrs have not run al their course.

Of the Original scriptures.

AFter his censure of books in general, to be of the nature of images: M. Sm. cometh to fight against the use of Gods scrip­tures in his worship; beginning even with the Originals, the He­brue and Greek as they were written by the prophets & Apostles. Wherin he is fallen into a higher degree of error, or of frawd; then when we had controversie with him: for then See before pag. 2. his plea was, no trans­lation (for it is apocrypha) but onely the canonical scriptures are to used in the church in tyme of Gods worship. Now he wil out with canonical scrip­ture also, for the reading of it, he thinketh was a ceremonie ended by Christ: thus see we fulfilled the saying of the Prophet, Jer. 9. 3. they pro­ceed from evil to worse. And first to prove them ceremonies, he layeth these grounds.

Differēce. pag. 5. The holy Originals (sayth he) signifie and represent to our eyes, heavē ­ly things: therfore the book of the law is called the similitude of an heavenly thing. Heb. 9. 19—23. Holy scriptures or writings began with Moses, Exo. 24, 4. and 31. 18. Ioh. 1. 17. 2 Cor. 3, 7. Before Moses, holy men prophesied out of their harts, and received and kept the truth of doctrine by tradition from hand to hand. 2 Pet. 2, 5. Jude ver. 14, 15. Deut. 31, 24. When Mo­ses had written the law, he caused it to be put by the ark in the most holy place, as a witnesse against the people, Deut. 31, 26. therefore the Apostle caleth it the handwriting in ordinances which was contrary to us, which Christ nay­led to his crosse. Col. 2, 14, Eph. 2, 15. Hence it followeth that the holy Ori­ginals, the Hebrue scripture of the old testament, are ceremonies, 2 Cor. 3, 3, 7 Num. 5, 23. 24. & by necessarie consequent. The book or tables of stone, typed unto the Jewes their hard hart, void of the true understāding of the law. 2 Cor 3, 3. Hebr. 8. 10. Ezek. 36, 26, 27. 2 Cor. 3, 14, 15. The ynk wherwith the letters were written, signified the spirit of God. 2 Cor. 3; 3, Heb. 8, 10. with Exod. 31, 18. The letters written or characters ingraven signifieth the work of the spirit, who alone doth write the law in our harts. by proportion. also Deut. 9, 10. with Heb. 8, 10. Reading the words of the law out of the book, [Page 25] signifieth the vttering of the word of God out of the hart, by proportion. See also 2 Cor. 3. 2. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 7. The writings of the old testament being ceremonial, are therefore abolished by Christ onely so far forth as they are ce­remonial, Col. 2. 14. 20. Gal. 4. 9. The thing signifyed by the book, viz the law of God & the new testament remayneth, 2 Cor. 3. 11. 7. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 13.

Here first may be observed, how M. Sm. professing to treat of the originall scriptures, in which both old and new testament, both law and gospel are written unto vs: taketh one part onely, to weet, the law or old testament, and from it will conclude against the whole body of the scriptures; and this fallacie he often useth in his writings. But if all he here sayth were graunted, that the writings of Moses were abolished by Christ: Yet will it not therevpon follow that the writings of the other Prophets and of the Apostles also, are typicall, ceremoniall and abolished. Nay rather the contrary would follow thus; that as circumcision, and the passeover &c. were figu­rative shadowes ended by Christ, no more to be used; but bap­tisme and the Lords supper instituted by Christ in sted of the for­mer, are continually to be practised: so the writings of the old te­stament, if they were shadowes & ended by Christ, yet the writings of the new testament, given insted of the other, are never to be a­bolished.

Secondly, let it be considered what M. Sm. hath here left unto vs, not ceremoniall and unabolished; the thing signifyed (sayth he) by the book, viz, the law of God and the new testament: but where is this to be had? not in letters written with ynk, on paper, or parchmēt, for all these he sayth are ceremoniall and so abolished; but written in mens harts as in books, with the spirit as with inck, and so to be uttered by men, out of their harts. If Satan can but perswade this point, he will bring out of mens harts, as out of the bottomlesse pit, a smoke of heresies, insted of the fyrie law of God, & who shall control him. For mens harts now, are the same which Gods book was of old; and as Israell fetched their lawes, doctrines, wor­ship, and services from the scriptures written with inck: so Christi­ans now must fetch their lawes, doctrines, worship. &c. from the harts of men, as from the tables of the lavv, and vvhat is from [Page 26] thence uttered, is to be counted, as written with inck of Gods spi­rit. For the hevenly things themselves are as much yea more to be honoured, esteemed, credited; then the book which was but a type and similitude of heavenly things. H. N. the ene­mie of Gods scriptures, can shew no stronger ground for his fa­milisme, wherein he reprocheth scripture learning: then this which is here layd by M. Smyth.

But the scriptures and reasons which he hath brought, be farr from proving so deadly an error. For the book of God as alwayes, so stil, signifieth and representeth to our eyes heavenly things; (although As that mentioned Heb. 9. 19. some figurative extraordinary vse thereof be abolished:) for it sig­nifieth and teacheth vnto vs the mysteries of the kingdom of hea­ven. And as the book of the lavv was a witnesse Deut. 31. 26. against Israel, when they vers. 27. walked rebelliously and with a stiffe neck: so is it a witnesse to this day Ioh. 12. 48. against all Christians that walk in like sort. But such in Israel as had the word Deut. 30. 14. neer vnto them in their mouth and in their hart for to do it; the book of the Law was a witnesse for them; a Psal. 19. 7 8. sure testimony giving wisdom to the simple, a perfect law, con­verting the sowl; and the statutes of the Lord therein, were right un­to them, and rejoyced the hart, the commaundement of the Lord was pure and gave light unto the eyes: even so to all faithful Christi­ans now, the writings of the Prophets & Apostles is a 2 Pet. 1. 19. sure word, to which they do wel to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place; by it they Ioh. 20. 31. beleeve, and so come to life; and by it 1 Ioh. 1. 4 their joy is made full.

Agayn M. Sm. erroneously substituteth one extraordinary use of some part of the scripture, for the ordinary uses of the whole. Moses wrote in a book the old testament or covenant of works, (summed vp in Exod. 20. 21. 22. and 23. chapters:) which book was read in the peoples eares, and sprinkled with blood, as the peo­ple also was; for a sanction or confirmation of the Testament: in which action there was an extraordinary and figurative vse of the book for that time, which now is abolished by Christs blood which hath confirmed the new testament, and abrogated the old. The holy histories, prophesies, psalmes, parables &c. were never thus sprinkled with blood; but onely that book wherein the con­ditions of the covenant were written. Wherefore there were be­sides [Page 27] this, other ordinarie permanent & perpetual uses of the scrip­tures, by Deut, 19. 19. Psal. 1. 2. Pro. 1. 1 2. reading them privatly and publikly, for the teaching ex­horting comforting reproving of the people, according to their daily need & occasion, that every child of God might have know­ledge Pro. 22. 20, 21. of the certainty of the word of truth, for to answer words of truth to them that sent unto him; as Solomon sayth. And ther­fore as at the publik solemn assemblie of al Israel in the sabbath year, the law was Deut. 31. 10—13. ⸪ Act. 13 15. & 15. 21. read unto them al, that they mought learn, & fear God, and keep al his words, they & their children: so at their particular assemblies in their synagogues throughout every citie, both Moses and ⸫ the Prophets that wrote after him, were read every Sabbath day: and this from old time, even unto Christs dayes on earth, who himself Luk. 4. 16. 17. in his own person and action allowed and sanctified this holy custome; and commended by his Apostles 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 19 al the scriptures fore written, unto his disciples; and gave them also other scriptures, for like end and use; & warned them that no man should 1 Cor. 4. 6. presume above that which is written. Wherefore it is a deceit of Satan for mans ruine, to seek to make the scriptures generally & wholly ceremonial and abolished; because of that extraordinarie use of them at the sanction of the law, at mount Sinai. But the coun­sel of God unto his people is, Jsa. 34. 16. seek in the book of the Lord, and read; & Joh. 5, 39, search the scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life.

As for the law of God to be written in mens harts by the spirit, this taketh not away the use of the law written in books with ynk; for in Israel when the bible was read every Sabbath, David had the law of God within Psal. 40. 8, 9. his bowels, whereby he declared righteousnes in the great congregation; and as he, so every other righteous mans mouth, spake of wisdom, & his tongue talked of judgment, Psal. 37. 30. 31. the law of his God being in his hart, as Moses Deu. 6. 6 commanded: yet ceased not the reading of the law out of the book. So at this day, true Christians in wose harts Gods law is written, are not (no though they be 1 Tim. 4. 13. 2 Tim. 3, 15—17. & 4. 13. ministers extraordinarily furnished with grace) to leave the reading of the law written in books any more then they did in Israel; and Christs Apostles have written the word even 2 Ioh. 11 3 Joh. 13. with 1 Ioh. 1, 3, 4. & 2 12. &c. with pa­per and ynk, as they spake it with voyce; to meet with their dotage that dream ynk and paper to be meerly ceremoniall. [Page 28] As for al hypocrites, they are now as heretofore stony harted, and the outward letter written with ynk, resembleth their hypocrisie.

But whereas M, S. having cited Deut. 31. 26. inferreth, therfore the Apostle caleth it the handwriting in ordinances which was contrary to us, which Christ nayled to his crosse Col. 2. 14. Eph. 2, 15. he mismatcheth the places: for Paul speaketh of Col. 2. 8. worldly rudiments, the outward ser­vices of the Law, (which elswhere he caleth also Gal. 4, 3. 9. beggerly rudiments) such as was Col. 2. 11. Gal. 5, 2, 3. circumcisió; the observing Col. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 10. of dayes & moneths &c. which ordinances were as an handwriting or obligation against the Iewes, witnessing that they were debters unto God, synners, miserable, & under the curse: unlesse they saw and learned Christ in them: by whom the obligation is cancelled, and curse done away. For by circumcising thēselves, they acknowledged (as by a bil of their hand) that they were born in syn, and impure by nature: even as we by baptising our selves, doe the like. By offring sacrifices for syns, they acknowledged themselves actual transgressors of the law, and the killing of beasts, argued themselves were vvorthy of death. Novv it vvas not possible Heb. 10. 4. for the blood of buls and goats to take avvay synns, and the lavv Psal. 40. 6. 7. taught them so much: therfore it vvas a Gal. 3, 24 schoolmaster to lead them to Christ, that they mought be made righteous by faith. This handwriting vvhich stood thus in decrees against the Ievves, and vvhich rose up as an adversarie and contra­ry unto them: Christ blotted or vviped out by his death on the crosse, vvhere he spoiled also the Col. 2. 15. principalities and powers, the Divils vvhich vvere readie to plead against Israel, & urge this hādvvriting, these ordinances vvhich they practised, against them; if they used them not vvith fayth in Christ, but vvith expectation of justice by works of the law. Now this word handwriting figuratively used and applied to the legal ordinances, M. Smyth taketh properly, for the written law and prophets: as if Christ had blotted out them: and taken them from his Church, even as he took circum­cision, altars, sacrifices, &c. which how far it is from truth, I leave unto every conscience [...] judge. But were it as he think­eth, the writtten word of God, yet must it then be limited, so farr forth onely as men do abuse it, and learn not Christ [Page 29] by it; for to such onely it is a handwriting, contrary to them: and so is at this day. But this is not the proper use or end of the law or scripture in it self, for it preacheth to men the Deut. 30. 6. 11—14. with Rom. 10. 4. 5—8. word of fayth, and righteousnes therby in Christ, as wel as righteousnes by works of the law: and the gospel hath Rō. 3. 21. wit­nesse of the law and prophets, and they Ioh, 5, 39 testifie of Christ, & are a 2 Pet. 1. 19 sure word unto Christians. Wherefore it were woe vvith us, if these vvere blotted out, and taken avvay as ceremonies and shadovves abolished: the reading vvhereof both publik and private, is a continual light and comfort to our harts, and confirmation of our holy fayth. And to sub­stitute mens harts (vvhich are, by testimonie of the prophet, Ier. 17. 9. deceitful and wicked above al things,) in sted of the holy bible, vvhose vvords Ps. 19. 7. 8. 9. are al true and faithful: is a miserable exchang; for eyther men must be as vvere the prophets, 2 Pet. 1. 21. moved and caried by the holy ghost; and so all their vvords taken for heavenly oracles: or else vve shal be fed vvith chaffe in sted of vvheat, and drink deadly poyson in sted of vvholesome li­quor.

The serpent is subtile Gen, 3, 1. more then any beast of the field: he savv this ground of making the scriptures of God, cere­monies, and abolished by Christ, vvould be distasted of many, yea of any that feareth God: therefore he laboureth to svvee­ten this vvormvvood, vvith an after receipt: vvhich yet is so tempered, as it may serve to help forward his purpose, in ta­king the book of God out of the church.

M. Smyth in the Differen. pag. 6. next place granteth, that the holy scrip­tures are the fountain of al truth: the ground and foundation of our fayth: that by them al doctrines, and every spirit is to be iudged: that they are to be read in the church and to be interpreted: never­thelesse, not reteyned as helps before the eye, in tyme of spiritual worship.

There is no such battel, as when a man is at warr with himself: & it is a special judgment wher with God smiteth his enemies. [Page 30] Would any man think that such bitter & sweet waters could come out of one fountain, as have flowed here? Standeth this eyther with religion or with reason; that that which as an adversary, is blotted out, nayled to Christs crosse, & abolished as being ceremonial and a world­ly rudiment; should yet be the fountayne of all truth, the ground of faith, &c. If these will stand togither, what wil not? Then also may circumcision, altars, sacrifices, and other Iewish services, although they were shadowes and abolished by Christ; yet be reteyned and used of Christians, with a little qualification, and distinction of wor­ship properly so called: and this will like the Iewes very well. But we that have learned Christ, cannot brook such contrary potions. For if the book, writing & reading of it be Iewish shadowes ended and abolished by Christ; and the hart and speaking out of it, be the shadowed thing, the heavenly truth, figured by, and substituted for the other: we would keep the substance, & leave the ceremony for such as follow shadowes. But if the book of God, the written scriptures, be the fountaine of all truth, and foundation of our faith; as it is in deed, and we so esteem it: then can we not but detest, that for­mer plot, as a groundwork of Satan, that hung vp the scriptures as our enemy vpon the crosse, so blotting them out as a cancelled bond, and abolishing them for ever.

Wherefore the reading and expounding of the scriptures, con­tinueth, now as of old in Israel, where the lavv and prophets were read in the synagogues every sabbath, for to teach & inform Gods people in his vvayes: so read vve them still for like end and vse, and shall by Gods grace (maugre Satans slights) so do vnto the end. And as for the snare, the distinction I mean, of spiritual worship properly so called. Which vvas set to take the simple: it is broken pag. 5. &c. be­fore; and the adversary himself, if any man be, is caught vvith the same.

Yet ceaseth he not, but proceedeth vvith reasons, Differen. pag. 6. that the originall scriptures are not given as helpes before the ey in worship. But the foundations being already overthrovvn; vve shall vvith lesse [Page 31] difficultie and more brevitie, discover and do away the errors. His reasons are.

Because Christ used the book to fulfil all righteousnes, Mat. 3. 15. &1. Reason.having by the use of the book fulfilled the law of reading, he shut the book in the synagogue, to signifie that the ceremonie of book worship, or the Mi­nisterie of the letter, was now expired and finished. Luk. 4. 20. Ioh. 19. 30.

First here is the law of reading brought to an end, according toAnswer. that first ground of ceremonies; & contrary to the second grant that the scriptures are to be read in the Church and to be interpreted: which reading and interpreting if it be not Gods worship and service, it is the worship of the Divil. Thus M. Sm. wavereth as a reed shaken with the wind.

Secondly, in the other side of the leaf, Differ [...]n. pag. 7. M. Sm, forgetting him­self as a drunken man, sayth, all the worship that was appointed by Mo­ses for the Preists, was limitted to the holy place, whether the people were not admitted; and therefore reading was of an other nature performed in the ut­ter court or synagogue or elsewhere, eyther by the Levites or any other learned men; (quoting againe Luke 4. 16.) and so no part of worship properly so called, but onely a ceremonial ground or foundation, of inward or outward spirituall worship, common to the Churches of all ages.

If this be so, how ended Christ the ceremonie of book-worship, where none was to end? If there were no proper worship in the synagogues but exercises of an other nature; then Christ reading in the syna­gogue, read not worship; and shutting the book there, shut not up book worship, nor caused it to exspire; and so M. Sm. hath lost his dream.

Agayn, if Christ by shutting the book there, signified an end of reading; and the reading that there was, (as M. S. even now sayd,) was such as is common to the Churches of all ages: then Christ hath en­ded all manner reading whatsoever in the Church, even that which is common to all ages; or else the allegorie will turn to a fansie; & so all reading must be abolished out of the Church; & that would the Divil faine bring to passe.

[Page 32]But the reason of ending reading, is slight; that because Christ shut the book and gave it to the Minister, therfore he ended the work of reading. He used not to do such weighty matters, by dumb signes, without Joh. 13. 12. 13. &c. word of signification. And if the closing of the book were such a mysterie: what was the taking and open­ing of the book, nothing? proportion will cary it to be the begin­ning, as well as shutting should be the end. But they be vain spe­culations, to gather from mute actions, an otherthrow of morall lawes, permanent and needful for the the Church in all ages. Ney­ther was this the first or the last time of Christs reading thus; for as his custome was (sayth Luk 4. 16 the scripture) he went into the synagogue and stood vp to read: neyther was it a decent thing, that he having received the book shut, should redeliver it open; their books being long rolls or volumes, not bound vp like ours. Finally this argu­ment against reading, hath like weight of truth, as the Papists have for their vanities, who Sanders Rock Pref. allege for prayer in a strange tongue, that Christ prayed Eli Eli lama sabachthani, which the people that heard him, vnderstood not: and ibidē ch. 9. that he preached out of S. Peters bote, to signify how in S. Peters chaire, his doctrine should alwayes be stedfastly professed. Such trifles must be brought wher sound proofs are wanting.

2. Because reading words out of a book, is the ministration of the letter.2 Reason.2 Cor. 3. 6. namely a part of the Ministerie of the old testament which is abo­lished, Heb. 8. 13. 2 Cor. 3. 11. 13. and the ministerie of the new testament, is the ministerie of the spirit. 2 Cor. 3. 6.

This scripture of the 2. Cor. 3. M. Sm. often allegeth for hisAnswer. purpose; pag. 1. & 7. & 13. & 19. and 20. he thought belike it would sound well in simple folks eares, that the reading of scrip­tures should be the ministerie of the letter. But the ignorance & evil of the allegation is great; and fitted for Satans policie, to draw men from reading the book of God. For if reading be the Mini­stration of the Letter there spoken of; then is it the ministration of death & damnation, as the Apostle there calleth it, vers. 7. 9. and then the Papists have doon best of al, forbidding the people to read the scriptures, least they should gather out of them errors, and so [Page 33] death and damnation. And who can comfortably read the scrip­tures, if that be the ministerie of the letter, and so death? But out vpon such a slanderous interpretation; it is farr from the Apostles meaning. He calleth the Law the letter, figuratively, because it was written with letters, & graved on stones: he intendeth not the books of the Prophets, wherin both law and gospel was written, & alwayes to be read for instruction, comfort & salvation to the peo­ple. The law vvas first spoken, and aftervvards vvritten by Moses: the gospel of Christ vvas also first spoken, and aftervvards vvritten by his Apostles. If vvriting and reading made the other the letter, then maketh it this the letter also; and so the vvord of life, shalbe the ministration of death. The lavv if it had never been vvritten, but onely spoken, yet had it been the ministration of death: for all Is­rael hearing it, Exod. 20. 18. 19. vvere afrayd, and death seised vpon their conscien­ces: and this by hearing Gods lively voice from heaven, not by hea­ring the stony tables read, for it is not manifest that ever they vvere read unto them, but onely put and kept in the ark for a testimony. Deut. 10. 1—5. and when the 10. cōmandements were read Ex. 24. 7. out of the book, there was no such feare: and the glorie of Moses face terrified the people when he Exod. 34. 30. 31. &c. spake and talked with them, for which he put a veil vpon him: but of reading out of a book at that time (wherto the Apostle here hath reference,) there is not a word. So it was not reading onely but speaking also without book, which was the ministration of the letter to the Iewes; and as Paul here calleth the law the letter, so elswhere he calleth it, Heb. 12. 19. 20. the voice of words.

It is not therefore the writing, but the thing written which he intendeth. And if M. Sm. should fall to the heresie of iustifica­tion by the works of the law, and teach this in prophesie out of his hart, though he never read line in the holy Bible, yet should he be a minister of the letter and of damnation to his disciples.

Of this letter Paul sayth, 2 Cor. 3. 7 it is the ministration of death: but of the scriptures Christ saith Ioh. 5. 39 serch them, for in them ye think to have eternal life. Of this letter Paul sayth, it is vers. 9. the ministerie of condē ­nation; but of the holy letters in Gods book, he sayth, 2 Tim. 3. 15. they are able to make one wise unto salvation through the faith vvhich is in Christ Iesus.

The law is called the letter (not letters as the 2 Tim. 3. 15. scripture is called) by a similitude: for a letter is an outward visible thing appearing [Page 34] to the eye of an other that looketh on; whereas the thing whereon it is written, whither paper or stone, is not moved or changed ther­by. Such is the doctrine of the law to the professor of it. It maketh him seem a fayre hypocrite before men: they look and see the com­mandments of God written on his forehead, on the fringes of his garments, and on his dore posts: but his hart and mynd are stony stil. For the law renueth no man, but syn that is in us, Rom. 7, 8. taketh oc­casion by the law, and worketh in us al manner transgression of the law, and so death. But the Gospel is the spirit that renueth & quick­neth by faith in Christ: and changeth Eze. 36. 26, 27. Heb. 8. 10. the stony hart into flesh, and writeth there the lawes of the most high. Thus by the letter is not meant the holy scriptures, which are Gods instrument for our re­novation: but the external work of the law upon a man: in which sense Paul also mentioneth circumcision in the letter Rom. 2. 29. mean­ing outward circumcision of the flesh to be seen and read of men: where to take it as this man doth 2 Cor. 3. of reading the scriptures, were to follow the Ps. 52. 4. devouring words of the deceitful tongue.

3. Because upon the day of pentecost and many yeares after the churches3. Reason.of the new testament did use no bookes in time of spiritual worship, but prayed, prophesied and sang psalmes merely out of their harts Act. 2, 4. 42. and 10. 44. 48. and 19, 6. 1 Cor. 14, 15, 17, 26, 37.

4. Because no example of the scripture can be shewed of any man or­dinarie4. Reason.or extraordinarie, that at or after the day of pentecost used a book, in praying, prophesying, and singing psalmes: if yea, let it be don and wee yeeld.

Nay, it is not in mens power to yeeld to the truth thoughAnswer. it be shewed them: or though their own writings convince them: it is in Rom. 9, 16 God that shevveth mercy.

First M. Smyth holdeth that such reading as vvas in the Ievves synagogues Diff. p. 7. was common to the churches of all ages. Secondly he sayth pag. 6. the scriptures are to be read in the church, and to be interpre­ted, Col. 4. 16. compared with Luk. 24, 27, & 1 Cor: 14, 27. and 12. 10 by proportion. 2 Pet. 3. 16. If these assertions and these places alle­ged, (let the reader look and examine them) prove that the [Page 35] scriptures are to be read in churches; as in deed some of them doe: we need fight no longer: the enemie unawares hath yeilded the feild.

His florish that he maketh, how the churches of the new testament used no books, because no example can be shewed: is a deceitful argument. For when there is a ground from God to doe the thing: we are to suppose men did it, although it be not expressly Ioh. 21. 25. written. And this adversary granteth the scriptures were to be read; and we are sure that the churches were to be taught by the men of God: and Paul sayth that al the scripture 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousnes: that the man of God, that is the 1 Tim. 6. 11. minister of the new testament as wel as of the old, may be ab­solute, & made perfect unto al good works. Wherfore as the Preists and Levits which were to Deut. 33 10. teach Israel, taught them by Neh. 8. 8. Act. 15. 21 2 Chron. 17 9. reading & expounding the scriptures; so doubtlesse did the ministers in the A­postles dayes, upon the same ground and proportion; though their particular form of administration be not expressed.

That cavil of spiritual worship which as a leprosie overspreadeth al M. Smyths book, is before taken away. Praying never was by rea­ding out of a book; prophesying & singing psalmes, being extraordinary gifts of the spirit, were also uttered by the spirit, without a book. Al this notwithstanding, the scriptures were read and expounded to the people, & so must be stil; and this though it be not proskunesis adoration supplicatiō or worshiping of God, in the strict sense; yet is it latreia his worship or service in general.

5 Because none of the bookes of the newe Testament were written many5. Reason.yeres after the day of penticost, at the least 7. yeares: and the Churches al that time, could not use the books of the new Testament which they had not.

But they could use the books of the prophets, which they had:Answer. wherin both old & newe Testament were conteyned. And Peter cō ­mended the Churches for 2 Pet. 1. 19. taking heed vnto them, as to a light that shined in a dark place.

6. Because the Churches of the Greeks had no books to use, that they might6. Reason.use lawfully; for they understood not hebrue, and the septuagints translation ought not to be used or made; & the Apostles made no Greeke translatiō. &c.

[Page 36]If they had no books to use, they were blamelesse if they usedAnswer. none. But they had the Greek translation, which was lawful to be made and used in the Iewes synagogues; as anon shall be shewed, when the Septuagints work cometh to be scanned.

7 Because as in prayer, the spirit onely is our help; and ther is no out­ward7. Reason.help given of God, for that kind of worship; so also in prophesying and singing 1. Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 16.

God never gave books to read for prayers unto him: but Psal. 10. 17. pre,Answ. pared mens harts and bended his ear. And as every man 1 King. 8. 38. 39. knew the plague, (and consequently the benefit) in his owne hart, so was he to pray & supplicate unto God, who heard in heaven, and was merci­full, and did, as he knew every mans wayes and hart. But as in pray­ing men speak their minds to God: so in preaching God speaketh his mind to us; and this he doth by his scriptures and by gifts unto men for teaching and applying them ordinarily to his Church. Pro­phesying and singing, hath often been performed by the spirit with­out book, Num. 11 25. 26. 1 Sam. 10. 5. 6. both in the old Testament and in the new 1 Cor. 14. Act. 19. 6. If any now have such gifts, it were folly to say they must read them out of a book. Reading the scriptures is for ordinary teaching; which by extraordinary gifts, was never destroyed; and things coordinate, ar not contraries.

8 Because it is against the nature of spirituall worship: for when we read,8. Reason.we receive matter from the book into the hart: when we pray, prophesy, or sing, we utter matter out of the hart, unto the ear of the Church Ezek, 2. 8.—19 and 3. 1.—4. Rev. 10. 8.—11.

If Ezekiel a Preist under the law, prophesyed without a book;Answer. and yet reading the book of the lawe and expounding it, was their ordinary service every sabbath, as before is manifested: all men may see, that these two may stand together in Gods worship, and not one throw out an other, as M. Sm. would have it.

Neyther is it against the nature of spiritual worship, to read Gods [Page 37] book in the eares of the Church: for if it be worship in them to heare the spirit speak out of the Ministers hart; it is worship al­so in them to hear the spirit speak, out of the holy book. And it cannot be deneyed but Gods spirit Rev. 2. 1. 7. speaketh there; and that which commeth out of the hart of man, must be tried by that book; and accordingly, accepted or refused. As for the Mini­ster himself when he readeth out of Gods book, and when he spea­keth by gift of the spirit the meaning of the scripture, to the peo­ple; he serveth God in them both: having Christ himself for an ex­ample. Luk. 4. 17.—21.

9. Because upon the day of Pentecost, fyerie cloven tongues did appear, not9. Reason.fyerie cloven books. Act. 2. 3. and alwayes there must be a proportion be­twixt the type and the thing typed. Upon the day of Pentecost the fyerie law was given in books, Deut. 33. 2. Exod. 24. 4. 12. upon the day of Pente­cost the fyerie gospel was given in tongues, Act. 2. 3. Mat 3. 11. Act. 1. 5. the book therfore was proper for them, the tongue for vs.

In deed if any fyerie bookes had appeared at the giving of the law,Answer. M. Smyths allegorie would have had some light: but when as no such thing was seen, but onely Deut. 4. 12. a voice of words was heard, as Mo­ses telleth vs; we should beware of such clowdy collections.

The fyerie law mentioned Deut. 33. 2. hath plain reference to Gods promulgating of the law, by voice out of the midds of fyre, Exod. 19. 18. 19. & 20. 1—18. Deut. 4. 11. 12. Afterwards those & other lawes were written by Moses in a book, Exod. 24. 4 and God himself vvrote the ten words on tables of stone: not then at Pentecost, but 40. dayes after, Deut. 9. 9. 10. Even so the fyery doctrine of the gospel was first uttered by voice, and afterwards written in books, Luk 1. 1. 3. Act. 1. 1. &c. Ioh. 20. 30. 31. The book then was not proper to them, (as M. S. feighneth,) but com­mon also with vs. God by Moses Exod. 24. 3. 4. first spake, then wrote to his Church: Christ by his Apostles, first spake, then wrote also, to the same Church: and though the Mark. 3. 17. son of thonder wanted no gift of utterance by voice, yet Christ Rev. 1. 19. & 2. 1. bad him write: when if he had plea­sed [Page 38] he could have sent him to speak. And Rev. 1. 3. blessed is he that rea­deth, and they that heare the words of that prophesie, and keep those things vvhich are vvritten therin: but cursed is he that despi­seth reading of the Lords book, and dissvvadeth the Church from that use thereof; by colourable reasons causing the Deut. 27. 18. blind to goe out of the vvay: and all people should say, Amen.

10. Because as all the worship which Moses taught began in the letter out­wardly,10. Reason.and so proceeded inwardly to the spirit of the faithful: so contraryweise all the worship of the N. Testament signified by that typicall worship of Mo­ses, must begin at the spirit, and not at the letter originally. 2 Cor. 3. 6. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 7. or els the heavenly thing is not answerable to the similitude therof.

The true and proper worship which Moses taught Israel was theAnsw. worship of God in spirit and truth, Deut. 5. 7. 8. and 6. 4. 5. 6. though he led them herevnto, under veiles and shadowes, and by the covenāt of works brought them to Christ, who doeth both that covenant and shadowes away as the wise did vnderstand; Psal. 32. 1. 2. with Rom. 4. 4. 5. 6. 7. Psalm. 40. 6. and 51. 6.—16. &c. vvith Heb. 10. 8. 9. Their spiritual vvorship, proceeded from the spirit and hart unto God, 1 King. 8. 22. 23. 33. 35. 38. &c. Ezra, 9. 5. 6. &c. Nehem. 9. 5. 6. &c.

Of the legal worship, & M. Smythes inept allegorizing therof, is spoken pag. 12. before; also his abuse of that scripture, 2 Cor. 3. 6. is already pag. 33. manifested; vvith his aequivocation about this vvord wor­ship: that the reader may be vvearied, to have the same things oft repeated. Onely novv the falshood and snare of these reasons a­gainst reading Gods vvord, being discovered: let him learne to be­vvare of Satans deceipt. For the mouth of an heretik is a deep pit, like the Pro. 22. 14. strange vvomans: he with whom the Lord is angrie shal fall therin.

After this M. Sm. feighneth 4. obiections for bookworship, as he ter­meth it; and then frameth ansvvers as he seeth good; but ever and anon retyring to his old skonce of spiritual worship, thinking therby to vvard off all blovves. Though it be a vvearynes to follovv such an empty clovvd; yet for help to the vveak, I vvil briefly shew his vanity.

[Page 39] Reading in the old testament was commanded by Moses, Deut. 31. 9-13.1. Obiectiō.was amplified by David, 1 Chron. 16. & 25. was practised by Josiah 2 Chrō. 34. 30. by Ezra and Nehemiah, Neh. 8. 8. and 9. 3. allowed by our Savi­our Christ, Luk. 4. 16. & by the Apostles, Act. 13. 14. 15. and reported as a thing of ancient approved continuance. Act. 15. 21.

To this hs answereth; First, the reading commanded by Moses Answ. was onely once every 7. yere, Deut. 31. 10. 11. and therefore it was no part of ordinary worship, and there is no commandement in Moses, given eyther to the Preists or Levites, for ordinary reading of the law in the tabernacle. Se­condly, hence it foloweth, that reading in the old testament, was no part of the worship of the tabernacle or temple, or of the service performed by the preists therin, &c. Thirdly, therfore reading was of another nature performed in the utter court or synagogue or elswhere, eyther by the Levites or any other learned men of what tribe soever: Math. 23. 2. Luk. 4. 16. Act. 13. 14. and 15, 21. Deut. 31. 9.-11. 1 Chron. 16. 4. 7. 37. 39. & 15. 1. 8. & 28. 13. 2 Chron. 34. 14. 30. 31. Neh. 8. & 9. and so no part of worship properly so called, but onely a ceremonial ground or foundation of inward or out­ward spiritual worship common to the Churches of all ages. Lastly it is not deneyed but that reading now is to be used in the Church: onely we say it is not a part of spiritual worship, or a lawful meanes in time of spiritu­al worship.

M. Smyth cannot see any commandement in Moses for ordinary rea­ding Replie. of the law in the tabernacle: and no marvel, for neyther could all the Sadducees see any doctrine in Moses that taught the resurrecti­on of the dead; but Christ could Mat. 22. 31. 32. find it by necessary consequence: Moses commanded Levit. 23. 34. 36. the feast of boothes to be kept seven dayes to [...]he Lord, mentioning but holy convocations & sacrifices: M. Sm. (I dare say) will not gather reading, out of this commandement. But Ez­ra the Preist and all Israel with him, saw it here implyed and prac­tised it, Nehe. 8. 14.—18. by reading the book of the law of God, every day, from the first day unto the last: when they kept this feast. If every seventh day was to be sanctified in Israel, & all things be sanctified by the word and prayer; and in the synagogues they sanctified the Sabbathes by Act. 13. & 15. reading the scriptures: reason mought teach us, that the ta­bernacle was not behind the synagogues in holynes. [Page 40] And where findeth M. Sm. a commaundement to read the law in the synagogues? yet was it commanded, or els it was will worship and vanitie. The ordinance for Levi to Deut. 33 10. teach Israel Gods law; was commandment ynough both to read and preach it, as they did dayly: and they were not so dul or carnal, but they could wel per­ceive this to belong to their charge and ministerie.

But here M. Sm. sayth, that the reading in Israel was no part of worship properly so called: forgetting himself (it seemeth) when elswhere he sayth, that the pag. 19. worship that beginneth in the book, is from the letter or ceremonie and so is not properly of the new testament but of the old; and a­gaine that, pag. 20. book-worship is Iudaisme and so Antichristian; and idolatrie now vnder the New testament; and againe, that pag. 6. Christ shut the book in the synagogue to signifie that that ceremonie of bookworship, or Ministerie of the letter was now exspired. Thus fighteth he against himself; one while they had book worship; an other while it was no part of worship; & if properly so called help not here at a need, M. Sm. wil be found a calumniator both of vs, and of Israel, and of Christ himself. For he would have his reader think that we whom he opposeth, made arguments for bookworship, which here he answereth, wheras we ne­ver spake or thought of reading to be worship in such a sense, as he would draw it vnto, nor othervveise worship then reading vvas in the synagogues, by Christ himself, neyther vvas there controversie a­bout worship at all, but onely whether it were Gods word or mans, that we read in the Church, in the worship of God. But now to cloak his blasphemous error, he hath dived into his wit, to bring out a distinction of properly so called: so cogging the reader with the Eph. 4. 14 die of deceit, and calumniating vs. And hath he not also in­juried Israel in charging them vvith book worship, and belyed Christ himself, that he should use and finish a ceremonie of book worship? when yet here he granteth it vvas of another nature, it vvas no part of worship properly so called: it vvas that vvhich is cōmon to the Churches of all ages.

As one tossed in the sea of error, so reedeth this adversary to and fro, and staggereth like a drunken man.

[Page 41]The second objection he forgeth thus. Reading is commanded in the new testament, Col. 7. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27. and2. Obiect.a blessing promised therto, Rev. 1 [...]5. and the cōmandement is that it be prac­tised in the church: therfore it is a part or meanes of the worship of the new tes­tament.

The summe of his answer hereunto is.

Not everie thing performed in the Church, is a part of spiritual worship: Answer. for al the parts of publik administration of the kingdom ar done in the Church, and yet cannot be said to be parts of spiritual worship properly so caled chap. 1, and 2.

Properly so called, is a common vizar of deceit, puld off beforeReply. as here it shal be agayn. For M. Smyth divided the whole leiturgie of the church, into actions of the kingdom and of the Preisthood of the saincts. chap. 1. and 2. The actions of administring the preist­hood, he made to be actions of concord and union: and of these gene­rally he sayth, they be actions of spiritual worship properly so called. The ac­tions of administring the kingdom, he made to be actions of opposition, difference plea and strife: and of them generally he sayth, they are not actions of spiritual worship properly so caled. Now here and often he de­neyeth reading of the scriptures to be such spiritual worship, therfore it is no action of the preisthood; therfore no action of concord or union. So when the Preists and Levites read the law in the synagogues, and at their Nehē. 8. 13—18. solemn feasts; we may not say, they did any action of the preisthood; and when Christ read the prophet Esaias, Luk. 4. we may not say he did an action of concord or union; & when Col. 4. 16. Paul would have his Epistle read in the churches of Colosse & Laodicea; and Christ would have the Rev. 1. 3. Revelation read of al, we must not un­derstand them to meane reading as an action of concord or union in the church; for then it must be an action of the preisthood, and conse­quently worship properly so called: which M. Sm. wil by no meanes ad­mit of: for he hath limited their bounds: and if any read the scrip­tures in the church as an action of concord and union, he wil draw it as by the haire of the head, along these grounds, to be Diff. p. 20. antichristian & idolatrous; so setteth he his Psa. 73. 9. mouth against heaven. Yet reading he granteth, but it must be of an other nature: and what is that trow [Page 42] we? He is loth to speak: of the preisthood it is no part; and in hand­lingpag. 1. the actions of the kingdom, he specifieth it not; onely there he sayth, that bookes of al sorts may be produced for finding out of the truth: and he quoteth among other Act. 7. 22. and 17. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 33, Tit. 1. 12. Where the learning of the Aegyptians, and testi­monies of the hethen poets are alleged: and further he nameth par­ticularly translations, dictionaries, histories, chronicles, commentaries. &c. Behold here what place this man alloweth the reading of the scriptures, yea even of the Originals: they must not be read but by way of opposition, difference, plea and strife; they must not be read but where when and as histories, chronicles, commentaries, books of hethen poets and al other like, may be read and produced: so they are tollerable, otherweise there is no place allowed them: though elswhere he pag. 6. esteemeth better of them then of other writings. But in the actions of the preisthood, in the actions of concord or union, to read them is idolatrie. What haeretik professing Christ could more have sought the disgrace of Gods holy book; then thus to shut it quite out of Gods worship, allowing it no other place, by these his wicked grounds, then Iulian the Apostata Christs deadly ene­my, would and did allow it (though he esteemed worse of it) in his blasphemous writings. For eyen he in cases of opposition, plea and strife, Cyril. con. Julian. lib. 2. & 3. &c alleged the testimonies of holy scriptures, among other writings; but in his worship of his Gods he would none of them. No mar­vel though God have stroken this man like Elymas with the blind­nes of Anabaptisme; it is a just recompence of his former error: that as he would have deprived the church of the use of the scrip­tures, the instrument of Gods covenant: so himself now should be deprived of the covenant with Abraham and his seed, and become an alien from Eph. 2. 12 the common wealth of Israel.

But let us proceed with his answer.

Moreover (sayth he) when he commandeth his Epistles to be read in theAnswer.churches, his meaning is not strictly literal: that is that the very words which he wrote should be repeated verbatim out of the book: but his meaning is that the sense of the words or meaning of the Apostle should be related, whither by [Page 43] reading the very words, by expounding the meaning by interpreting or trans­lating. &c.

Loe here the shifts of haeretiks. Paul willeth the church Col, 4, 16. to readReplie. his Epistles, yea 1 Thes. 5. 27. chargeth them in the Lord, to read them to al the brethren; and writeth to them again, to 2 Thes. 2 15. keep the instructions, taught by his Epistle: M. Smyth sayth the meaning is not strictly literal, that the words which he wrote should be repeated: but the sense ralated. As if Paul wāted fit words to set down his meaning, & they that should read, could tel it better. He that readeth, must read words as they ar written, specially in Gods book, & Epistles from the holy Ghost, wherein Pro, 30. 5▪ 6. no one word is vaine idle or unprofitable, no word mis­placed or out of order: and he that shal presume to add or diminish or change the order in reading Gods writings, doth wickedly, and Rev. 22. 18. 19. is neer unto the curse. If things in reading be difficult, God hath given gifts unto men to open and expound them, to the under­standing of al: but this expounding is not reading. Reading is first, exactly to the letter; exposition cometh after with such words as God putteth in the expositors hart; as by Dan. 5. 25—28. Daniels practise, we may learn. Neyther are the words of the expositor comparable to the words of the writer; these being divine, are al as silver Psa, 12. 6 fined seven times, no drosse mixed with them. The other being humane, (I speak of ordinary men as we are) and shewing the mans judgmēt that expoundeth them, are mixed with humane infirmities, mistak­ings, and sometime deadly errors. Wherfore reading of the Ori­ginal scriptures wherof here we treat, must be strictly literal, as is in the book. Translations are after to be spoken of; and is here vainly inserted, for Paul wrote in Greek, which al in Colosse, Lao­dicea, Thessalonica, and the whol country over, used as their vul­gar tongue, that they needed none to translate for them.

Further M. S. answereth, that the Apostle wrote upon particular occa­sions,Answer.for particular ends, and the commandment of reading was special in these respects to them &c. yet acknowledgeth he at last, an absolute necessity of rea­ding; onely he denyeth it to be a lawful help or part of spiritual worship. &c.

[Page 44]As the Apostles, so the prophets wrote upon particular occasions; yetRep. is there a general use, for Rom. 15. 4. & 4. 23. 24. whatsoever is fore written, is fore written for our learning, as Paul himself teacheth. Wherefore this cavil is frivolous. An absolute necessitie of reading the scriptures now, as they were read in Israel, and in the Christian churches, and to the same end: is al that we hold, and stand for. Which how it is worship is be­fore shewed.

The Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 13. 16. commanded Timothee and so al Elders to3. Obiect.attend to reading: wher reading is ioyned with exhortation and doctrine; & so importeth, that it is to be understood of the ioyning of reading in the time of spiritual worship.

This obiection (as the rest) is made of M. Smyths own fashion; and was never thus framed by us. And here he excepteth, that it is not spoken of the execution of his office, but of preparing himself to the exe­cution Answer. of it. &c.

That reading in the publik church is necessary, he is forced to ac­knowledge:Rep. and in that we rest. If he think this place is not meant of publik, but of private reading: he may keep his iudgment. My self see no cause why it may not also be meant of the publik execu­tion of his office; for Paul departing from Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1. 3. besought Ti­mothee to abide there and look unto the Church; and after 1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. wrote this letter for his direction how to behave himself in Gods howse, whiles he taried away, and in it sayth, 1 Tim. 4. 13. til I come attend to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. where seing al these are publik ecclesiastical ac­tions, (as M. Sm. himself granteth,) seing they are joyned thus togi­ther, & with this limitatiō til J come; what letteth but these al should be executed by him in publik? Private reading for his own prepa­ration, was to be alwaies, and not onely til Pauls coming. And as for such preparation, it is mentioned after, in vers. 15, and both a­gain jointly vers. 16. for the salvation of himself and others.

Let it be granted that the Apostles and Evangelists used no books being4. Obiect.extraordinay men, and having the extraordinary direction of the spirit, for they needed no such helps of books as we doe: yet wee being ordinarie men have need of books. &c.

[Page 45]This last objection, I reject as frivolous, and falsly intimated to be ours. The Apostles I am sure had no greater measure of the spi­rit then Christ: yet he Luk. 4, 16 read publikly in the book: and so did holy men of God before Neh. 8. 13, 14. him: & publik reading is grāted yet necessary: therfore we are to use it. Though we have more need of the book then the Apostles, (our memories and judgements not being sanc­tified like theirs,) yet had they their infirmities, and 2 Tim. 4. 13. used books. But it is Gods ordinance of reading, that we stād for: which how M S. hath sought to undermine, and how he is snared in the work of his own hands; is worthy to be noted with Ps. 9. 16. Higgajon Selah, and medita­ted to the praise of God.


THe first and onely controversie between M. Sm. and us being about the scriptures translated or overset into other tongues, which he affirmed to be apocrypha and humane writings: how ever he hath sought to excuse and hide his error, yet hath he no wil to forsake it, as appeareth by this, that having spoken of writings 1. by men inspired of God, as the prophets and Apostles, and 2. by ordinarie men of al sorts; he shuffleth the translations of the holy scriptures among these latter; and affirmeth that * there is no better warrant to bring trans­lations Diff. p. 10. of scripture written into the church, and to read them as parts or helps of worship, then to bring in expositions, resolutions, paraphrasts and sermons upon the scripture, seing al these are equally humane in respect of the work equal ly divine in respect of the matter they handle.

Very impious is this comparison which thus matcheth a mans comment or written sermon, with Gods written word set over into an other tongue: for it debaseth the majestie of Gods law, and ad­vanceth too high, the basenes of men.

Translation is that in writing, which interpretation is in speak­ing: namely the expressing of an others mind: but commen­ting or expounding, is the expressing of ones own mind or un­derstanding. The scriptures first written in Hebrue, and secondarily written in English: do set forth one and the same word & mind of [Page 46] God unto us, though which different letters & sownds: as Emma­nuel is interpreted and translated God with us, Mat. 1 23. Messias is interpreted CHRJST in Greek; ANOJNTED in English. Iohn. 1. 41. Here the Hebrue, Greeke and English differ onely in outward letter & sound; the meaning substance or essenti­al form being one in them al, & the word of God, so caled by relati­on, because the mind of God is made knowne hereby to the mind or understanding of man. The different letter or character chang­eth not the nature of the thing: for if it did, then Emmanuel written by Mat. 1. 23. Matthew in Greek letters [...], and by Isa. 7. 14. Esaias in Hebrew letters [...], should not be one and the same name of Christ; and so the Apostle should be made a falser, & our gospel betrayed to faithlesse Iewes. The different sound or pronū ­ciation changeth not the nature of the thing: for then Messias and Christ shoul not be one and the same; and so the gospel and new testament, and our faith were overthrown; and more then Iewish superstition should prevail. But God who hath sanctified by his Act. 2. 4. spirit, all sounds and languages to the ear: hath also sanctified by the same spirit all Rev. 1. 8. letters and characters to the eye; as th'Apostles practise sheweth, writing with Greek letters, words and phrases; which had beene profaned by lying histories and lascivious po­ets, unto all manner idolatry and wickednes. Herevpon it follow­eth, that the word of God, in whatsoever letter or language it be written or spoken vnto vs; is the word of God stil; so to be reve­renced and regarded: and not to be basely and profanely counted among humane and apocryphal writings.

A comment or exposition of scripture, as for example, vpon this word Emmanuel, sheweth the mans iudgement mind or un­derstanding that commenteth; telleth the reason of this name why it was given to Christ, discourseth of his godhed, of his manhood, of the uniting of these two in one person, of the end and use of these, and many such like things. This being done by ordina­ry men, is properly an humane writing, (though it may be, agree­able to the word of God,) shewing by letters as by signes, what is the mind or understanding of such a man in this mysterie of Christs [Page 47] incarnation: even as Paul sayth of his owne divine writing; when ye read ye may know myne understanding in the mysterie of Christ. Ephes. 3. 4.

Now God hath by his Prophets and Apostles written to his Church a short summ of his mind and will; guiding and 2 Pet. 1. 21. carying them, and 2 Tim. 3. 16. inspiring their writings with his good spirit; that there should be nothing but Eccles. 12. 10. Psal. 19. & 119. Prov. 8. words of truth, faithfulnes, equitie and perfection in them; that men mought have a sure ground for their faith and actions, throughout all generations. And minding mans weaknes, the holy Ghost hath omitted to write Iohn. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25. many things, (though otherweise in their nature very good:) penning such one­ly as were needful and profitable for our faith and salvation: giving vs warning also to take heed of other things, because there is no end of making many books, and much reading is a wearynes to the flesh. Ecclesiast. 12. 12.

But because in these scriptures, somethings are 2 Pet. 3. 16. hard to be vn­derstood, and all men know not how to use and apply Gods word unto their times, estates, actions, &c. therefore hath Christ given Eph. 4. 11 12. 13. 14 1 Cor. 12. gifts unto men, to open and apply the scriptures for the edificati­on of the Church vnto the worlds end: alwayes binding them both teachers and hearers, to the foundation layd 2 Pet. 1. 19. Ephe. 2 20. by the Prophets and Apostles, whose writings are sufficient to make men wise 2 Tim. 3. 15. unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Iesns.

For this cause the holy scriptures are necessarie for al Churches, to be read & expounded unto the people: & as every nation differeth in language, so to have the word spoken and written in their vulgar tongue, which change of the tongue or letter, changeth not the nature of the word spoken or written, but it is stil divine and hea­venly. Onely because in this changing or translating, imperfecti­ons, wants, errors may fal in: therfore the first writings as the Pro­phets & Apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, rule, touchstone, whereby al translations are to be tried: by which being tried & found faithful, it is the same word of God, in what language or letter soever, & differeth as much frō humane cōmen­taries or expositions, as heaven dooth from earth.

[Page 48]But Mr. Sm. avoucheth mens written sermons or cōments upon the scripture, & the scripture it self written in English, to be equally humane in respect of the work equally divine in respect of the matter they han­dle. Of this his bold and false assertion he maketh no proof at al, it is a speculation of his own hart. Two carnal reasons he setteth down, which are these. To translate the originals into any mother tongue is as wel and asmuch the worke of a mans wit and learning, as to analyse the scriptures rhetorically or logically, to collect doctrines and uses theologically, to give expositions and interpretations of places doubtful. Where first if M. S. mean the action of translating simply, without reference to the mater and thing translated, he doth but dally and seek to deceiv: for writing, printing, translating are al alike humane actions, but the things written printed translated, are differēt, some good some evil, some of God, some of men and of the divil. The books of Moses written printed or translated, are Gods law; the book of Mahomet written printed or translated, is the divils law: the actions of writing, printing, translating, are mere humane actions in all of these. Now if because translating is an humane action, therefore the thing tran­slated must also be humane, & the work of mans wit and learning: then also because writing and printing are humane actions, there­fore the bible written or printed in Hebreue Greek & al languages, must likewise be humane, and the work of mens wit and learning: and then there can be no divine scriptures but the very first copies which the Prophets & Apostles wrote with their owne hands: And if Satan could perswade this; he would be glad.

Secondly if Mr. Sm. meaneth the thing translated, as Moses law, Davids psalmes or other like in English: that these are as wel and as much the work of a mans wit and learning; as an exposition of doubtful pla­ces in them or doctrines and uses collected from them; he teacheth wicked error, which al of judgment & cōscience wil abhorr. The holy scrip­tures faithfully expressed in English or any language, is the work of Gods wisdome & unserchable knowledge: and cannot without injury to his majestie, be said to be the work of mans wit & learning; though man have used his skil in writing or translating it according to the original copie given of God. This plea of Mr. Sm. is like as if Ieroboam should have sayd; the 1. King. 6 23. cherubims and 1. King. 7. 25. the brazen bulls in [Page 49] Solomons temple, are as wel and as much the work of mans wit & skil as my 1 King. 12 28. golden calves; & if they may be admitted into the house and worship of God, then why not these? If M. Sm. should answer that the cherubims and bulls which Solomon made, were commanded of God, and from the divine pattern, though humane art did make them; but Ieroboams calves were from his own hart: so answer I in this case; the translation is from the divine pattern of Gods original book, and commanded to be made and used; but to write comments or homilies to read in the Church, is frō a mans own hart, and hath no commandement or warrant from God so to be used; but are forbidden. Eccles. 12. 12.

Secondly he sayth The translator cannot conceive nor expresse in wri­ting the whol mind of the holy spirit conteyned in the originals, but onely some good part of it: the expositor, paraphrast, commentator may expresse as much as the translator, yea and in respect of some particulars, as Hebraisms, Gre­cismes and the like considerations much more.

If a translator cannot expresse the whol mind of the spirit in al the bible, by his interpretation litteral or grammatical: then much lesse can the expositor expresse the whol mind of the spirit in the bible, by his exposition theological. For it is a thowsand times easier for a translator to do his duty to the ful, then for the exposi­tor: yea this latter is utterly unpossible, I say not onely for one man, but for all the men in the vvorld.

Though the translator cannot expresse to the full every vvord and sentence in the Bible, yet the most part he may; vvheras the expositor cannot do any at all, but is still to seek all dayes of his life, and they that come after him also.

Hebraismes cannot alwayes be expressed, through defect of the language: yet translation is needful, and the translator is blamelesse. For example, this name God called in Hebrue Aelohim, Gen. 1. 1. is in Greek translated Theos, and that by the Apostles often in the new Testament. Here is a vvant in the language, for Aelohim is in form the plural number, signifying the Trinitie; yet joyned with a word of the singular number bara, he created: signifying the vni­tie of the persons in the Godhed. Such a phrase the Geek tongue vvanted: therefore the Apostles admit of the Greek propriety, do­ing [Page 50] the ful dutie of translators & the defect resteth in the language, of which they were not Lords. And that the Lord respecteth not so much the words and phrases, as the matter meant by them; in­finite examples in the scriptures do manifest.

But whereunto leadeth this cavil? what if all cannot be expressed in the translation, shall we therefore have none in the Church? then neyther may we have any preaching by the voice of man; for none can fully expresse in his sermon, all things that God intendeth by a place of scripture, or any ground of religion. And if preaching must be vsed, though many humane infirmities be mixed with it; then also reading the scriptures (and consequently the translations to them that know not the originals,) must be used, though fewer humane infirmities be mixed therewithall; seing these both are the ordinances of God, as before hath bene proved.

But then M. Sm. wil draw commentaries and homilies in­to the Church also. But that is denyed to be Gods ordinance. He hath 1 Cor. 12. & 14. appointed the lively voice of his graces in the mouthes of his servants to be heard in the Church, for the opening and applying of the word vnto them: but not their writings to be read. And because of some infirmities in translations, to dis­grace them, as this man dooth, and match them with com­mentaries; it is capele [...]in (as the 2 Cor. 2. 17. Apostle speaketh,) to play the false vintner with the wine of Gods word. For as such a fal­ser to make sale of his mixture, wherein some wine, much wa­ter, yea perhaps some puddle water is brewed togither, mought say, you can have no wine but such as is turned out of the first vessel; and it cannot be in the turning of it out, but some of the spirit and strength of the wine vvill vapour avvay, some tast it wil have of the nevv cask; therefore you may as well drink of this liquor, for in respect of the vessell they are both alike chan­ged, in respect of the matter they are both alike wine. Let M. Sm. therefore cease his odious comparisons of the translation with the comment: or else let him shew us some comment or sermon written upon any text, wherin at the least there is not wa­ter and wine, and perhaps death in the pot.


HEre Differene pag. 10. M. Smyth before he proceed further, takes up an ac­cusation against the Church of Israel, who in the dayes of Pto­lomee Philadelphus King of Egypt, and at his request sent 72. learned Iewes to translate the Hebrue Bible into Greek before the Apostles time almost 300. yeares. This their translation (sayth M. Smyth,) was a grevous syn.

1. For that the covenant of grace ought not to have been preachedThe 1. rea­son.vnto the gentiles til the fulnes of time Mat. 10. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 16. 25. 26. with Mat. 10. 5. 6. & 28. 19. and therefore that the Lxx. by their trans­lation did communicate it to the Graecians, before the fulnes of the time, was their greevous syn.

I answer in the behalf of Israel; First, by M. Smythes divinity,Answer. the Church of Israel Charact. of the B. pag. 16. was a carnal people, had a carnal covenant or promise of carnal things, &c. how is it then that he chargeth them here with profaning, the covenant of grace? and how wil this agree with his grounds of Anabaptisme?

Secondly, by his divinity also, the scriptures and reading of them, is the mimistration of the letter 2 Cor. 3. 6. that is of death & damnation; as pag. 32. before hath been handled. How then could the litteral translation & reading therof, be the ministerie or co­venant of grace? the ministration of death, was fit ynough for the Gentiles that were to die. Or, did it kil them before the tyme?

Thirdly I deny his collection from those scriptures against this action: for although the fulnes of time was not yet come, that God would send preachers with the power of his spirit, to convert all nations: yet followeth it not herevpon, that no gentile, no nati­on, (no not though they desired it, as King Ptolomee desired the Bible;) mought have the truth imparted unto them. There is no such law made of God; nay the cōtrarie is playne. For, 1. ther were many strangers, Aegyptians & others that went out with Israel to the Land of Canaan, not forbidden nor debarred of grace with Israel, Exod. 12. 38. nay the law admitted any stranger to cir­cumcision & the passeover, & so to the covenant of grace, Exod. 12. 48. 49. 1 Cor. 5. 7. [Page 52] 2. The Gibeonites which were of the worst sort of hethens, devote to destruction, yet obteyned mercie with God, to be in the cove­nant of his grace. Josh. 9. 27. 2 Sam. 21. 1. 2. 5. &c.

3. There were also in Solomons time 153. thowsand and 600. strangers, none exempted from partaking with Israels mercy.

4. God gave his law to be read even unto strangers also, Deut. 31. 12. so far vvas he from vvithholding grace, if any sought it.

5. And solomōd dicating the tēple prayed even 1 King. 8. 41. 43. for strāgers, that dvvelt in far countries, (vvho mought vvhen they heard of Gods name, come thither and pray in that house) that they even all people of the earth mought know Gods name, & fear him as did his people Israel. All vvhich do shevv the untruth of M. Sm. collection, that it vvas a syn for Israel to impart the scriptures and covenant of grace to the gentiles.

Because all the Gentiles ought to have been Proselytes of the Iewes Church, and to have come to Ierusalem to worship, Exod. 12. 43. 49.The 2. rea­son.Mat. 23. 15. Act, 2. . 10. and ought to have learned their tongue and worship, which was prevented by the Lxx. translation.

First, this reason enterfeireth vvith the former; for, if all oughtAnsvver. to have beene proselytes: hovv might not the covenant of grace be preached vnto them? Could they be converted vvithout the vvord of the covenant? Here the accuser of the Saincts hath Prov. 26. 27. rolled a stone, which is returned unto himself.

Secondly, their conversion vvas not hindered but furthered by the Greek translation; for many novv might read and hear of Gods name, enquire after his truth and finding it, come to Ierusalem, and learn that tongue, if they could. So yet the seventie are not found in syn, vvhich helped men to righteousnes.

Because the Hebrue characters and writings were ceremonies, and soThe 3. rea­son.ought not to have been prophaned among the Grecians by their wr [...]ings &c.

[Page 53]Whether the characters were ceremonies or no, the LXX. are inno­centAnswer. of this blame; for they wrote the bible to the gentils in the Greek characters, syllables, words, sounds &c. and not in Hebrue. If M. Smyth make the substance of the scripture a ceremonie, that is a shadow to be ended and abolished at Christs coming, it is Rō. 15. 4. 2 Pet. 1. 19 a wicked error. Or if he make the characters ceremonies in that sense, it is erroneous: for the Hebrues converted to Christ may & ought to read the Hebrue scriptures in the Church, as they were wont in their synagogues. The profaning and abusing of the translated scripture was in deed a syn, in al that so did: so was it if any Israelite or stranger profaned the Hebrue. Yet Hebrue copies might goe a­broad, notwithstanding the danger of profanation, how much more the Greek? The personal synns of some, may not hinder the pub­lik good. Otherweise, at this day bibles should not be printed and commonly sold, because atheists and profane people may buy and abuse them. The scriptures are as much to be reverenced now, as ever they were; although M. Sm. hath laboured their disgrace.

If it were unlawful to sing one of Davids Psalmes in a strange nation as Ba­bylon,4. Reason.Psal. 137. 4. then much more unlawful was it to translate the scrip­tures into a strange tongue: for the ceremonial law was bounded within the ho­ly land.

If at this day Turks captiving Christians should ask in scorn andAnswer. mockage to sing some spiritual song for them to laugh at, I doubt not but we should answer them as the Iewes did the Babylonians; & not expose Gods word to derision. But if any would hereupon in­fer, it were syn to translate the scriptures into vulgar tongues, M. S. himself pag. 17. would condemn him: like mesure must be meted to him­self, for these frivolous reasons.

The scriptures were not ceremonies, (though there was some figu­rative use Heb. 9. 19 of the book of the law,) but if they had been, yet this is an error in M. Smyth. to bound them within the holy land. For circumcision was a shadow, (or as he calleth it, a ceremonie) yet did they it in Babylon, and many shadowes moe. And for the scrip­tures, who doubteth but the Iewes had and used them in Babel, [Page 54] which was out of the holy land: Yea some of the scripture was written and sent to Babylon, as Ier. 29. 1. &c. some written in Babylon, as the prophesies of Ezekiel and Daniel, Ezek. 1. 1. &c. and some written in the Babylonian language, and not in Hebrue, as Ezra. 4. 7. 8. &c. Dan. 2. 4. 5. &c. Wherfore if any Babylonian would have sought for God, the scriptures should not have been deneyed him.

The translation &c. is contradictorie to the Lords mercy to the5. Reason.Iewes Church, and their special privileges. Psal. 147. 19. 20. Rom. 3. 1. 2. Act. 10. 28. and 22. 1. 2. 3. 4—18. Eph. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Act. 13. 46. 47. 48. Rom. 16. 25. 26.

This reason is in a manner the same with the first, and soAnswer. before answered.

The Iewes privileges even then appeared, that the Gentiles must have the instrument of mercy, the scriptures from them. And that God gave them this not for themselves onely, but also for the Gentiles occasionally, is before proved. Generall mercy I know there was not, as is now under Christ.

Peters fact was caled in question, about conversing and eat­ing with them, being uncircumcised, Act. 11, 2. 3. not for letting them partake of the privilege of Gods word: for it was permitted the Gentiles to hear the word read and preach­ed in the synagogues, as appeareth Acts. 13. 42. 44. 46. 48. And how was it contradictorie to Gods mercy to the Iewes, when his prophets wrote some of the scriptures in the hethens language: as did Daniel and Ezra, which are mentio­ned before.

Because that seeing the Hebrue writings were ceremonies, it was6. Reason.unlawful for the Septuagint to change them from their proper kind, and to picture them out by the Greek writings for the Greeks use.

Here agayn is a repetition of the third reason, refuted be­fore:Answer. and if he wil he may make it twentie; by a little change [Page 55] of the words. But the weight of the argument is shewed to be too leight: and Greek writings for Greeks use, was no more unlawful, then Chaldee writing for the Chaldeans use; which the LXX. had learned by Daniels example, if no way els.

Because the LXX did of purpose concele many things, as iudging the Gen­tils7. Reason.unworthy to know them fearing also least they should profane such holy mys­teries, wherein their consciences told them plainly that their translation was syn. Also they did pervert many things of purpose, add somthing, and infinite­ly corrupt their translation, which was their greevous synn.

This last reason seemes to come from M. Smyths gealousAnswer. head, or surmising hart: and it is overthrown by himself. For a little after he pag. 14. sayth, it is manifest by histories that the LXX. translation is lost; and this that goeth under the name of the LXX. is a patcherie made out of ancient writings. If this be so, how knowes this accuser, that they infinitely corrupted their translation? seeing he never saw their work, which long synce is lost? Belike he thought it might be so; and therfore he wrote it was so. If he make not better proof of this his heighnous charge; al men may see whose sonne he is, that so calumniateth the saincts: & readeth without book not onely their infinite errors, but what their consciences told them also.

His inference hereupon, that the Apostles would never account so synful a translation to be holy scripture coming from the holy Ghost, nor approve the use of it in the Greek churches; This faleth with his weak reasons: there being no such greevous syn proved against the Greek translation: but rather we may judge it a blessed work of God, that hereby brought many Gentiles to be proselytes, and prepared them for the receiving of the gospel. Albeit I deney not but errors were in the translation, some of which as occasion was, the Apostles in their writings did amend. And whereas he further sayth, there could be no use of the LXX translation for reading in the latine church of the Romans. I answer, [Page 56] First if there was use of it, in the Greek churches onely: it is ynough to warrant like use of translations in al churches, in what tongue soever. Secondly, there could be use of it even in the church of Rome, where the Greek tongue was commonly known before the Apostles time, as Orat. pro Archia. Tullie testifyeth, and the poets Omnia Graece. Iu­venal. Sat. 6 taxed the peo­ple for it. And if they understood not Greek, is it likely that Paul would have written his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, as he did? seeing he misliked speaking (and consequently writing,) in an un­known tongue. 1 Cor. 14. 6. 18. 19.

M. Sm. having spent his strength, (though in vain) to heap syn upon Israel for translating the bible: Diff. pag. 11. procedeth unto arguments a­gainst reading translations in time of worship. Where first I wil give the reader advertisement, how contrary this enemie is to himself: and then I wil come to his frawd against the truth. Of the scriptures set over into other languages, commonly caled translations; he thus affirmeth pag. 12. A translation is as much and as truly an humane writing, as the apocrypha (so commonly caled) writings are. Againe he sayth, Trans­lations are not the pure word of God, and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15, 9. Agayn, pag. 10. that translations of scripture, and written sermons upon the scripture, are equally humane in respect of the work, equally di­vine in respect of the matter they handle. These and the like blasphemous opinions he sought to infect our church withal, for which he was resisted: these laboured he by word and writing to confirm, with so­phistical reasons, the pillars of al heresie. Yet even in this same book, he pulleth down this his former uncouth building; it being the na­ture of error, as the Pro. 14. 1. foolish woman, to destroy her howse with her own hands. For afterwards he writeth thus, Dif. p. 17. The translation agrea­ble to the originals, is a secondary scripture, yet much inferiour to the originals. So then it is not apocryphal, unlesse he use a fallacie in this word scripture: for we understand hereby (as Christ Joh. 5. 39 himself did) holy scripture, inspired of God: as 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. It may be read (sayth he) in the church, and sung in tunes. Then (say I) it is not as the apo­cryphal (so commonly called) writings are: for their very name sig­nifying hidden, teacheth that they are not to be read in the publik church. Jt may (sayth he) be expounded in the church. But so (say I) may not homilies be, nor apocryphal writings. And if M. S. in his [Page 57] synagogue doe read and expound such scriptures to his people, he maketh thē with himself notorious idolaters. Exod. 20. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Eccle. 12. 10. The matter of it (sayth he) agreable to the originals, is inspired to weet, of God. But the matter (say I) of the Apocry­phal books, as Iudith, Tobie &c. though exactly translated, is not inspired vnlesse of the Divil; for lyes and fables are in them both, the translations I mean, and the original Greek copies. Jt may be made a ground of our faith (sayth he) and an instrument to try doctrine by. Then is it (say I) not apocryphal but Canonical: for it is made a Gal. 6. 16. canon, that is, a rule of our faith and walking. But far be it that humane apocryphal writings should have such vse in the Church of God▪ Wil M. Sm. ground his faith upon this, that ther are Tob. 12: 15. seven holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saincts; and that lying Ra­phael, (of the kinred of Tob. 5. 12 Azarias,) is one of them? wil he ground his faith upon this, that Tob. 6. 16, 17. the smel of the hart and liver of a fish per­fumed on the coles, wil so drive away the Divil, that he shal never come againe any more? or wil he have his disciples to try their religi­on by such crooked instruments? no marvell though they be led with him into the ditch, when they try his doctrine by that which they professe to be as much and as truly an humane writing, as the A­pocrypha (comonly so called) writings are. For it argueth that ey­ther they use the Bible but for a shew and colour, (seing they e­steme so vily of it:) or else that they honour the base borne apocry­pha, as inspired of God. Which is the very syn & snare, that they have sought to bring upon us.

Now let vs examine his arguments.

1 Thes. 5. 21. Try all things, keep that good thing. But no man ig­norant1. Argu­ment.of the tongues can trie whither the translation be fit or good: & ther­fore no man ignorant of the tongues, can strictly keep or read a translation in time of worship.

Here first M. Sm. striking at the translation, mysseth that, andAnswer. hitteth onely the ignorant reader of it: for if one have skil of the tongues, & know it to be truely translated; this reason maketh no­thing against his reading, but for it. So M. Sm. playes the so­phister, [Page 58] to argue against a holy thing, because of the ignorances & infirmities of some men. He mought thus have cavilled against rea­ding the law in Israel; that no man blind of sight (as was 1. King. 14. 4 Ahijah the prophet) could trie whither the original scriptures were truly written or not.

Secondly, if he proceed further as he hath begun, hereafter he may come with like reason thus: Try al things, keep the good thing: but no man ignorant of the tongues, can trie whither the interpretation of scrip­tures which the minister giveth in preaching the word, or any text that he allegeth in his doctrine be fitt or good; then mind what conclusion the Divil wil make hereupon, in a simple mans conscience: to draw him to doubt of, and consequently to forsake and despise, not one­ly al reading, but also preaching of the word, because he being ig­norant of the tongues, cannot judge or trie whither that which is read or taught be true; according to the original scriptures. And thus he falleth into the snare of Satan, which Mr. Sm. here hath set in secret.

Thirdly, this reason overthwarteth that which elsewhere the man granteth; that the pag. 17. translation may be made the ground of our faith and an instrument to try doctrine by. This being so, how dooth Pauls counsel (Trie al things &c.) make against translations?

Rom. 14 23. 1. Tim. 1. 4. - 7. Heb. 11. 6. whatsoever cōmeth not fromThe 2. ar­gumentfaith is syn. but no man ignorant of the tongues can of faith use the translation, seing he cannot examin it whither it be good or bad; and so beleve or refuse it. Therefore it is not of faith in him, and so it is syn for him, to use it before the eye in time of worship.

Like sophistrie and impietie is in this argument as in the former;Answer for it concludes not the thing unlawful in it selfe, but onely in him that is ignorant of the tongues; and his faith, it seeks to shake. For ther is no faith without Rom. 10. [...] Gods word, and where to have this word he cannot tell. If it be set over from the originals to his mother tongue in writing, he cannot trie whither it be good or bad: if the Minister translate or interpret it by voice, the poor [Page 59] man is as much uncertain, or more, whither the teacher speak true or false. Thus can he neyther read nor hear of sayth, if M. Smyths engine once take him: But eyther he must look for enthusiasmes, or revelations from heaven; (vvhich some Anabaptists have dreamed of;) or els, he faleth to profanenes or desperation. And it is not M. Sm. distinction of worship properly so called, that here vvil comfort the troubled sovvl; for he must doe Rom. 14.▪ 23. Heb. 1 [...] al, especially his ecclesiastical & re­ligious actions of fayth, and not his proper vvorship onely. Yea the serpent wil build more on this rotten foundation, and assault him also that hath skil in the tongues and trouble him, saying; though thou hast knowledge of Hebrue and Greek, yet hovv canst thou tel vvhither this that thou readest, be the pure vvord of God? There be many Tit. 1. 14 Ievvish fables and humane Mar. 7. 8. 9—11. traditions, that have been vvritten in Hebrue, and in Greek also: and vvhither God spake or vvrote these things, as novv thou readest them, thou knovvest not: and therfore canst not of faith make this book a ground of thy reli­gion and vvorship. And if thou vvilt credit M. Smyth, loe he telleth thee, that Dif. p. 14. as Antichrist hath polluted al Gods ordinances, so hath he vio­lated the original scriptures. Do not thou therfore build thy fayth upon the scriptures any longer; but beleev that which M. Smyth and his like, shal prophesie out of their harts, for so he Dif. p. 5. sayth, holy men prophesied before Moses time: (and indeed so some prophesyed Eze, 13. 2 in Ezekiels time, though they vvere blamed for it:) & Diff. p. 4. books are in the nature of pictures and images, and therfore ceremonies, and reading a book is ceremonial; and pag. 22. reading Prophesies in the time of the law, was a type of prophesying: and pag. 5. reading the words of the law out of the book, signified the lettering of the words of God out of the hart: and pag. 6. Christ fulfilled the law of reading, and shut the book in the synagogue, to signifie that the ceremonie of book-worship or ministerie of the letter was now exspired and finished: and now pag. 18. the wor­ship of the new testament must proceed originally from the hart and spirit. Wherfore lay aside the scriptures, and hear what men shal prophesy out of their harts; orif that like thee not, exspect thou revelations and visions from heaven. Thus M. Sm. as a Hos. 5. 1. snare on Mispah, & a net spred upon Tabor, hath layd in his book such a groundwork a­gainst the script▪ as fitteth the Divils purpose to intāgle mens sovvls; [Page 60] although to deceive the birds withall, he hath strewed some wheat at the mouth of the pit, as, that translations may be made the ground of our faith, & an instrument to trie doctrine by: &c. so breathing out of one mouth, both hot and cold.

Argu­ment. 3. A translation made verbatim from the originals is absurd by reason of the difference of the dialects, & therfore unlawful seing it edifieth not, 1 Cor. 14. 26. a translation paraphrastical or a paraphrast if it be lawful in time of wor­ship to be read then why not a written sermon.

Answer.These are but blocks, to make the blind stumble. Gods word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurditie: and where our language wilnot bear the strict proprietie of the original phrases; we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of scriptures in an other tongue, to use such words as the language wil affoard, to expresse the other withall. Though tongues differ one from another in proprietie of speeches: yet God hath sanctified them all, for instruments to convey his word and law unto us; and this in writing as well as in speaking. Dan. 2. 4. &c. Act. 1. 4. 8. 9.—11. & 15. 23. Rev. 1. 11. 19.

Written sermons are the works of men: Gods book set over into English, though with some diversitie of phrase, is Gods book and word stil; for (as hath been shewed) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified & meant by them, which properly is Gods word, and which we are so to reverence. But M. Sm. having gran­ted that the translation may be read in the Church, made a ground of our faith &c. and now asking why a written sermon is not also law­ful in Gods worship: eyther alloweth humane writings to be read in the Church, as wel as Gods writings translated, which is a nota­ble error; or els he cavilleth against the truth, contrary to his cō ­science: And in his reasoning, dealeth like a false coyner; who be­cause the gold of the common wealth is not so fine perhaps, as the gold of Job. 28. 16. Ophir or Dan. 10. 5. Vphaz: sayth to the merchant, if such course metal may be taken for mony; then why not brasse or copper?

[Page 61] A paraphrast, commentarie or exposition upon a chapter which conteynethArgu­ment. 4.more of the contents of the originals and the holy Ghosts meaning is vnlawful to be read in time of worship: therefore a translation of a chapter which con­teyneth lesse, is unlawful also to be read in time of worship.

First by Mr. Sm. grownd layd in the pag. 1. beginning; a paraphrase,Answer. comment or any humane writing, may be used in the administrati­on of Christs kingdome, in like sorte as the scriptures; which is erro­neous. Secondly he addeth more to his error, in teaching here that a cōmentary hath more of the contents of the holy Ghosts meaning then the text it self in English or othertrāslatiōs. His cōclusiō ther­fore bringeth forth vanitie, and Iob. 15. 35. his belly hath prepared deceit. No cōmentary in the world made by an ordinarie man, conteyneth the meaning of God, so as the text it self in a faithful translation of the book or chapter dooth. Thirdly, Mr. Sm. confesseth that pag. 17. the matter of the translation agreable to the originals is inspired: but not the writing or character. If the thing written be inspired of God, then is it canonical scripture, 2. Tim. 3. 16. then not apocryphal nor an humane work, as a commentarie: then conteyneth it more of the contents of the originals, then any mans exposition. As for his ex­ception of the writing or character, it is but vanitie: for the Apostles had the matter of their writings by inspiration, frō God: as for the writing or character, that was not inspired▪ but Gods word was writ­ten in such characters, words, phrases, as the hethen Greeks, philo­sophers and Poets, had used long before.

Argument 5. Lev. 22. 22. Mal. 1. 8. 13. 14. Mat. 22. 37. Rō. 12. 1. 2. Ps. 119. 45. & 103. 1. God wil be served with the best we have. But ther is no one translation the best we hav, seing the Lord may in time of worship, minister better to him that administreth, if he understand the originals; if he understand not the originals he hath it not at all, for it is an other mans work; and therefore no one translation written may be read in time of worship.

M. Sm. is like one of them that Ezek. 13. 18. hunteth the sowles of Gods people; setting reasons as hayes to intangle. No one translation Answer. (sayth he) is the best we have seing the Lord may in time of worship mini­ster a better: as good a reason against reading the translated scrip­tures▪ [Page 62] tures, as if he should have sayd unto an Israelite, no one sheep of thy pasture is the best thou hast: seeing the Lord may in time of worship minister a better, (as he did the ram Gē. 22. 13 to Abraham:) therfore no one sheep of thym may be offred for sacrifice Mal. 1. 8. Nay his reason against transla­tions hath not so good a colour as this: for it is certaine that God once ministred a ram to Abraham for sacrifice; but it was never heard that God so ministred an other translated book to read, then that which was brought to be read. The gift of interpreting or expounding by voyce, is of an other kind, and not properly read­ing, wherof we intreat. But let us follow M. Sm. in his circle, & see whither he wil lead us. No translated bible may be read in Gods worship, for God may minister a better: what then? shal I bring the original bible & look on that, exspecting what interpretation God wil give me to speak: seeing I may not read? Not so neyther (sayth M. S.) Diff. p. 6. the holy original scriptures are not to be reteyned as helps before the eye in time of spiritual worship: So then neyther is that the best sacrifice yet, but I must exspect the Lord to minister a better. If neither the translated bible nor the original be the best: where then is the word that is best to be read or uttered to the people? In a mans owne hart: that must be the book out of which M. Sm. wil have Gods lavv to be read in his vvorship: al other books are as images and cere­monies, abolished, & ended by Christ. Though he plead here against translations, colourably; yet he aimeth at Gods book generally, e­ven as his holy Prophets and Apostles vvrote it. But the vvicked­nes of this engine is before discovered. Also for translations this further I say; the scriptures in English are the best for to read unto English eares; better then eyther Hebrue or Greek, which they can­not hear. And seeing it is needful the scriptures should be read; the translation is best. Yet so, as no Christian is tied to the words of the book, but if he know any error in print or tralation, or any better words to expresse Gods mind; he is to do all things for the best unto the church; giving the sense togither with his reading, as the practise was in Israel, Nehem. 8. 8. But he that withdraw­eth corn, the people shal curse him, Pro. 11. 26 sayth Solomon: how much more deserveth this mā the curse of Gods people, that hath sought to withdraw from them in al their publik worship, the whol scrip­tures [Page 63] and book of God, whereby the true corn and bread of their sovvles, is broken unto them.

Deut. 16. 16. 1 Chro. 21. 24. Eph. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 3. we must worship God withArgum. 6our own, not with another mans: with that which cost us somthing, not with that which cost us nothing. But for one ignorant of the tongues to read the translation and offer it to God, is to offer to God an other mans labour not his own, that which cost him nothing, but is an other mans cost, therfore it is un­lawful.

Al vvisdoms vvords Pro. 8. 9. are playn and straight; but M. Smyths areAnswer. rough and crooked. Who ever said before, that men read translati­ons and offred them to God? He mought as vvel have sayd, vve minister the sacraments unto God. For if he mean, the last end is the glo­ry of God: so is it of al a Christian mans actions. Did Paul vvhen he 1 Thes. 5. 27. charged that his Epistle should be read unto al the brethren the saints, mean they should read and offer it unto God? Or had it been for them to except (as this man here cavilleth) we must worship God with our own, not with an other mans, with that which cost us something, not with that which cost us nothing: but this Epis­tle cost us nothing, it is another mans cost and paynes: therfore it is un­lawful to read it, and offer it to God. If this reason had been ridiculous in them, vvhy they vvould not read Pauls Epistle: even so is it here in M. Smyth, for vve read the bible (vvhich is Gods Epistle Rō. 15. 4. unto us,) in no other manner, nor to no other end then they read Pauls letter vvhich vvas part of 2 Pet. 3. 16. holy scripture) in the church, and the book costeth us as much, as that cost them. And David vvhich vvould not 1 Chro. 21 24. offer burnt offrings wtihout cost: vvould he not read, or be at the reading of the book of the lavv in the church, because it cost him nothing, Deut. 31. 9—13. but had been vvritten by Mo­ses, and freely given unto Israel? Never vvas ther heard more child­ish sophismes. But vvhat if a man translate a book or chapter or text himself and vvriteth it: this is his ovvn cost, I think: & then he may read and offer it to God, or els M. S. cavilling is litle vvorth.

Reading a translatiō is not cōmanded, nor was ever practised by Christ, theArgum. 7.Apostles, or primitive churches in time of worship, & so being devised by mā, is [Page 64] the account of vain worship Mat. 15. 9. and wil-worship Col. 2. 23. and so a kind of idolatrie, and therfore the translation is self before the eye in time of worship an idol, and so hath a curse denounced against the use of it in time of worship. Rev. 22. 18. Exod. 20. 4. 5.

Though they curse, yet thou wilt blesse, sayth Psa. 109. 28. David to GodAnswer. against his enemies: and so say I against this adversary, who curseth the reading of the scriptures, as a wil-worship; which God Rev. 1. 3. hath blessed: so maketh he himself by his blasphemie, a 2 Pet. 2. 14 child of the curse. And by his own mouth let him be judged: for thus he wri­teth in his book. Diff. p, 17 Mat. 28. Christ commandeth to goe teach al nations, and therefore al nations may have the holy scriptures translated into their own vernacular tongue, that thereby they may learn the truth. Then further he addeth. The translation agreable to the originals, may be read in the church and sung in tunes, may be expounded in the church, may be made a ground of our faith &c. From whence I reason, if Christ commanding the Apostles to teach Mat. 28. did therby intimate a commandement (or permission) of translations to learn the truth by; and such trans­lations may be read & expounded in the church, & made a ground of our faith: then we & al other Christian churches that have made and used translations to this end, are not idolaters, neyther have u­sed wil-worship, nor incurred the curse: but it hangeth over M. S. own head, if he prevent it not by repentance.

Writing and reading the law is a part of preaching the law, Act. 15. 21. Deut. 33. 10. with Nehem. 8, 7, 8, Mat. 28. 19. with 1 Thes. 5, 27, Eph. 3, 4, Col. 4, 16, Rev. 10, 10, 11. with Rev. 1, 19, and 22. 18. Preaching must be in al languages, therefore writing and read­ing must be in al lāguages: & being a part of preaching of the word and one joynt action with it, (so as one and the kara. Isa. 29. 12. and 61, 1, 2. Zac 7, 7. same word is used in the holy tongue both for to read and to preach,) it is a part of the vvorship or service of God in spirit, in the gospel of his son, as Paul speaketh; Rom. 1. 9. But Jsa. 5, 20. woe unto them that speak good of evil, and evil of good; and vvith feighned vvords make merchandise of mens sovvls: 2 Pet. 2. 3 their judgment long agon is not farr off, and their damnation sleepeth not.

A translation being the work of a mans wit and learning, is asmuch andArgum. 8.[Page 65] as truly an humane writing as the Apocrypha (so commonly called) writ­ings are; and seeing it hath not the allowance of holy men inspired but is of an hidden authoritie, it may be iustly caled Apocryphon, for the signification of the word importeth so much, and therfore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read.

The Apocryphal vvritings are humane both in matter and form,Answer. in language, letter, vvords, sentences, method and order: the book of God set over into English, notwithstanding the difference of the letters and sounds, is yet for the substance divine, the words, senten­ces and methode heavenly. He that translateth faythfully, al­tereth not the nature of the work translated, neyther maketh he it his own. Luke translating into Greek Esaias prophesie from the He­brue, (Luk. 4. 17. 18.) and we translating it into English, have not changed the prophesie it self, from divine to humane, from Gods work to mans: it was no fruit of our wit or learning to find out such a prophesie of Christ; but we understanding the originals, expresse the same thing in English which Esaias wrote, and it is his prophe­sie not ours. And the visions of Iohn in the Revelation now Eng­lished; are not as much and as truely an humane writing, as if M. Smyth should make a book of visions or dreames, out of his own witt and learning, and set it forth in English. Wherefore his hart is striken with Exo. 10. 21. the darknes of Aegypt, that can see no difference betwixt the Prophets and Apostles set over into our tongue, and other mens a­pocryphal writings; but maketh these alike asmuch and as truly hu­mane.

Agayn this enemy of Gods book is herein condemned by his own mouth, for the apocrypha commonly so called, are holden and described thus; Arg. set before the a­pocryphal books, in many Eng­lish bibles. These books &c. are called apocrypha, that is books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded pub­likly in the church, neyther yet served to prove any poynt of Christian religion, save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded.

These things are spoken of the Apocrypha, not as touching the outward letter or language, but for the substance or things in them conteyned.

But M. Smyth alloweth translations to be read and expounded pub­likly in [Page 66] in the Church, and made a ground of our fayth: which agreeth as wel with this his argument, as did the evil servāts plea with his prac­tise. Luk 19. 20. 22. &c.

Al the arguments used against the reading of homilies and prayers, mayArg. 9.be applied against the reading of translations in time of worship, as, 1. they do stint or quench the spirit, which is contrary to 1 Thes. 5. 19. 20. 2 Cor. 3. 17. 2. They are not the pure word of God: and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15. 9. 3. They are the private works of men: contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 20. 4. They are the private openings or interpretations of the pro­phesies of scripture, contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 20. 5. They contradict the gifts bestowed by Christ upon the church for the work of the ministerie: contrary to Eph. 4. 8. 11. 12. Act. 2. 4. Joh. 16. 7. 6. They derogate from the ver­tue of Christs ascention, and dignity of his kingdom: contrary to Ephe. 4. 8. 7. They blemish Christs bountie to and care of his church, contrarie to Ioh. 14. 16. 18. 26. 8. They disgrace the spirit of God, setting him to schole: contra­rie to 1 Ioh. 2. 27. 9. They bring into the church a strange ministra­tion, contrarie to 1 Cor. 12. 5. and so a new part of the Gospel or covenant, contrarie to Gal. 3. 15. 10. They do not manifest the spirit which cometh from within, but the letter which cometh from without 2 Cor. 3. 6. Ther­fore they are not spiritual worship, Joh. 4, 24. with 2 Cor. 3. 17. Gal. 5. 1. and 4. 31.

Indeed if lyes may goe for arguments, here is a heap. WhatAnswer. Lucian could have written more reprochfully & slanderously of the holy scriptures? Cannot the written word and spirit of God, his scriptures and his gifts to open them, stand togither: but one must contradict, stint, quench, and disgrace another? Did Christ when Luk. 4. 16-21. he took the book, read the text, and after spake from the same to the people: did he herein contradict his own gifts, blemish his own boū ­tie, stint or quench the spirit in him? or did the church of Israel con­tradict Gods gifts or quench his spirit, when they preached & read the law Act. 15. 21. every sabbath: Or did the churches of Colosse, Thessa­lonica &c. run into any of these evils, by Col. 4. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27. reading the scriptures in the publik assemblies? Nay rather this adversary would quench the spirit, by abolishing the scriptures out of Gods worship: seeing Gods spirit is in his scriptures, and he having commanded them to be written, commandeth also him that [Page 67] hath an ear, to hear what in them Rev. 2. 1. 6, 7. 13. the spirit speaketh to the chur­ches. Let him not here cavil that he meaneth these things of translations onely; for vve have heard before, hovv even the original scriptures are also by him shut out of Gods vvor­ship; and the reading of them so, condemned for ministration of the letter, Iudaisme & Antichristian.

But some special things here are, vvhich he seemeth to bend at translations onely: as that they are not the pure word of God, and so cō ­trary to Eccles. 12. 10. Math. 15. 9. So then belike, vvhen vve read the lavves of God, Exod. 20 thou shalt not kil; thou shalt not steal; honour thy father and thy mother: or any other scriptures hovv faythfully soe­ver translated into English; vve read not the pure word of God; nor as Solomon sayth, Ecc. 12. 10 an upright writing, the words of truth: but we do that which Christ blamed the Pharisees for, Matth. 15. 9. wor­ship God in vain, teaching doctrines the precepts of men. Loe here some part of the deepnes of Satan, who would perswade that the pure word of God, the upright writing, the words of truth, cannot be written in English; no nor spoken; for if they may be spoken, they may be written: but vvhatsoevet is written, (& by consequent spoken) of us in our mother tongue, is a doc­trine and precept of men. For thus farr reacheth this impious argument.

Againe wher he calleth them private works of men, private o­penings or interpretations of prophesies, contrarie to 1 Corin. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet 1. 20. hee injureth the holy scriptures: for the work or thing it self is Gods, whosoever hath written, printed or trans­lated it. The decree of King Ahashverosh, when it was translated and published Est. 1. 20 22. into al the provinces after every peo­ples language, was it a private decree of him that translated or wrote it? If M. Smyth should translate Paules Epistles, or Iohns Revelation; should we esteeme them M. Smyths epis­tles or visions? These be but delusions to make the work his, or of the nature of him, that is but the interpreter or overset­ter of the same.

Neyther do the scriptures by him alleaged, speak ought against trās­lations; for God having given to his church, the Joh. 20, 31 1 Cor. 14. 37. scriptures for a [Page 68] a ground of their fayth; and 1 Cor. 12. gracious gifts unto men for open­ing and applying the scriptures: the one of these destroyeth not the other, but they confirm ech other. And Peter 2 Pet. 1. 20. speaketh not of translation or grammatical interpretation of a tongue, caled 1 Cor. 14. 26—28. Mar. 15. 35. hermencia: which even an infidel that wanteth Gods spirit, yet having skil in the tongues, can do: but he speaketh of a theologi­cal resolution, opening and applying of the prophesies, called of him epilusis, which may be done without any translating at al, as Christ epelue. unlosed or expounded his owne parables, Mark. 4. 34. and as Ioseph Heb. pa­thar Gr. epelusen. opened or expounded the dreames told unto him.

Thus see we the weaknes of these reasons; and how M. Smyth quoteth many scriptures to prove things that we al hold: as that it is syn to quench the spirit, to contradict Gods gifts &c. but for that which we deney, namely, that in reading the scriptures we commit these evils; this be wil have taken for granted: thinking belike his readers wil be so simple, that if any one propositiō of an argument be proved, the whol shal be yealded unto. How then dooth he rea­son against us in vain, seing in his arguments there Joh. 21. 34 remayns but leasing?

The last of his reasons followeth.

Children may read a translation perfectly wel: but children cannot per­formArg. 10.any part of spiritual worship: therfore reading a translation is no part of spiritual worship.

The second proposition is untrue, and injurious to al the chil­drenAnswer. of God; and the Divil it seemeth put in his hart to write this, as a ground of his anabaptisme, wherunto soon after he drew him; and now hath moved him to write further, that Coar. of the B. in the Epistle. an infant is no more capable of baptisme then is any unreasonable or unsensible creature; thus evil men and deceyvers waxe worse and worse, 2 Tim. 3. 13. deceiving and being deceived. Is not the praysing of God, a part of his worship? & Christ when the children cryed Hosanna in the temple, defended their fact against cavilling Iewes, by this, that out of the mouth of babes and fuklings, God had made perfit the prayse. Mat. 21. 15. 16. Wher­fore this one testimonie is ynough to confute and Psa. 8. 2. stil this enemie and avenger, whom Satan useth to wreak his teen upon the children and infants of the Lord.

[Page 69]But I wil turne his owne weapon against him thus. Mr. Sm. ana­baptised himself with water: but a child could have done the like unto himself, who cannot performe any part of spirituall worship: therefore Mr. Sm. anabaptising himself with water, did no part of spirituall worship: and consequently it was carnal worship, and service of the Divil. If he answer, that a child though he could cast water on himself, & utter such words as he heard Mr. Sm. speak withal; yet could he not preach or open the covenant as Mr. Sm. did: I answer in like manner, though children may read the scrip­tures perfectly wel; yet can they not preach nor open the covenant as did the Preists and Levits, Nehem. 8. 8. and as Christ himself did when he read in the synagogue, Luk. 4. Wherefore reading and preaching being joyned togither, as baptising with water & preach­ing: he that condemns the one outward action because a child can doe it, condemneth also the other by the like reason. And Mr. Sm. having thus written of children, and doon to himself; the babes and sucklings whose soules he would murder by depriving them of the covenant promise and visible seal of salvation in the Church; shal rise up in judgment & shall condemn him in the day of Christ.

Objections for translations answered and mainteyned.

After this Mr. Sm. Diff. pag. 13. professeth to answer objections for translations: where he taketh his libertie to make the objectiōs, as liked him best to answer, thus.

Rom. 4. 3. What saith the scripture, and then followeth the Septuagints1. Objecti­ontranslation. Heb. 3. 7. The holy Ghost sayth; and then folow the words of the Lxx. translation: and it is observed that the Apostles quote the words of the seventies translation not onely where they expound the meaning of the holy Ghost, as Heb. 10. 5. Rom. 4. 3. where the Apostles follow the Lxx. not the Hebrue, but also in their devises besides the original; as in the second Cai­nan, Luk. 3. 36. 37. and in the 75. persons of Iaakobs familie, Act. 7. 14. whereas there is but one Cainan and 70. persons in the Hebrue.

If the originals themselves are not to be vsed as helps in time of spiritualM. Sm. an­swerworship, as hath been proved; then this obiection is of no force for translations.

[Page 70]But the original scriptures are to be used in Gods publike wor­ship,Replie. by such as understand them; as hath ben proved: therfore this answer is of no force against translations.

Secondly, if it were of force to bring translations to be read in time of wor­ship,Answer.it were available thus far even to bring in to the time of worship, the errors of the translations. &c.

Whatsoever the Scripture & holy Ghost sayth, may be read & heardRepl. in Gods publik worship ordinarily; as before hath been manifested: Errors by Gods special extraordinary dispensatiō admitted because of mens infirmities; as Cainan in Lukes genealogie, &c. are not of vs ordinarily to be followed; that we should put new persons into genealogies, no more then we may dispense ordinarily with Gods commaundements, because himself dispensed with the Iewes for Deut. 24 1 &c. & 21 15. &c. putting away their wives, for having many wives, and the like; which he suffred Mat. 19. 8. for the hardnes of their harts.

The holy Ghost needeth not the lies of men to work his work, nor theAnswerseventies errors to support the faith of Theophilus and the Graecians. &c. And it is one thing by connivencie to passe by syn, as was the tolleration of poly­gamie, divorce and usurie, see Act. 17. 30. another thing to translate er­rors from a translation into the original, which is to approve them, and this whosoever affirmeth, speaketh litle lesse then blasphemie. Thirdly, therfore as Antichrist hath polluted al Gods ordinances, so hath he violated the original scriptures; and therfore one Cainan must be put out, for some ancient copies have it not: and for 75. there must be seventy al: pente for pantes: as Rom. 12. 11. kairo kurio, and it is possible easily to mistake so smal a matter, in copying out any thing, as experience teacheth.

Thus Mr. Sm. is slipt aside from translations, to quarrel withReplie. the original scriptures and correct them: where (though I would not folow his wanderings) I observ breefly these things.

1. He restreyneth, the holy Ghost from using the seventies er­rors (bearing with mens weaknes:) because he needeth them not: why doth he not also restreyne God from suffering divorce & many wives to one man in Israel, seing he needed not thus to have done then, more then now? Shal man limit the holy Ghost, to doe no more then he needeth?

2. He mismatcheth Gods passing by the syn of hethens idola­trie, [Page 71] Act. 17. 30. with Gods Mat. 19. 8 permission of divorce and 2 Sam. 12 8. polyga­mie in his law, and putting in Cainan in Luk. 3. The first was hor­rible syn in al that did it, though God overlooked it upon their re­pentance: the latter not so, but tolerable; and Lukes naming of Cainan, holy.

3 He injurieth Luke, intimating as if he put errors from a tran­slationIf by the original M. S. mean Lukes own writing: he iniurieth him other­weise, as if he appro­ved an er­ror which only he bare with by di­rection of Gods spirit: & which if M. S. blame in him, let him self beware of blasphe­mie. into the original; indeed he had so done, if from the Lxx. he had put it into Moses Hebrue; which was farr from him. But he onely sets it downe out of a common known & received record, into the genealogie which he wrote; which al would allow of, & by which they would trie Lukes writing: where the leaving of it out, mought have caused much strife. And if God so bare with the Iewes hard­nes of old: what mouth can blame him for bearing with the weak­nes both of Iewes and Gentiles here? Nay rather his mercy is to be magnified for writing his word so: as the weak mought not stumble or fal away, the froward mought not cavil. For had the Apostles written in Hebrue, the Grekes (& of liklihood many Iewes)▪ could not have vnderstood: and if they should have ordinarily left the common translatiō, not onely the Gentiles mought have made doubt, but the Iewes would have taken occasion to speak evil. For they reverenced the labours of the 70▪ greatly, and would suffer no other translatiō. God therefore who turneth al things to his glorie turned this his indulgence, to the praise of his grace.

4 Mr. Sm. hazardeth the credit of the original scriptures, and of al mens faith; in saying Antichrist hath violated them, as he hath pol­luted al Gods ordinances. It is not good, they say, to bely the Divil: & Antichrist hath evil ynough upon him though he be not charged with violating the originals, which this accuser wil not easily prove. No doubt but copiers, and writers might fail, and did mistake; and some thinking to mend the new testament by the old, or Luke by Matthew, might make it worse; which by true copies may be amen­ded. So faults are in translations through ignorance or oversight. But this point if it were true, helpeth translatiōs and hurteth them not. For if the originals be violated, and yet are not for the faults to be rejected: so translations may be violated, & the errors in the part, are no cause to reject the whole.

[Page 72]5 He presumeth to put Cainan out, because it is not in some an­cient copies: these some I take it wil prove but one, which Beza mentio­neth: and if the credit of it wil countervayl al others in Cai­nan, it must do the like also in a great part of the genealogie beside; Beza an­not. in Luk [...]. 23. varying al the names from Ioseph up to David, according to Matthewes narration: which is to overthrow Lukes purpose quite. For he deduceth Christ from Nathan his father in the flesh; and not from the brother Solomon, his father but in the kingdom, as Mat­thew dooth. But to change pente five, into pantes all, Act. 7, 14. with­out warrant of any Greek copie at al, is too much boldnes; & can­not be be born out by kurio & kairo, where many copies are for a ground. If men that perceive not the counsel of God in penning his word, shal presumptuously change it according to their owne conceipt: we shal have nothing left sound or uncorrupt. Rather, if men be ignorant, let them Job. 39. 37 lay their hand on their mouth.

Lastly (sayth he) fully to answer the obiection whatsoever is good in theAnswer.LXX translation, was taken out of the new testament, and ancient fathers of the Greek church. For it is manifest by histories that the LXX translation is lost, and this that goeth under the name of the LXX is a patcherie made out of ancient writings: & therfore the holy Ghost doth not aim at the LXX. translation at al, as is imported in the obiection.

This is not fully but foolishly to answer: for though the LXX. trans.Replie. were now lost, yet was it not lost in the Apostles dayes, nay ther was no other but that known in the world; & to reason because we have it not now, therfore they then aimed not at it at al, is without reason or colour of truth. Neyther doth M. Smyth manifest by histories that the Seventies translation is now lost: rather the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotio, & others that synce the Apostles time set over the bible in Greek, these al are lost, save some peeces of them; and that which we have, is for the body of it the Seventies, though much corrupted with words and sentences of the other. And this Hieroms translation of the prophets from the Septuagint, and his commentarie citing the divers versions of Aquila, Symmachus &c. sheweth: and the best Greek bibles now extant, that have varias lec­tiones do confirm the same.

Neyther if al were granted which he would, is the objection ful­ly answe­red: [Page 73] for the Apostles Rom. 4. 3. Heb. 3. 7 cite the scriptures in Greek, which the prophets wrote in Hebrue; eyther therfore they aymed at the Septua­gint or translated it themselves. Whereupon it followeth that the Hebrue text set over into Greek, is the scripture of God stil, and speech of the holy ghost. Or (if M. Smyths divinitie had then been known,) the unbeleeving Iewes mought have alleged, that Paul proved not his doctrine by canonical scripture, but by apocryphal writings, that were equally humane with the Rabbines commenta­ries in respect of the matter: and in respect of the letter & language, worse.

There were Greeks and Graecians, Hellenes and Hellenistai, Rom. 1. 16.The 2▪ Ob­iectionAct. 6. 1. The Greeks were so by progenie and blood, the Graecians or Hel­lenists were Iewes by progenie, borne in Grecia. Therfore Paul calleth him­self an Hebrue of the Hebrues. Phil. 3, 5. These Graecians had forgotten their language, and spake Greek onely; and in their synagogues had the Greek trans­lation read unto them: and the Apostles coming into their synagogues approved that act: and so it followeth, that reading translations is lawful in worship.

The distinction of Greeks and Grecians, is vain (sayth M. Sm.) as ap­peareth M. S. Ans. by these places compared, Act. 21. 39. & 18. 2. 24. with Act. 6. 1. Phil. 3. 5. For Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and Aquila at Pontus, and Apollos at Alexandria: and yet are al called Jewes, not Hellenists or Graecians. And Act. 6. 1. The Hellenists murmured against the Hebrues: the Hellenists did understand their own tongue, and had not forgotten their own language.

This reason of Greeks and Grecians, was propounded not as cer­tain,Replie. but as probable: because humane writers testifyed it, and in the scriptures, some footsteps onely mought be seen.

That there is a distinction in scripture of Hellenes Greeks, & Hel­lenists Greekists or Graecians; al that have eyes to see, and judgment in the tongue, may read: though in our English this difference is not alwayes manifested. For ordinarily they of that nation are cal­led Hellenes Greeks. Ioh. 12. 20. Act. 16. 1. & 18. 17. and 21. 28. Rom. 1. 14. and often in that and his other Epistles. Hellenists or Grecians are mentioned Act. 6, 1. and 9. 29, & 11. 20. The Helle­nes or Greeks are usually set against Iewes; as Act. 14. 1. & 18. 4. and 19. 10. and 20. 21. Rom. 1. 16. and 2. 9. 10. and 3. 9. and 10. 12. [Page 74] 1 Cor. 1. 24. and 10. 32. and so in other places▪ The Hellenists or Grecians, are set against Hebrues, Act. 6. 1. The Hellenists were such as spake Greek; for Hellenisti is the Greek tongue, Act. 21. 37. as E­braisti is the Ebrue tongue, Iohn. 19. 20. Al Hellenes or Greeks could their own language; but many of other nations could speak it also, it being spread over al; and such were called not Hellenes but Helle­nists; as a Latine is he that is born in Latium, or of that blood; but a Latinist is he that can speak Latine, what country man soever.

That the Iewes were dispersed in the Greek nations, we may read al over the historie: for there were synagogues of Iewes at Salamis, Act. 13. 5. at Antioch of Pisidia: Act 13. 14: at Iconium, Act. 14. 1. at Thessalonica, Act. 17. 1. at Beraea, Act. 17. 10. at Athens, Act. 17. 16. 17. at Corinth, Act. 18. 14. at Ephesus, Act. 18. 19. and other places. Their dispersion among the gentiles, had been about 300 yeres: for Ptolomee Lagi King of Aegypt, surprising Ierusalem una­wares, caryed many thowsands of them captives, and made them freemen of Alexandria upon their oath of fealtie; and after them many Iewes went thither of their own accord, as de antiq. Iud. lib, 12. cap. 1. Iosephus witnes­seth. And his son Ptolomee Philadelphus who procured the bible to be turned into Greek; willing to gratifie the Iewes, made free six skore thowsand of their captives: who remayning in those parts, not onely learned Greek, but forgat Hebrue, as may evidētly be ga­thered by Ben Sirachs words in his prologue before his fathers book, among our Apocrypha, caled Ecclesiasticus. For Prologue of Iesus son of Syrach: or Ecclesi­asticus. he in the dayes of Ptolomee Euergetes, (who reigned next to Philadelphus) turned his Fathers Hebrue work into Greek, that they which remayn­ed in banishment (as he sayth) and were desirous to learn, might apply them­selves to good manners, and live according to the law. This paynes he might hav spared if his people al, could hav understood Hebrue. Also under the tyran Antiochus, the Iewes troubles & dispersiō cōtinued & in­creased, as the book of Machabees witnesseth: and so th'Apostles in their dayes found synagogues of the Ievves, almost in al cities of the Gentiles, as before is shevved. Novv vvho knovveth not, that farr fevver yeres then three hūdred in a strange land, vvil make a people, specially in bondage and affliction, forget their native speech: vvher­fore as [Page 75] it is most probable, that many Ievves had forgot Hebrue, so is it almost incredible, that al should keep it, in such estate; vvhen also they maried vvith the gentiles, as Timothees mother is a president. Acts. 16. 1. Moreover in Ierusalem it self it may be probably gathered they knevv & spake Greek. For when Paul spake once in Hebrue to them, it it is noted how the people kept the more silence. See Act. 22. 1. 2. and 21. 37. 38. 39. 40. And very learned Iewes, as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the Apostles dayes, and Josephus, wrote eloquently their works in Greek, having smal skill in Hebrue, as by their writings may be gathered.

Now for M. Smyths exception, that Paul, Aquila, & Apol­los, are called Iewes not Hellenists: it is nothing to the matter: for I grant, al were called Iewes but not al Hebrues: and in Act. 6, 1. not Iewes, but Ebrues ar murmured against by the Hellenists, that is, by such as spake Greek. Wherfore, he needed not have caled the distinction vain, when himself can make but such an emptie an­svver. Neyther sheweth he any reason at al, why Paul reckoning up his privileges (Phil. 3, 5.) caleth himself an Ebrue of the Ebrues: & unlesse it be for the language I can shew none sufficient. For thus I mind his speech; by kindred or stock in general, he was of Israel by tribe in particular he was of Beniamin; by language an Ebrue; by pro­fession of law or religion, a Pharisee; for zele, a persecutor of the contrary; and for legal righteousnes, unrebukeable. Herein the Gr. Scholiast agreeth with me, saying that the name Ebrue is added pros [...]desin tés Ebraidos glosses, for his skil in the Ebrue tongue. The like he speaketh of himself 2 Cor. 11. 22, They are Ebrues, so am J, they are Isra­elites, so am J, they are Abrahams seed, so am J. It is wel known this peo­ple had much to boast of for their stock of Israel, famous through­out al the bible; likeweise of Abraham Ioh. 8. 39. they boasted because of Gods Gen, 17. covenant with him, and of his fatherhood. But of Heber they had nothing to rejoyce more then of other patriarchs, save for the language onely, which was derived from him to Abraham the Gen. 14. 13. Hebrue, and so to his posteritie, til in dispersion it was lost of some, by others reteyned. And if it be excepted that Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and therfore an Hellenist as others there: [Page 76] I answer, though there he was born, yet his bringing up was in Act. 22. 3 Ie­rusalem at the feet of Doctor Gamaleel, where he learned both the language and law of the Pharisees; and therfore boasted to be an E­brue as wel as any other.

And for those whom the scripture calleth Hellenists or Greekists they seem to be no other but Iewes. For they that were Proselytes or converts among the Hethen, are called Hellenes Greeks; as Iohn. 12. 20. ther were Hellenes. Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the feast. Neyther know I why a Greek converted to Iudaisme should hav the name of a Greekist, seeing by his conversion, he doth more degene­rate from Greekisme; so that the name were unfit. Besides, in Act. 2. 10. & 13. 43. such converted strangers, are called Prosclytes not Hellenists. Likevveise vvhen Paul nevvly converted, disputed in Ie­rusalem vvith the Hellenists, and they vvent about to slay him, Act. 9. 29. this their cariage argueth that they vvere Ievves, for it is not like that strangers vvould have been so busie in that place.

Also the Hellenists in Antiochia Act. 11. 20. seem to be Ievves there, to vvhom the Gospel vvas first preached; as in the vvords immedi­atly vers. 19. before is noted, they preached to no man, but to the Iewes onely: af­ter that, ve. 24. 26 many moe vvere converted there dayly: & vvhen the gen­tiles of the city had received the fayth, they vvere troubled Act. 15. 1. concer­ning circumcision, (this fel out about 7. yeares after the conversion of the Hellenists, Act. 11) and then the church at Ierusalem vvriting therof, directed their letters Act. 15. 23. to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antio­chia: al vvhich do persvvade that the Hellenists first spoken of vvere Ievves. Hereuppon I conclude, that the testimonie of learned men, Ios. Scali­ger. de emēd. temp. lib. 5. De pr. anno. Chal. Et lib 2. De Ci [...]l. Iudae. Kar­raim. recording hovv the Hellenists vvere dispersed Ievves, that used the Greek bibles in their synagogues; hath more probabilitie, if not certainty to be true, even by the scripture; then M. Smyths sleight ansvver can turn avvay. But he hath yet more to speak.

A. Secondly (sayth he) it cannot be proved by scriptures, that the Hellenists had the Gr. transl. read in the synagogues: it is manifestly otherweise by the rea­sons used before against the translation of the LXX.

R. Those reasons were rather calumnies; & I have before refuted thē, shewing that no such syn can be proved upō the Sep. fortheir trāsl. That the Greek bible was read among the Hellenists, the point be­fore [Page 77] handled giveth light; & I leave it to the judgment of the wise Further I answer, that seing by scripture we learne that not Iewes onely but Act. 18. 4. & 13. 42. 44. & 14. 1. & Greeks were present in the synagogues; it cannot be thought that the Lectures there were in Hebrue; which the Iewes themselves in liklihood, the Greeks of certainety, could not under­stand.

Thirdly (sayth M. S.) the worship of God properly so called of the wholAnsw.Church of the Iewes was performed in the holy place at Ierusalem, and so that which was performed in the synagogue was not properly the worship of the whol Church of the Iewes: but was of that nature that passed between Christ and the Doctors in the temple Luk. 2. 46. with Act. 17. 2.

Neyther is that which we performe in our assemblies, the wor­shipRepl. of the whol church of the Christians, but of our own particular Church: neyther is our reading the scriptures, the worship of God properly so called: as before I have manifested. So in the mans answer, lodgeth guile and deceit.

Though all the Iewes worshiped at the temple thrise in the year, yet followeth it not thereupon they had no proper wor­ship in their synagogues. For Mr. Smyth himselfe counteth pro­phesie or preaching, proper worship; and this was in their syna­gogues. Againe Prayer & thanksgiving is worship properly; & this they did other where then in the temple as appeareth Act. 16. 13. Neyther can we think of our godly forefathers (howsoever Mr. Sm. counteth them a carnal Church,) that they would read and preach the word, and not pray in their synagogues; yea their synagogues were caled Oratories or prayer howses; as witnesseth Philo a Iew in the Apostles age, who complayning of the outrage offred in Alexandria (the city wher he lived) by throwing downe the synagogues Philo de legat. ad Caium. caleth them Proseuchas Oratories; and mentioneth also the synagogues of Rome, by the same name.

Fourthly (sayth M. Sm.) if the Hellenists read the seventies translationAnsw.as a part of their proper worship having forgotten their own language, therin were committed these synns:

  • [Page 78]1. Forgetting their tongue, one part of the ceremoniall law. Nehem. 13. 24.
  • 2. Instituting worship in a common tongue, which was as unlawful as sacri­ficing a dog.
  • 3. Therefore it was false worship; as it was to sacrifice an unclean beast

Proper worship is an vnproper term wherwith Mr. S. would clokeRepl. his error, before discovered. But had it been proper worship, yet this mans charge of them were both unproper and untrue. For, al­though the willing neglect and forgetting of their Hebrue, was syn: yet the constreyned losse of it was not syn. The scripture alleged mought have taught him this; for Neh. 13. 24 they that of lust maried strange wives, which taught their children Azotik or Ashdod speech, are just­ly blamed by the holy Ghost: but were any blamed for speaking Babels tongue, where they had been prisoners neer 70. yeares? nay Ezra and Daniel wrote a great parte of their books in Babylons language, and not in Hebrue. And if it had been such a breach of the ceremonial law as is intimated; Daniel and his brethren who refused the Dan. 1. [...]. &c. King of Babels diet, would also have refused his lan­guage, which they did not at al.

The comparison of sacrificing a dog is odious: for mought not converted strangers pray and praise God in their mother tongues; did God abhorr their languages, as doggs in sacrifice? Daniel was skilful both in Sions tongue and Babels: and he writing his book, recordeth his own prayer and thanksgiving in Babylons language; Dan. 2. 20.—23. He that should have condemned this for false worship: the godly Iewes would have counted him a dog. The Pro­phets warned Israel of the Idols of Babel, but never of their tongue: nay Ieremie in Canaan, teacheth the people in the Chaldee tongue, how they should answer and confute Idolaters. Ier. 10. 11. And what wil this calumniator of the saints, say of Christ himselfe, who prayed on the crosse, Mark. 15 Eloi Eloi lamma sabachthani, which was Syriak not▪ Hebrue, though the scripture which he had reference unto, Psal. 22. 1, was Hebrue. And ordinarily he spake Syriak, as by Mark. 7. 34. & 5. 41. Eph­phatha, Talitha coumi and other like words recorded by the Evan­gelists, may be probably gathered.

Lastly (sayth M. Sm.) if they read the seventies translation, and theAnswer.[Page 79] Apostles came in & heard: it followeth not they did allow it, as a part of the wor­ship of the new testament, any more then circumcision &c.

First this followeth, that the bible translated, is the bible stil;Repl. and Moses turned into Greek, is Moses stil: for it is not sayd that apocryphal humane writings were read in the Synagogues, but the Act. 13. 15. & 15. 21. law and the prophets. So it proveth the question, that the scrip­tures in our mother tongue, are divine writings, not humane, as M. Sm. avoucheth. Hereuppon it wil folow undenyablie, that they are to be read in al Christian churches now, as then in Israel: and not as profane & apocryphal, to be quite thrust out of Gods wor­ship. The Apostles shewed an end Act. 15. 24. &c. Col 2, 16. 17. of circumcision, and like legal shadowes: but never any end or ceasing or reading the scriptures: nay they shew plainly the contrary. 2 Pet, 1, 19, 2 Tim. 3, 15, 16, 17. 1 Thes. 5, 27.

Deut. 31. 12. The reasons that are alleged for reading the law are perpe­tual,3. Obiectiō.and therfore the law of reading is perpetual: the moral reasons are, hear­ing, learning, fearing God, and keeping his lawes.

Hereunto M. Smyth answereth: First the law of reading is not moral in Answer. the particular act, but in the equitie, for it was commanded to be doon but once in seven yeare, at the feast of tabernacles, Deut. 31. 10. and if it had been mo­ral in the particular act, it should have been from the beginning, which was not so, seing it began with Moses, and it should continue after the end of the world, for moralities indure for ever: but books and so reading of books shal perish.

Men should Pr. 24. 26 kisse the lips of him that answereth upright words:Replie. but our adversary answereth with a froward mouth. He sayth the law was commanded to be read but once in seven year: these words, but once, are not of the law, but of his own false comment. There was a special charge to read the book then, in the eares of al togither; not intending to read it but then. For every sabbath, was to be Exod. 20. sanctifi­ed, and al things are sanctified by the word and prayer; and Israel knew this wel, and therfore from old tyme read the word in the sy­nagogues Act. 15. 21. every sabbath; and our Lord Christ Luk. 4. 16. accompanied thē in this holy work; so that he is more then Sadducean blind, which sayth it was commanded to be doon but once in seven year.

[Page 80]No better is the next plea, that because writing & reading began with Moses & was not frō the beginning of the world, therfore the law of reading is not perpetual, neither bindeth us now: a Familist or Atheist may likewise say, baptisme or the Lords supper in the par­ticular outward act, is not to cōtinue til the worlds end, because it was not from the beginning, but began with Christ. A practise commanded of God, at what time soever; is to continue til by him it be repeled, which reading the scriptures never was, but repeted and augmented, by the Apostles writings. Like vanitie is in the reason following: books and reading of books shal perish, when the world is at an end: therefore now whiles the world continueth, we are not bound to read Gods book. Mought he not have made these rea­sons against preaching the word, and other ordinances of God, as wel as against reading; seeing these shal cease also at the end of the world. But a Isai. 44. 20. seduced hart hath deceived this man, that he can­not deliver his sowl, nor say, Js there not a lye in my right hand?

Secondly (sayth he) it is moral in the equity, that is, that al meanes mustAnswer.be used to attayn the knowledge of the truth, wherof reading is a principal: and yet hence it followeth not, that reading is eyther part or meanes of spiritual wor­ship: For books are things meerly artificial, as are pictures and images, Gen. 4. 22.

Here again the enemie is caught in the snare of his own tongue:Replie. for if reading Gods law be a principal mean to attayn the knowledge of the truth now, as it was in Israel, Deut. 31. 12. and so moral & perpetual: then his former cavils against the objection, may be cast as dung upon his own face. Then do we wel to read Gods word in our church, for that end: and M. Sm. hath doon wickedly for it to blame us, and charge us with idolatrie. To hide this his shame, he runs into his old borough, that it is no part or meanes of spirituall worship; but out of this he hath been often hunted before: and wee are sure that observing it according to Gods wil, we worship & serv God in spirit and truth, as wel in this as in other like ordinances of the gospel.

His matching of books with Tubal-cains craft (Gen. 4. 22.) & ima­ges, sheweth how his idol error hath Isa. 44. 1 [...] shut his eyes that he cannot see, his hart that he cannot understand. For in holy scriptures (wher­of we [Page 81] speak) the mynd of God is made known unto us, and his spi­rit Rev. 3. 1▪6. is in them, so as when we read in the book of Moses, we read that which is spoken to us of God; as the Evangelists Mar. 12. 26, compa­red with Mat. 22. 31 in playn words teach us: whereas in handicrafts we see or enjoy but the fruit of mans wit and skil; and an image without life, is the Hab. 2. 18 teacher of lyes. Such impious comparisons seem rather to come from Tubal-cains forge, then from any possessed with the spirit of God.

Reading the law was performed in the Synagogue, and not tyed to the4 Obiectiontemple: an argument that reading is not ceremonial but moral, for no part of ceremonial worship was performed from the tabernacle or temple.

This objection with the reason, (I think) was never so made of any, but by M. Smyth himself. It is true that reading was not tyed to the temple; it is true also (though this argument thus framed, hard­ly proveth it) that reading is not ceremonial. The last branch is untrue, for some ceremonies or figurative services were performed out of the tem­ple. His answers to this obiection, are for the most part true, being wel understood: but in part false, when by the way he denyeth read­ing the law to be a moral action; wherof he giveth no reason at al: and the thing is handled before.

Luk 4. 16. Christ stood up to read and redd his text, and then preached5. Obiect.out of it. Now his actions are our instructions: and therefore we are to read words out of a book, in time of preaching or prophesying.

This objection M. Smyth hath falsified: it was never thus pressed by us for translations, whereof now we treat: but thus. Luke repor­teth that Christ Luk. 4. 17. &c. read where it was written The spirit of the Lord is up­on me &c. This text Luke setteth down in Greek, which Esaias wrote in Hebrue; whereupon it followeth, that the scripture translated into an other language, is the same scripture stil for the substance of it, though the letter and language differ, and is not an apocryphal humane vvriting, and so an idol in Gods vvorship, as Mr. Smyth blasphemed. Els, Luke and the new testament cannot be defended against Ievves that should cavil, hovv humane apocryphal vvritings, are cited for divine and canonical. Thvs serveth it to prove the read­ing of translated scriptures, by necessary consequence: and that vve [Page 82] are not bound to bring the book of the law and prophets in He­brue when we vvould read to the people, and so interpret or read mentally out of it, as M. Smyth then dreamed: though since he is fallen to forbid the Original Hebrue also, in Gods vvorship, as vve have heard before. But M. S. finding (as seemeth) this objection too heavie for him, hath sought to change it, as he could best make ansvver: vvhich is thus.

First in that it was doon in the synagogue by Christ which was neither M. Sm. an­swer. Priest nor Levite, it is an argument that it was no proper part of the worship of the old Testament, but of that nature as was the exercise performed by Christ and the doctors in the temple, so that reading most properly is searching the scripture, which is not worship.

Christ as his custome was, (sayth Luk. 4. 16 the scripture) went into the syna­gogue Replie. on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read: and after speaking from the scripture which he had read, ver. 22. al bare him witnesse, and wōdred at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth. He Mat. 26. 25. Joh. 18. 20. sate dayly teaching in the temple and in the synagogues among the people. But al this reading and teaching: vvas no proper part of the worship of the old testament, (vvith M. Smyth) because he was neither Preist nor Levite. Hovvbeit, Dif. p. 6. before he vvould needs persvvade us by a mystical in­terpretation, that Christ having by the use of the book fulfilled the law of reading, he shut the book, to signifie that the ceremonie of book-worship was now exspired. So svveet an accord & harmonie is in his vvriting. Wel, Christs action here is excluded from being a part of Gods vvorship. But M. Smyth though he vvere neyther Priest nor Levite of the old testament, nor Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor nor teacher, no nor member of the church of the nevv testament, (he and his fol­lowers having dischurched themselves and dissolved their commu­nion;) yet he in that estate, preached, and anabaptised himself, and then anabaptised others: and this in him was the worship of God, or els of the divil, properly so caled. And hath not this man behaved himself like a proud Korah, that without al office would presume to do these things which he counteth proper worship; and yet censureth Christs action in reading & preaching of the word to be no proper part of worship, because he was neyther Preist [Page 83] nor Levite? Shal the word out of Christs mouth, read and ap­plied with al grace of the spirit (which he had without measure) be no proper part of Gods worship; and shal the word which Mr. Smyth uttereth out of his hart, be proper worship? And of what nature may we think, was that exercise performed by Christ and the Doctors in the temple? was it none of Gods worship? He was I am sure Luk. 2. 49 46. 47. in his fathers busines, among the teachers of the word, whom he heard, whom he asked, whom he answered with such understanding as astonied al that heard him. If M. Smyth esteme his own teaching or prophesying used in his sy­nagogue to be the worship of God; and this of Christ and the teachers of Israel in the temple, to be not his worship: he is worthy of al true Christians, to be holden Anathema.

But reading (sayth he) is serching the scriptures, which is not worship. But reading (say I) as Christ now did, is proclaym­ing the word of God unto the people: and if preaching be worship, reading in this sort is worship: not proskunesis, suppli­cation or prostrating unto God: but latreia Rom. 1. 9. a worship or ser­vice of God in the spirit, in the gospel; as before hath been manifested.

Secondly (sayth M. Smyth) Christ had the Originals the HebrueAnswer.text of Esay the Prophet, and read or interpreted out of it: for it is doubtful whither he uttered the Hebrue words, or spake the sense of the Hebrue in the Syriak dialect, and therefore from hence reading a trans­lation cannot be concluded, but eyther reading or interpreting the Ori­ginals.

How it maketh for translations, I shewed before againstReplie. M. Smyths frawd: and to that we have no answer, but by-mat­ters brought as clowds to darken the light. And if we had alleged this for the Originals, yet Mr. Smyth would not have allowed it, as before hath been shewed. He doubt­eth whither Christ spake in Syriak or not: but if he so did, & preached or prophesied in that common language, (as before I have shewed it most likely,) and preaching or prophesying be properly worship; and instituting worship in a common tongue, [Page 84] Be as unlawful as sacrificing a dog, as M. Smyth before Dif. p. 15. affirmed: wil not he be found a blasphemer of Christ, as one that speaks not by the spirit of God, 1 Cor. 12. 3. calling Iesus execrable?

Thirdly (sayth he) hence cannot be concluded that manner of preachingAnswer.now used, that a man shal take his text, and then divide it into parts, analy­sing it rhetorically and logically, collecting doctrines and uses from every mem­ber, &c. of his text, al this while he hauing his book before his eye, to help him at al assayes: a thing whereof I am assured the holy scripture yeeldeth no warrant that it may be counted a part of spiritual worship. For though the scripture may be so handled, and that for very profitable use; yet that is rather a scholastical lecture, then an Ecclesiastical worship, it is rather an inquisition and serching of the holy spirits intent and purpose then pro­phesying

If the scriptures may be so handled, and that for very profitable use: Replie. surely Mr. Smyths schisme, and charge of idolatrie layd upon us, had very unprofitable use, and wicked end. For his owne conscience can testifie for us, if it be not feared; that we ne­ver pleaded for other use of the scriptures, then was in Israel, where Christ Luk. 4. read the text, and after taught from and apply­ed it; where the Neh. 8. 8 law was read, the sense given, and the people caused to understand the reading; where Act. 13. 15. & 15. 21. lectures were of the law & pro­phets in their synagogues every sabbath; and other such like exerci­ses. But because we did thus out of our translated English bibles (of him called apocrypha,) he accused us of idol-latrie, that is the wor­ship or service of idols; we mainteyned it to be theo-latrie, that is, the worship or service of God, because it was Gods word, not mans, though written in English. This point is now sought to be shifted off, and a nue question made, whither reading the scriptures in the Church may be caled worship: which I have cleared before.

His sophistical distinction of scholastical lecture, and ecclesiasti­cal worship; we heard not of til now; and it serveth him in no stead: for every such lecture in the Church to Christs scholars, is the latreia or service of God, not of Idols; and is a manifestation of the holy spi­rits intent, as of old was in prophesying. The teacher most properly doth then inquire & serch, when he prepareth himselfe privatly by [Page 85] reading, studie and meditation, to expound the scriptures in pub­lik. Were not the voices of the Prophets in Israel, a manifestation of the spirits intent? But when they were read in the synagogues, their phonas. voices were heard, as the scripture teacheth; Act. 13. 27.

Lastly (sayth M. S.) if we must needs be tied to this example of Christ,Answer.(which J see no reason for, seeing reading was of the old testament,) then the ex­ample of Christ shall bind also thus farr, as that the book shalbe layd aside, so soon as the text is read, and the book that is used, shalbe the originals, which is nothing for vocal but for mental reading, or for interpreting, which I ne­ver have thought to contradict. &c.

No man that I know, tieth to follow this particular example.Repl. We doubt not but men may teach, without any book. But that it is lawful by Christs example here, to read, open and apply the scri­ptures; as by other examples of him also, to preach without read­ing. The mayn thing is left, and new questions set on foot.

We know wel, he at first contradicted not mental reading (as he calleth it) or interpreting out of the originals though now he writeth against the use of the originals also, as before we have seen: so fast he runns on in error. His cōceipt of mental reading, as it hath no groūd frō Christ here, nor any prophet or Apostle, to be the ordinary way of reading or interpreting scripture: so mind we it to be a far more vncertayn and erroneous course; let the man make as many Que­rees after it, as he will.

Having answered these few objections, as we see; he Differ. pag. 18. after­wards questioneth whither the hearers may have their translations or the originals to read or search in time of prophesie. Which he deneyeth. Of this point, though it was not controverted between us, yet I wil speak what I mind about it. Not condemning it, as dooth he; nor iustifying it, as it is abused by some; but shewing the mean, which I take to be best.

His first reason is; that the Prophets and Apostles wrote books, but never divided them into chapters or verses, Henry Stephen first made the verses of the N. Testament: whereupon he concludeth that the hea­rers could not serch their bookes in time of hearing. I deney the conse­quence; for in reading the law & expounding it, comparing words with that which went before and after; the hearers mought serch [Page 86] and see; though it were with more difficultie.

Secondly the Hebrue bibles that we have, are all divided into chapters and verses; as also into other sections, noting where the lecture of the law began and ended, and the lecture of the Pro­phets answerable to it. Whither the first writers did this, or the Church after them, I wil not dispute; but that thus they might doe, I make no doubt: For God hath left to the discretiō of the Church and Ministers, what quantitie of scripture to read and teach of. And this was the practise in th' Apostles dayes; for it was not possible that every sabbathall the law and prophets should be read over: & the Hebrue letters and marginall notes, are sufficient records of the antiquitie of them. The Churches practise in the books of the Prophets, sheweth us our libertie in the Apostles writings; which cannot be read over at once. And long before Henry Stephens time the Greek copies of the new Testament had chapters and sections though otherweise then we now have. And Matthewes gospel par­ted into 68. chapters or titles, and 355. sections, was in a manner as easie for the readers to serch, as it is now with us; and so the rest.

His second reason is, that th' Apostles in citing scriptures, quote not chapter and verse, but onely say it is written by Zacharie, by Jeremie; the scripture sayth, &c. This reason dependeth on the former, and is there answered, in part. Further I observe, the Apostles speak diversly, sometime naming Act. 13. 47. no book at all; sometime naming the book, as Act. 1. 20 the Psalmes; sometime a part of the book; as Act. 13. 33. the second psalme, and how they particulated matters in their doc­trine, is not set down; the summonely of things is recorded. The argument therfore concluding, thus, it is not written that they quo­ted chapters, therefore they did it not; is not of force, negative­ly. But if if be true which Hilarie an ancient writer Prolog. [...] Psal. expla. recordeth that the seventie Greek interpreters did number and order the Psalmes; and we find that sometimes the Apostles quoted what Psalm in nō ­ber they alleged; it may warrant us such like use of humane labours, for help of our memorie.

His third reason is of like nature, that no mention is made of any hearer that had his book &c. yet mought it be, say I, though it were not mentioned, they used to dispute in their synagogues (after the lec­ture [Page 87] was ended); and that Act. 17. 2 by the scriptures: and the hearers serched vers. 11. the scriptures dayly for trial of doctrine. Who now can say that the hearers had or used no books in the synagogues?

His 4. reason is, that serching quotations hindreth attention, for the mind and affections are distracted from hearing by seeking the places &c. This I grant to be amysse, in all that so use their books; for diligent eare shoud be given to all that is spoken. Howbeit this abuse, may not abolish the lawful use: for as by turning of leaves many hinder thē ­selves in time of hearing; so many againe attentively hearkning, and comparing things spoken with the matters before and after in the chapter, are not hindred at all, but greatly furthered by look­ing on their books. And for this matter, I rest with that rule given by th' Apostle, for all things to be doon unto edification, seemlily, and with order. 1 Cor. 14. 12. 40.

His last reason is, that manuscripts being few, and very dear, (there being yet no printing found out) all could not have or bring their bookes; but there is onely one kind of true aad profitable hearing: eyther all to have bookes and serch or none. If God have left it to the wisdom and discre­tion of his people when and how to use the scriptures, so it be not to confound actions or hinder their good: I wil not bring their libertie into bondage, nor prescribe a law, where God hath given none. Though written copies were dear, yet were they many; & many had them; not all: for all now have not. That such as have not books, or cannot read, should prejudice other that have & can, there is no reason. It is not therefore for us to walk by ex­ample in this case, but by general ground and equitie from Gods law: who permitteth us free use of the scriptures for our edificati­on, according to which if men use them in private or publik, they do well.

Thus am I at an end about the mayn cōtroversie of the scriptures, which for the readers good I have beaten out and explaned, shew­ing the true differences which he handled covertly for his best ad­vantage. Wherein the judicious may discern, how Mr. Sm. hath been up and down, wavering like a reed shaken of the wind; some­times seming to allow translations, sometime bitterly writing a­gainst them: that as easie it is to know Pro. 30. 18. 19. the way of a serpent upon the rock; as the way of a man with his mineon error.

A DEFENCE OF CHRISTS MINISTERIE in the church: against the contradiction of M. Smyth.

VNto the former battel against the scriptures, M. Sm. addeth strife about the ministerie: affirming that the triformed presbyterie (as he calleth it) consisting of three kind of Elders, viz. Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, is none of Gods ordinance, but mans devise; and that lay elders (so cal­led) are antichristian.

That other point, being an idol of his own invention, which he would have had worshiped in our church, I have more largely dealt against: this latter being a thing oft discussed heretofore, and no new thing by him alleged; I wil the more briefly answer.

M. Smyth a while before, both agreed in judgment with us; and wrote Principles &c. in defence of this ministerie which now he oppugneth: but that his first fayth and labours, he retracteth in this book: and si­thence is fallen into further error about the covenant between God and his people. So by degrees he is come to undermine the word, the ministerie, and the covenant of grace, three mayn grounds of Christian religion: to manifest himself one of those which 2 Pet. 2. 1 privily should bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that hath bought them, and bring upon themselves swift damnation.

Touching the Eldership, his assertion is; Dif. p. 22. The presbyterie is uniform consisting of Officers of one sort. Esa. 66. 28. compared with Exod. 28. 1. and Num. 11. 24. 25. 1 Tim. 3. 1—8. Act. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. Ier. 23. 1—4. Ezek. 34. 1—6.

If this opposite would have avouched the contrarie, he mought with farr more reason have alleged these scriptures. For Isa. 66. 21. speaketh of Preists & Levites., which had charge of the sacrifices & sanctuarie: and Num. 11. 24. mentioneth the LXX. elders of Israel, joyned with Moses to ayd him in the government: and which mought not meddle with the sacrifices. And are these fit scriptures to prove Officers of one sort? If he mean no other Uniformitie in the presbyterie, then was between those Elders and the Preists, he fight­eth with his own shadow, not with us: who hold a more strict agree­ment [Page 89] in the Eldership of the church now, then was in that Eldership and preisthood of the law; where one tended to civil causes, the o­ther to ecclesiastical. But I wil come to his Dif. p. 23. reasons, proving the El­ders to be of one sort, viz. al Pastors.

First in the old testament (sayth he) there was but one kind of Priests,1. Reason.who had equal authority to administer al the holy things: excepting the high Priest, who typed forth Christ: so proportionably in the new Testament, there is but one sort of Elders, who succede the Preists in the dispensation of holy things. Esa. 66. 21.

Behold here at first, the falshood of this adversarie: even nowAnswer. he quoted scriptures that spake of Preists, Levites and other Elders; al which were different: and here he taketh one sort onely, Preists, to conclude about the Eldership of the church of Christ. But thus to reason from part of the figure; to the whol thing figured, is mere deceit.

Again, he misseth in his proportion, making al the Elders now, to succeed the Preists then, who had equal authoritie to administer al the holy things. For the prophet speaketh both of Preists and Levites Isa 66▪ 21. which had not equal authoritie in al the holy things, as the law plainly sheweth, Numb. 16. 8. 9. 10. 40. and 18. 2. 3. If now al the Elders be of one sort, & equally administer al the holy things, proportion is not kept with the Priests and Levites of the law as E­saias prophesied.

M. Sm. saw this inconvenience, and therfore pag. 28. afterwards seek­eth thus to shift it off. The Deacons (sayth he) in the new testament are answerable to the Levites in the old; as the Elders ar answerable to their Preists Esa. 66. 21. compared with 1 Chron. 26. 20.

Here agayn he useth his former fallacie, concluding from part of the Levites, unto the whole. And taking one peece of scripture he neglecteth many other vvhich make against him. For as 1 Chron. 26. 20. shevveth that some Levites had charge of the treasures; so 1 Chron. 23. 27. 28. &c. and 25. 1, 2. &c. and 26. 1, 2. &c. & Num. 18▪ & other scriptures many, shevv that othersome vvere assistants to the Preists in the service of the Lords hovvse in al businesses, stād­ing 1 Chr. 23 30. every morning and evening to give thanks and to prayse the Lord: and togither vvith the Preists Neh. 8. 7. 9. did teach & instruct the peo­ple, [Page 90] according to the blessing which Moses pronounced upon the whole tribe, Deut. 33. 9. 10. So that the Levites were Ministers also of the word & prayer, which is directly differing from the Deacons office in the Church now, as appeareth Act. 6. 2. 3. 4.

As in the old Testament there was the sanhedrim which con­sisted2 Reason.of 70. ancients for the administration of the kingdom, which was a type of the visible Church, all which elders in their first institutionNum. 11 25.did prophesie and were of one kind under Moses: so in the new testament under Christ Jesus which is the King of the Church ther is asu [...]drion or eldership consisting of ancients of one kind, who administer for the good of the Church. Rev. 4. 4. & 5. 6.

First here is the same fallacie that we had before, concluding frō Answer. a part to the whol. For in the former, Esaias was cited for Preists and Levites to be figures of our Ministers, and now the Ancients of Israel are alleged for figures also; & because these Anciēts were of one sort, therefore all the Presbyterie figured both by Preists of Le­vi, and by Ancients of other tribes, must be all of one sort. The conclusion is vanitie. Rather the reason should be framed thus, as the teaching Preists were of one sort and the governing El­ders of an other; so the teaching Ministers, and the governing el­ders differ at this day.

Or, taking those Elders politik, to be figures of our Elders eccle­siastik, as M. Sm. maketh them, the true proportion is but this, as governing elders then, so governing elders now, are all of one sort; and this is that which we hold.

Neyther wil his other places Rev. 4. 4. and 5. 6. help him any better. For he seemeth to understand by that vision, the church; and by the 24. elders about the throne, (all which were of one kind) the eldership of the Church: but he should with all have conside­red, that besides those Elders, there were 4. other Rev. 4. 6. 8. winged crea­tures ful of eyes, which incessantly praysed God, and went vers. 9. 10 be­fore the Elders in this action of worship: and these were of the number Rev. 5. 8. 9. 10. of the redeemed by Christ blood, and of the Kings and Preists that reigned on earth; and being as meet to signifie the [Page 91] Teachers of the Church, as the 24. are to signifie the ruling el­ders; wil rather shew a difference between the teachers and gover­nours of the Church; then that they should be of one sort. How beit I rest not in his exposition of those Elders: but that is another point.

Againe (sayth he) if Pastor, Teacher, Elder, had been 3. offices for­mally3. Reason.differing, the Apostle intending to teach the several officers of the church, would have mentioned them, 1 Tim. 3. but there he onely mentioneth Bishops and Deacons, according as Philip. 1. 1. go: Bishops are onely of one sort or kind.

How M. Sm. understandeth this phrase of formally differing, IAnswer. cannot tel; his logik is not like every mans: the speach being well taken, I admit of; and doe deney the consequence of his argument, that if they differ formally they should have been mentioned 1 Tim. 3. for it is as if he should have sayd, if Preists & Levites differ formally, Moses would so have mentioned them, Deut. 33. 8.-10. Nay Moses having mentioned the difference Num. 18 other where; thought it not needful to set it down here; and so dooth th' Apostle. It is a weak ground to conclude against a thing, because it is not written in such or such a chapter.

But the Apostle (sayth he) intendeth to teach the several offices of the Church. Not so; but rather he intendeth to shew, how officers in generall should be qualified; and setting downe things common to all, it had been needlesse repetition to speak of the Pastor first, and the same things of the teacher, and againe the third time, the same of the Elder: he useth no such tautologies. And Timothee needed not to be taught what offices belonged to the Church, though he mought have need to be put in mind of their qualifications. Yet even in the same Epistle, upon other occasions, he mentioneth 1 Tim. 5. 17. the difference of the office, some being to rule wel, some to labour in the word and doctrine. Of which we shall speak anon. And in his other Epistles, the like differences ar playn. Rom. 12. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 28.

Moreover, (sayth he) if th' Apostles had ordeyned three kind4. Reason.of ELDRS Actes. 14. 23. they would have mentioned them [Page 92] with their several kinds of ordinations: but that is not doon: for in one phrase their election and ordination is mentioned: go; their ordination being one, their office is one, and not three.

A reason much like the former, & of like vanitie; for to say, suchAnswer. a thing is not mentioned in such a place, therfore it was not doon; is inconsequent.

And here the minding of his owne words, mought have stayed him from so concluding: for if Luke writing the action, doth in one phrase yea even in one word summ up both the election & the ordi­nation, which yet ar different, and doon with many circumstances: may he not also under the general name Elders, imply differēt sorts. Agayn where the holy Ghost expresseth not any one kind of ordi­nation, nor any one word spoken to the officers, concerning their charge and office layd upon them; which yet no doubt was doon: Who would look for a severall kind of ordination, to be mentioned in such a place?

Further if ther had been 3 kind of Elders at Ephesus, then the Apostle at Miletum would haue given them severall charges as having several du­ties5. Reason.lying upon them: hut th' Apostle Act. 20. 28. giveth them one general charge common to them al, namely the dutie of feeding, the work of the Pastor. go, they are all Pastors.

These reasons be al of a sute: and the prayer of David seemeth to have prevailed against this man, for Psal. 58. 7 when he shooteth arrowes, theyAnswer. ar as broken: or like unto strawes.

First, we cannot say what several charges Paul gaue those Elders; se­ing all his words in particular are hot recorded. For there is no doubt, but he spake many moe words, then are set downe: and it is usuall in the scriptures, to summ up mens speeches.

Secondly suppose he gave no several charges, but one general com­mon to them all, which was vers. 28. Poimainein to feed and govern the flock: yet wil not this prove that they had all one undistinct office: any more then that Peter had no other then a common Pastours office, [Page 93] because Christ gave him but a general charge common to al Pastors Ioh. 21. 16. poimaine, feed my sheep.

The Preists and Levites had distinct offices, as before is manifested: yet Hezekiah speaking to them al generally, (as Paul dooth here to the Elders,) gives them not several charges, according to their se­verall duties, but useth one common exhortation to them al: which if one would pervert, (as this man dooth Pauls speech,) he mought plead that all the Levits then were properly to burn incense, as that al the Elders now should properly do the Pastors dutie. See 2 Chro. 29. 4. 5.—11.

The conclusion which he maketh that therefore al are Pastors, if he mean it in the strict sense, is deneyed, as inconsequent. If in the large sense, it is from the question, and deceiveth by ambiguitie: for Christ is a Ioh. 10. Pastor, the Apostles-were Joh. 21. Pastors, and so are all Bishops & governours generally: yet no man I think doubteth but these do differ.

Besides. Eph. 4. 11. Pastors and Teachers are all one office. For wheras6. Reason.the Apostle had spoken distributively before of Apostles Prophets, Evange­lists as intending them several offices: he speaketh copulatively of Pastors and Teachers, exegetically teaching that they are both one office.

First, let it be observed, how himselfe doth say, Apostles, Prophets Answer. Evengelists were several offices; yet can he not deny, but generally they were to poimaeinein, that is doe the dutie of Pastors, feeding and governing the Church of Christ: & so his former exception against Act. 20. is found of no weight. Also his reasons from I­sa. 66. 21. & Numbers 11. 25. for one sort of officers to be figured in the law, are of as little valew; unlesse we should think that the principal officers of the Christian Church, were not figured or pro­phesied of at all.

Secondly the exposition which he giveth of Ephes. 4. 11. is against the Apostles purpose, who distinctly and distributively [Page 94] setteth down the divers gifts and offices of the church: and therfore cānot be thought to expresse one & the same office by two names. For though he speak copulatively, pastors and teachers, yet is ther no rea­son why these should be taken for one, seeing this word and, coup­leth divers things & divers officers; as Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2. 20, and 3, 5. Apostles and Elders Act. 15, 2. Prophets & Teachers, Act 13, 1. and a thowsand the like. Neither needed he teach exegetically, by way of exposition what the pastors office is; seeing it was as wel, if not better known, then the Prophets office or Evangelists: ney­ther is it an exposition, when the latter is as dark and more then the former; and the first more proper then the second. For the pro­per name of the office, as M. Sm. takes it, is Pastor: now to say Pas­tors that is teachers, were to explayn the proper by the unproper, or commune name, which neither Paul nor any wise writer useth to doe.

But is ignorance or a worse thing that causeth M. Sm. to pervert so plain a place. The Apostle particulating the several offices some Apostles, some Prophets &c. doth in the last branch according to the elegancie both of the Hebrue and Greek tongues, omitt the word some, putting and in the sted, in the very same meaning. An example of the Bebrue may be seen Hos. 3. 4. where the Pro­phet telleth how Israel should remayn without King, and without Prince, and without offring, and without statue, and without Ephod, and Teraphim: meaning and without Teraphim. Here in the last place the word without, is omitted, and to be understood of the reader, as our English translation dooth expresse; for it were trifling to say as Mr. Smyth, that the two last are one, because and coupleth them, or that exegetically one expoundeth an other, when as it is but an elegancie in the language: as al that have skil in it can tel.

The like is in the Greek tongue, and in Pauls own writing▪ Gal. 3. 28. There is neither Jew (sayth he) nor Greek; there is nei­ther bond nor free: there is neither male and female: that is nor female▪ where and coupleth in the last place, male and female, not as of one kind but divers; and meaneth the same that nor did before.

[Page 95]The very like phrase and elegancie useth he here, Eph. 4. 11. as any that favoureth the language and purpose of the Apostle, may perceive. and this is plainly confirmed by the Syriak, which speak­eth of the two last as of the former, saying, and some Pastors and some Teachers. It is also manifested by Paul himself elswher distinguishing these two offices, as 1 Cor. 12, 8. to one is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge: and Rom. 12. 7. 8. or he that teach­eth on teaching, or he that exhorteth on exhortation. And if in one place he putteth a difference; we should not think that in another he takes it away. And there is no playn doctrine set down in scripture, but may be corrupted by such violent expositions as Mr. Smyth mak­eth of this place.

Lastly (sayth he) if al the Elders have the pastors gifts, and the works7. Reason.of the pastor, and the pastors ordination, then they have al the pastors office. But al the Elders have the pastors gifts viz. the word of wisdome or the gift of exhortation, Tit. 1. 9. and therefore the pastors work, as Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. which is feeding or exhorting: and so the same ordination. Act. 14. 23. Therfore al the Elders have the same office of the Pastor, and so are al of one sort.

The second part of this reason is deceitful; for though in someAnswer. sort and common mesure al the Elders have the pastors gifts, & or­dination, and doe the pastors work; being al Bishops, that is, careful lookers to, and feeders of the flock: yet in special manner & mea­sure they differ in al. Otherweise, we may also confound other offices: as Apostles and Evangelists, the Evangelists and the Pastors. For Paul an Apostle sayth of Timothee an Evangelist, 1 Cor. 16. 10. he work­eth the work of the Lord, even as I. Had these two therfore one office? Agayn, Timothee and Titus Evangelists, and the other pas­tors of the churches, had the same gifts, namely the word of wis­dom to exhort, 1 Tim. 6, 2. Tit. 2, 15. with Rom. 12, 8. and there­fore the same work, (as these scriptures alleged shew;) and the same ordination by imposition of hands of the Apostle and Eldership 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. with Act. 14. 23. Wil M. Sm. hereupon conclude, therfore al pastors have the same office with the Evangelists? If he acknovvledge an error in that, so may he doe in this. [Page 96] For it is the special excellencie of the gifts of exhorting, teaching, ruling, which causeth the pastors, teachers, rulers, to be designed un­to several works and offices. For it were vanitie to suppose, that the teachers mought be without the word of wisdom at all, or Pastors without the word of knowledge, or rulers without both. E­verie Levites lips were to preserve knovvledge, for the people to seek the lavv at his mouth, as at the preists; Deut. 33. 8. 10. Mal. 2. 7. yet vvas ther difference in the office So in Christs Church vvhere gifts are bestovved in varietie, he that excelleth in the vvord of vvis­dome and exhortation more then doctrine, is (being lavvfully caled thereto, a pastor; and he that excelleth in doctrine more then in exhortation, is a teacher: and they that excel other brethren in discretion gravitie &c. though they have not meet gifts for pastors or teachers, are (being caled thereunto) Elders or governours, to assist the other in guiding the vvayes of the church. And needful are they unto the same, for one man may vvel teach an hundred, but tvvo men vvil scarse govern half so many in peace and order: so great a difference there is, betvveen the knovvledge of the truth, and the due vvalking and practise of the same.

Whereas therfore M. S. gives al the Elders, the word of wisdome, and so the pastors office; meaning strictly and properly: he contra­ryeth the Apostle vvho sayth, 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. there are diversities of gifts; and to one is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge; and agayn speaking of office, he mentioneth Rom. 12. 7. 8. distinctly teaching, & exhorting, & ruling, not in one person but in sundry. Although sometime speak­ing of the Eldership in general, he ascribeth the same vvork in gene­ral thereto, as in Tit. 1. Act. 20. and other like places. Of the or­dination Act. 14. vve spake before.

Novv after al these reasons, M. Sm. thus concludeth. Hence this con [...]ectorie (sayth he) ariseth: that the Eldership consisting of three sorts of Elders, is the invention of man, having both an antichristian ministerie and goverment in it. And therfore when the popish prelacie was supprest, and the triformed presbyterie substituted, one antichrist was put down, and another was set up in his place. &c. vvith other like contumelies.

But the falshood and vanitie of his reasons having been manifes­ted, al these reproches do turn into his ovvn bosome, and in him is [Page 97] fulfilled the word of the Prophet, Jsa. 57. 12▪ whiles like the raging sea, he thus casteth up mire and dirt. For God having given to his church 1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6. diversities of giftes, diversities of administratiōs (or offices,) and diversities of operations, some for to Rom. 12. 6▪ 7. 8. teach, some to exhort, some for to rule; and having evidently distinguished between 1 Cor. 12. 28. Teachers, and Governours; between those Elders that 1 Tim. 5. 17 rule wel, and those that labour in the word & doctrine: it must needs be the spirit of Antichrist and of Satan, that thus despiteth Christs holy ordinances, which this adversarie himself sometime acknowledged and walked in; and now hath for­saken, without ground of truth. But he hath more yet to say, in answering the obiections for 3. sorts of Elders: which he thus pag. 24. layeth down.

The first objection.

1 Tim. 5. 17. In this place the Apostle maketh two sorts of Elders, 1. those that rule onely, 2. and those that teach and rule. And Ephe. 4. 11. he maketh 2. kindes of those that teach, Pastors and Doctors. There­fore there are 3. kindes of Elders formally differing each from other.

Mr Smythes answer.

The Apostle to Timothee teacheth that Elders are to be honoured for 2. workes, wel ruling and laborious or painful teaching: and the place dooth not import a distribution of Officers, but a commendation of several workes of one office: and the specialty consisteth not in the workes of ruling & teaching which are common to all Elders; but in the qualitie of the works, viz. wel ruling, and painful teaching, as if th' Apostle should say. Elders are to be had in double ho­nour for wise government, but much more are they to be honoured for their la­borious and painful teaching.


If emptie words mought cary away matters, it were woe with the truth of religion, for ech spirit of error would bear it down. A doctrin most playn, set forth in evident words; is here turned aside, with a deceitful glosse, contrary to the tenour of the text.

Two several works he acknowledgeth ruling and teaching: yet two several men for these workes he wil not admit of. But had he learned [Page 98] the Apostles word, 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient for these things? he mought have seen a reason of the counsel of God, in adding helps to the teachers of the word. For if the Apostles those excellent master buil­ders, had need of supply, for want of sufficiencie; how much more need have wee weaklings? It is Gods usual administration in his church, for several works to appoint several persons: so to Moses he committed Ex. 18. 16 &c. the goverment political, to Exo. 28. 1 Aaron the ecclesiasti­cal. To Moses he adjoyned Num. 11. 14. 16. 70. ancients of Israel; besides the Ex. 18. 25 or­dinarie inferiour governours: to Aaron he Num. 18. 2. 6, gave for a gift the whole tribe of Levi. The Levites had also their special distributions, 1 Chr. 23. & 25. & 26. chap, some helping the Preists in sacrificing &c. some tending to song and mu­sik, some warding the Tabernacle, some looking to the treasures: al joyntly the Ministers and teachers of the church. Deut. 10, 8. & 33. 10.

Christ also providing for the good of his church, as he hath 1 Cor. 12. 6. di­versities of operations or effects to work in the same, so hath he given ver. 4. diversities of gifts, and these to v. 8. 9. 10. diverse persons, and also with ver. 5. di­versities of ministeries or offices, Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 29. some to teach, some to exhort, some to distribute, some to rvle; that that gift which is dimm in one man, may shine clear in an other, and the church have the use and bene­fit of al. Now comes M. Sm. and he not being able to deney the diversities of works and operations required in the church: yet da­reth deney the diversities of offices, and wil have one man in one li­mited office of the Pastor, to do al that perteyneth to exhorting, teaching, and governing of the church: though the scriptures doe so plainly distinguish. And if men excelling in the gift of exhorta­tion, be chosen to attend unto that ministration or office of exhor­ting; and others excelling in the gift of teaching, others in govern­ing, be chosen to execute their gifts in the teachers and governours offices; this he exclaymeth to be Antichristian: for one office he thinks must doe al.

To this end wresteth he these words of Paul 1 Tim. 5. 17. The Elders that rule wel, are worthy double honour: specially they that labour in the word & doc­trine. The specialtie sayth M. S. consisteth not in the works of ruling & teaching, but in the qualitie of the works, viz, wel ruling & fupainll [Page 99] teaching. I deney this violent construction: and affirm the specially here added of Paul, to respect a special distinct person in and for his work: as may thus be manifested. The Apostle treateth of honour, and unto whom it belongeth. 2 Tim. 5. 3 Honour widowes (sayth he) which are widowes in deed. Give ver. 17. double honour to the Elders that rule wel: speciallie to them that labour in the word. As honour & double honour, respecteth several persons in their several estates and imployments; so double honour and special double honour, respecteth several persons in and for their several works and imployments; some ruling wel, other­some labouring in the word. Thus the scripture is plain. But M. S. will have the specialtie to consist in the qualitie of the work, viz, wel ruling and painful teaching, As if Paul would have double honour given to them that rule and teach, but specially if they rule wel & teach painfully. But thus he neither speaketh nor meaneth. For al rule is either wel or yll: but ill rule deserves no honour, therfore it were unmeet to appoint double honour in this respect, where ver. 20. open rebuke rather is due, and where losse and dammage followeth, because the work must burn. 1 Cor. 3. 14. 15. But take it as the Apostle speaks and intends, widowes indeed are to have honour: the wel ruling Elders are to have double honour, thus it is meet, and the meaning evident. Now the specialtie cometh after wel ruling, and respecteth an other work, labouring in the word: where the former word wel is again to be understood. For false teachers laboured in the word, to seduce and deceiv: such were to have no special double honour, but their Tit, 1. 11. mouths stopped, and to be 2 Tim. 3. 5. 6. turned away from, though they creep into howses, though they use Rō. 16. 18 fair speech and flattering, though they take such pains, as they Mat, 23, 18. compasse sea and land to make one of their profession.

Again, the word labouring makes not the specialtie: as M. Smyth interpreteth it, painful teaching; for labour is a common dutie lying upon al church officers, whose office is not in i­dlenes. None can rule wel but with labour: none can teach well but with labour: and therefore PAVL useth this word of all the officers, 1 Cor. 16. 16. So the specialty here is not for labour simply, but for labour in the word & doctrine, [Page 100] which some Elders did; differing from labour in government, which othersome did, as is evidēt both by this & other scriptures, as 1 Cor. 12. 28. thirdly teachers; after that governours: and Rom. 12. 7. 8. he that teacheth on teaching: he that ruleth with diligence.

Thus several men were imployed in these several labours or works, and in respect of the persons imployed, is the word specially added, and purposly put between rulers & teachers, as if the Apos­tle should say, they that labour in ruling are worthy of double ho­nor, specially they that labour in teaching. And that this is Pauls mind his plain words shew, when he sayth, they that rule, and they that labour: where this word, they, leadeth to diverse persons; as in other scriptures, Ioh. s. 29. they that have doon good, and they that have doon evil; 1 Cor. 7. 30. they that weep and they that rejoyce; and innumera­ble such speeches. Agayn the word specially being put between them that rule, and them that labour, confirmeth this yet more: for it in­creaseth the distinction: as when Paul in the same Epistle sayth, God is 1 Tim. 4. 10. the saviour of al men, specially of the faithful: the word specially dis­tinguisheth the faythful from other common men of the world, who have not fayth in God, and yet are saved or preserved by him, that is the preserver of al his creatures, and saveth Psa. 36. 6. man and beast. So to Titus he sayth, Tit. 1. 10. there are many deceivers of minds, specially they of the circumcision; where the word specially distinguisheth those of the circumcision from other deceivers; and meaneth not the same, but different persons. And if here we take it not so for several persons (where wel ruling is first set down, and specially comes after, for such as labour in the word and doctrine:) we overthrow the force and grace of Pauls gradation, or stepping to his specialty. And if he had meant as M. S. takes it, for the qualitie of the works, doon by the same per­sons: it should be as otherwhere Paul writeth, they that▪labour Rom. 16. 6. 12. much or labour 1 Cor. 15. 10. more then the rest: but he speaks not so here.

M. S. expounding the place of the same persons to be honoured for wise government, but much more for their painful teaching: confirmeth not his doctrine by any circumstances of this scripture, but citeth others saying,


That this is so see Tit. 1. 9. and 1 Thes. 5. 2. 1 3. with 1 Tim. 3. 1. 4.

[Page 101]In Timothee the Apostle sayth every Bishop must be didacticos, and proistamenos: and therefore that some Elders are onely didacticoi, and not pro­istamenoi, is contrarie to the Apostles intent. Further in Titus, the Apostle expoundeth didacticos to be able to exhort with wholsom doctrine, and to con­vince the gainsayers: how then shal some of the Elders be rulers onely?


That al Bishops must be didacticoi, that is, apt and ready for to teach, reprove &c. I grant: yet that they must therfore hav al one of­fice Ideney. For Apost. prophets, Evangelists, &c. were al didacticoi, yet differed in office. But how then shal some of the Elders be rulers one­ly? I answer, even Ruling Elders are to be didacticoi, and yet have the office of ruling onely. For every one set over others to teach or in­form them in faith or māners, must have aptnes to teach the things perteyning to their office, and convince the contrarie: or els they are unfit for the place.

But have they not then the teachers office? No, for this aptnes to teach is common to al offices of government, but in several sorts, according to every mans function. For example, an Apostle must be apt to teach as an Apostle: and though a man have aptnes to teach as a pastor, yet hath he not therefore aptnes as an Apostle. For the office is greater, and requireth greater gifts. So a ruling Elder must be apt to teach as a ruler: yet hath he not therfore aptnes to teach as a pastor, in whom greater skil is required.

Let us see this in Israel▪ Aptnes to teach was to be in al the Go­vernours: in the whole tribe of Levi generally, Deut. 33. 10. in the preists of Levi more specially, Mal. 2. 7. Deut. 24. 8. in the judges of Israel also according to their office, Deut. 1, 13, 16. with Exod. 18. 15, 16, 21, 22. For this cause God gave the 70. Elders, the spirit of prophesie, Num. 11. 17. 25. And in the reformation by K. Iehosha­phat, we find not onely preists and Levites, but other Princes of the king, sent for to teach the people, 2 Chr. 17, 7, 8. 9. These al were di­dacticoi, apt to teach, but in several respects, and measures, and in se­veral offices.

Otherweise if one wil understand aptnes to teach, strictly as in the pastors office: then are Pauls words to be taken figuratively Synechdo­che. the whol for a part, or general for a particular: as a Bishop, that is a [Page 102] teac [...]hing Bishop, must be didacticos. And thus the scripture som­ [...]me speaketh; as Deut. 33. 8. 10. of the whol tribe of Levi, it is sayd they shal teach; they shall put incense &c. when as, though al were to teach, yet all were not to burn incense but the Luk. 1. 9. Nū. 16. 40 Preists onely; Also in Deut. 10. 8. of the Tribe of Levi in general, it is sayd, God separated them, to bear the ark, to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, and to blesse in his name. Yet were there special things about Nū. 6. 23 blessing, Deut. 31. [...]. bearing the ark, and other ministration, which belonged to the Preists of the Levits in particular. Even so Paul writing to Timo­thee and Titus, of the Eldership in general, may note some things, which more specially perteyn to some onely in particular.

Touching the word Proistamenos; Provost or Ruler; although I wil not deney but every Elder may be so called in a large sense: yet specially it is the title of Ruling Elders onely. And it is an oversight in M. Smyth to write that th'Apostle sayth, Every Bishop must be proi­stamenos: for that word hath relation to the 1 Tim. 3. 4. ruling of his owne howse, which every Bishop must be able wel to do; but in re­lation to the Church, the governing elders onely 1 Tim. 5. 17. are called pro­istamenoi; and it is their Rom. 12. 8. peculiar titie, even as Pastors and Teachers are peculiar titles to others, and the name BISHOP and ELDER, Philip. 1. 1 Act, 20. common to them all.

In the last place M. Sm. repeateth his former reason from Ephes. 4. how the Apostle sayth not some Pastors, some Teachers, but Pastors & Teachers copulatively. But that is before answer­ed, and the playne meaning of Paul manifested, to be, some Pas­tors and some Teachers, as the ancient Syriak speaketh, and o­ther reasons from that and the like scriptures do confirm.

The 2, obiection.

1 Cor. 12. 5. 8. 28. The Apostle sayth, ther are diversities of ministeries namely one that hath the word of wisdom, another that hath the word [Page 103] of knowledge, another that hath government, vers. 28. Therefore the Eldership consisteth of three sort of Elders. &c.

Mr Smythes answer.

First it is granted that there are diversities of ministeries, as Ephe. 4. 11. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 8. Phil. 1. 1. namely Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Deacons. Yet it foloweth not hereupon, that elders are of divers sorts, as is pleaded. see vers. 28.

Agayn the word diaconia, signifyeth sometime any spiritual work procee­ding from any member or officer of the Church, as 2 Cor. 8. 4. almes is cal­ed diaconia, 1 Pet. 4. 10. diaconein signifieth any work that proceedeth from any gift. So it may signify here: and all the works that follow almost: may be referred thither. Onely there are certaine energemata mentioned in vers. 10.


I perceive though the light shineth in darknes, yet Ioh. 1. 5. the darknes comprehendeth it not: especially when men doe Mat. 13. 15. wink with their eyes, least they should see. The sun shineth not clearer at noon, then the truth shineth out of this scripture, with M. S. seeks to dar­ken with a clowd of deceit. The Apostle teacheth, first that 1 Cor. 12. 4. one and the same spirit of God, bestoweth on the Church diversities of gifts; to vers. 8. one the word of wisdome, to another the word of know­ledge, &c. Secondly, that vers. 5. one and the same Lord, (Iesus 1 Cor. 8. 6 Christ) giveth to his Church, diversities of ministeries or offices, that so the divers gifts may be ministred to the people, Rom. 12. 7▪ 8. doctrine by the tea­cher; exhortation by the exhorter or pastor; government by the ruler &c. Thirdly that one and the same God (the 1 Cor. 8. 6 father of whom are all things) 1 Cor. 12. 6. worketh or effecteth diversities of effects or operations in the Church, by those divers gifts, and divers ministe­ries. For example; as Christ is given for Act. 3. 22. Prophet Heb. 9. 11 Preist and Rev. 19. 16. King of the Church; a Prophet to work upon the knowledge of men, that they may discern syn and righteousnes: a Preist to work upon the will and affections, killing them as sacrifices, Rō. 12. 1. 2. that a new and reasonable creature may be given up to GOD; [Page 104] asking, that the things taught by prophesie; and applied by preist­hood, may be orderly practised in life, preserved from 1 Cor. 15. 25. all adverse power, and in the end perfected: even so in his Church (besides extraordinarie miraculous Ministeries of Apostles, Prophets, Evan­gelists, Tongues, giftes of healing and the like, which were but for a time,) he hath set ordinarie permanent Ministeries to the worlds end; of Eph. 4. 11 teachers that by the 1 Cor. 12. 8. Rom. 12 7. word of knowledge should teach & inform the minds of men; of Eph. 4. 11 Pastors, that by the 1 Cor. 12. 8. Rom. 12 8. word of wis­dome should exhort and apply the truth vnto the conscience and hart of men; and of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Governours, that by Rom. 12. 8 1 Tim. 5. 17 diligent rule, should look unto the practise and walking of men, & conserve the church in order and peace. Thus God effecteth divers effects by the di­vers Ministeries in his Church, as the Apostle teacheth.

Now though in the enumeration of the Ministeries, Teachers & Governours 1 Cor. 12. 28. are evidently distinguished, as thirdly teachers, after that, governours; and elswhere as plainly distinct in their administra­tions, as 1 Tim. 5. 17. the Elders that rule well, & they that labour in the word and doctrine: and againe, Rom. 12. 7. 8. he that teacheth on teaching: he that ruleth, with diligence: yet Mr Sm. would darken all this light, with this dimm answer, it folowes not hereupon that elders are of divers sorts: see verse 28. as if he should say, though th'Apostle plainly speaks it, yet do not you beleeve him.

So though Paul expresseth the office of Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. which M. S. wil hav to be the exegesis that is the expositiō of the word Pastors Ephe. 4. 11. and so must needs be the proper and plaine name of the office: yet in his book where he pleads for the abomi­nation of Anabaptisme, he thus proclaimeth, among other chal­lenges, Charact. of the beast. in the epist. Loe. we protest against them, to have a false Ministerie of Do­ctors or Teachers: as if he would have the world to take notice, that he meaneth to warr against heaven.

With like grace striveth he against the word Diaconia, Ministe­rie, (which the Apostle useth, 1 Cor. 12. 5.) saying that it signifyeth sometime any spirituall work &c. and, so it may signifie here. But if such shifting & winding may be admitted, we shal have no truth so plain, but may be oppugned: yea Iudaisme and Atheisme may be maintey­ned. [Page 105] For we allege against Iewes to prove the death of Christ how the Angel prophesied Messiah shalbe slayn Dan. 9. 26. I, sayth the Iew, but Messiah somtime signifieth any one that is anoynted; Preist or King; & so may it here be meant of any anointed governor, & not of him that is properly the Messiah. Tel an Atheist that Gen. 1. 1. God made heaven and earth; and he may answer that Aelohim God is somtime vsed to signify Angels, Psal. 8. 5. with Heb. 2. 7. sometime to signify Ma­gistrates, Psal. 82. 1. 6. and therfore he beleevs not any such God properly, as we professe. Thus every truth, upon a diverse use of the word, may be turnd away.

But sheweth Mr. Sm. any reason, why diaconia should so signi­fie here? none at all: but sayth, so it may be, and telleth of certayn e­nergemata mentioned vers. 10. which is as much to the edifying of the reader, as if he had told him there are certayn giants Num. 13. 29. of the sons of Anak, with whom it is not safe to meddle.

He should not thus trouble the reader with clowds; the truth is cleare and playn. For diaconia is the most proper fit word that the Apostle could possibly use; it being the ordinarie word used for ministerie of every kind; as the ministerie or office of the Apostleship, Rom. 11. 13. 1 Tim. 1. 12, the ministerie of the Evangelists, 2 Tim. 4. 5. the ministerie of Pastors or Teachers, Col. 4. 17. the Ministe­rie of Rulers, and ministerie of Deacons, Rom. 12. 7. 8. Act. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 12. 13. So Diaconos is everie minister, and Diaconia e­verie ministerie or administration of what sort soever. Now Paul here spake 1 Cor. 12. 4. before of divers gifts to be administred; and vers. 6. after of divers effects or operations of the gifts being administred; & between vers. 5. booth mentioneth diversities (diaconioon) of ministeries or offices wherby those gifts should be administred and manifested in the Church, that they might be effectual: which what can they be, but the offices or mi­nisteries committed to men and executed by them for this end? Even as immediately foloweth vers. 7. the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withall. And after by a similitude of vers. 12. &c. the bo­dy, and members, applied vers. 27. 28. to the Church and officers, he con­firmeth the same. But though the wisdom of God Prov. 1. 23. powreth out her mind unto us, and maketh us to understand her words: yet some men vers. 30. wil none of her counsel, they dispise all her correction.

The 3 Objection.

The Apostle Rom. 12. 6. 8. maketh an opposition between prophesie and an office and maketh five kinds of officers, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, Dea­cons, Widowes.

M. S. Answer.

That is denyed to be the true resolution of the place &c. for although there be five several actions repeted, yet doth it not follow that there are five several officers to perform those actions: for one person may perform them al, and yet be no officer, viz. teach, exhort, rule, distribute, shew mercy. 1 Cor. 14. 3. 26. 31. Rom. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 5. 5.


Behemoth is so big that he Iob. 40. 10. 18. trusteth to draw up Iarden into his mouth; but no beast (I trow) weeneth that he can drink up all the waters of the sea. Korah thought so wel of his Num, 16. 1. 3. 10. holynes and abilitie, that though he were but an ordinarie Levite, he could doe the Preists office also: but I never heard of man til now, that could perform al the actions that are to be doon in a church. The Apostles could not Act. 6. 2 3, 4. tend to two offices therein at once, but got others to doe one; & notwithstanding complayned of their inabilitie in that, saying 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient for these things? And may one person now per­form al actions? needs must the works become much more easie; or the person that dooth them, much more mightie, then any that lived in the Apostles time. How ever it may be in distresse and ex­tremitie, that one man may do som things one after another, about al these actions, yet perform them he cannot. And who but one strik­en Deut. 28. 28. 29. with madnes and blindnes and astonying of hart, (as Moses did pro­phesie) to grope at noon day, as the blind gropeth in darknes, could read this scripture Rom. 12. and the other places cited, & gather such a doc­trine from them? The Apostles purpose in Rom. 12. is to perswade unto vertue, among vertues specially to ver. 3. sobrietie or modestie, which bewtifieth al good actions. Hereunto he perswadeth by this, that e­very man hath but his part and mesure from God, & one hath not al. This he confirmeth by the similitude of the ver. 4. body, whose mem­bers have not al one office or action, but many: ver. 5. so is it with the church; for God hath given ver. 6. divers gifts unto the many members or per­sons of the same; some have simplie the gift of prophesie, which they [Page 107] may use to the edifying of the church, some have an ver, 7. office or mini­sterie also whereunto they are appointed and must attend. Some are Teachers, ver. 8. some Exhorters, some Distributers, some Rulers, some shewers of mercy. Every one of these must look to the administration and dispensation of his gift, in sobrietie, according to the measure and vocation that he hath from God, for the good of the whole body of the church.

The like doctrine is taught again, 1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 8—12. &c. Now let him that readeth consider, whither M. Sm, doctrine that one per­son may perform al these, be not as directly opposite to the Apostles meaning and scope, as darknes to light? But he hath yet more to an­swer.


Agayn the distributive particle Eite fowre times repeted, in pro­phesie, diaconia, exhorting, and teaching, importeth thus much: that the A­postles intention is not to subordinate teaching and exhorting to diaconia, but to oppose ech of these 4. particulars to other, as thus: Prophesie is the manifesta­tion of a gift, 1 Cor. 14. 3. Diaconia is the office, & there are divers kinds ther­of 1 Cor. 12. 5. Teaching is one action or work of the prophets or officers 1 Cor. 14. 26. Exhorting is another action or work of them. 1 Cor. 14. 3. Hence it foloweth that teaching & exhorting are aswel subordinate to prophesie as to di­aconia.


Thorns and snares (sayth Pro. 22. [...] Solomon) are in the way of the froward: that find we here. For to trouble and intangle the simple reader, al shifts are sought out, least truth should prevaile. First the objection was of M. Smyths own contriveing, as he liked best to answer: otherweise he could not (I suppose) be ignorant, that most learned men of these times, (so far as I have seen) though they detest his error, do grant his conclusion. But he concludes not the question, namely that 1. Teaching, 2. Exhorting, 3. distributing, 4. ruling, 5. shewing mer­cy, are al to be performed in the church by one person: or that Paul intends any such thing here. I have before shewed the contrarie.

But I wil labour to break his snare, that the simple fal not therin. diaconia he rightly interpreteth Office, and sayth, there are diverse kinds thereof: citing 1 Cor. 12. 5. Let this be compared [Page 108] compared with his answer before to the second objection: where he pleaded that diaconia in 1 Cor. 12. 5. mought signifie a work. There he set himself to cavil against the truth, here unawares he granteth it. Wel, seing diaconia here is an office; and there be offices divers: let us proceed. Teaching (sayth he) is one work of the prophets or Officers; ex­horting is an other work of them. Of them, I grant; for they are divers: but is it of him, that is of one and the same officer? is ther any word or title that intimateth this? none at al, but the contrarie: for as the Apostle mentioneth divers works, teaching exhorting &c. so mentio­neth he divers persons, the teacher, the exhorter, the distributer, the ruler. Neyther doth he say, let him that teacheth, teach, & exhort, & distri­bute, and rule, as if one man should do al: but, let him that teach­eth teach, let him that exhorteth exhort. As if he should speak of the members of the body (which similitude he used) let that which seeth, see circumspectiv: let that which heareth, hear attentively; let that which speaketh, speak warily &c. Would any reasonable man think, that one member must doe al these actions, that the eye be­cause it seeth, it also must hear, and speak: and not understand this of the three several members, the eye, ear, and tongue? Even so un­reasonable is the collection, that Paul should mean one person to do those several actions.

But M. S. striving about the particle eite, which signifieth whither & or, & applying it to the 4. particulars; maketh the two last to be teach­ing & exhorting: wherein he useth deceit for advantage. For he put­teth the action for the actor that doth it. The Apostle sayth, or he that teacheth, or he that exhorteth, so noting two persons: M. Sm. sayth or teaching, or exhorting, so noting two actions. Thus he intending to have many actions doon by one person, wresteth the scripture, and maketh it speak after his own fansie.

This being observed, his pleading about Eite wil be little worth, for the Apostle by it, dis joyneth things thus. Rō. 12. 6. Gifts ye have divers, which gifts ye use and manifest, either by prophesie (which 1 Cor. 14. 1. 31, any pri­vate person in the church may doe, even as al other like gifts, of vers. 26. tongues, interpretations, Psalmes and the like:) or by ministerie that is by office and charge layd upon you, which as it 1 Cor. 12. 5. is divers, so every one must Act. 6. 3. 4. attend unto, and look that he Col. 4. 17. fulfil the same

[Page 109]Thus is here a ful and perfect distribution of al the gifts that are in the church, by the two general sorts of persons, or subjects that have them: 1. private brethren, or 2. publik officers.

This first division being perfect: that which followeth is an under division, or an other division, not of the gifts, but of the per­sons that have the gifts: which are five, 1. Teachers, 2. Ex­horters, 3. Distributers, 4. Rulers, 5. Shewers of mercie. The two first whereof have the signe of disjunction or before thē, in the other it is to be understood: for such defect is cōmon. Now al these persons are to be referred, eyther to the former 1. prophesie, or 2. ministerie, that is office: or both. But seing no scripture, that I know of, speaketh of distribution, or Ruling, or Shewing mercie, under the name of prophesie: therefore I refer them to the latter word Office or Ministerie, to which they al agree. Teaching and exhorting I grant are doon in 1 Cor. 14. 3 prophesie, by private brethren: but that they are more specially doon in 1 Tim. 5. 17. ministerie by publik officers, none I think wil deney. And that here Paul re­ferrs them to ministerie, seemeth to me most evident: for pro­phesie was limited by him, Rō, 12. 6. according to the proportion of fayth: so that if any brother in prophesying, kept unto the proportion of fayth he did yenough: but an officer must not onely do this, but must also attend vnto the continual doing of it, 2 Tim. 4. 2 in season, out of season, Act. 20. 20. privatly, publikly, and therfore must 1 Tim. 4. 15, 16. give himself here­unto; whereas a private brother followeth other vocation, and speaketh but 1 Cor. 14. 30. when he seeth occasion. For this cause, Paul sayth here, Rom. 12. 7 an office should be in the office, or ministerie in the ministration: meaning that it should be waited upon, and exe­cuted in sobrietie. And then comming to the Teacher and Ex­horter, he useth like speech, in doctrine & in exhortation, meaning that they should give themselves to these works, and execute them with modestie. So the officers, rather then the private brethren (upon whom no such burden is layd) seem here to be intended by tea­cher & exhorter, and so consequently diverse officers, as there be divers actions for them to perform, and have diverse gifts of God for the same end.

But M. S. continueth his answer thus.

Further if Diaconia be the genus to these 5. species folowing, then I say Answer. that Diaconia signifieth not an office, but a work: and of workes there are those 5. kindes. That diaconia doth sometime signify a work is plaine. 2 Cor. 8. 4. 1 Pet. 4. 10. Lastly, the Apostle that knew how to speak would never have made teaching and exhortation members distributive with pro­phesie and diaconia, if he had intended to make them species subordinate to di­aconia: therfore questionlesse that is not his intention.

Rather then he wil yeeld to the truth, he seeks every corner of er­ror:Replie. and now the diverse use of the word diaconia must agayne be urged, against the proper meaning of the same, against the e­vident light of this scripture, & against the mans own former inter­pretation. And sure he is used to rough wayes and words, that sayth it is playne, diaconia signifies a work: the scriptures that he quo­teth shew it not. The word signifieth ministerie or office, and mini­stration or service doon unto any other: but work is an unproper interpretation. Let linguists judge. Nay let M. S. himself judge, if he wilbe tried by himself; for in his book against M. Bernard (written after this) he hath this proposition; Parallel. pag. 93. The true ministerie hath a true office, in execution wherof it is exercised; Rom. 12. 7. 1. Cor. 12. 5. 28 Eph. 4. 11. I would gladly know how M. Sm. wil prove his asler­tion from these scriptures, if diaconia do not signify an office in this place. But it is Gods special judgement against haeretiks, that they should beTitus 3. 11. autocatacrit [...]i, condemned of themselves. Yet were it translated work, what would it help him? Of workes there are 5. kindes sayth he. Who denyes it? but are there not also as many kind of workers? let this be disproved: otherweise to strive for the former, is to fight with his shadow.

The Apostle (we doubt not) knew wel how to speak; and therefore spake not as M. S. feighneth, of teaching & exhortation as distributive members; but of the teacher and exhorter. And all men know that an office and officer have fit reference each to other; so ministerie be­ing mentioned in generall, the several ministers ar fitly next named. But of this point I spake before.

The 4. objection

The Apostle by the commandement of Christ; writeth to the Angels of the [...] ▪ Churches of Asia Rev. 1. & 2. & 3. That is to the Pastors which ar [Page 111] but one in every particular Church. For so the wordes are, to the Angel of the Church, &c.

Mr Smythes answer.

First it can never be proved by scriptures, that there was but one Pastor in a Church, it is playn, Act. 20. 28. that ther were many in the Church of Ephesus, (that was one of those 7. Churches) that did perform the work of the Pastor, which is poimainein to feed; even all the elders vers. 17. with verf. 28. And therefore ther were many Pastors in that Church in Pauls time. A­gaine, al churches had officers of one sort, & one kind of Presbyterie; &c.


This is the last objection which M. Sm. maketh and answereth. Other reasons many there are, more pregnant: this alone without conference with other scriptures, I know will not prove many sorts of officers But it may serve to confirm the point thus: seing in E­phesus the were Act. 20. 17. many Elders; & Christ here directeth his Epistle to the Rev. 2. 1. Angel or Messenger of that Church; this seemeth to be one that had the principal charge of the whol, that is the Pastor. But it can not be proved (sayth M. S.) that there was but one Pastor in a church. Neyther can it be proved (say I) that there were many. Yes sayth he, al the Elders in Ephesus were Act. 20. 28. poimainein to feed, or doe the Pastors work therfore there were many Pastors. I answer, it followeth not; for the reasō deceiveth by aequivocatiō or double meaning of the word. Pastor, generally taken is any governour; paricularly and strictly (wherof now we speak) it is the Rom. 12. Exhorter, or he that hath 1 Cor. 12. the word of wisdome. In the general meaning Christ is Joh. 10. the Pastor, the Apostles Ioh. 21. 16 Pastors, 1 Pet. 5. 2 all the Elders of a particular Church ar Pastors. Wil he conclude hereupon, that an Apostle and a Pastor properly so called, is all one office?

The Apostle sheweth the contrarie, Ephes. 4. 11. As then an Apostle and a Pastor be diverse officers, though both doe poimainein, feed: so Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, may be different officers, though all do poimainein, that is feed & rule the flock.

The Pastors in Israel, in the scriptures which he before alleged, Ier. 23. 1. Ezek. 34. 2, had they al one particular office? Farr other­wise. For Preists and Levites were distinct in office, and other Elders distinct from them both, as before I have manifested. yea not onely [Page 112] the Sacrificers, but the civil governors were Pastors. K. Dauid was a Pastor Psal. 78. 70. 71. 72. 1 Chron. 11. 2. taken to feed Iaakob and Israel. Accordingly in Act. 20. & 1. Pet. 5. al the Elders may feed, & yet not al be in one & the same, but in distinct office.


Further, (sayth Mr. Sm.) the Angel of every one of those Churches, dooth not signfy one Pastor onely in every Church, but eyther the college of Pastors if they were many, or the company of the most sincere and holy men, that most opposed the corruptions of the Church, or were most holy and zelous in life & doctrine. That an Angel signifieth a company of men, is plaine, Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9. & 18, 4.


It is not playn, but very obscure and figurative, if an Angel sig­nifies at any time, a company of men; the scriptures alleged shew it not. For though there is no Angel or messenger mentioned, but there is a people also implied, to whom he is a messenger; as there is no Pastor, but implieth a flock; yet is not the Pastor the flock, nor the Angel the people. Special persons are rather noted by the Angels in my judgement. To take the Angel for a company of the most syncere and holy men; is further from the mark: seing some are written to, in whom little zele or sinceritie can be gathered, Rev. 3. 1. 15. and to passe by the officers, and direct the Letters to pri­vate persons, and such especially; is not according to order; en­commended by Christ to the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 40.


Lastly (sayth M. S.) in all likelyhood there were some extraordinary men yet living in the Churches, eyther Prophets or Evangelists, that had extraor­dinarie gifts, whose zele and holynes might win them special estimation in the Churches: in regard whereof it might be the holy Ghost intending his Epi­stles to the whole Church, cheefly directeth them to these Persons so qualified, as men best able to prevayl with the Church, and caleth them Angels, whether one or more: as Iohn the Baptist is caled an Angel. Mark. 1. 2.


Any thing hath more likelihood with Mr. Sm. then that which is most likely to be true. Can this have all likelihood, that the [Page 113] Evangelists or Prophets extraordinarie, on whose Ephe. 2. 20. foundation Christs Church is builded, should come to that corrupt estate, which some of these Angels were come into? Rev. 3. 1. 15. Hath it al likelihood that such as were officers of all the Churches in generall, should be inti­tled Angels of particular Churches? But it seemeth M. Sm. thinketh the name Angel must needs import some zelous or godly person: wherin he is mistaken. For the Angels are the Rev. 1. 20 starrs in the firma­ment of the Church, and of these starrs or Angels, many are Reu. 12. 4 cast by the Dragons tayl, from heaven to earth, and some have Rev. 9. 1. the key of the bottomlesse pit; & some Angels Rev. 7. 1. Song. 4. 16. hold the wind of Gods spirit from blowing on the earth. So that the Angels or starrs in the book of Revelation, usually signify the ministers of the Churches, whither good or evil. Who rather in likelihood haue the title of angels or messengers given unto them, both from the like title given by God himself to the Preists of Israel, Mal. 2. 7. and by the Iewes common phrase, who called him that was cheif ruler in their Syna­gogues, Sheliach tsibbur, that is the Legate or Messenger of the con­gregation; which name Sheliach the Rabbines R. D. Kimchi, Commēt. in Mal. 2. 7. & Hag. 1. 13. use for Maleach an Angel; and the Chaldee paraphrast putteth Meshammesh that is, a Minister, in the sted.

Now Christ used to speak familiarly and to the understanding of the people, & so I doubt not but he dooth here. And although it be questionable whither there may be moe pastors then one in a Church; yet see I no likelihood of moe then one here; though ma­ny Elders. For the Pastor both by his name 1 Cor. 12. 8. gift & Rō. 12. 8. imployment, hath special charge of the flock in such things as Christ writeth of to these Churches. And as Archippus in the Church at Colosse is in special charged to Colos. 4. 17 take heed to his Ministerie to fulfil it, (though it is to be thought there were moe Elders with him, as Act. 14. 23. in al other Churches:) so mought Polycarpus (the Pastor in Iohns time of the Church in Smyrna, as Jrenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Eu­seb. l. 4. c. 15. writers record;) be Rev. 2. 8. written to in special, to look to his Ministerie, and so the other Pastors, the Angels, in their severall Churches; that by them Christs mind, mought be sig­nified to the congregations. This course God taketh usually; his messengers the watchmen are to hear the word at his mouth, and [Page 114] give the people warning from him Ezek. 3. 17. Things that concer­ned the whole Church of Israel, were first spoken from God to Mo­ses, from Moses to the Elders, from them to the people: Exod. 19. 3. 7. and Exod. 12, 1, 3, 21. God doth nothing but he reveleth his secret to his servants the prophets, Amos. 3. 7. So in this Revelation, God Rev. 1. 1. gave it to Christ, Christ to an Angel, (properly so called;) the Angel to Iohn: and Iohn writeth to the Angel of the church, the Minister: that by him it may come to al the Congregation.

Thus have we heard the reasons and arguments whereby M. Sm. laboureth to manifest that the triformed presbyterie (as he calleth it) con­sisting of three kinds of Elders, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, is none of Gods or­dinance, but mans device: and Antichristian. wherein what weaknes or vanity rather, hath appeared, the judicious reader, may discern; & how litle cause this chalenger had, to cry out the second time for an answer, with, Char. of the B. Epis. loe, we protest against them to have a false government of a triformed presbyterie, But Christ who hath set these for officers in his church, and holdeth al the starrs in his right hand; wil rescue & de­liver them from the hand of aliants, Ps. 144. 11. whose mouth talketh vanitie, and their right hand is a right hand of falshood.


THe last point of difference from us Mr. Smyth setteth down thus Dif. after the preface. We hold that in contributing to the church treasurie, there ought to be both a separation from them that ar without, and a sanctification of the whole action by prayer and thanksgiving. Of these & other points about the Deacons office, he speaketh pag. 28 after in his book. Wherein, if he would have his readers think we differ in al, he notably abuseth both them and us. But of the two points mentioned in his article, I will breifly intreat. First, for the separatiō frō thē vvithout, thus he writeth pag. 30. There ought to be a separation in almes and contribution to the treasurie, as wel as in other parts of our spiritual cō [...]union. Act. 4. 32. & 5. 13. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Act. 2. 42. Heb. 13. 16. 2 Cor. 8. 7. therf [...]e they that are without, if they give any thing, must lay it a part severally from the treasurie, & it must be im­ployed to common use. Mat. 27. 6. 7.

How M. S. gathereth his proposition frō those scriptures, & how farr he wil stretch them, I cannot tel: the first place (Act, 4, 32.) men­tioneth [Page 115] cōmunitie of al goods among the saincts: the second place Act. 5. 13. sheweth how no other man durst joyn unto thē: the third place 2 Cor. 6. 17. requireth Gods people to come out and separate from unbeleevers, and touch no unclean thing. If he match these things thus togither, as if the goods of unbeleevers ar uncleā, & not to be touched or received of the Saincts, he misseth of Pauls intent: for upon this ground, that Psa. 24. 1. the earth is the Lords, and the plentie of it: the Apostle proveth it lawful for Christians to partake with unbeleevers at their table in 1 Cor. 10. 26. 27. whatsoever things is set before them: so that meat drink, clothing, or money may be received from them: neither are these or any like outward things, the unclean things that he forbids to touch, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Consequently, if we may goe to their table, we may hav them at ours: if in our povertie we may receiv releef of thē: in their povertie, we may and should releev them: wherfore there is that cōmunion in these carnal things permitted: which in spiritual things, as prayer, sacraments &c. is unlawful: & though it be sayd Act 2. 42. they continued in the Apost. doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, & prayer: yet he that shal gather we may have no more communion with an unbeleever in eating & drinking, then in prayer; mistaketh quite. We know that to the defiled & unbeleeving no thing is pure, Tit. 1. 15. as Paul sayth, but unto the pure al things are pure: and if an idol cānot defile Gods creature so, but a Christian may 1 Cor. 8. & 10, 25. &c. use it, (so it be not with of­fence) neither can the idolater.

In some outward things, I observe difference between the Iewes state and ours. They went not in to, nor ate with men uncircūcised, Act. 10. 28. & 11, 3. we go in to men unbaptised, & eat with them, 1 Cor. 10, 27. They did not eat of al meats set before thē by infidels, Dan. 1. 8. we do eat of al that is set before us by such, 1 Cor. 10. 25. 26, 27. They admitted not an uncircumcised into the temple Eze. 44 9. Act. 21, 28, 29. we forbid not any unbaptised to come into our as­semblies. 1 Cor. 14. 23—25, Notwithstanding his I find amōg them, that Solomon asked & received outward things as timber for the temple, 2 Chr. 2. 3. 8. of Huram King of Tyre: & king Darius gave Ezr. 6. 8. &c. of his owne revenues towards the tēple & worship of God, & it was not refused. In Israel I find not that any admitted into the publik place of the word and prayers, was forbidden there if he would to contribute: neither any such law made by Christ. [Page 116] Rather the ground layd by the Apostle sheweth the contrarie: if the Gentiles (sayth he) be made partakers of their spiritual thinges, their duetie is also to minister unto them in carnal things. Rom. 15. 27. Vnbeleevers are admitted to the ministerie of the word in Christian assemblies, & so made partakers of our spiritual things; if then & there they wil give of their carnal things, upon what ground may we refuse them?

It is alleged, how 2 Cor. 8. 7. the communion of almose is called a grace, and in Heb. 13. 16. a sacrifice. I acknowledge it thus to be in the saincts, whither they give it in publik or private. For when he sayth, Heb. 13. 16. to do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is wel pleased; he meaneth it not onely of publik contribution in the church, but of private distribution to any at any time. Paul brought almose and offrings to his nation Act. 24. 17. and himself received such a sacrifice from the Philippians, Philip. 4. 18. And if any one Christian in private had sent him the like, had it not been a sacrifice also? Wherfore the Almose of the Saincts are sacrifices, though one give to another Mat. 6. 4. in secret: yea if a Christian releev Gal 6. 10 an unbeleever in povertie and distresse, it is a sacrifice and sweet odour to God. If therfore upon this ground we may not receiv it of unbeleevers in the publik Church, because it is in the saincts a communion of grace and sacrifice: how may we receiv it of such in private?

But (sayth M. Sm.) they that are without if they give any thing, must lay it apart, several from the treasurie, & it must be imployed to common use. Mat. 27. 6. 7. This position I wil not absolutely condemn: neyther can I yet grant it, for the proof is insufficient. For wheras the Iewes (Mat. 27) would not put Iudas wages into their treasurie, it was not be­cause he was one without; for Iudas was a Iew, no strāger unto them: but because it was the price of blood, therfore they mought not put it into the treasurie. This teacheth us, that goods gotten by violence, extorsion, murder, theft or other like evil way: may not be put into the treasurie, though the members of the Church do offer them. But this is no more for those without, then for those within. And for common use of al unbeleevers gifts; I suppose this example wil not bear it out. For if in the povertie and distresse of Christs church, they which are not of the same, minister releif thereunto, (which if they doe not, it shalbe one reason of their Mat. 25. 41—45. condemnation at the day [Page 117] of judgment:) hath not the church libertie to use & injoy these be­nefits for themselves, seing 1 Cor. 10 26. the earth is the Lords and the plentie thereof? must they needs bestow it for the behoof of strangers, as was Iudas hire? I am otherwise minded, for the reasons before rendred. How­beit concerning these things if any shall better inform us, by the word of God, we shal be willing to receiv it.

For the latter branch, that it should be sanctified with blessing or thanks giving to God, we do wel approve; upō that general ground of thanks unto God for al his benefits: and as any do give or send more spe­cial releef, so more special thanks to be rendred therfore, as we are directed, 2 Cor. 9. 12—15.

Albeit for the manner of performing this thing, as whither a spe­cial prayer is to be made before the contributiō, & a special thanks­giving after: or whither in the general prayers of the Church, it is to be sanctified among other the publik actions; there may be some question, and I wil not contend: let every one use herein, the wise­dom that God giveth them. Onely I do observ, how M. Sm. himself makes pag▪ 30. a quere, at what time of the Lords day, and after what manner the treasurie is to be collected: which sheweth in him no certaintie for the form of this busines. & I doubt not but as he, so we al may be to seek, for the most covenient māner & order of doing many things: wherein if any lust to be contentious, I say with the Apostle, 1 Cor, 11 16. we have no such custome, neither the churches of God.

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 haue 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. Onely 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 [Page 119] 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. Onely 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 onely 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 [Page 120] 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. [Page 121] 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, [Page 122] there was no other difference, between Papist, protestant, pu­ritan, and Brownist, (as he caleth them,) concerning church go­verment; then onely 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 onely from the gene­ral equitie of the law, which Mat. 22. 37—39. 1 Sam. 2. 25 maketh 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. 17 sayd 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. 16 Paul practi­sed; but onely 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 onely 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. 9 God & 1 Cor. 8. 12 Christ. 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 [Page 123] 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 vvhich 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.

[Page 124]As for his freindly qualifications, pag. 68. that the Pope claimeth to be a ministerial head▪vnder 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 [Page 125] told him, that I denyed not the truth. But he proceeds; and after he had shewed his own faith, he comes vpon 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 onely 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, (vvhich so many Greek authors vvil allovv,) nor give us an other English vvord for it, I vvil leav him to his [Page 126] 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 onely 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 vnto 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 [Page 127] 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; [Page 128] 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. onely Lord. But this man is blinded with his erroneous conceipt. For as in civil goverment we are to obey and submit, not onely 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 onely to the King Christ, but to 1 Pet. 5. 5 Heb. 13. 17 the 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 onely 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 [Page 129] 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. 86 Christ is not their king, seing he onely 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 onely thing which I plead, that Christ ruleth his people, onely 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. [Page 130] 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 onely, 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 [Page 131] body: & the whol, (not the particular members onely, 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 [Page 121] 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.


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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.