BEginning then with the first Booke of Moses called Ch. 7. v. 26. Genesis. And God said, Let us make man after our likenesse, V. 27. in the Image of God created he him, male and female created, &c. Some then (seeing the shape and forme that man beares in his personall appearance) doe conceive, that God the Creator beareth the same form in shape and person: some others say, this Image is meant, in the likenesse to our maker in soule and spirit; and therefore blame them that imagine, or set him forth in the likenesse of any humane shape: To that is answered againe, that the Text formerly cited cannot be meant of soule and spirit, because at that time man was not a living soule; for proofe they say that God finished his work in six daies, whereof the making of man was part, and rested the Ch. 2. v. 3. seventh, and hallowed it: but after the seventh day he breathed life into man, and made him a living soule, Chap. 2. v. 7. Therefore he was made according to the likenesse of God in personall shape, because at his first making he was not a living soule, till after God had rested the seventh day, and then breathed life into him, as is formerly proved: And long after his transgression, God said Ch. 3. v. 22. the man is become like one of us; so it seems at first he had not a spirituall [Page 4] understanding: It is likewise said, God shewed unto Moses his back parts, but his face should not be seen Exod. 33.23.; therefore if he have back parts, and a face, he hath a shape, which when he pleaseth he can make visible, as then he did. And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend Ch. 33. v. 7. : Moreover what were the three men that appeared to Abraham as he sate in the tent? if not the Trinity Ch. 18. v. 2. which did afterwards eate of the Cake that Sara made, and the Calfe which Abraham fetch'd from the fold, as appeares, v. 8. Now though it is, and must be acknowledged, that God is so infinite in wisdome and power, that therein he cannot be cir­cumscribed nor comprehended; yet (say some) that doth not hinder a personall shape or proportion: But some others (notwithstan­ding those plaine seeming proofes, doe not allow that God hath any bodily shape at all; which if it be so resolved, and these things reconciled, to better proofs and reasons out of Scripture by one that is wise and learned it will satisfie.

THe second question ariseth out of Genesis. And the Lord Gen. 2.16, 17 said, of every Tree of the garden thou mayst eate, but of the Tree of the know­ledge of good and evill: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Now some make a question whether it were a materiall Apple that Adam did eate at the instance of his wife Eue. And if the question be of the Species, it may well be doubted, for it doth not appeare in the Text to be an Apple more then a Figge, or other Fruit; onely in generall tearmes it is called the fruit of the Ch. 3. v. 2, 3. Tree in the middest of the Garden: But I suppose the question is not of the Species, but whether it were a materiall fruit, and so to be under­stood in literall sence. It seems it should be so understood in the sixt verse, When the woman saw the tree was good for food, and to be de­sired to make one wise, she did eate, and gave unto her husband, &c. What can be plainer for a literall construction? yet some will have the whole matter to be an Allegory; and understand by the Serpent in this place no other then concupiscence, and by the fruit of the Tree in the midst of the Garden, some other thing then the eating of a materiall Apple, because of some other words in the story that seems to carry a spirituall sence, as vers. 15. I will put enmity betwixt thy seed and the womans seed; shall this be understood of the old ser­pent the Divel? we suppose that he and his Angels were cast out of Heaven before the creation of man; but in this Chapter the Ser­pent [Page 5] here is expresly called a beast of the field. But if by this beast Vers. 1. you will understand concupiscence, it may perhaps in a spirituall sense be said to be the seed of the Divell, because it works in the flesh by his instigation. The day thou eatest thereof, saith the Lord, thou shalt surely Ch. 2. v. 17. die. And the Serpent said, ye shall not surely die, Chap. 3. v. 4. Now we see in the verses following, they did not die the day they did eate, but had mulcts, and punishments threatned, as the Ser­pent to goe on his belly, and lick the dust; the woman to bring forth children in sorrow; the man to get his living by the sweat of his brow, the earth to be cursed, &c. And Chap. 3. v. 22, 23. Least he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and live forever. There­fore the Lord God sent them forth of the Garden, &c. This seems also to have some other sence, for we are not taught to live for ever by carnall eating. Resolve if you please the doubt of this question with the former.

THe next question is of marriage, Genesis Ch. 2. v. 18.. And the Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone, I wil make him a help meet for him. vers. 21, 22. God tooke one of Adams ribs, made a woman, and brought her unto him, v 23. Adam said, this is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, which is one flesh, v. 24. How comes it then that there are forbidden degrees in marriage? or is it not so in truth, but a Popish injunction for their profit? for in that respect they have given their dispensations ad infinitum to the neerest kindred. To recite particulars in a matter so well known (as the houses of Au­stria, Burbon, and many others) where profit or State policy is at stake) were onely to spend Inke and Paper. Then if it may be done by dispensation, and for money, which is but an Ordinance of man; why may it not much more be done without, seeing it is the Ordinance of God himselfe? You know what Peter said to Simon Magus, Thou and thy money perish, because thou thinkest that these things may be bought for money. And here we see the woman is not of the man derivatively, and by descent, but of his own proper sub­stance; then in regard there can be no more matches of this nature, the very next of kin were to joyn in marriage, and that both by custome and command. For example, we finde that Sara was A­brahams sister, whom he took to wife; a better president we can not have, for he was the father of the faithfull; his seed should be multiplied as the Stars in Heaven; all the Nations of the earth be blessed therein Gen: 22. 17, 18., &c.

[Page 6] If it be said, that when Abraham went down to sojourne in Aegypt because of the famine, he wish'd his wife to say she was his sister, lest the Aegytians should kill him and take her to themselves, for she was a faire woman to looke upon Gen. 12. v. 1 [...], 12, 13.. And from thence you will argue, that to be but simulation betwixt them to save his life; then it will appeare in the same book of Genesis that in his returne to the South Countrey, they used the like practice, in saying she was his sister In so much that Abimelech King of Gerar tooke Sara, but the Lord kept Abimelech from touching her, and reproved him for taking another mans wife; whereupon Abimelech blam'd Abraham, saying, What sawest thou that thou hast done this thing? Abraham replied, I thought the feare of God is not in this place, and they will kill me for my wifes sake: yet to let him know that he had not dissembled totally, he said, indeed she is my sister, for she is the daugh­ter of my father, and she became my wife Gen. 20 12.. Moreover Cha. 24. v. 4. A­braham caused his servant to sweare, charging him to goe to his owne Countrey, and to his kindred to chuse a wife for his sonne Isaac. And so naturally confident were the servants of God in pro­pagating by the next of kin, that Lots daughters (when they fled out of Sodome with their father, where the rest of their kindred peri­shed) did not doubt to raise up seed to their father, saying, There is not a man alive to come in unto us after the manner of the earth, there­fore let us lie with him, &c. Now there were thousands (not to be Gen. 19 31, 32. numbred) left alive, but there was none of their Tribe and kindred, for so the Text seems to infer. We know also that many things are writ for our instruction not for our imitation; and so Lot might justly be blamed for drinking so liberally, that he perceived not what he did (which we ought not to imitate) yet we finde no reproofe upon the daughters, because (it seems) what they did was onely for propagation, according to the institution, and not to satisfie appetite. This appeares by their interchange; yet Dr Willet saith they did offend, and brings with him Augustines opinion, which is, that they should have done far better to have acquainted their father, so then (belike) all had been well enough: But with­all in the same Annotations of Levit. 18.) he brings against him­selfe a Jury of Doctors that justifies their intention to be good and lawfull in their case, viz. Soto, Lopes, Ledesma, Bellarmine, L [...]inus, with three of the Fathers also, Chrysostome, Theodores, and Origen, [Page 7] and (we see) God gave a blessing unto their act, for the Text saith, they were with child, and there proceeded from them two great Nations, the Moabites and the Ammonites. And that these children were blessed appeares more plainly, where the children of Israel in their warfaring journey were forbidden to distresse them, and not to meddle with them, for the Lord would not give them of the Land which he had given to the foresaid children of Lot for a pos­session Gen. 13. 37, 38. : If you say that notwithstanding they were afterwards smitten and warred against: so was it likewise with the most cho­sen people (according to the covenant) for their Idolatry, infide­lity, &c. The Ephramites fell by the men of Gilead, Deut. 2.18, 19. 42000 at one time, and it were supererrogate to cite the severall places of Scrip­ture, where the Israelites were punished, and carried captive, and cast off into a reprobate sense, as now they are at this day for their transgression; but that will be no argument to prove that propa­gating by their neerest kindred (which they were commanded) was the cause: but most certaine their hardnesse of heart, infidelity, and idolatry, which was forbidden. For was not Moses the meekest man, and Aaron, the sonnes of Amram, who married Jocabed his Aunt?

The next place that seems to fortefie this opinion against all op­position, is that of Judagh and Tamar his daughter in law, which you have in Genesis 38. throughout the whole Chapter; there shall you finde the wilfull and unnaturall trespasse of Onan in refusing to performe the kinsmans duty, and therefore the Lord destroyed him: but what shall we thinke of Judahs intention? can we ap­prove of it? no verily; he tooke her for Judges 12.6. a Harlot: yet was the sincerity and integrity of Thamar so sublime, that from her Issue Vers. 15. upon that conjunction came the Saviour of the world; for from Phares descended Boas, David, and consequently our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the flesh: and now old Judah could say, (be­cause I have not performed what I ought of my part) she hath been more righteous then I.

Well, yet let us object Levit. 18. the prohibition there, with the glosse upon the Text, entituled unlawfull marriages; but we sup­pose it is a Popish glosse, and of purpose mis-interpreted to in­crease his coffers: for it will appeare hereafter that the uncovering of nakednesse there mentioned, is meant of fornication onely, and not of marriage: yet the Popes purse upon that pretence hath pickt [Page 8] up many large fees, especially where the joyning of Kingdomes or Dukedomes together hath been sought more for politick ends, (and chiefly if his owne cause hath been interested) then the par­ties owne particular liking. But now who is so ignorant to believe that any sinfull man can dispense with what God hath comman­ded or forbidden. In the beginning men gave gifts and presents for fit wives of their owne Linage; as appeares, Gen. 24.22. where Abrahams servant gave Rebecca the Earings and the Bracelets: now since mens owne covetousnesse, or the Popes, have forbid such wives as is most naturall; the custome is to barter and exchange for strangers so much money, so much land, &c. as you doe for other things in fayre or market.

But to returne, the Answer to the foresaid prohibition in Levi­ticus 18. is, that the many Lawes given in that booke were not perpetuall, but onely given to busie the minds of the children of Israel for that present, and to divert their inclination from Idolatry, unto which they were so subject from their deliverance out of Aegypt, in their march to Canaan, and perhaps for some other rea­sons known to men of learning: for who doth believe it is not lawfull to eate Hare or Coney, Swines flesh, &c. or to weare linnen and woolen, plow with beasts of severall kinds; with many other prohibitions, whereof that Booke is full, as well as in the degrees in kindred: They were also peculiar to that people, and therefore not binding elsewhere, especially to Christians under the Gospel. But to make the matter more cleare, let us see how we can prove the prohibition in these degrees, to be meant of Fornication, as is formerly mentioned, and not of the holy institution of mar­riage, for instance in the foresaid, 18 ch. & 16. ver. it is said, Thou shalt not uncover the nakednesse of thy brothers wife, it is thy brothers nakednesse: uncover the nakednesse, marke that; though the Pope and ambitious men would delude us, the holy Ghost is very wary; the Text here speaks not of marriage, but uncovering nakednesse: and now repaire to Deut. 25. vers. 5. There you shall finde that if a brother die the wife of the dead shall not marry unto a stranger, her husbands brother shall goe in unto her, take her to wife, and performe the duty of a husbands brother unto her. The rest of the verses fol­lowing shewes how disgracefully, and with what reproach he was to be used that refused to perform this duty. So you see there is a [Page 9] vast difference betwixt uncovering of nakednesse, and taking to wife; for else did not these two Texts controvert each other point-blanke, if they were meant of one and the selfesame matter? what is then the right exposition? no other then this; by uncovering of nakednesse is meant fornication, as is formerly said, which in kindred is utterly forbidden; but the other Text in Deutronomy speakes expresly of marriage, and taking to wife, which is like­wise in kindred as directly commanded. One other gradation may here be added, to wit, that the taking of strange women was some­times in custome, for it was no wonder before nor after to see men have children by concubines, which they kept besides their wives. And the children of Israel were commanded to kill all the males among the Midianites, but to keepe the women to themselves Num. 31.18.: we likewise read the Levite had by him two Asses sadled, his con­cubine was also with him, Judges 19. 10. but in regard that mar­riage is honourable, and the free woman more Noble then the bond-woman, that great duty we ought to performe to our next of kin; for so did Abraham to Sara that was his wife and sister; but his coneubine was Hagar the bond woman, which Sara after­wards dealt hardly with, and caused her to flie Gen. 16. 6.. Here we are to note, that Sara the kinswoman was a Type of the true Church, and Hagar the contrary: Moreover you shall finde what curses were threatned to such as married with strangers (out of their Tribes) as namely, they should be snares and traps unto them, Jesh. 23. 12, 13. scourges in their sides, and thorns in their eyes, with many other of this kind, which whoso please to study may finde at large. And that this practice of marriage with kindred was in use, not onely be­fore the prohibition in Leviticus, already answered, but eversi­thence, and never forbid, in the Law or Gospell, for ought we can finde, is the next thing we shall endeavour to prove: alledging then some presidents after the foresaid booke of Leviticus, (perhaps omitting many) we will begin with the marriage of the daughters of Selophabad, who married with their kindred by the Lords spe­ciall appointment Num, 36.. Then the foresaid Text in Deutronomy, tou­ching the marriage of the brothers wife, Ch. 25. v. 5. And Othinel the valiant man was rewarded with Achsah his next kinswoman, who also obtained a further boon of her father Judges 1. 13.. The story of Boas and Ruth is worthy our observation, it is so full of goodnesse and [Page 10] charity, conducing also to our argument; first, we see that Naomy, Ruths mother in law instructed her how to behave herselfe towards Boas, that she might not be unprovided, as knowing, (it seems) the inflexible nature of her very next kinsman: whereupon (after Ruth had uttered these words unto Boas, Spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid, for thou art a neere kinsman) Boas replied, Blessed be thou of the Lord, for thou hast not followed young men, whether poore or rich. Then Boas called into judgement the next kinsman, who out of covetousnesse suffered the accustomed disgrace, for refusing to performe the duty he ought to have done: And Boas (as the next in degree) tooke Ruth to be his Ruth 4.10. wife. In this story we discerne the many vertues of Ruth; it is to be observed also that she was a Moa­bitesse, of the line of Lot, and of the issue he had by his daughters of this off-spring, shortly after came the Prophet David, from whom also in processe of time) proceeded the Saviour of mankind.

Next we observe the passage betwixt Ammon and Tamar, where it is said, that Ammon loved Tamar in an unlawfull manner, which the mayd as discreetly reproved, desiring him not to force her, but to aske her of the King for a wife, in that sence she knew the King would not withhold her 2 Sam. 4.13.; but Ammon after his lust was satisfied, despised her, which act turned to his confusion, and was the occa­sion of his slaughter. Still we see the sister did not doubt to be her brothers wife, but did detest the act of fornication, (which certain­ly is the thing meant in the forbidden degrees formerly mentioned. And assuredly also that act proceeding from lust in kindred, is the highest degree of fornication, and of some perhaps not improperly termed incest, if there be such a distinction: But for the holy in­stitution of marriage with the next of Kindred. We see (by all ex­amples before and after, it hath not onely been permitted but com­manded.

Neither doe we finde any thing to the contrary in the whole progresse of the Gospell, but still reproofe of fornication, and especially amongst kindred, which seems to confirme what is for­merly said; for so St. Paul, It is reported commonly that there is forni­cation 1 Cor. 5. amongst you, and such as is not used among the Gentiles, that one should have his fathers wife. But the same Saint Paul hath these fol­lowing words in the same booke, Ch. 7, v. 3. touching marriage. To avoyd fornication, let every man (excepting no degree or profession) [Page 11] have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. And in verse 4. the wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; nor the husband power of his own body, but the wife, in the singular number. From hence may be inferred, that men since the Gospell ought not to have plurality of wives; but neither there, nor in any other place where the like precept is given, is there any exception to the next of kin, but in case of fornication aforesaid. Then let every man have his own wife; this doth most and best represent the mistery betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church; else where it is said, the man and his wife is one flesh, not the man and his wives. Although the Patriarks and Prophets (under the Law) had plurality of wives for the greater increase of a good Tribe, or for other rea­sons and misteries, which here we have not time to discusse. And though the Turks and other Nations doe allow themselves plura­lity of wives (perhaps alleaging the foresaid custome of the Patri­arks) as also to uphold the vastnesse of their Empire, having such use for unmerous Armies, yet we take their reasons to be more sen­suall and politick then religious; for we that live under the Gospell ought to conforme our selves unto that rule; Let every one have his own wife, in the singular mumber aforesaid; but then (seeing there is not one word in the Gospell to the contrary) that any Popish Ordinance or other should bar a man to choose that single woman he liketh best to be his wife (if she be also consenting, and of ripe judgement) seems to be both against the law of nature and reason. Wherefore we conclude this point with the Apostles words, that the forbidding of marriage is the doctrine of devils. Again, marriage 1 Tim. 4.3. is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adul­terers God will judge, Heb. 13.4. in all; marke this: here's no excep­tion; yet it would have been here or somewhere if it had been un­lawfull, either in kindred or Ministers, as the Popish doctors teach, for lucres sake, as is formerly mentioned. But we are to beware of such as would spoile us through vaine deceipt, that fol­low the traditions of men, the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ Colos. 28., so then the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, Adultery, fornication, uncleannesse, lasciviousnesse, idolatry, witch­craft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditious heresies envy­ings murders, drunkennesse, with many others, &c. But as touching Gal. 5.19,20. the holy institution of marriage intended, according to the Ordi­nance [Page 12] with true love and sincerity of heart; we finde no exception in any degree or profession. And if the prohibition in the law for­merly mentioned, were meant of marriage, as it is fully and amply proved to intend fornication onely, because of the practice in mar­rying with their next of kin, as well after as before, for­merly proved also: yet were it not binding now, for we under­stand the Law contained in Ordinances to be Ephes. 2.15. abolished. And againe, blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was a­gainst us, nayling it to the Crosse, Colos. 2. 14. for the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity also a change of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. observe also the second of the Corinthians, There is a veile in reading of the old Testament, which veile is taken away in Christ, and Ch. 3. v. 14, 17. where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But how, what liberty? to doe the works of the flesh, formerly touched; no, God forbid, The holy Ghost will witnesse with those that the Lord hath made his Covenant with, he will put lawes into their hearts, and in their minds will he write them, their sinnes and iniquities will he remember no Heb 10.16, 17. more. And in 1 Tim 4.9. The law is not made for a righteous man, (supposing such a one as contriveth not against a good conscience) but for the lawlesse, disobedient, ungodly, whore­mongers, liers, stealers, &c. And in 2 Tim. 3. we have a large de­scription of such as have no testimony of the good Spirit, but are called perilous, viz. Lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient, unthankefull, unholy, truce-breakers, false ac­cusers, incontinent, fierce, traytors, highminded, having a forme of god­linesse, but denying the power thereof: And of this sort are they which creep into houses, leading captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as James and Jambres withstood Moses, so doe these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, &c. Then was the chiefe Magistrate withstood; how is it now; if this portion of Scripture strike not point blanke at this very age and time wherein we live, let some that are learned informe us better.

So then we perceive by this Tract and all the rest, it is fornication, uncleannesse, and these forenamed works of the flesh, which is for­bidden; but for that excellent and sacred institution of marriage, from which Ordinance the blessed elect of Gods children doe pro­ceed; that holy Order, we see, is honourable amongst all with­out [Page 13] exception, as is formerly proved. Now then without all dispute that marriage is most just, which is made without any ambitious or covetous end; and if this liking and mutuall cor­respondency happen betwixt the neerest of kindred, then is it also the most naturall, the most lawfull, and according to the primitive purity and practice: nor is there now any Popish Canons to restraine it, which perhaps some consciences might boggle at in regard of the precept, you are to obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. And in­deed we would not argue any thing here against higher powers that are in true orthodox authority; but onely desire that no Law or prohibition should bind the conscience in matters that the Gos­pell of Christ hath left free unto Christian people: And if we can judge aright all these works of the flesh formerly recited, from se­verall Texts in Seripture, did never so much abound; and no mar­vell, for what fruit can be expected from bastard Plants? or what match is made amongst a thousand, or perhaps amongst ten thou­sand without ambition covetousnesse, inordinate appetite, or some collaterall respect; pardon the plainnesse of the phrase, for I have read of a Law (as I now remember) amongst the Spartans, viz. No man should give a dower in marriage with his daughter; then did the best men seeke to acquire the most vertuous women: and who, (then they) flourished more in Arts and Armes? Now if the Patri­arks, our fore-fathers, chose their kindred in obedience to a duty commanded; the Heathens tooke wives for their vertues; and yet we Christians will have none but for money, the attribute aforesaid deserves the lesse rebuke.

Well then, let us avoyd communities, which is reported to be maintained by some late sects: let us avoyd fornication with all, and by all meanes, with our kindred; for that is the highest de­gree of fornication, as is formerly declared: But for holy wedlock, where there is hope of propagation, and hearts consenting, as is proved to be the duty of the next kinsman, so was there never more cause to shake off the Popish thraldome, and to revive that Pri­mitive custome, seeing by these late and common calamities) so many thousand families are forced from their habitations, which they have honestly laboured for, and for ought they know, must starve and perish, at some have already done, if they cannot finde a dwelling more remote: therefore we must be of opinion with such [Page 14] as do account mulct and punishments an Antichristian yoke, where they are imposed upon the conscience, but most especially when there is neither act nor intention against the service of God, or pre­judice to our Christian brethren; and here we remember the saying 2 Cor. 13.2. of Saint Paul, Be of one mind, live in peace.

Now then, to close up all by asking of a question: If in such a case honest women (that have no portion to bestow them, thorough the causes aforesaid) should require this duty from the next of kin, whether (upon refusall) their said kinsman deserve not the re­proach mentioned in the story of Boas and Ruth; and as touching the Deut. 25.5. raising of seed from one brother to another formerly recited at large in the beginning of this discourse; surely they doe and must answer in their great account for the misearriage of their kinswomen, if so it happen; yet we are not ignorant the Civill law saith, an Ʋnkle to his Neece is in loco parentis, and that they say is a bar in marriage; but (setting Law and evill Custome aside) we demand (in reason) how he can stand her in better steed then to marry her if she be willing, and hath no means to be otherwaies provided.

We are commanded to feare God and the King, and not to meddle with them that are seditious. Neither are these things mo­ved out of nicety, or by way of paradox, or as St Paul speaks, of 1 Tim. 6. doting questions, or strife of words, whereof comes envy, and perverse disputings▪ or as some cite Scripture to cloake their deceipt and hypocrisie: but onely to finde out the truth, which if those that are Orthodoxly learned will take paines to resolve, it will be a charitable worke, to satisfie the consciences of some lesse learned, who are likely to seeke habitations in forrain Countreys, and would in discharge of their duties doe that which they conceive to be most just, viz. without ambitious or covetous ends, adventure upon the first Institution.

Now we know the vulgar sort (that lookes no further then the times they live in) will bogle at this doctrine, and thinke it a Na­vell. Then here we will put you in mind of what some of you do yet remember; namely, a quality of two eminent men esteemed very wise (especially in the lawes) the one would not abide a shol­der of Veale, the other did not love a Duek: what would you have thought these men wise to proclaime it unlawfull for any other [Page 15] to eate these kind of meats, because they did not love them? surely no, you would have held them rediculons: So our question is not how any mans appetite likes, or dislikes; we onely desire to know yea, or no, whether the matter in it selfe be unlawfull, or where it is repugnant to Scripture, when all places of this subject are com­pared together. And if it be controverted (not with Heathen fa­bles, or mens bare opinions, but by Scripture proofe) by one that is learned, and of a refin'd wit, it may satisfie; but if it come from a young head not halfe codled, or from one that is old and Note. doting, or from any that is popish or illiterate, tis ten to one such judgement will be renounced, or at least suspected.

Some other questions we intended to move, as namely, those at the latter end of M^r Smiths Sermon, entituled, The lost sheep is found, which yet we have not heard any answer unto; and why through Popish superstition on the one side, and diversity of Schisms and Sects of the other side, there is yet no certaine frame of Discipline setled to confirme the weake and wavering Christian: Or (seeing we have found so much fault with Turke and Pope for their bloody tenents; and that the weapons of the Church are preces & lacrymas, prayers and teares) whether that will prove a good Religion which is setled or maintained by the Sword; but if these be first resolved to be as they are here conceived, or otherwise convinc'd of errour by Scripture proofe; we may then have encouragement to move some other things necessary for the confirmation of our selves and others LAƲS DEO.