A DEFENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, WORSHIP, AND ministery, used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist: Against the challenges, cavils and contradiction of M. Smyth: in his book entitled The differences of the Churches of the Separation. Hereunto are annexed a few observations upon some of M. Smiths' 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 year 1609.   

The chief things handled in this treatise.  
OF worship. pag. 5. etc.  
The jews worship scanned. pag. 11. etc.  
Prophesying or preaching; whither it be worship. pag. 16. etc.  
Singing of Psalms, pag. 21.  
Of scripture, or books in general. pag. 22.  
Of the original scriptures. pag. 24. etc.  
The hand-writing of ordinances, Coloss. 2. pag. 28.  
Whither Christ, Luk. 4. ended the law of reading. p. 31.  
Whither reading be the ministration of the letter. 2 Cor. 3. pag. 32.  
Of the law and gospel given in books & tongues. p. 37.  
Of the commandments to read the scriptures. p. 39 41. etc.  
Of translations of holy scripture. pag. 45. etc.  
Of the 72. Interpreters in Israel; and whether they sinned in translating the Bible. pag. 51. etc.  
Arguments against the use of translations in God's worship, answered. pag. 57 etc.  
Arguments for the use of translations▪ etc. maintained. p. 69. etc.  
Of the Hellenists, or jews that ●pake Greek. p. 73. etc.  
Of the ministery and Eldership. pag. 88 etc.  
Reasons against 3. sorts of Elders, refuted. pag. 89. etc.  
Reasons for 3. sorts of Elders, defended. pag. 97. etc.  
Of the Treasury pag. 114.  
Observations upon M. Smiths' censures, against Church▪ government by the Eldership, pag. 118. etc.   

IT is true of an haeretik which Solomon saith in parable, 
* Prov. 9 13.  a foolish woman is troublesome: experience hereof we 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 public once, his own follyand shame, with calling upon us to 
† Differen. Preface.  justific our proceedings or repent of them; doth in an other book the second time 
“ Parall. p. 105.  require an answer, and fretting in himself that we passed over his vanity with silence, he biddeth us battle with the third alarm in his book The character of the beast, lately published. Wherein, (to show how near he is allied to those which say, 
* Rev. 13. 4.  who is like unto the Beast, who is able to war with him?) he 
† Charact. in the epist.  requireth, nay chargeth, yea challengeth us (as he saith) to the defence of our errors vawnting moreover against us, that we are guilty in our consciences of our disability to defend them, and therefore subtly draw back and pretend excuses; triumphing also over us, as they that hitherto in craftiness have withdrawn from the combat, in the matter of the translation, worship and presbytery.  
Thus hath he lifted up 
* Psal. 75. 5  his horn on high, and spoken with a stiff neck; as if even the mighty were 
“ job. 41. 16.  afraid of his majesty, and for fear fainted in themselves. In regard of which insolency; all men I think may see, it is now time, if ever, to take up shield and sword against him, and hew his horns that so have pushed the flock of Christ, whereof not long since he professed himself to be a member with us: though now having left the truth to follow leasing, he maketh open war with the saints. And whereas among other 
* 2 Pet. 2. 18.  swelling words of vanity, he saith, 
† Charact. epistle.  Lo we protest against them to have a false worship of reading books: we protest against them to have a false government of a triformed Presbytery; we protest against them to have a false ministery of Doctors or Teachers, etc. I have taken in hand to set forth our just defence, in these particulars, and to show the fraud and malignity of this boaster: leaving the other point about the constitution of our Church in baptizing of infants, to others that have already begun to convince his heresy therein. And this which I have undertaken is rather for others (who may be troubled with his writings) then for his own sake, who yieldeth small hope of good, seeing he proceedeth so fast in evil; and out of a 
“ Prov. 28. 25.  proud heart hath stirred up strife. Wherein also such hath been his fickleness, as 
† Psal. 5. 9  no constancis is in his mouth. For (not to speak of 
* Princip. etc. Differ. etc. Carat of the Beast.  three sundry books wherein he hath showed himself of 3. several religions,) in this one book which I deal against, he sayeth and unsayeth and contrarieth his own grounds for to shift and hide his blasphemies, that little needed him so earnestly to have called for an other man's sword to pierce the bowels of his error; when his own hand fighteth against himself, and the spear which he tosseth, turneth into his heart. I had much rather have followed more comfortable meditations, in the peaceable practice of the truth; them thus to contend with those that seek strife, & that fight against the faith which themseules 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, lest the sheep be devoured or scattered. Now therefore I being to encounter this false Prophet, do humble myself under the good hand of God whose power is made perfect in man's infirmity; whose mercy sustaineth in violence of the enemy; whose truth is a shield and buckler. He bless these my labours unto his people; that 
* Psal. 107. 42.  the righteous may see and rejoice, and all iniquity may stop her mouth.  
Amen.   

A DEFENCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND WORSHIP OF God, used in the Christian Churches of the Separation: against the calumnies of M. Smyth.  
THe book entitled The differences of the Churches of the separation, which we are challenged by the Author to answer: carrieth in the very name thereof, a delusion of the Reader. For if he look for plain differences, what they affirm and we deny; he shall not find them expressed: if he take the differences to be implied, as that whatsoever Mast. Smyth affirmeth we deny, and what he deneyeth we affirm; then is the Reader much abused, & we injured; who hold in that book, truth & error to be unequally mixed. Seeing then neither expressly nor implicitly the Reader can see the Differences: what are they but delusions?  
The many questions which he asketh in the end, containing the sum of all his book, manifest the Author's fraud: for if he know & dare say wherein we differ, what need he desire our direct answer? It became him to refute, & not for to fish with hooks of demands, wherein we would differ from him.  
There was one only difference between M. Smyth and us, when first he began to quarrel; though since he have increased them, and increaseth daily, with deadly feud and open opposition, as all men may see.  
That difference was this. He with his followers breaking off communion with us, charged us with sin 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. No Apocrypha writing, but only the Canonical scriptures, are to be used in the Church, in time of God's worship. Every written translation is an Apocrypha 
* This is the third of his four general arguments, which he offered to our Church in writing, at the second days public conference  writing, & is not canonical scripture. Therefore every written translation is unlawful in the Church in time of God's worship. Why he counted every translation apocryphas, and what he meant thereby, appeareth by these words of his 
‡ In the reason annexed to his second general Arg. Difference etc. pag. 12.  a written translation (saith he) or interpretation is as well & as much an human writing, as an homily or prayer, written & read. The like impiety he hath also printed in his book, saying A translation being the work of a men's wit & learning, is as much and as truly an human 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 authority, it may be justly called Apocrypha etc. And therefore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read.  
That this point of the translation was the only difference, as it is known to all that then heard his public protestation; so his words in writing show it. 
‡ In a reason annexed to the 1. general argument.  Translations written (saith he) are not refrained 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 yielded.  
So if we would have laid 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 still, they are thus. We agree with M. Smyth herein, that Only canonical scripture is to be used in God's worship; & that no apocryphal writing is to be used in God's worship. But we disagree & deny, 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 controversy, he manifested other differences, touching the ministery and treasury; and soon after published this book of Differences: wherein, having his latter thoughts (as he thought) better than his former, he 
† Difference etc. in the preface.  retracted a former book of Principles etc., and all other his writings, so far 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 Apostolic constitution, which consisteth in these three things, 1 The true matter, which are Saints only, 2 The true form, which is the uniting of them together in the covenant. 3 The true property, which is a communion in all the holy things, and the power of our Lord jesus Christ, for the maintaining of that communion. To this blessed work of the Lord wherein those ancient brethren have laboured, I know not (saith he) what may more be added, I think rather there can nothing be added. And was he now settled in his course? nothing less, for the strange woman's 
* Prou. 5. 6.  paths are movable, they cannot be known. Soon after this God struck him with blindness, that he could no longer find the door of the Church, out of which he was gone by schism, and which he had assaulted with error. Our entering in by the covenant of God with 
† Gen. 17.  Abraham to the faithful and their seed, hath been as a brazen wall, whereagainst he hath run himself, to his utter ruin, if God in mercy raise him not up. And now as a man benumbed in mind, he crieth out against us, contrary to his former faith and confession; 
* Charact. of the beast in the Epist.  Lo, we protest against them (saith he) to be a false Church, falsely constituted in the baptizing of infants, and their own unbaptised estate. And again, We protest against them, that seeing their constitution is false; therefore there is no one ordinance of the Lord true among them. Thus 
† Pro. 20. 1.  wine showeth itself in M. Smyth to be a mocker, & strong drink to be raging: whiles he having drunk 
† Pro. 4. 17.  the wine of violence proclaimeth open war, against God's everlasting covenant.  
The defence 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 threateneth: I leave unto them; not doubting but God their strength, will 
* Ps. 144. 1  teach their hands, to fight, and their fingers to battle, in so good a cause against this enemy. But because he still urgeth his former quarrels of the scriptures and ministery: I purpose with God's 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 entire.  
Touching the first, namely, the use of translated scriptures in the worship of God: M. Smyth thus summeth up the difference, in the forefront of his book.  

1. We hold (saith he) that the worship of the new testament properly so called, is spiritual, proceeding originally from the heart: and that▪ reading out of a book (though a lawful ecclesiastical action,) is no part of spiritual worship: but rather the invention of the man of sin, it being substituted for a part of spiritual worship.  
2. We hold that seeing prophesying is a part of spiritual worship: therefore in time of prophesying it is unlawful to have the book as a help before the eye.  
3. We hold that seeing singing a Psalm is a part of spiritual worship; therefore it is unlawful, to have the book before the eye, in time of singing a Psalm.   
Here first let the reader observe, that the main 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 handling these matters; and other points never controverted between us, are made heads of the differences. In which doing, M. Smyth hath graced the very porch of his building, with imposture and fraud.  
2. In saying, of himself and his brethren, We hold etc. he giveth the reader to understand, (unless he meant to delude him,) that they whom he dealeth against, hold the contrary: whereas he neither doth, nor is able to produce any proof hereof against us; neither (I dare say) can he tell what we hold, of these points. Thus secondeth he his fraud with injury; and maketh these two, as jachin & Boaz, the pillars for to beautify the temple of his book.  
Now because his whole battle against the translated Scriptures, is chiefly out of this bulwark of spiritual worship, wherein he hath entrenched himself, and flieth thereto at all assays, when other shifts fail him: I will begin with it, as himself also doth, and come to Translations anon.  

OF WORSHIP.  
Whereas the word Worship is diversely used, sometime more largely, sometime more straightly; by reason whereof it hath not at all times 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 equivocation or double meaning of this word worship; restraining it where he should not, & enlarging it where he ought not. And though he treateth of this thing at large, handling the fountain, the helps, the essence or nature, with the parts and kinds of worship: yet the diverse use of the word which was needful first to be showed, (if he meant not to deceive,) he hath quite omitted; that, therefore I will first manifest. 
The homonymy cleared   
Worship, in our English tongue, and as it is used to express the original scriptures, is diversely taken. Sometime largely, as when it expresseth the Greek word latrevo; as Philip. 3, 3. we are the circumcision which 
† latrevontes.  worship God in the spirit: & Act. 24, 14. so 
” latrevo.  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, justus 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 vain they 
” sebontai.  worship me; for that which in Hebrew is, their fear towards me Isa 29, 13. So 
* job. 1. 9 jon. 1. 9  job. and jonas, as the Hebrew saith, feared, as the Greek translateth, Worshipped God. Also when it interpreteth the Greek word threskevo, as Col. 2, 18. the Worshipping of Angels; and vers. 23. in will-worship; or voluntary religion. Thus worship is largely used, for the fear and service of God, or any religious action.  
More strictly and properly, worship is used to English the Greek 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, etc. And so both it and the Greek word, do express the Hebrew hishtachavah, which properly signifieth to bow down 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 down & supplicate unto God.  
The meaning of the word being thus distinguished; let us now see how M. Smyth doth deal in the point. He, where he 
† Differenc. pag. 18.  professeth to handle the nature or essence of spiritual worship, and the essential causes and kinds thereof, showeth these things in two particulars; first in the essential causes; 2. in the proper kinds or parts of the worship of the N. testament.  
The essential causes are matter and form. The matter of God's worship (saith he) is the holy scriptures, which containeth the word of God or the Gospel, the subject whereof is Christ jesus: The form or soul that quickeneth it, is the spirit Col. 3. 16. with Ephe. 5. 18. 19 20.  
Then he illustrateth this, by the ceremonial 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 etc. were made, with all the actions thereto pertaining. 
Mark 9 49. with Levit. 2. 11 13. & 9 24 1 Cor. 5. 6▪ 8.   
The form he saith appeared in 4. things; 1. honey, and 2. leven which must be absent for the most part; and 3. fire and 4. salt which must always be present. Then for the kinds of spiritual worship, he saith they are praying, prophefying, and singing Psalms. Psal. 50. 14— 17. 1 Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 15. 17. 26. jam. 5. 13. Rev. 19 10.  
I will 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, objects and ends, which properly pertain to the discourse of actions: he insisteth upon matter and form which he calleth essential causes: so taking that which is more unproper, & difficult. But seeing 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 spiritual worship; yet maketh the scriptures to be the matter of worship: now how the matter of a thing, should be shut out and unlawful to be there, it requireth some skill to know. Secondly, the scriptures being (as he saith) 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 known why M. Smyth in an other place saith that 
* Differenc. pag. 1.  actions of administering the Church or kingdom of Christ, are not actions of spiritual worship properly so called, making those actions to be admonition, examination, excommunication, pacification, absolution etc. are not these to have the matter of the scriptures, and form of the spirit, as well as prophesy which th' Apostle saith, 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 unto 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 practice, rebuking and opposing against Elymas, saying, 
* Act. 13. 10.  O full of all subtlety and of all mischief, child of the Devil etc. did this by the holy spirit, whereof he is noted then to be 
† vers. 9  full. 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 jews in Rome, he rebuked them 
” Act. 28. 25.— 28.  by the word of the prophet Esaias; And Peter in his Sermon at jerusalem pacified their pricked consciences, by the promise of God, to them and to their children; Acts 2. 37. 39 So the word and spirit were matter and form of their rebukes, admonitions, pacifications, etc. even as of their other doctrines & exhortations, and therefore by Mr Sm. own grounds, were spiritual 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 conceit of prophesy or preaching to be spiritual worship, is sunk, and by it overthrown. And sure the Prophets and Apostles and Christ himself never observed this new coined difference, for 
† Isa. 1. etc. Jer. 2. etc. Mat. 5. & 6. & 7. etc. Act. 7 & 13. etc.  they in their prophesying or preaching of the word, did intermix rebukes with comforts, admonitions with exhortations, and opposed against sin and sinners usually in their sermons, as the whole history of the Bible showeth. Now by Mr Smyth's divinity they worshipped not God, when they spoke by way of opposition, difference, plea or strife, in their doctrine; but when they spoke 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 heretical 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 fallen the righteous; though himself by God's judgement be fallen into the same.  
And here, by the way I will briefly note M. Smyth's method in contriving of his book for the advantage of his cause. The three offices of Christ, in prophesy priesthood and Kingdom; he reduceth unto two, 1. kingdom and 2. priesthood; 
‡ Differenc. p, 27.  comprehending prophesy under the priesthood 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 kingdom also a branch of the priesthood; for the Priests were to teach jaakob Gods judgements and Israel his law, as well in cases of 
* Deut. 17. 8. 9 11. 12.  controversy plea and strife, (which M. Smyth maketh actions of administering the Kingdom;) as in other doctrines of exhortation and comfort. But I find in the scripture that Moses (not Aaron the Priest,) is made a figure of Christ 
† Act. 3. 22— 26.  as a Prophet; and Prophets there were many in Israel of other tribes than Levi: seeing than Moses & the Prophets carried types of Christ's prophesy; Aaron and the Priests, of his priesthood; David and the kings, of his kingdom; I would not now confound the priesthood & prophesy in Christ, any otherwise then the priesthood and kingdom; but keep a like distinction in them all; & as in Christ the head, so in the Church his body. Again as in heavenly order the 1. manifestation of man's sin and misery by the law, of his justice & happiness by the gospel; also the 2. work of man's redemption by sacrifice; & 3 the conservation of this grace wrought for the Church, against all enemies; are three distinct things, one following another: so Christ in his administration observed this order & distinction; first, 
† Mat. 5. etc. unto Mat. 26.  teaching the Church as a Prophet, above three years; then 
* Mat. 26. and 27.  offering up himself as a Priest & 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 all his enemies be made his footstool. Now M. Smyth maketh prophesy one with the Priesthood, because he would have these two to be God's worship: & the kingdom he speaketh of first; and excludeth all the actions of it from God's worship. Whereas the Gospel is called 
* Mat. 13. 19  the word of the kingdom; and Christ when he preached (or prophesied) is said to 
† Luk. 4. 43  preach the kingdom 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 administering the kingdom should not be worship: and yet the preaching of the gospel, or prophesying, shallbe worship, and that in the highest degree, properly so called. If he followed not fancy in these things, rather than sound judgement; let the prudent judge.  
Like vanity he showeth in this, that having made the scriptures to be the matter of our worship now, he makethnot them to be the matter also of God's worship in Israel, but beasts, incense, oil, fat, etc. and the form of our worship to be the spirit, but the form of theirs to appear in honey, leaven, fire & 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. etc.▪ 1 Sam▪ 10. 5. 6.  praying prophesying, singing &c. by the spirit, as we? How is it then, that this man maketh the matter and form of God's worship in Israel, to consist in such carnal things? There is a depth of abomination herein, which is the ground of his anabaptising heresy. For whereas th'Apostle magnifieth the 
* Rom. 3. 1. 2. 3. & 9, 4, 5. & 11. 1, 17. 18. etc.  jewish Church, above the Gentiles in many respects: this proud Gentile disgraceth them extremely, saying 
† Charact. of the beast p. 16.  that their ministery worship & government was carnal; that faith and repentance was not required to the matter, that is, the people of that Church, but only a carnal holiness; with many such like vituperies, which out of his carnal heart he uttereth against them.  
But for their worship which we have in hand, let him show if he can, what one thing we have which they had not before us. He maketh the parts of our worship to be three, praying, prophesying, singing; all these they had, and uttered them by the spirit, as the scriptures every where manifest: and though they had many carnal rites with these, as sacrifices, incense, etc. yet was not their worship carnal: for we have also some carnal rites, as washing with water in baptism, the eating of bread & wine in the Lord's supper; have we therefore a carnal baptism, a carnal supper? if not, neither had they a carnal worship, though carnal rites were adjoined unto their worship. But as God whom they worshipped was a spirit, so worshipped they him in spirit, and with faith, expecting that promise which God made unto them of salvation by Christ; as Paul testified of the whole body of that Church; that 
* Act. 26. 7.  the twelve tribes instantly serving (or worshipping) day and night, hoped to come unto it: showing further, that the gentiles are of the same, or 
† Sussoma Ephe. 3. 6.  one joint body with them; fellow-heyres, and partakers of the promise in Christ.  
M. S. having showed (as he thought) the matter and form of the jews worship, inferreth upon it thus. 
* Differenc. pag 19  Hence it followeth (saith he) that the worship that beginneth in the book or translation cometh 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 willbe able to see it. For, did the matter of their worship, the beasts, incense, oil, etc. proceed out of the book? or did the form seen in fire and salt, come from the book, any otherwise then our praying, preaching, and ministering of the sacraments doth or must do. Did they look on a book when they kindled fire 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 ministery of the letter spoken of, 2 Cor. 3, 6. shall through God's grace, anon be proved; in handling the second point, of the scriptures.  
Here next followeth to be considered Mr Smiths allegories & opening the worship of the new testament, by the type in the old.  
Their 
* Differ. pag, 20, 21  Church, Ministry, worship, government, etc. as he saith, were all literal and ceremonial. Their literal or typical worship, was performed in two places, 1. the holy place, 2. or the court. The worship in the holy place, typed (saith 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 pertained to the brazen altar, 2. that which was performed at the golden altar, 3. that which concerned the table of show bread, Exod. 37. & 38. with Exod. 29, 38. & 30. 7. 8. 34— 38. Levit. 24. 1.— 9 At the brazen altar were offered sacrifices propitiatory and eucharistical, signifying, prayer, thanksgiving, prophesy. At the golden altar was perfume, signifying prayer, thanksgiving, preaching the gospel. Upon the table of show bread was the candlestik, and 12. loves with incense. The candlestik signified the Church; shining by doctrine, etc. The show bread, signified the 12. tribes or Church, present before the Lord, fed with Christ etc.  
As the holy place with the altar and Priests, 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 signify the confused assemblies of antichristian persecutors, & their ceremonial worship, Rev. 11. 2. which the spirit in that place caleth gentiles or heathen in these respects.  
The parts of typical service performed in the court, were reading and music, wherein the Levites were chief agents; though the priests also and any of the people might read and sing. The scriptures read and tunea musically, are prophecies, prayers, thanksgivings.  
In this discourse God would let the Reader see, how M. Smyth is given over to blindness of heart, in judging spiritual things: by that blindness which is in him in discerning carnal things, & which are set before all men's eyes.  
For, to make the legal shadows serve his fancy, he placeth the brazen altar in the holy place or tabernacle with the golden altar, table and candlestik: whereas the scripture showeth it was set in the court-yard of the tabernacle 
† Exod. 40. 6. 28. 29.  before the door, and that a good distance off, having the Laver 
* ver. 30. 32  between the tabernacle and it, in which the priests did wash when they went into the tabernacle. And to this place at the door 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 & hanged with embroidered 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 cover were spread over them on high, and a vail 
* ver. 28.  hanged at the door. Upon the altar was a fire 
“ 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 thousand. 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.  embroidered with cherubims, the boards to be covered with gold, that all mought be dight with smoke and swoot; & continually in danger to be set on fire? yet M. Smyth will needs have it there, because he thought it would fit his turn well. With like discretion he placeth the candlestik upon the table, though Moses plainly telleth, that it (being very great, of a 
* Exo. 25. 39  talon of gold, about 160 pound weight,) was 
† Exo. 40. 22— 24.  set on the south side of the tabernacle, & the table with show bread on the north. But his eye sight failed not so much in the shadow, as his heart was blinded in the shadowed thing. For he maketh the 1 tabernacle, 2 altar, & 3 Priests, to signify the 1 Church, 2 worship, & 3 saints under the new testament: the 1. court of the tabernacle, he will have to signify the assemblies of Antichrist; the 2 Israelites there assembling, to signify the antichristian persecutors: 3 the typical service in the court, as reading the scriptures, & singing them with music; to signify the ceremonial worship of antichristians. For none but antichristians (as he thinketh) do read the scriptures in their worship. Behold unto what great impiety 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 chief treasure, 
“ Deut. 7. 6. 7.  precious unto him above all peoples of the earth, on whom he set his love, 
† Deut. 33. 26.  riding upon the heavens for their help, & on the clouds in his glory; a people 
* verse.. 29.  blessed and saved by the Lord, the shield of their help and sword of their glory: this people he maketh to signify the antichristian persecutors, hated of God, children of the Devil, for whose overthrow and confusion Christ 
“ Revel. 19 11— 21.  rideth on the heavens in his glory with a garment dipped in blood, and a sword for to slay them, and fill all the fowls of the air with their flesh.  
The worship and service commanded by God unto his people, and his good word to instruct them, by which he called them 
† Lev. 17. 2 4— 7.  from the service of Divils': this false prophet maketh to signify the service of antichristian idolaters, which 
* Rev. 9, 20  worship devils.  
Thd Lords 
“ Lev. 6. 16.  holy courts, wherein they that dwelled were 
† Ps. 65. 4.  blessed, for which the souls of the Saints 
* Psal. 84. 2. 10.  longed and fainted, counting one day there better than a thousand otherwhere: is now made to signify the Synagogue of Satan, and place where the Devil dwelleth.  
So then the Israel of God which according to his will worshipped and served him 
“ 2 Chro. 29. 27— 29  with song and sacrifice; the prophets, priests, Levites, yea Christ himself and his Apostles, which often went thither to worship God and teach the people; these all were figures and significations of antichristian persecutors; excepting the priests only whom M, Smyth of his courtesy, 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. etc.  in the temple burning incense, and the whole multitude of the people were without in prayer, waiting for his coming out to 
* Num. 6. 23. Lev. 9 22.  bless them: he & his service, signified Christians and their worship of God; they with their prayers, signified antichristians and their worship of the Devil. Yea God himself is highly blasphemed by this wretched exposition: for seeing by types & figures he taught his people how for to serve him, & led them by earthly signs to heavenly things signified; how can it be said or thought without blasphemy, that the public worship of the whole congregation appointed by God himself, did signify hellish things, and antichristian idolatries?  
But what may we think induced M. Sm. to this impiety? Even Satan deceived him by one place of scripture which he 
† pag. 21.  citeth in his book; viz. Rev. 11. 2. where john 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 signify the gentiles, that is the Antichristians, and consequently the court must betoken antichrist's Church, and the worship antichrist's worship. Thus one dark scripture is alleged to overthrow the clear doctrine that shineth throughout all the prophets. Yet even this place itself mought have taught him better. For first the commandment to 
* Rev. 11. 1.  measure the temple, altar, and worshippers, signified the restoring or repairing of God's Church and people, after some destruction & desolation; as the like visions showed 
“ Ezek. 40. 3. 5. Zach. 2. 1. 2.  to Ezekiel and Zacharie, after the destruction of Solomon's temple, do manifest. Secondly, whereas the court and the holy city was not measured here by john; as before by 
† Ezek. 40. 47. & 48. 30. Zach. 2, 2.  the other prophets, they were, and as afterwards 
* Rev. 21. 15.  john did see: it may teach us, that as yet there was not a full restoration of God's Church and worship, from the defection of Antichrist.  
Thirdly in that the court is here said to 
“ Rev. 11. 2  be given to the gentiles, & the holy city should be trodden under foot of them, & a time limited how long, two & forty months: this argueth that the court was not made, nor the city builded for them: but by God's permission, for the chastisement of men, was given unto them for a season, during which time his two witnesses should prophesy 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 soul, into the hands of her enemies. So all judah 
* jer. 20. 4.  was given into the hand of the king of Babel: and 
“ Isa. 63. 18  Esaias complaineth how the adversaries had trodden down God's sanctuary, as here 
† Rev. 11. 2  they tread down the holy city. And if the court of the temple must needs signify antichrist's court, because it was given to the gentiles; then must the holy city, (by which name 
* Neh●m. 11. 1. Isa, 48, 2. & 52 1, Mat. 4. 5.  jerusalem is often alled): signify also antichrist's city & Church, because it was trodden down of the same gentiles; but all the Prophets 
† Psal: 51. 18. & 87. & 122. Isa: 60, Revel: 21.  show that it signified the Church of God.  
Finally, if M. S. would have interpreted scripture by scripture & not by his own fancy, 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 jerusalem heaps. Where by Gentiles are not meant the Israelites, but Babylonians or other heathen 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 antichrist's Church is called 
* Rev. 17  Babylon, and Christ's 
† Rev. 21  jerusalem. And as the gentiles of old, exposed 
“ Psal. 79. 2.  the dead bodies of God's saints, unburied, to the beasts and birds: so these gentiles 
† Rev. 11. 9  here, having killed the Lords witnesses, would not suffer their carcases 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 taste, how unsavoury and bitter M. Smiths' wormwood is, who to abolish the reading of God's 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 God's worship, with the types in Israel; next follow the parts and kinds of the same, which M. Sm. saith are 1. praying, 2. prophesying, 3 & singing psalms. Psal. 50. 14. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 15— 17. 26. jam. 5. 13. Rev. 19 10.  
Worship, properly so called, whereof he would seem to entreat: is not so large as here he makes it: and if he mean worship in general, it is more large than these three particulars do express.  
Worship strictly taken, for that which in Greek is proskunesis, betokeneth a prostrating or supplicating unto God: & is in scripture applied and annexed unto prayer, Exod. 34. 8. 9 unto thanksgiving, Gen. 24. 26. 27. unto offerings & sacrifices, (after whichit was performed,) 1 Chron. 16. 29. with 2 Chro. 29. 29. unto the bringing of first fruits, with acknowledgement of God's goodness, Deut. 26. 2— 10. unto confession praising and blessing of God; Nehem. 9 3. 2 Chron. 7. 3. 1 Chron. 29. 20. job. 1. 20. 21. and sometimes it is set down absolutely, where these or some of them, are to be understood. Act. 8. 27. Exod. 4. 31. Wherefore it is truly and properly applied unto all manner supplication or calling on the name of God. But that it may fitly be applied unto prophesying, no scriptures that I know of, manifest; neither 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 unto his Church by his spirit; as we have example in Israel, Num. 11. 25. 26. as was foretold by joel to be at Christ's coming, joel 2. 28. 29. and as was fulfilled upon 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 Psalm:) and make it above the rest, properly worship, I cannot tell. If he use 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 used. He mought have seen in the same 14. to the Corinth's, four ways of teaching noted by the Apostle, vers. 6. either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesy, or by doctrine; and examples of these four, in the Christians practice: For Paul spoke of revelations to the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 12. 1. 2. etc. and john by revelation, to the Churches in Asia. Rev. 1. 1. 2. 4. 9 10. etc. and by knowledge the same man spoke to the Church in general, when he reported that which they had seen, heard, handled and known to be true; joh. 19 35. 1 joh. 1. 1. 3. and Peter doth the like; 2. Pet. 1. 17. 18. by prophesy, when by secret instinct of the spirit, they were moved to speak something 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. etc. Rom. 4. 3. 4. etc. Luk. 4. 17. 18— 21.  
And this latter is the surest way and safest now for the Church, when by the scriptures they are taught the will of God: the other extraordinary and miraculous gifts being ceased. Therefore the Evangelists and ordinary ministers of churches are not exhorted to prophesy, but to feed, preach, read, teach, exhort comfort etc. Act. 20, 28. etc. 1 Pet. 5, 1, 2, etc. 1 Tim. 4, 13— 16. 2 Tim: 4, 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1, 9 though prophesy was not to be despised, 1 Thes. 5, 20. Even as the Priests and Levites in the Law, were not appointed ordinarily to prophesy but to 
† Deut. 3●. 10.  teach, which they did by 
* Neh. 8. 7. 8.  reading & expounding the scriptures: and prophesy was 
“ Eze. 1. 3. jer. 1. 1. 2.  extraordinary to them or any other of what tribe so ever. Although therefore 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 than of tongues: which we attain by ordinary labour and study, they had without study. Act. 2, 4. and 19, 6.  
But however M. Sm. taketh the word, I deny prophesying to be worship properly so called: and will consider his reasons, which are two, 1. praying & prophesying are joined together (
† pag. 19  saith he) as parts of worship, 1 Cor. 11, 4. and men must be uncovered at both of them. Again, 2. Prophesying and Psalms are coupled together for the same purpose. 1. Cor. 14. 26.  
The first reason is insufficient, for in 1 Cor, 11, 4, praying & prophesying are joined indeed together, but not as parts of worship properly so called, that is of the gloss, not of the text. The thing there spoken of concerneth all ecclesiastical actions: & two differing each from other are named, to imply all the rest. For Paul speaketh of the habit of men and women, which became them to have in all public meetings: which was, that women should be veiled, men unveiled on their heads: and this not only because of the worship of God: but also 
† 1 Cor. 11. 10.  because of the Angels, which are not to be worshipped; and because of the man, 
* ver. 7.  whose glory the woman is: yea because of 
“ ver. 14. 15.  nature itself, which by giving women long hair, teacheth them thereby, 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 God's worship, the Priests having 
† Exod. 28. 40. Ezek. 44. 18.  bonnets upon their heads, by God's 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 sign of 
* vers. 4. 8.  dishonour and subjection, unmeet for men which were principal in the assembly, & carried God's 
“ vers. 7.  image and glory upon them; but meet for women, which were inferior to men, both by 
† vers. 9  creation and otherwise, and therefore were to have 
* vers. 10.  power upon their head, that is, a veil, signifying the power & authority which men had above them, as in all places, so chiefly in the church assemblies, where 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 jer. 14. 4. the ploughmen were ashamed they covered their heads. So David & his men in their sorrow 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 custom was for men to cover their heads in dishonour, reproach, and grief; 
† Plutar. in vita Demosthenes'.  human histories do record. But bonnets or mitres 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 therefore the Apostle willeth women to be veiled or covered, it is not only for the worship of God properly so called, but because of God's 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 prophesy, therefore these two actions are of one and the same nature: for they mought not be veiled in the Church at all; unless perhaps in extraordinary time of mourning and sorrow, they covered their heads, as I have showed examples in Israel.  
The other reason from 1 Cor. 14, 26. where prophesying & psalms are coupled together (as M, Smyth saith) for the same purpose; is more weak and less to the purpose. For prophesy is not named there; but if it had been named, it would not have proved it worship properly, any more than tongues, revelations, interpretation, doctrine, which there are named, be parts or kinds of worship. And if because things are named together we must therefore count them of the same nature, than 
† 1 Cor. 13. 13.  faith, hope, and love coupled together, and many other things in other scriptures, must be esteemed the same: which is vanity to affirm. Yea in this 
* 1 Cor, 14  very chapter, Mr. Smyth mought have learned the contrary; for it is said 
“ v. 24, 25.  if all prophesy, and one that believeth not come in, he is rebuked of all &c. and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, and say plainly that God is in you indeed. where Paul showeth a difference between prophesy & worship, as in name so in gesture, by falling down, whereas at prophesy they 
† ver. 30.  sat. And if men should kneel or prostrate themselves at the ministery of the word and sacraments, it were liker idolatry then seemly behaviour in the church: but at worship properly so called, kneeling, bowing, falling down etc., are the most fit gestures: so as one is put sometime for another, as when Matthew saith the leper 
” Mat. 8, 2.  worshipped Christ, Luke recording the same saith, 
* Luk. 5, 12.  he fell on his face and besought him. And how often throughout the scriptures is bowing and falling down joined with worship? So in Israel, at the ministery 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 etc. doth these things unto God, as by the Angel it is commanded 
† Rev. 19, 10.  worship God:) and prophesy being directed unto men, (as Paul saith 
* 1 Cor. 14 3.  he that prophesieth speaketh unto men;) also the next end of worship, being the glory of God (Ex. 23, 14— 17. with joh. 12, 20. Act. 8, 27.) but the next end of prophesy being the edifying exhortation & comfort 
“ 1 Cor. 14 3.  of the church, these things may teach us that prophesy is not worship properly so called, that is proskunesis: but only in a general sense, as latreia or sebasis, even as reading the scriptures (which is for men's edifying, exhortation and comfort as prophesy is) and all other like ecclesiastical actions. And this word latrevo, Paul 
† Rom. 1, 9  applieth to himself, in his preaching of the gospel; of whom we may learn what manner of worship prophesy is.  
Whereas therefore M. Smyth hath accused us of idolatry, for reading the scriptures in the church (wherein we do but that God commanded, in that manner and to that end) and the man himself calleth and esteemeth prophesy 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 principal. Or, how ever it be for that, all men may see how he hath sought to abuse us by his equivocation, & to shroud himself in a conceited fancy.  
Yet one thing more I will observe touching the sacraments, which M. Sm. speaketh not of in this place; but elsewhere in that book saith thus; 
* Differ. p. ●.  The publishing of the covenant of grace, and the putting to of the seals: is only one concrete action or part of worship: for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seals: otherwise, breaking bread and baptizing are but putting of seals to a blank. Here first I note by the way, how M. S. acknowledgeth the Lord's supper and baptism to be seals of the covenant of grace; (as in 
† Pag. 23.  another place also he calleth them;) yet now being put to his shifts for defence of his anabaptism, he is driven thus to say, 
* Charact. of the beast pag. 26.  I deny that baptism is the seal of the covenant of the new testament. Thus the windy cloud carrieth himself to and fro, and rather than he will forego his error, he will 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 baptism,) a seal of the righteousness 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 baptizing with water; breaking, giving, taking, eating of bread etc. be one concrete, that is, one joint 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 conjoined action and part of worship: especially seeing they were joined together in Israel, as Nehem. 8. 8. They read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense etc. If the Priests and Levits then whose office was to 
† Deut. 33. 10.  teach jaakob Gods judgements and Israel his law; did thus teach with reading: and if it be true that th'Apostle saith, 
* Act. 15. 21.  Moses of old time hath in every city 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 we not as good ground to say that reading and preaching is one joint action and part of worship, as preaching and baptizing? But it was Satan's policy to disgrace the reading of God's book, and seek to thrust it quite out of the worship of God; that men mought prophesy (as now they use to speak,) out of their hearts; and honour that as God's proper worship; and so the serpent's word if it were mixed with the Lords, mought the more easily be unespied, the scriptures being absent. But God hath joined 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 lie falsely.  
Singing of Psalms. M. Sm. will have to be the third part of worship; because praying and singing Psalms are put together (
† Pag. 19  saith he) in the same sense, (that is, as parts of worship.) 1 Cor. 14. 15 17. jam. 5. 13. Act. 16. 25. And prophesying and psalms are coupled together for the same purpose. 1 Cor. 14. 26.  
Here again M. S. omitteth the needful distinction of Psalms and singing of them. For some Psalms 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 harmony of voices. another kind of Psalm there is, which one man uttereth in the Church, and others hear him: of which sort the Apostle speaketh, 1 Cor. 14. 26. when ye come together, 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 inferior to the other, as being uttered by men subject to ere as well 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 less appear, speaketh here of singing Psalms as of one sort, and nature. Again, that he might make all serve his own fancy, he describeth singing of Psalms to be 
† Pag. 20.  the showing of our thanksgiving to God, by the manifestation of the spirit, Philip. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 14, 15— 17. Whereas we find in the scripture many Psalms directly penned for 
* Psal. 1. & 49. & 78. & 91. etc.  doctrine and instruction to the Church, as othersome are for thanksgiving to God: yea matter of all sorts, history of things past, prophesy of things to come, rebuke, threatening, comfort, lamentation, and what not, is mixed in songs of the scripture, and why such Psalms might not by the spirit be suggested to Christians in Paul's time, (as well as thanksgivings,) I know not any reason at all. So that his reasons of prayer & song mentioned together, are insufficient to prove them both of one nature properly; as before is noted of prophesy: rather we are to distinguish praying, singing, prophesying, as three several gifts and works of the spirit: and all of them God's worship and service in the Church according to their several kinds and nature. But it seemeth strange unto 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 God's 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 us, who accounting it an extraordinary gift now ceased, do content ourselves with joint harmonious singing of the Psalms of holy scripture, to the instruction and comfort of our hearts, and praise of our God. Separating ourselves (as the holy Ghost 
* 1 Tim. 6. 4. 5.  willeth us) from such as dote about questions and strife of words, whereof cometh envy, contention, and many other evils.   

OF THE SCRIPTURES.  
HAving ended the point of worship, with the nature & parts of it: it remaineth now to see, how this thing is applied by M. S. against reading of the scriptures. And first in the general touching all manner writings, he saith that 
† Differen. pag. 4.  books or writings are in the nature of pictures or images, and therefore in the nature of ceremonies, and so by consequent 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 Proctor for the Pope, who hath brought images into the Church, for lay men's 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 speeches 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▪ 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 ear and understanding of the hearer; so the sight of the letter affecteth the eye & understanding of the reader: and as far doth a book differ from an image, in this respect, as a man from a bell. A bell when it soundeth in the ear, yieldeth no distinct articulate voice, for the edifying of the hearer; but a man when he speaketh, is understood of the hearers, & his reanable voice doth edify: so an image when it is looked upon, affordeth a man no edification (no not if it were an image sent from heaven, unless it had a 
† job. 4. 16  voice withal:) but a book when it is read, informeth the mind, and feedeth not the eye only, as doth a picture. An image & picture hath a 
“ Ps. 1●5. 5  mouth & speaks not; no spirit or breath of life is in them: 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  testifieth the mind of God; and by that which is there written the spirit 
* Rev. 2. 7. 11. 17. 29.  speaketh to the Churches. Wherefore a main 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 stead: so should less harm come unto men's souls, than now doth by reading his heretical writings.  
But if books and writings be in nature of ceremonies, & reading (as he saith) ceremonial; whereof he giveth this reason, for as the beast in the sacrifices of the old testament was ceremonial, so was the kill of the beast ceremonial:) how is it, that he said before of reading, that it is a lawful ecclesiastical action; doth not the 
* Prov. 12 19  lying tongue vary incontinently? For shall we have legal ceremonies, (the 
† Col. 2. 17  shadow of things to come, whose body is in Christ,) to be used as lawful ecclesiastical actions? may we not then have pictures & images of 
“ Exod. 25  cherubims etc. 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 saith, As musical instruments and playing upon them was typical, because it was artificial: so reading of a book was typical 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 & grounds do reach to judaism & Familism, I leave unto the wise to judge; and future things will show more: for as yet the 
† jude. 13.  wandering stars have not run all 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 God's scriptures in his worship; beginning even with the Originals, the Hebrew and Greek as they were written by the prophets & Apostles. Wherein he is fallen into a higher degree of error, or of fraud; then when we had controversy with him: for then 
* See before pag. 2.  his plea was, no translation (for it is apocryphas) but only the canonical scriptures are to used in the church in time of God's worship. Now he will out with canonical scripture also, for the reading of it, he thinketh was a ceremony 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.  

† Difference. pag. 5.  The holy Originals (saith he) signify and represent to our eyes, heavenly things: therefore 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. joh. 1. 17. 2 Cor. 3, 7. Before Moses, holy men prophesied out of their hearts, 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 witness against the people, Deut. 31, 26. therefore the Apostle caleth it the handwriting in ordinances which was contrary to us, which Christ nailed to his cross. Col. 2, 14, Eph. 2, 15. Hence it followeth that the holy Originals, the Hebrew scripture of the old testament, are ceremonies, 2 Cor. 3, 3, 7 Num. 5, 23. 24. & by necessary consequent. The book or tables of stone, typed unto the Jews their hard heart, void of the true understanding of the law. 2 Cor 3, 3. Hebr. 8. 10. Ezek. 36, 26, 27. 2 Cor. 3, 14, 15. The ink wherewith 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 engraven signifieth the work of the spirit, who alone doth write the law in our hearts. by proportion. also Deut. 9, 10. with Heb. 8, 10. Reading the words of the law out of the book, signifieth the uttering of the word of God out of the heart, 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 only so far forth as they are ceremonial, Col. 2. 14. 20. Gal. 4. 9 The thing signified by the book, viz the law of God & the new testament remaineth, 2 Cor. 3. 11. 7. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 13.  
Here first may be observed, how M. Sm. professing to treat of the original scriptures, in which both old and new testament, both law and gospel are written unto us: taketh one part only, to weet, the law or old testament, and from it will conclude against the whole body of the scriptures; and this fallacy he often useth in his writings. But if all he here saith were granted, that the writings of Moses were abolished by Christ: Yet will it not thereupon follow that the writings of the other Prophets and of the Apostles also, are typical, ceremonial and abolished. Nay rather the contrary would follow thus; that as circumcision, and the passover etc. were figurative shadows ended by Christ, no more to be used; but baptism and the Lords supper instituted by Christ in stead of the former, are continually to be practised: so the writings of the old testament, if they were shadows & ended by Christ, yet the writings of the new testament, given instead of the other, are never to be abolished.  
Secondly, let it be considered what M. Sm. hath here left unto us, not ceremonial and unabolished; the thing signified (saith 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 ink, on paper, or parchment, for all these he saith are ceremonial and so abolished; but written in men's hearts as in books, with the spirit as with ink, and so to be uttered by men, out of their hearts. If Satan can but persuade this point, he will bring out of men's hearts, as out of the bottomless pit, a smoke of heresies, instead of the fiery law of God, & who shall control him. For men's hearts now, are the same which God's book was of old; and as Israel fetched their laws, doctrines, worship, and services from the scriptures written with ink: so Christians now must fetch their laws, doctrines, worship. etc. from the hearts of men, as from the tables of the law, and what is from thence uttered, is to be counted, as written with ink of God's spirit. For the heavenly 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 enemy of God's scriptures, can show no stronger ground for his familisme, wherein he reproacheth scripture learning: then this which is here laid by M. Smyth.  
But the scriptures and reasons which he hath brought, be far from proving so deadly an error. For the book of God as always, so still, signifieth and representeth to our eyes heavenly things; (although 
* As that mentioned Heb. 9 19  some figurative extraordinary use thereof be abolished:) for it signifieth and teacheth unto us the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. And as the book of the law was a witness 
† Deut. 31. 26.  against Israel, when they 
¶ vers. 27.  walked rebelliously and with a stiff neck: so is it a witness to this day 
“ joh. 12. 48.  against all Christians that walk in like sort. But such in Israel as had the word 
* Deut. 30. 14.  near unto them in their mouth and in their heart for to do it; the book of the Law was a witness for them; a 
† Psal. 19 7 8.  sure testimony giving wisdom to the simple, a perfect law, converting the soul; and the statutes of the Lord therein, were right unto them, and rejoiced the heart, the commandment 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 well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place; by it they 
¶ joh. 20. 31.  believe, and so come to life; and by it 
* 1 joh. 1. 4  their joy is made full.  
Again 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 up in Exod. 20. 21. 22. and 23. chapters:) which book was read in the people's ears, 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 use of the book for that time, which now is abolished by Christ's blood which hath confirmed the new testament, and abrogated the old. The holy histories, prophecies, psalms, parables etc. were never thus sprinkled with blood; but only that book wherein the conditions of the covenant were written. Wherefore there were beside this, other ordinary permanent & perpetual uses of the scriptures, by 
† Deut, 19 19 Psal. 1. 2. Pro. 1. 1 2.  reading them privately and publicly, 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 saith. And therefore as at the public solemn assembly of all Israel in the sabbath year, the law was 
“ Deut. 31. 10— 13. ⸪ Act. 13 15. & 15. 21.  read unto them all, that they mought learn, & fear God, and keep all his words, they & their children: so at their particular assemblies in their synagogues throughout every city, both Moses and ⸫ the Prophets that wrote after him, were read every Sabbath day: and this from old time, even unto Christ's days on earth, who himself 
† Luk. 4. 16. 17.  in his own person and action allowed and sanctified this holy custom; and commended by his Apostles 
* 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 2 Pet. 1. 19  all 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 man's ruin, to seek to make the scriptures generally & wholly ceremonial and abolished; because of that extraordinary 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 men's hearts by the spirit, this taketh not away the use of the law written in books with ink; 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 righteousness in the great congregation; and as he, so every other righteous man's mouth, spoke of wisdom, & his tongue talked of judgement, 
* Psal. 37. 30. 31.  the law of his God being in his heart, 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 whose hearts God's 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 than they did in Israel; and Christ's Apostles have written the word even 
⸫ 2 joh. 11 3 Joh. 13. with 1 joh. 1, 3, 4. & 2 12. etc.  with paper and ink, as they spoke it with voice; to meet with their dotage that dream ink and paper to be merely ceremonial. As for all hypocrites, they are now as heretofore stony hearted, and the outward letter written with ink, resembleth their hypocrisy.  
But whereas M, S. having cited Deut. 31. 26. inferreth, therefore the Apostle caleth it the handwriting in ordinances which was contrary to us, which Christ nailed to his cross 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 elsewhere he caleth also 
* Gal. 4, 3. 9  beggarly rudiments) such as was 
“ Col. 2. 11. Gal. 5, 2, 3.  circumcisió; the observing 
† Col. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 10.  of days & months etc. which ordinances were as an handwriting or obligation against the jews, witnessing that they were debtor unto God, sinners, miserable, & under the curse: unless they saw and learned Christ in them: by whom the obligation is canceled, and curse done away. For by circumcising themselves, they acknowledged (as by a bill of their hand) that they were born in sin, and impure by nature: even as we by baptizing ourselves, do the like. By offering sacrifices for sins, they acknowledged themselves actual transgressors of the law, and the kill of beasts, argued themselves were worthy of death. Now it was not possible 
* Heb. 10. 4.  for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, and the law 
“ Psal. 40. 6. 7.  taught them so much: therefore it was a 
† Gal. 3, 24  schoolmaster to lead them to Christ, that they mought be made righteous by faith. This handwriting which stood thus in decrees against the jew, and which rose up as an adversary and contrary unto them: Christ blotted or wiped out by his death on the cross, where he spoilt also the 
* Col. 2. 15.  principalities and powers, the Devil's which were ready to plead against Israel, & urge this handwriting, these ordinances which they practised, against them; if they used them not with faith in Christ, but with 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, etc. which how far it is from truth, I leave unto every conscience 〈◊〉 judge. But were it as he thinketh, the written word of God, yet must it then be limited, so far forth only as men do abuse it, and learn not Christ by it; for to such only 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 itself, for it preacheth to men the 
† Deut. 30. 6. 11— 14. with Rom. 10. 4. 5— 8.  word of faith, and righteousness thereby in Christ, as well as righteousness by works of the law: and the gospel hath 
* Rom. 3. 21.  witness of the law and prophets, and they 
“ Ioh, 5, 39  testify of Christ, & are a 
† 2 Pet. 1. 19  sure word unto Christians. Wherefore it were woe with us, if these were blotted out, and taken away as ceremonies and shadows abolished: the reading whereof both public and private, is a continual light and comfort to our hearts, and confirmation of our holy faith. And to substitute men's hearts (which are, by testimony of the prophet, 
“ jer. 17. 9  deceitful and wicked above all things,) in stead of the holy bible, whose words 
† Ps. 19 7. 8. 9  are all true and faithful: is a miserable exchange; for either men must be as were the prophets, 
* 2 Pet. 1. 21.  moved and carried by the holy ghost; and so all their words taken for heavenly oracles: or else we shall be fed with chaff in stead of wheat, and drink deadly poison in stead of wholesome liquor.  
The serpent is subtle 
† Gen, 3, 1.  more than any beast of the field: he saw this ground of making the scriptures of God, ceremonies, and abolished by Christ, would be distasted of many, yea of any that feareth God: therefore he laboureth to sweeten this wormwood, with an after receipt: which 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 all truth: the ground and foundation of our faith: that by them all doctrines, and every spirit is to be judged: that they are to be read in the church and to be interpreted: nevertheless, not retained as helps before the eye, in time of spiritual worship.  
There is no such battle, as when a man is at war with himself: & it is a special judgement where with God smiteth his enemies. Would any man think that such bitter & sweet waters could come out of one fountain, as have flowed here? Standeth this either with religion or with reason; that that which as an adversary, is blotted out, nailed to Christ's cross, & abolished as being ceremonial and a worldly rudiment; should yet be the fountain of all truth, the ground of faith, etc. If these will stand together, what will not? Then also may circumcision, altars, sacrifices, and other jewish services, although they were shadows and abolished by Christ; yet be retained and used of Christians, with a little qualification, and distinction of worship properly so called: and this will like the jews very well. But we that have learned Christ, cannot brook such contrary potions. For if the book, writing & reading of it be jewish shadows ended and abolished by Christ; and the heart 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 shadows. But if the book of God, the written scriptures, be the fountain 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 up the scriptures as our enemy upon the cross, so blotting them out as a canceled bond, and abolishing them for ever.  
Wherefore the reading and expounding of the scriptures, continueth, now as of old in Israel, where the law and prophets were read in the synagogues every sabbath, for to teach & inform God's people in his ways: so read we them still for like end and use, and shall by God's grace (maugre Satan's slights) so do unto the end. And as for the snare, the distinction I mean, of spiritual worship properly so called. Which was set to take the simple: it is broken 
* pag. 5. etc.  before; and the adversary himself, if any man be, is caught with the same.  
Yet ceaseth he not, but proceedeth with reasons, 
† Differen. pag. 6.  that the original scriptures are not given as helps before the eye in worship. But the foundations being already overthrown; we shall with less difficulty and more brevity, discover and do away the errors. His reasons are.  
Because Christ used the book to fulfil all righteousness, 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 signify that the ceremony of book worship, or the ministery of the letter, was now expired and finished. Luk. 4. 20. joh. 19 30.  
First here is the law of reading brought to an end, according to 
Answer.  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 God's worship and service, it is the worship of the Devil. 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, saith, all the worship that was appointed by Moses for the Priests, was limited 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, either by the Levites or any other learned men; (quoting again Luke 4. 16.) and so no part of worship properly so called, but only a ceremonial ground or foundation, of inward or outward spiritual worship, common to the Churches of all ages.  
If this be so, how ended Christ the ceremony 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 expire; and so M. Sm. hath lost his dream.  
Again, if Christ by shutting the book there, signified an end of reading; and the reading that there was, (as M. S. even now said,) 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 allegory will turn to a fancy; & so all reading must be abolished out of the Church; & that would the Devil fain bring to pass.  
But the reason of ending reading, is slight; that because Christ shut the book and gave it to the Minister, therefore he ended the work of reading. He used not to do such weighty matters, by dumb signs, without 
* Joh. 13. 12. 13. etc.  word of signification. And if the closing of the book were such a mystery: what was the taking and opening of the book, nothing? proportion will carry 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 moral laws, permanent and needful for the the Church in all ages. Neither was this the first or the last time of Christ's reading thus; for as his custom was (saith 
† Luk 4. 16  the scripture) he went into the synagogue and stood up to read: neither 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 up 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, understood not: and 
* ibidem ch. 9  that he preached out of S. Peter's boat, to signify how in S. Peter's chair, his doctrine should always be steadfastly professed. Such trifles must be brought where 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 ministery of the old testament which is abolished, Heb. 8. 13. 2 Cor. 3. 11. 13. and the ministery of the new testament, is the ministery of the spirit. 2 Cor. 3. 6.  
This scripture of the 2. Cor. 3. M. Sm. often allegeth for his 
Answer.  purpose; pag. 1. & 7. & 13. & 19 and 20. he thought belike it would sound well in simple folk's ears, that the reading of scriptures should be the ministery of the letter. But the ignorance & evil of the allegation is great; and fitted for Satan's policy, 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 done best of all, forbidding the people to read the scriptures, lest they should gather out of them errors, and so death and damnation. And who can comfortably read the scriptures, if that be the ministery of the letter, and so death? But out upon such a slanderous interpretation; it is far 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, wherein both law and gospel was written, & always to be read for instruction, comfort & salvation to the people. The law was first spoken, and afterwards written by Moses: the gospel of Christ was also first spoken, and afterwards written by his Apostles. If writing and reading made the other the letter, then maketh it this the letter also; and so the word of life, shallbe the ministration of death. The law if it had never been written, but only spoken, yet had it been the ministration of death: for all Israel hearing it, 
† Exod. 20. 18. 19  were afraid, and death seized upon 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 were read unto them, but only put and kept in the ark for a testimony. Deut. 10. 1— 5. and when the 10. commandments were read 
* Ex. 24. 7.  out of the book, there was no such fear: and the glory of Moses face terrified the people when he 
† Exod. 34. 30. 31. etc.  spoke and talked with them, for which he put a veil upon him: but of reading out of a book at that time (whereto the Apostle here hath reference,) there is not a word. So it was not reading only but speaking also without book, which was the ministration of the letter to the jews; and as Paul here calleth the law the letter, so elsewhere 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 heresy of justification by the works of the law, and teach this in prophesy out of his heart, 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 saith, 
* 2 Cor. 3. 7  it is the ministration of death: but of the scriptures Christ saith 
¶ joh. 5. 39  search them, for in them ye think to have eternal life. Of this letter Paul saith, it is 
† vers. 9  the ministery of condemnation; but of the holy letters in God's book, he saith, 
* 2 Tim. 3. 15.  they are able to make one wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus.  
The law is called the letter (not letter's as the 
“ 2 Tim. 3. 15.  scripture is called) by a similitude: for a letter is an outward visible thing appearing 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 thereby. Such is the doctrine of the law to the professor of it. It maketh him seem a fair hypocrite before men: they look and see the commandments of God written on his forehead, on the fringes of his garments, and on his door posts: but his heart and mind are stony stil. For the law reneweth no man, but sin that is in us, 
† Rom. 7, 8.  taketh occasion by the law, and worketh in us all manner transgression of the law, and so death. But the Gospel is the spirit that reneweth & quickeneth by faith in Christ: and changeth 
* Eze. 36. 26, 27. Heb. 8. 10.  the stony heart into flesh, and writeth there the laws of the most high. Thus by the letter is not meant the holy scriptures, which are God's 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 years after the churches 
3. Reason.  of the new testament did use no books in time of spiritual worship, but prayed, prophesied and sang psalms merely out of their hearts 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 showed of any man ordinary 
4. Reason.  or extraordinary, that at or after the day of pentecost used a book, in praying, prophesying, and singing psalms: if yea, let it be done and we yield.  
Nay, it is not in men's power to yield to the truth though 
Answer.  it be showed them: or though their own writings convince them: it is in 
† Rom. 9, 16  God that showeth mercy.  
First M. Smyth holdeth that such reading as was in the jew synagogues 
* Diff. p. 7.  was common to the churches of all ages. Secondly he saith 
“ 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 scriptures are to be read in churches; as in deed some of them do: we need fight no longer: the enemy unawares hath yielded the field.  
His flourish that he maketh, how the churches of the new testament used no books, because no example can be showed: is a deceitful argument. For when there is a ground from God to do the thing: we are to suppose men did it, although it be not expressly 
“ joh. 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 saith that all the scripture 
† 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17.  is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, to instruct in righteousness: that the man of God, that is the 
* 1 Tim. 6. 11.  minister of the new testament as well as of the old, may be absolute, & made perfect unto all good works. Wherefore as the Priests 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 doubtless did the ministers in the Apostles days, upon the same ground and proportion; though their particular form of administration be not expressed.  
That cavil of spiritual worship which as a leprosy overspreadeth all M. Smyth's book, is before taken away. Praying never was by reading out of a book; prophesying & singing psalms, being extraordinary gifts of the spirit, were also uttered by the spirit, without a book. All this notwithstanding, the scriptures were read and expounded to the people, & so must be still; and this though it be not proskunesis adoration supplication or worshipping of God, in the strict sense; yet is it latreia his worship or service in general.  
5 Because none of the books of the new Testament were written many 
5. Reason.  years after the day of pentecost, at the least 7. years: and the Churches all 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.  wherein both old & new Testament were contained. And Peter commended the Churches for 
* 2 Pet. 1. 19  taking heed unto 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 might 
6. Reason.  use lawfully; for they understood not Hebrew, and the septuagints translation ought not to be used or made; & the Apostles made no Greek translation. etc.  
If they had no books to use, they were blameless if they used 
Answer.  none. But they had the Greek translation, which was lawful to be made and used in the jews synagogues; as anon shall be showed, when the Septuagints work cometh to be scanned.  
7 Because as in prayer, the spirit only is our help; and there is no outward 
7. 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.  pray, 
Answ.  pared men's hearts and bended his ear. And as every man 
† 1 King. 8. 38. 39  knew the plague, (and consequently the benefit) in his own heart, so was he to pray & supplicate unto God, who heard in heaven, and was merciful, and did, as he knew every man's ways and heart. 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, are not contraries.  
8 Because it is against the nature of spiritual worship: for when we read, 
8. Reason.  we receive matter from the book into the heart: when we pray, prophecy, or sing, we utter matter out of the heart, unto the ear of the Church Ezek, 2. 8.— 19 and 3. 1.— 4. Rev. 10. 8.— 11.  
If Ezekiel a Priest under the law, prophesied without a book; 
Answer.  and yet reading the book of the law and expounding it, was their ordinary service every sabbath, as before is manifested: all men may see, that these two may stand together in God's worship, and not one throw out an other, as M. Sm. would have it.  
Neither is it against the nature of spiritual worship, to read God's book in the ears of the Church: for if it be worship in them to hear the spirit speak out of the Ministers heart; it is worship also in them to hear the spirit speak, out of the holy book. And it cannot be deneyed but God's spirit 
* Rev. 2. 1. 7.  speaketh there; and that which cometh out of the heart of man, must be tried by that book; and accordingly, accepted or refused. As for the Minister himself when he readeth out of God's 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, fiery cloven tongues did appear, not 
9 Reason.  fiery cloven books. Act. 2. 3. and always there must be a proportion betwixt the type and the thing typed. Upon the day of Pentecost the fiery law was given in books, Deut. 33. 2. Exod. 24. 4. 12. upon the day of Pentecost the fiery gospel was given in tongues, Act. 2. 3. Mat 3. 11. Act. 1. 5. the book therefore was proper for them, the tongue for us.  
In deed if any fiery books had appeared at the giving of the law, 
Answer.  M. Smyth's allegory would have had some light: but when as no such thing was seen, but only 
† Deut. 4. 12.  a voice of words was heard, as Moses telleth us; we should beware of such cloudy collections.  
The fiery law mentioned Deut. 33. 2. hath plain reference to God's promulgating of the law, by voice out of the mids of fire, Exod. 19 18. 19 & 20. 1— 18. Deut. 4. 11. 12. Afterwards those & other laws were written by Moses in a book, Exod. 24. 4 and God himself written the ten words on tables of stone: not then at Pentecost, but 40. days after, Deut. 9 9 10. Even so the fiery doctrine of the gospel was first uttered by voice, and afterwards written in books, Luk 1. 1. 3. Act. 1. 1. etc. joh. 20. 30. 31. The book than was not proper to them, (as M. S. feighneth,) but common also with us. God by Moses 
“ Exod. 24. 3. 4.  first spoke, then wrote to his Church: Christ by his Apostles, first spoke, then wrote also, to the same Church: and though the 
* Mark. 3. 17.  son of thunder wanted no gift of utterance by voice, yet Christ 
† Rev. 1. 19 & 2. 1.  bade him write: when if he had pleased he could have sent him to speak. And 
* Rev. 1. 3.  blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of that prophesy, and keep those things which are written therein: but cursed is he that despiseth reading of the Lords book, and dissuadeth the Church from that use thereof; by colourable reasons causing the 
† Deut. 27. 18.  blind to go out of the way: 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 typical worship of Moses, must begin at the spirit, and not at the letter originally. 2 Cor. 3. 6. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 7. or else the heavenly thing is not answerable to the similitude thereof.  
The true and proper worship which Moses taught Israel was the 
Answ.  worship of God in spirit and truth, Deut. 5. 7. 8. and 6. 4. 5. 6. though he led them hereunto, under veils and shadows, and by the covenant of works brought them to Christ, who doth both that covenant and shadows away as the wise did understand; Psal. 32. 1. 2. with Rom. 4. 4. 5. 6. 7. Psalm. 40. 6. and 51. 6.— 16. etc. with Heb. 10. 8. 9 Their spiritual worship, proceeded from the spirit and heart unto God, 1 King. 8. 22. 23. 33. 35. 38. etc. Ezra, 9 5. 6. etc. Nehem. 9 5. 6. etc.  
Of the legal worship, & M. Smythes inept allegorizing thereof, is spoken 
* pag. 12.  before; also his abuse of that scripture, 2 Cor. 3. 6. is already 
¶ pag. 33.  manifested; with his equivocation about this word worship: that the reader may be wearied, to have the same things oft repeated. Only now the falsehood and snare of these reasons against reading God's word, being discovered: let him learn to beware of Satan's deceit. For the mouth of an heretic is a deep pit, like the 
* Pro. 22. 14.  strange woman's: he with whom the Lord is angry shall fall therein.  
After this M. Sm. feighneth 4. objections for bookworship, as he termeth it; and then frameth answers as he seeth good; but ever and anon retiring to his old sconce of spiritual worship, thinking thereby to ward off all blows. Though it be a wearynes to follow such an empty cloud; yet for help to the weak, I will briefly show his vanity.  
Reading in the old testament was commanded by Moses, Deut. 31. 9-13. 
1. Objection.  was amplified by David, 1 Chron. 16. & 25. was practised by Josiah 2 Chron. 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 he answereth; First, the reading commanded by Moses 
Answ.  was only once every 7. year, Deut. 31. 10. 11. and therefore it was no part of ordinary worship, and there is no commandment in Moses, given either to the Priests or Levites, for ordinary reading of the law in the tabernacle. Secondly, hence it followeth, that reading in the old testament, was no part of the worship of the tabernacle or temple, or of the service performed by the priests therein, etc. Thirdly, therefore reading was of another nature performed in the utter court or synagogue or elsewhere, either 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 only 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: only we say it is not a part of spiritual worship, or a lawful means in time of spiritual worship.  
M. Smyth cannot see any commandment in Moses for ordinary reading 
Reply.  of the law in the tabernacle: and no marvel, for neither 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 booths to be kept seven days to ●he Lord, mentioning but holy convocations & sacrifices: M. Sm. (I dare say) will not gather reading, out of this commandment. But Ezra the Priest and all Israel with him, saw it here implied 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 holiness. And where findeth M. Sm. a commandment to read the law in the synagogues? yet was it commanded, or else it was will worship and vanity. The ordinance for Levi to 
¶ Deut. 33 10.  teach Israel God's law; was commandment enough both to read and preach it, as they did daily: and they were not so dull or carnal, but they could well perceive this to belong to their charge and ministery.  
But here M. Sm. saith, that the reading in Israel was no part of worship properly so called: forgetting himself (it seemeth) when elsewhere he saith, that the 
* pag. 19  worship that beginneth in the book, is from the letter or ceremony and so is not properly of the new testament but of the old; and again that, 
† pag. 20.  book-worship is judaism and so Antichristian; and idolatry now under the New testament; and again, that 
“ pag. 6.  Christ shut the book in the synagogue to signify that that ceremony of bookworship, or ministery of the letter was now expired. 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. will be found a calumniator both of us, 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, whereas we never spoke or thought of reading to be worship in such a sense, as he would draw it unto, nor otherwise worship then reading was in the synagogues, by Christ himself, neither was there controversy about worship at all, but only whether it were God's word or man's, 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 us. And hath he not also injuried Israel in charging them with book worship, and belied Christ himself, that he should use and finish a ceremony of book worship? when yet here he granteth it was of another nature, it was no part of worship properly so called: it was that which is common 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.  
The second objection he forgeth thus. Reading is commanded in the new testament, Col. 7. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27. and 
2. Object.  a blessing promised thereto, Rev. 1●5. and the commandment is that it be practised in the church: therefore it is a part or means of the worship of the new testament.  
The sum of his answer hereunto is.  
Not every thing performed in the Church, is a part of spiritual worship: 
Answer.  for all the parts of public administration of the kingdom are done in the Church, and yet cannot be said to be parts of spiritual worship properly so called chap. 1, and 2.  
Properly so called, is a common vizard of deceit, pulled off before 
Reply.  as here it shall be again. For M. Smyth divided the whole liturgy of the church, into actions of the kingdom and of the priesthood of the saints. chap. 1. and 2. The actions of administering the priesthood, he made to be actions of concord and union: and of these generally he saith, they be actions of spiritual worship properly so called. The actions of administering the kingdom, he made to be actions of opposition, difference plea and strife: and of them generally he saith, they are not actions of spiritual worship properly so called. Now here and often he deneyeth reading of the scriptures to be such spiritual worship, therefore it is no action of the priesthood; therefore no action of concord or union. So when the Priests and Levites read the law in the synagogues, and at their 
† Nehem. 8. 13— 18.  solemn feasts; we may not say, they did any action of the priesthood; 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 all, we must not understand them to mean reading as an action of concord or union in the church; for than it must be an action of the priesthood, and consequently worship properly so called: which M. Sm. will by no means 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 will draw it as by the hair 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 we? He is loath to speak: of the priesthood it is no part; and in handling 
pag. 1.  the actions of the kingdom, he specifieth it not; only there he saith, that books of all 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 Egyptians, and testimonies of the heathen poets are alleged: and further he nameth particularly translations, dictionaries, histories, chronicles, commentaries. etc. 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 heathen poets and all other like, may be read and produced: so they are tolerable, otherwise there is no place allowed them: though elsewhere he 
† pag. 6.  esteemeth better of them then of other writings. But in the actions of the priesthood, in the actions of concord or union, to read them is idolatry. What haeretik professing Christ could more have sought the disgrace of God's holy book; then thus to shut it quite out of God's worship, allowing it no other place, by these his wicked grounds, than julian the Apostata Christ's 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. etc.  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 strooken this man like Elymas with the blindness of Anabaptisme; it is a just recompense of his former error: that as he would have deprived the church of the use of the scriptures, the instrument of God's 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 (saith he) when he commandeth his Epistles to be read in the 
Answer.  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 reading the very words, by expounding the meaning by interpreting or translating. etc.  
Lo here the shifts of haeretiks. Paul willeth the church 
† Col, 4, 16.  to read 
Reply.  his Epistles, yea 
* 1 Thes. 5. 27.  chargeth them in the Lord, to read them to all the brethren; and writeth to them again, to 
“ 2 Thes. 2 15.  keep the instructions, taught by his Epistle: M. Smyth saith the meaning is not strictly literal, that the words which he wrote should be repeated: but the sense ralated. As if Paul wanted fit words to set down his meaning, & they that should read, could tell it better. He that readeth, must read words as they are written, specially in God's book, & Epistles from the holy Ghost, wherein 
† Pro, 30. 5▪ 6.  no one word is vain idle or unprofitable, no word misplaced or out of order: and he that shall presume to add or diminish or change the order in reading Gods writings, doth wickedly, and 
* Rev. 22. 18. 19  is near unto the curse. If things in reading be difficult, God hath given gifts unto men to open and expound them, to the understanding of all: 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 heart; as by 
“ Dan. 5. 25— 28.  daniel's practise, we may learn. Neither are the words of the expositor comparable to the words of the writer; these being divine, are all as silver 
† Psa, 12. 6  fined seven times, no dross mixed with them. The other being human, (I speak of ordinary men as we are) and showing the man's judgement that expoundeth them, are mixed with human infirmities, mistake, and sometime deadly errors. Wherefore reading of the Original scriptures whereof 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 all in Colosse, Laodicea, Thessalonica, and the whole 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 etc. yet acknowledgeth he at last, an absolute necessity of reading; only he denieth it to be a lawful help or part of spiritual worship. etc.  
As the Apostles, so the prophets wrote upon particular occasions; yet 
Rep.  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 necessity of reading the scriptures now, as they were read in Israel, and in the Christian churches, and to the same end: is all that we hold, and stand for. Which how it is worship is before showed.  
The Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 13. 16. commanded Timothee and so all Elders to 
3. Object.  attend to reading: where reading is joined with exhortation and doctrine; & so importeth, that it is to be understood of the joining of reading in the time of spiritual worship.  
This objection (as the rest) is made of M. Smyth's 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. etc.  
That reading in the public church is necessary, he is forced to acknowledge: 
Rep.  and in that we rest. If he think this place is not meant of public, but of private reading: he may keep his judgement. Myself see no cause why it may not also be meant of the public 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 God's house, whiles he tarried away, and in it saith, 
* 1 Tim. 4. 13.  till I come attend to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. where seeing all these are public ecclesiastical actions, (as M. Sm. himself granteth,) seeing they are joined thus together, & with this limitation till I come; what letteth but these all should be executed by him in public? Private reading for his own preparation, was to be always, and not only till Paul's 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 being 
4. Object.  extraordinary men, and having the extraordinary direction of the spirit, for they needed no such helps of books as we do: yet we being ordinary men have need of books. etc.  
This last objection, I reject as frivolous, and falsely intimated to be ours. The Apostles I am sure had no greater measure of the spirit than Christ: yet he 
† Luk. 4, 16  read publicly in the book: and so did holy men of God before 
* Neh. 8. 13, 14.  him: & public reading is granted yet necessary: therefore 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 God's ordinance of reading, that we stand 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.   

OF TRANSLATIONS.  
THe first and only controversy between M. Sm. and us being about the scriptures translated or overset into other tongues, which he affirmed to be apocryphas and human writings: how ever he hath sought to excuse and hide his error, yet hath he no will to forsake it, as appear by this, that having spoken of writings 1. by men inspired of God, as the prophets and Apostles, and 2. by ordinary men of all 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, seeing all these are equally human in respect of the work equal lie divine in respect of the matter they handle.  
Very impious is this comparison which thus matcheth a man's comment or written sermon, with Gods written word set over into an other tongue: for it debaseth the majesty of God's law, and advanceth too high, the baseness 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 one's own mind or understanding. The scriptures first written in Hebrew, and secondarily written in English: do set forth one and the same word & mind of God unto us, though which different letters & sounds: as Emmanuel is interpreted and translated God with us, Mat. 1 23. Messias is interpreted CHRJST in Greek; ANOJNTED in English. john. 1. 41. Here the Hebrew, Greek and English differ only in outward letter & sound; the meaning substance or essential form being one in them all, & the word of God, so called by relation, because the mind of God is made known hereby to the mind or understanding of man. The different letter or character changeth not the nature of the thing: for if it did, than 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 faithless jews. The different sound or pronunciation changeth not the nature of the thing: for then Messias and Christ should not be one and the same; and so the gospel and new testament, and our faith were overthrown; and more than jewish 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 practice showeth, writing with Greek letters, words and phrases; which had been profaned by lying histories and lascivious poets, unto all manner idolatry and wickedness. Hereupon it followeth, that the word of God, in whatsoever letter or language it be written or spoken unto us; is the word of God still; so to be reverenced and regarded: and not to be basely and profanely counted among human and apocryphal writings.  
A comment or exposition of scripture, as for example, upon this word Emmanuel, showeth the man's judgement mind or understanding that commenteth; telleth the reason of this name why it was given to Christ, discourseth of his godhead, 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 human writing, (though it may be, agreeable to the word of God,) showing by letters as by signs, what is the mind or understanding of such a man in this mystery of Christ's incarnation: even as Paul saith of his own divine writing; when ye read ye may know mine understanding in the mystery of Christ. Ephes. 3. 4.  
Now God hath by his Prophets and Apostles written to his Church a short sum of his mind and will; guiding and 
* 2 Pet. 1. 21.  carrying 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, faithfulness, equity and perfection in them; that men mought have a sure ground for their faith and actions, throughout all generations. And minding man's weakness, the holy Ghost hath omitted to write 
* john. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25.  many things, (though otherwise in their nature very good:) penning such only as were needful and profitable for our faith and salvation: giving us warning also to take heed of other things, because there is no end of making many books, and much reading is a weariness to the flesh. Ecclesiast. 12. 12.  
But because in these scriptures, somethings are 
† 2 Pet. 3. 16.  hard to be understood, and all men know not how to use and apply God's word unto their times, estates, actions, etc. 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 unto the world's end: always binding them both teachers and hearers, to the foundation laid 
† 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 jesns.  
For this cause the holy scriptures are necessary for all 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 still divine and heavenly. Only because in this changing or translating, imperfections, wants, errors may fall in: therefore the first writings as the Prophets & Apostles penned them, are to be made the absolute canon, rule, touchstone, whereby all 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 from human commentaries or expositions, as heaven doth from earth.  
But Mr. Sm. avoucheth men's written sermons or comments upon the scripture, & the scripture itself written in English, to be equally human 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 all, it is a speculation of his own heart. Two carnal reasons he setteth down, which are these. To translate the originals into any mother tongue is as well and as much the work of a man's 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 matter and thing translated, he doth but dally and seek to deceive: for writing, printing, translating are all alike human actions, but the things written printed translated, are different, some good some evil, some of God, some of men and of the devil. The books of Moses written printed or translated, are God's law; the book of Mahomet written printed or translated, is the devil's law: the actions of writing, printing, translating, are mere human actions in all of these. Now if because translating is an human action, therefore the thing translated must also be human, & the work of man's wit and learning: then also because writing and printing are human actions, therefore the bible written or printed in Hebreve Greek & all languages, must likewise be human, and the work of men's wit and learning: and then there can be no divine scriptures but the very first copies which the Prophets & Apostles wrote with their own hands: And if Satan could persuade this; he would be glad.  
Secondly if Mr. Sm. meaneth the thing translated, as Moses law, David's psalms or other like in English: that these are as well and as much the work of a man's wit and learning; as an exposition of doubtful places in them or doctrines and uses collected from them; he teacheth wicked error, which all of judgement & conscience will abhor. The holy scriptures faithfully expressed in English or any language, is the work of God's wisdom & unserchable knowledge: and cannot without injury to his majesty, be said to be the work of man's wit & learning; though man have used his skill in writing or translating it according to the original copy given of God. This plea of Mr. Sm. is like as if jeroboam should have said; the 
* 1. King. 6 23.  cherubims and 
† 1. King. 7. 25.  the brazen bulls in Solomon's temple, are as well and as much the work of man's wit & skill 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 human art did make them; but jeroboams calves were from his own heart: so answer I in this case; the translation is from the divine pattern of God's original book, and commanded to be made and used; but to write comments or homilies to read in the Church, is from a man's own heart, and hath no commandment or warrant from God so to be used; but are forbidden. Eccles. 12. 12.  
Secondly he saith The translator cannot conceive nor express in writing the whole mind of the holy spirit contained in the originals, but only some good part of it: the expositor, paraphrast, commentator may express 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 express the whole mind of the spirit in all the bible, by his interpretation literal or grammatical: then much less can the expositor express the whole mind of the spirit in the bible, by his exposition theological. For it is a thousand times easier for a translator to do his duty to the full, then for the expositor: yea this latter is utterly impossible, I say not only for one man, but for all the men in the world.  
Though the translator cannot express to the full every word and sentence in the Bible, yet the most part he may; whereas the expositor cannot do any at all, but is still to seek all days of his life, and they that come after him also.  
Hebraismes cannot always be expressed, through defect of the language: yet translation is needful, and the translator is blameless. For example, this name God called in Hebrew Aelohim, Gen. 1. 1. is in Greek translated Theos, and that by the Apostles often in the new Testament. Here is a want in the language, for Aelohim is in form the plural number, signifying the Trinity; yet joined with a word of the singular number bara, he created: signifying the unity of the persons in the Godhead. Such a phrase the Geek tongue wanted: therefore the Apostles admit of the Greek propriety, doing the full duty 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 neither may we have any preaching by the voice of man; for none can fully express in his sermon, all things that God intendeth by a place of scripture, or any ground of religion. And if preaching must be used, though many human 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 human infirmities be mixed therewithal; seeing these both are the ordinances of God, as before hath been proved.  
But then M. Sm. will draw commentaries and homilies into the Church also. But that is denied to be God's ordinance. He hath 
* 1 Cor. 12. & 14.  appointed the lively voice of his graces in the mouths of his servants to be heard in the Church, for the opening and applying of the word unto them: but not their writings to be read. And because of some infirmities in translations, to disgrace them, as this man doth, 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 God's word. For as such a falser to make sale of his mixture, wherein some wine, much water, yea perhaps some puddle water is brewed together, 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 will vapour away, some taste it will have of the new cask; therefore you may as well drink of this liquor, for in respect of the vessel 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 show us some comment or sermon written upon any text, wherein at the least there is not water and wine, and perhaps death in the pot.   

OF THE LXXII. INTERPRETERS.  
HEre 
† Differene pag. 10.  M. Smyth before he proceed further, takes up an accusation against the Church of Israel, who in the days of Ptolomee Philadelphus' King of Egypt, and at his request sent 72. learned jews to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek before the Apostles time almost 300. years. This their translation (saith M. Smyth,) was a grievous sin.  
1. For that the covenant of grace ought not to have been preached 
The 1. reason.  unto the gentiles till the fullness 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 Grecians, before the fullness of the time, was their grievous sin.  
I answer in the behalf of Israel; First, by M. Smiths' 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, etc. how is it then that he chargeth them here with profaning, the covenant of grace? and how will 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 literal translation & reading thereof, be the ministery or covenant of grace? the ministration of death, was fit enough for the Gentiles that were to die. Or, did it kill them before the time?  
Thirdly I deny his collection from those scriptures against this action: for although the fullness 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 hereupon, 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 contrary is plain. For, 1. there were many strangers, Egyptians & 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 passover, & so to the covenant of grace, Exod. 12. 48. 49. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 2. The Gibeonites which were of the worst sort of heathens, devote to destruction, yet obtained mercy with God, to be in the covenant of his grace. Josh. 9 27. 2 Sam. 21. 1. 2. 5. etc.  
3. There were also in Solomon's time 153. thousand and 600. strangers, none exempted from partaking with Israel's mercy.  
4. God gave his law to be read even unto strangers also, Deut. 31. 12. so far was he from withholding grace, if any sought it.  
5. And solomond dicating the temple prayed even 
* 1 King. 8. 41. 43.  for strangers, that dwelled in far countries, (who mought when they heard of God's name, come thither and pray in that house) that they even all people of the earth mought know God's name, & fear him as did his people Israel. All which do show the untruth of M. Sm. collection, that it was a sin for Israel to impart the scriptures and covenant of grace to the gentiles.  
Because all the Gentiles ought to have been Proselytes of the jews Church, and to have come to jerusalem to worship, Exod. 12. 43. 49. 
The 2. reason.  Mat. 23. 15. Act, 2.. 10. and aught to have learned their tongue and worship, which was prevented by the Lxx. translation.  
First, this reason enterfeireth with the former; for, if all aught 
Answer.  to have been proselytes: how might not the covenant of grace be preached unto them? Could they be converted without the word of the covenant? Here the accuser of the Saints hath 
† Prov. 26. 27.  rolled a stone, which is returned unto himself.  
Secondly, their conversion was not hindered but furthered by the Greek translation; for many now might read and hear of God's name, inquire after his truth and finding it, come to jerusalem, and learn that tongue, if they could. So yet the seventy are not found in sin, which helped men to righteousness.  
Because the Hebrew characters and writings were ceremonies, and so 
The 3. reason.  ought not to have been profaned among the Grecians by their wr●ings etc.  
Whether the characters were ceremonies or no, the LXX. are innocent 
Answer.  of this blame; for they wrote the bible to the gentiles in the Greek characters, syllables, words, sounds etc. and not in Hebrew. If M. Smyth make the substance of the scripture a ceremony, that is a shadow to be ended and abolished at Christ's coming, it is 
† Rom. 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 & aught to read the Hebrew scriptures in the Church, as they were wont in their synagogues. The profaning and abusing of the translated scripture was in deed a sin, in all that so did: so was it if any Israelite or stranger profaned the Hebrew. Yet Hebrew copies might go abroad, notwithstanding the danger of profanation, how much more the Greek? The personal sins of some, may not hinder the public good. otherwise, 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 David's Psalms 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 Turk's captiving Christians should ask in scorn and 
Answer.  mockage to sing some spiritual song for them to laugh at, I doubt not but we should answer them as the jews did the Babylonians; & not expose God's word to derision. But if any would hereupon infer, it were sin to translate the scriptures into vulgar tongues, M. S. himself 
* pag. 17.  would condemn him: like measure 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 bond them within the holy land. For circumcision was a shadow, (or as he calleth it, a ceremony) yet did they it in Babylon, and many shadows more. And for the scriptures, who doubteth but the jews had and used them in Babel, which was out of the holy land: Yea some of the scripture was written and sent to Babylon, as jer. 29. 1. etc. some written in Babylon, as the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel, Ezek. 1. 1. etc. and some written in the Babylonian language, and not in Hebrew, as Ezra. 4. 7. 8. etc. Dan. 2. 4. 5. etc. Wherefore if any Babylonian would have sought for God, the scriptures should not have been deneyed him.  
The translation etc. is contradictory to the Lords mercy to the 
5. Reason.  jews 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 so 
Answer.  before answered.  
The jews 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 only, but also for the Gentiles occasionally, is before proved. General mercy I know there was not, as is now under Christ.  
Peter's fact was called in question, about conversing and eating with them, being uncircumcised, Act. 11, 2. 3. not for letting them partake of the privilege of God's 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 contradictory to God's mercy to the jews, when his prophets wrote some of the scriptures in the heathens language: as did Daniel and Ezra, which are mentioned before.  
Because that seeing the Hebrew writings were ceremonies, it was 
6. 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 again is a repetition of the third reason, refuted before: 
Answer.  and if he will he may make it twenty; by a little change of the words. But the weight of the argument is showed 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 daniel's example, if no way else.  
Because the LXX did of purpose conceal many things, as judging the Gentiles 
7. Reason.  unworthy to know them fearing also lest they should profane such holy mysteries, wherein their consciences told them plainly that their translation was sin. Also they did pervert many things of purpose, add something, and infinitely corrupt their translation, which was their grievous sin.  
This last reason seems to come from M. Smyth's jealous 
Answer.  head, or surmising heart: and it is overthrown by himself. For a little after he 
† pag. 14.  saith, it is manifest by histories that the LXX. translation is lost; and this that goeth under the name of the LXX. is a patchery made out of ancient writings. If this be so, how knows this accuser, that they infinitely corrupted their translation? seeing he never saw their work, which long since is lost? Belike he thought it might be so; and therefore he wrote it was so. If he make not better proof of this his heighnous charge; all men may see whose son he is, that so calumniateth the saints: & readeth without book not only their infinite errors, but what their consciences told them also.  
His inference hereupon, that the Apostles would never account so sinful a translation to be holy scripture coming from the holy Ghost, nor approve the use of it in the Greek churches; This fale with his weak reasons: there being no such grievous sin 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 deny not but errors were in the translation, some of which as occasion was, the Apostles in their writings did amend. And whereas he further saith, there could be no use of the LXX translation for reading in the latin church of the Romans. I answer, First if there was use of it, in the Greek churches only: it is enough to warrant like use of translations in all 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.  Tully testifieth, and the poets 
* Omnia Graece. juvenal. 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 sin upon Israel for translating the bible: 
“ Diff. pag. 11.  proceedeth unto arguments against reading translations in time of worship. Where first I will give the reader advertisement, how contrary this enemy is to himself: and then I will come to his fraud against the truth. Of the scriptures set over into other languages, commonly called translations; he thus affirmeth 
† pag. 12.  A translation is as much and as truly an human writing, as the apocryphas (so commonly called) writings are. Again he saith, Translations are not the pure word of God, and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15, 9 Again, 
* pag. 10.  that translations of scripture, and written sermons upon the scripture, are equally human 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 all heresy. 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 house with her own hands. For afterwards he writeth thus, 
† Dif. p. 17.  The translation agreeable to the originals, is a secondary scripture, yet much inferior to the originals. So than it is not apocryphal, unless he use a fallacy 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 (saith 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 public church. It may (saith he) be expounded in the church. But so (say I) may not homilies be, nor apocryphal writings. And if M. S. in his synagogue do read and expound such scriptures to his people, he maketh them with himself notorious idolaters. Exod. 20. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Eccle. 12. 10. The matter of it (saith he) agreeable to the originals, is inspired to weet, of God. But the matter (say I) of the Apocryphal books, as judith, Toby etc. though exactly translated, is not inspired unless of the Devil; for lies and fables are in them both, the translations I mean, and the original Greek copies. It may be made a ground of our faith (saith 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 human apocryphal writings should have such use in the Church of God▪ Will M. Sm. ground his faith upon this, that there are 
* Tob. 12: 15.  seven holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saints; and that lying Raphael, (of the kindred of 
“ Tob. 5. 12  Azarias,) is one of them? will he ground his faith upon this, that 
† Tob. 6. 16, 17.  the smell of the heart and liver of a fish perfumed on the coals, will so drive away the Devil, that he shall never come again any more? or will he have his disciples to try their religion by such crooked instruments? no marvel though they be led with him into the ditch, when they try his doctrine by that which they profess to be as much and as truly an human writing, as the Apocrypha (commonly so called) writings are. For it argueth that either they use the Bible but for a show and colour, (seeing they esteem so vilely of it:) or else that they honour the base borne apocryphas, as inspired of God. Which is the very sin & snare, that they have sought to bring upon us.  
Now let us examine his arguments.  
1 Thes. 5. 21. Try all things, keep that good thing. But no man ignorant 
1. Argument.  of the tongues can try whither the translation be fit or good: & therefore 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, misseth that, and 
Answer.  hitteth only the ignorant reader of it: for if one have skill of the tongues, & know it to be truly translated; this reason maketh nothing against his reading, but for it. So M. Sm. plays the sophister, 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 try 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 all things, keep the good thing: but no man ignorant of the tongues, can try whither the interpretation of scriptures which the minister giveth in preaching the word, or any text that he allegeth in his doctrine be fit or good; then mind what conclusion the Devil will make hereupon, in a simple man's conscience: to draw him to doubt of, and consequently to forsake and despise, not only all reading, but also preaching of the word, because he being ignorant of the tongues, cannot judge or try 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 doth Paul's counsel (Try all things &c.) make against translations?  
Rom. 14 23. 1. Tim. 1. 4.- 7. Heb. 11. 6. whatsoever cometh not from 
The 2. argument  faith is sin. but no man ignorant of the tongues can of faith use the translation, seeing he cannot examine it whither it be good or bad; and so believe or refuse it. Therefore it is not of faith in him, and so it is sin for him, to use it before the eye in time of worship.  
Like sophistry and impiety is in this argument as in the former; 
Answer  for it concludes not the thing unlawful in itself, but only in him that is ignorant of the tongues; and his faith, it seeks to shake. For there is no faith without 
* Rom. 10. ●●  God's 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 try whither it be good or bad: if the Minister translate or interpret it by voice, the poor man is as much uncertain, or more, whither the teacher speak true or false. Thus can he neither read nor hear of saith, if M. Smyth's engine once take him: But either he must look for enthusiasms, or revelations from heaven; (which some Anabaptists have dreamt of;) or else, he fale to profaneness or desperation. And it is not M. Sm. distinction of worship properly so called, that here will comfort the troubled soul; for he must do 
† Rom. 14.▪ 23. Heb. 1●  all, especially his ecclesiastical & religious actions of faith, and not his proper worship only. Yea the serpent will build more on this rotten foundation, and assault him also that hath skill in the tongues and trouble him, saying; though thou hast knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, yet how canst thou tell whither this that thou readest, be the pure word of God? There be many 
* Tit. 1. 14  jewish fables and human 
“ Mar. 7. 8. 9— 11.  traditions, that have been written in Hebrew, and in Greek also: and whither God spoke or written these things, as now thou readest them, thou knowest not: and therefore canst not of faith make this book a ground of thy religion and worship. And if thou wilt credit M. Smyth, lo he telleth thee, that 
† Dif. p. 14.  as Antichrist hath polluted all God's ordinances, so hath he violated the original scriptures. Do not thou therefore build thy faith upon the scriptures any longer; but believe that which M. Smyth and his like, shall prophesy out of their hearts, for so he 
* Dif. p. 5.  saith, holy men prophesied before Moses time: (and indeed so some prophesied 
“ Eze, 13. 2  in Ezekiels' time, though they were blamed for it:) & 
† Diff. p. 4.  books are in the nature of pictures and images, and therefore ceremonies, and reading a book is ceremonial; and 
† pag. 22.  reading Prophecies 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 heart: and 
“ pag. 6.  Christ fulfilled the law of reading, and shut the book in the synagogue, to signify that the ceremony of book-worship or ministery of the letter was now expired and finished: and now 
† pag. 18.  the worship of the new testament must proceed originally from the heart and spirit. Wherefore lay aside the scriptures, and hear what men shall prophecy out of their hearts; orif that like thee not, expect thou revelations and visions from heaven. Thus M. Sm. as a 
* Hos. 5. 1.  snare on Mispah, & a net spread upon Tabor, hath laid in his book such a groundwork against the script▪ as fitteth the Devil's purpose to entangle men's sowls; although to deceive the birds withal, 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 try doctrine by: etc. 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, & therefore unlawful seeing 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. God's word may be set over into English, for the most part word for word without absurdity: and where our language will not bear the strict propriety of the original phrases; we are warranted by the Apostles allegations of scriptures in an other tongue, to use such words as the language will afford, to express the other withal. Though tongues differ one from another in propriety 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. etc. Act. 1. 4. 8. 9— 11. & 15. 23. Rev. 1. 11. 19  
Written sermons are the works of men: God's book set over into English, though with some diversity of phrase, is God's book and word still; for (as hath been showed) it is not the letter or sound, but the thing signified & meant by them, which properly is God's 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 etc. and now ask why a written sermon is not also lawful in God's worship: either alloweth human writings to be read in the Church, as well as God's writings translated, which is a notable error; or else he cavilleth against the truth, contrary to his conscience: And in his reasoning, dealeth like a false coiner; 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: saith to the merchant, if such course metal may be taken for money; then why not brass or copper?  
A paraphrast, commentary or exposition upon a chapter which containeth 
Argument. 4.  more of the contents of the originals and the holy Ghosts meaning is unlawful to be read in time of worship: therefore a translation of a chapter which containeth less, is unlawful also to be read in time of worship.  
First by Mr. Sm. ground laid in the 
“ pag. 1.  beginning; a paraphrase, 
Answer.  comment or any human writing, may be used in the administration of Christ's kingdom, in like sort as the scriptures; which is erroneous. Secondly he addeth more to his error, in teaching here that a commentary hath more of the contents of the holy Ghosts meaning then the text itself in English or othertranslations. His conclusion therefore bringeth forth vanity, and 
¶ job. 15. 35.  his belly hath prepared deceit. No commentary in the world made by an ordinary man, containeth the meaning of God, so as the text itself in a faithful translation of the book or chapter doth. Thirdly, Mr. Sm. confesseth that 
† pag. 17.  the matter of the translation agreeable 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. than not apocryphal nor an human work, as a commentary: then containeth it more of the contents of the originals, than any man's exposition. As for his exception of the writing or character, it is but vanity: for the Apostles had the matter of their writings by inspiration, from God: as for the writing or character, that was not inspired▪ but God's word was written in such characters, words, phrases, as the heathen Greeks, philosophers and Poets, had used long before.  

Argument 5.  Lev. 22. 22. Mal. 1. 8. 13. 14. Mat. 22. 37. Rom. 12. 1. 2. Ps. 119. 45. & 103. 1. God will be served with the best we have. But there is no one translation the best we have, seeing the Lord may in time of worship, minister better to him that administereth, if he understand the originals; if he understand not the originals he hath it not at all, for it is an other man's 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 souls of God's people; setting reasons as hays to entangle. No one translation 
Answer.  (saith he) is the best we have seeing the Lord may in time of worship minister a better: as good a reason against reading the translated scriptures , as if he should have said 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 
* Gen. 22. 13  to Abraham:) therefore no one sheep of thym may be offered for sacrifice Mal. 1. 8. Nay his reason against translations hath not so good a colour as this: for it is certain that God once ministered a ram to Abraham for sacrifice; but it was never heard that God so ministered an other translated book to read, then that which was brought to be read. The gift of interpreting or expounding by voice, is of an other kind, and not properly reading, whereof we entreat. But let us follow M. Sm. in his circle, & see whither he will lead us. No translated bible may be read in God's worship, for God may minister a better: what then? shall I bring the original bible & look on that, expecting what interpretation God will give me to speak: seeing I may not read? Not so neither (saith M. S.) 
“ Diff. p. 6.  the holy original scriptures are not to be retained as helps before the eye in time of spiritual worship: So than neither is that the best sacrifice yet, but I must expect 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 man's own heart: that must be the book out of which M. Sm. will have Gods law to be read in his worship: all other books are as images and ceremonies, abolished, & ended by Christ. Though he plead here against translations, colourably; yet he aimeth at God's book generally, even as his holy Prophets and Apostles written it. But the wickedness 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 ears; better than either Hebrew 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 express God's mind; he is to do all things for the best unto the church; giving the sense together with his reading, as the practice was in Israel, Nehem. 8. 8. But he that withdraweth corn, the people shall curse him, 
† Pro. 11. 26  saith Solomon: how much more deserveth this man the curse of God's people, that hath sought to withdraw from them in all their public worship, the whole scriptures and book of God, whereby the true corn and bread of their souls, is broken unto them.  
Deut. 16. 16. 1 Chro. 21. 24. Eph. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 3. we must worship God with 
Argum. 6  our own, not with another man's: with that which cost us something, 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 man's labour not his own, that which cost him nothing, but is an other man's cost, therefore it is unlawful.  
All wisdoms words 
† Pro. 8. 9  are plain and strait; but M. Smyth's are 
Answer.  rough and crooked. Who ever said before, that men read translations and offered them to God? He mought as well have said, we minister the sacraments unto God. For if he mean, the last end is the glory of God: so is it of all a Christian man's actions. Did Paul when he 
* 1 Thes. 5. 27.  charged that his Epistle should be read unto all 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 man's, with that which cost us something, not with that which cost us nothing: but this Epistle cost us nothing, it is another man's cost and pains: therefore it is unlawful to read it, and offer it to God. If this reason had been ridiculous in them, why they would not read Paul's Epistle: even so is it here in M. Smyth, for we read the bible (which is God's Epistle 
“ Rom. 15. 4.  unto us,) in no other manner, nor to no other end than they read Paul's letter which was part of 
† 2 Pet. 3. 16.  holy scripture) in the church, and the book costeth us as much, as that cost them. And David which would not 
* 1 Chro. 21 24.  offer burnt offerings wtihout cost: would he not read, or be at the reading of the book of the law in the church, because it cost him nothing, 
“ Deut. 31. 9— 13.  but had been written by Moses, and freely given unto Israel? Never was there heard more childish sophisms. But what if a man translate a book or chapter or text himself and writeth it: this is his own cost, I think: & then he may read and offer it to God, or else M. S. cavilling is little worth.  
Reading a translation is not commanded, nor was ever practised by Christ, the 
Argum. 7.  Apostles, or primitive churches in time of worship, & so being devised by man, is the account of vain worship Mat. 15. 9 and will-worship Col. 2. 23. and so a kind of idolatry, and therefore 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 bless, saith 
* Psa. 109. 28.  David to God 
Answer.  against his enemies: and so say I against this adversary, who curseth the reading of the scriptures, as a will-worship; which God 
“ Rev. 1. 3.  hath blessed: so maketh he himself by his blasphemy, 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 go teach all nations, and therefore all 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 agreeable 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 etc. From whence I reason, if Christ commanding the Apostles to teach Mat. 28. did thereby intimate a commandment (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 & all other Christian churches that have made and used translations to this end, are not idolaters, neither have used will-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 all languages, therefore writing and reading must be in all languages: & being a part of preaching of the word and one joint 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 worship 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 with feighned words make merchandise of men's sowls: 
† 2 Pet. 2. 3  their judgement long agone is not far off, and their damnation sleepeth not.  
A translation being the work of a man's wit and learning, is as much and 
Argum. 8.  as truly an human 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 authority, it may be justly called Apocryphon, for the signification of the word importeth so much, and therefore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read.  
The Apocryphal writings are human both in matter and form, 
Answer.  in language, letter, words, 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 method heavenly. He that translateth faithfully, altereth not the nature of the work translated, neither maketh he it his own. Luke translating into Greek Esaias prophesy from the Hebrew, (Luk. 4. 17. 18.) and we translating it into English, have not changed the prophesy itself, from divine to human, from God's work to man's: it was no fruit of our wit or learning to find out such a prophesy of Christ; but we understanding the originals, express the same thing in English which Esaias wrote, and it is his prophesy not ours. And the visions of john in the Revelation now Englished; are not as much and as truly an human writing, as if M. Smyth should make a book of visions or dreams, out of his own wit and learning, and set it forth in English. Wherefore his heart is stricken with 
* Exo. 10. 21.  the darkness of Egypt, that can see no difference betwixt the Prophets and Apostles set over into our tongue, and other men's apocryphal writings; but maketh these alike as much and as truly human.  
Again this enemy of God's book is herein condemned by his own mouth, for the apocryphas commonly so called, are holden and described thus; 
“ Arg. set before the apocryphal books, in many English bibles.  These books etc. are called apocryphas, that is books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the church, neither yet served to prove any point 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 contained.  
But M. Smyth alloweth translations to be read and expounded publicly in in the Church, and made a ground of our faith: which agreeth as well with this his argument, as did the evil servants plea with his practice. Luk 19 20. 22. etc.  
All the arguments used against the reading of homilies and prayers, may 
Arg. 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 prophecies of scripture, contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 20. 5. They contradict the gifts bestowed by Christ upon the church for the work of the ministery: contrary to Eph. 4. 8. 11. 12. Act. 2. 4. Joh. 16. 7. 6. They derogate from the virtue of Christ's ascension, and dignity of his kingdom: contrary to Ephe. 4. 8. 7. They blemish Christ's bounty to and care of his church, contrary to joh. 14. 16. 18. 26. 8. They disgrace the spirit of God, setting him to school: contrary to 1 joh. 2. 27. 9 They bring into the church a strange ministration, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 5. and so a new part of the Gospel or covenant, contrary 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. Therefore they are not spiritual worship, Joh. 4, 24. with 2 Cor. 3. 17. Gal. 5. 1. and 4. 31.  
Indeed if lies may go for arguments, here is a heap. What 
Answer.  Lucian could have written more reproachfully & slanderously of the holy scriptures? Cannot the written word and spirit of God, his scriptures and his gifts to open them, stand together: 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 spoke from the same to the people: did he herein contradict his own gifts, blemish his own bounty, stint or quench the spirit in him? or did the church of Israel contradict God's gifts or quench his spirit, when they preached & read the law 
“ Act. 15. 21.  every sabbath: Or did the churches of Colosse, Thessalonica etc. run into any of these evils, by 
† Col. 4. 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27.  reading the scriptures in the public assemblies? Nay rather this adversary would quench the spirit, by abolishing the scriptures out of God's worship: seeing God's spirit is in his scriptures, and he having commanded them to be written, commandeth also him that 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 only; for we have heard before, how even the original scriptures are also by him shut out of God's worship; and the reading of them so, condemned for ministration of the letter, judaism & Antichristian.  
But some special things here are, which he seemeth to bend at translations only: as that they are not the pure word of God, and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Math. 15. 9 So then belike, when we read the laws of God, 
* Exod. 20  thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; honour thy father and thy mother: or any other scriptures how faithfully soever translated into English; we read not the pure word of God; nor as Solomon saith, 
† 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. Lo here some part of the deepness of Satan, who would persuade 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 whatsoevet is written, (& by consequent spoken) of us in our mother tongue, is a doctrine and precept of men. For thus far reacheth this impious argument.  
Again where he calleth them private works of men, private openings or interpretations of prophecies, contrary to 1 Corin. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet 1. 20. he injureth the holy scriptures: for the work or thing itself 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 all the provinces after every people's language, was it a private decree of him that translated or wrote it? If M. Smyth should translate Paul's Epistles, or john's Revelation; should we esteem them M. Smyth's 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.  
Neither do the scriptures by him alleged, speak aught against translations; for God having given to his church, the 
“ Joh. 20, 31 1 Cor. 14. 37.  scriptures for a a ground of their faith; 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 each other. And Peter 
“ 2 Pet. 1. 20.  speaketh not of translation or grammatical interpretation of a tongue, called 
† 1 Cor. 14. 26— 28. Mar. 15. 35.  hermencia: which even an infidel that wanteth God's spirit, yet having skill in the tongues, can do: but he speaketh of a theological resolution, opening and applying of the prophecies, called of him epilusis, which may be done without any translating at all, as Christ 
* epelue.  unlosed or expounded his own parables, Mark. 4. 34. and as joseph 
“ Heb. pathar Gr. epelusen.  opened or expounded the dreams told unto him.  
Thus see we the weakness of these reasons; and how M. Smyth quoteth many scriptures to prove things that we all hold: as that it is sin to quench the spirit, to contradict God's gifts etc. but for that which we deny, namely, that in reading the scriptures we commit these evils; this be will have taken for granted: thinking belike his readers will be so simple, that if any one proposition of an argument be proved, the whole shall be yielded unto. How then doth he reason against us in vain, seeing in his arguments there 
† Joh. 21. 34  remains but leasing?  
The last of his reasons followeth.  
Children may read a translation perfectly well: but children cannot perform 
Arg. 10.  any part of spiritual worship: therefore reading a translation is no part of spiritual worship.  
The second proposition is untrue, and injurious to all the children 
Answer.  of God; and the Devil it seemeth put in his heart to write this, as a ground of his anabaptism, whereunto soon after he drew him; and now hath moved him to write further, that 
† Coat. of the B. in the Epistle.  an infant is no more capable of baptism than is any unreasonable or unsensible creature; thus evil men and deceyvers wax worse and worse, 
* 2 Tim. 3. 13.  deceiving and being deceived. Is not the praising of God, a part of his worship? & Christ when the children cried Hosanna in the temple, defended their fact against cavilling jews, by this, that out of the mouth of babes and fuklings, God had made perfect the praise. Mat. 21. 15. 16. Wherefore this one testimony is enough to confute and 
“ Psa. 8. 2.  still this enemy and avenger, whom Satan useth to wreak his teen upon the children and infants of the Lord.  
But I will turn his own weapon against him thus. Mr. Sm. anabaptised himself with water: but a child could have done the like unto himself, who cannot perform any part of spiritual worship: therefore Mr. Sm. anabaptising himself with water, did no part of spiritual worship: and consequently it was carnal worship, and service of the Devil. 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 well; yet can they not preach nor open the covenant as did the Priests and Levits, Nehem. 8. 8. and as Christ himself did when he read in the synagogue, Luk. 4. Wherefore reading and preaching being joined together, as baptizing with water & preaching: he that condemns the one outward action because a child can do it, condemneth also the other by the like reason. And Mr. Sm. having thus written of children, and done to himself; the babes and sucklings whose souls he would murder by depriving them of the covenant promise and visible seal of salvation in the Church; shall rise up in judgement & shall condemn him in the day of Christ.   

Objections for translations answered and maintained.  
After this Mr. Sm. 
“ Diff. pag. 13.  professeth to answer objections for translations: where he taketh his liberty to make the objections, as liked him best to answer, thus.  
Rom. 4. 3. What saith the scripture, and then followeth the Septuagints 
1. Objection  translation. Heb. 3. 7. The holy Ghost saith; and then follow the words of the Lxx. translation: and it is observed that the Apostles quote the words of the Seventies' translation not only where they expound the meaning of the holy Ghost, as Heb. 10. 5. Rom. 4. 3. where the Apostles follow the Lxx. not the Hebrew, but also in their devises besides the original; as in the second Cainan, Luk. 3. 36. 37. and in the 75. persons of jacob's family, Act. 7. 14. whereas there is but one Cainan and 70. persons in the Hebrew.  
If the originals themselves are not to be used as helps in time of spiritual 
M. Sm. answer  worship, as hath been proved; then this objection is of no force for translations.  
But the original scriptures are to be used in God's public worship, 
Reply.  by such as understand them; as hath been proved: therefore 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. etc.  
Whatsoever the Scripture & holy Ghost saith, may be read & heard 
Repl.  in God's public worship ordinarily; as before hath been manifested: Errors by Gods special extraordinary dispensation admitted because of men's infirmities; as Cainan in Luke's genealogy, etc. are not of us ordinarily to be followed; that we should put new persons into genealogies, no more than we may dispense ordinarily with God's commandments, because himself dispensed with the jews for 
* Deut. 24 1 etc. & 21 15. etc.  putting away their wives, for having many wives, and the like; which he suffered 
† Mat. 19 8.  for the hardness of their hearts.  
The holy Ghost needeth not the lies of men to work his work, nor the 
Answer  Seventies' errors to support the faith of Theophilus and the Grecians. etc. And it is one thing by connivency to pass by sin, as was the toleration of polygamy, divorce and usury, 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 little less than blasphemy. Thirdly, therefore as Antichrist hath polluted all God's ordinances, so hath he violated the original scriptures; and therefore one Cainan must be put out, for some ancient copies have it not: and for 75. there must be seventy all: penned for pants: as Rom. 12. 11. kairo kurio, and it is possible easily to mistake so small a matter, in copying out any thing, as experience teacheth.  
Thus Mr. Sm. is slipped aside from translations, to quarrel with 
Reply.  the original scriptures and correct them: where (though I would not follow his wander) I observe briefly these things.  
1. He restraineth, the holy Ghost from using the Seventies' errors (bearing with men's weakness:) because he needeth them not: why doth he not also restrain God from suffering divorce & many wives to one man in Israel, seeing he needed not thus to have done then, more than now? Shall man limit the holy Ghost, to do no more than he needeth?  
2. He mismatcheth Gods passing by the sin of heathens idolatry, Act. 17. 30. with God's 
† Mat. 19 8  permission of divorce and 
* 2 Sam. 12 8.  polygamy in his law, and putting in Cainan in Luk. 3. The first was horrible sin in all that did it, though God overlooked it upon their repentance: the latter not so, but tolerable; and Luke's naming of Cainan, holy.  
3 He injurieth Luke, intimating as if he put errors from a translation 
If by the original M. S. mean Luke's own writing: he iniurieth him otherwise, as if he approved an error which only he bore with by direction of God's spirit: & which if M. S. blame in him, let himself beware of blasphemy.  into the original; indeed he had so done, if from the Lxx. he had put it into Moses Hebrew; which was far from him. But he only sets it down out of a common known & received record, into the genealogy which he wrote; which all would allow of, & by which they would try Luke's writing: where the leaving of it out, mought have caused much strife. And if God so bare with the jews hardness of old: what mouth can blame him for bearing with the weakness both of jews and Gentiles here? Nay rather his mercy is to be magnified for writing his word so: as the weak mought not stumble or fall away, the froward mought not cavil. For had the Apostles written in Hebrew, the Greeks (& of likelihood many jews)▪ could not have understood: and if they should have ordinarily left the common translation, not only the Gentiles mought have made doubt, but the jews would have taken occasion to speak evil. For they reverenced the labours of the 70▪ greatly, and would suffer no other translation. God therefore who turneth all things to his glory turned this his indulgence, to the praise of his grace.  
4 Mr. Sm. hazardeth the credit of the original scriptures, and of all men's faith; in saying Antichrist hath violated them, as he hath polluted all God's ordinances. It is not good, they say, to belly the Devil: & Antichrist hath evil enough upon him though he be not charged with violating the originals, which this accuser will 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 translations 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.  
5 He presumeth to put Cainan out, because it is not in some ancient copies: these some I take it will prove but one, which Beza mentioneth: and if the credit of it will countervayl all others in Cainan, it must do the like also in a great part of the genealogy beside; 
† Beza annot. in Luk ●. 23.  varying all the names from joseph up to David, according to Matthewes narration: which is to overthrow Luke's 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 doth. But to change penned five, into pants all, Act. 7, 14. without warrant of any Greek copy at all, is too much boldness; & 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, shall presumptuously change it according to their own conceit: we shall have nothing left sound or uncorrupt. Rather, if men be ignorant, let them 
† Job. 39 37  lay their hand on their mouth.  
Lastly (saith he) fully to answer the objection whatsoever is good in the 
Answer.  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 patchery made out of ancient writings: & therefore the holy Ghost doth not aim at the LXX. translation at all, as is imported in the objection.  
This is not fully but foolishly to answer: for though the LXX. trans. 
Reply.  were now lost, yet was it not lost in the Apostles days, nay there was no other but that known in the world; & to reason because we have it not now, therefore they then aimed not at it at all, is without reason or colour of truth. Neither doth M. Smyth manifest by histories that the Seventies' translation is now lost: rather the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotio, & others that since the Apostles time set over the bible in Greek, these all are lost, save some pieces 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 commentary citing the diverse versions of Aquila, Symmachus etc. showeth: and the best Greek bibles now extant, that have varias lectiones do confirm the same.  
Neither if all were granted which he would, is the objection fully answered: for the Apostles 
* Rom. 4. 3. Heb. 3. 7  cite the scriptures in Greek, which the prophets wrote in Hebrew; either therefore they aimed at the Septuagint or translated it themselves. Whereupon it followeth that the Hebrew text set over into Greek, is the scripture of God still, and speech of the holy ghost. Or (if M. Smyth's divinity had then been known,) the unbelieving jews mought have alleged, that Paul proved not his doctrine by canonical scripture, but by apocryphal writings, that were equally human with the Rabbins commentaries in respect of the matter: and in respect of the letter & language, worse.  
There were Greeks and Grecians, Hellenes and Hellenistai, Rom. 1. 16. 
The 2▪ Objection  Act. 6. 1. The Greeks were so by progeny and blood, the Grecians or Hellenists were jews by progeny, borne in Grecia. Therefore Paul calleth himself an Hebrew of the Hebrues. Phil. 3, 5. These Grecians had forgotten their language, and spoke Greek only; 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 (saith 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 Apollo's at Alexandria: and yet are all called Jews, not Hellenists or Grecians. 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, 
Reply.  but as probable: because human writers testified it, and in the scriptures, some footsteps only mought be seen.  
That there is a distinction in scripture of Hellenes Greeks, & Hellenists Greekists or Grecians; all that have eyes to see, and judgement in the tongue, may read: though in our English this difference is not always manifested. For ordinarily they of that nation are called Hellenes Greeks. joh. 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 jews; 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. 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 spoke Greek; for Hellenisti is the Greek tongue, Act. 21. 37. as Ebraisti is the Ebrue tongue, john. 19 20. Al Hellenes or Greeks could their own language; but many of other nations could speak it also, it being spread over all; and such were called not Hellenes but Hellenists; as a Latin is he that is born in Latium, or of that blood; but a Latinist is he that can speak Latin, what country man soever.  
That the jews were dispersed in the Greek nations, we may read all over the history: for there were synagogues of jews 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 years: for Ptolomee Lagi King of Egypt, surprising jerusalem unawares, carried many thousands of them captives, and made them freemen of Alexandria upon their oath of fealty; and after them many jews went thither of their own accord, as 
† de antiq. jud. lib, 12. cap. 1.  josephus witnesseth. And his son Ptolomee Philadelphus who procured the bible to be turned into Greek; willing to gratify the jews, made free six score thousand of their captives: who remaining in those parts, not only learned Greek, but forgot Hebrew, as may evidently be gathered by Ben Sirachs words in his prologue before his father's book, among our Apocrypha, called Ecclesiasticus. For 
* Prologue of jesus son of Syrach: or Ecclesiasticus.  he in the days of Ptolomee Euergetes, (who reigned next to Philadelphus) turned his Fathers Hebrew work into Greek, that they which remained in banishment (as he saith) and were desirous to learn, might apply themselves to good manners, and live according to the law. This pains he might have spared if his people all, could have understood Hebrew. Also under the tyrant Antiochus, the jews troubles & dispersion continued & increased, as the book of Maccabees witnesseth: and so th'Apostles in their days found synagogues of the jew, almost in all cities of the Gentiles, as before is showed. Now who knoweth not, that far fewer years then three hundred in a strange land, will make a people, specially in bondage and affliction, forget their native speech: wherefore as it is most probable, that many jews had forgot Hebrew, so is it almost incredible, that all should keep it, in such estate; when also they married with the gentiles, as Timothees mother is a precedent. Acts. 16. 1. Moreover in jerusalem itself it may be probably gathered they knew & spoke Greek. For when Paul spoke once in Hebrew 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 jews, as Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the Apostles days, and Josephus, wrote eloquently their works in Greek, having small skill in Hebrew, as by their writings may be gathered.  
Now for M. Smyth's exception, that Paul, Aquila, & Apollo's, are called jews not Hellenists: it is nothing to the matter: for I grant, all were called jews but not all Hebrues: and in Act. 6, 1. not jews, but Ebrues are murmured against by the Hellenists, that is, by such as spoke Greek. Wherefore, he needed not have called the distinction vain, when himself can make but such an empty answer. Neither showeth he any reason at all, why Paul reckoning up his privileges (Phil. 3, 5.) caleth himself an Ebrue of the hebrews: & unless it be for the language I can show 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 Benjamin; by language an Ebrue; by profession of law or religion, a Pharisee; for zeal, a persecutor of the contrary; and for legal righteousness, unrebukable. Herein the Gr. Scholiast agreeth with me, saying that the name Ebrue is added pros ●●desin tés Ebraidos' glosses, for his skill in the Ebrue tongue. The like he speaketh of himself 2 Cor. 11. 22, They are hebrews, so am I, they are Israelites, so am I, they are Abraham's seed, so am J. It is well known this people had much to boast of for their stock of Israel, famous throughout all the bible; likewise of Abraham 
† joh. 8. 39  they boasted because of God's 
* Gen, 17.  covenant with him, and of his fatherhood. But of Heber they had nothing to rejoice more then of other patriarches, save for the language only, which was derived from him to Abraham the 
“ Gen. 14. 13.  Hebrew, and so to his posterity, till in dispersion it was lost of some, by others retained. And if it be excepted that Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and therefore an Hellenist as others there: I answer, though there he was born, yet his bringing up was in 
† Act. 22. 3  jerusalem at the feet of Doctor Gamaleel, where he learned both the language and law of the Pharisees; and therefore boasted to be an Ebrue as well as any other.  
And for those whom the scripture calleth Hellenists or Greekists they seem to be no other but jews. For they that were Proselytes or converts among the heathen, are called Hellenes Greeks; as john. 12. 20. there were 
* Hellenes.  Greeks among them, that came up to worship at the feast. Neither know I why a Greek converted to judaism should have 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. likewise when Paul newly converted, disputed in jerusalem with the Hellenists, and they went about to slay him, Act. 9 29. this their carriage argueth that they were jews, for it is not like that strangers would have been so busy in that place.  
Also the Hellenists in Antiochia Act. 11. 20. seem to be jew there, to whom the Gospel was first preached; as in the words immediately 
“ vers. 19  before is noted, they preached to no man, but to the jews only: after that, 
† ve. 24. 26  many more were converted there daily: & when the gentiles of the city had received the faith, they were troubled 
* Act. 15. 1.  concerning circumcision, (this fell out about 7. years after the conversion of the Hellenists, Act. 11) and then the church at jerusalem writing thereof, directed their letters 
† Act. 15. 23.  to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antiochia: all which do persuade that the Hellenists first spoken of were jews. hereupon I conclude, that the testimony of learned men, 
“ jos. Scaliger. de emend. temp. lib. 5. De pr. anno. Chal. Et lib 2. De Ci●l. judae. Karraim.  recording how the Hellenists were dispersed jews, that used the Greek bibles in their synagogues; hath more probability, if not certainty to be true, even by the scripture; then M. Smyth's slight answer can turn away. But he hath yet more to speak.  
A. Secondly (saith he) it cannot be proved by scriptures, that the Hellenists had the Gr. transl. read in the synagogues: it is manifestly otherwise by the reasons used before against the translation of the LXX.  
R. Those reasons were rather calumnies; & I have before refuted them, showing that no such sin can be proved upon the Sep. fortheir transl. That the Greek bible was read among the Hellenists, the point before handled giveth light; & I leave it to the judgement of the wise Further I answer, that seeing by scripture we learn that not Iewes only 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 Hebrew; which the jews themselves in likelihood, the Greeks of certainty, could not understand.  
Thirdly (saith M. S.) the worship of God properly so called of the whole 
Answ.  Church of the jews was performed in the holy place at jerusalem, and so that which was performed in the synagogue was not properly the worship of the whole Church of the jews: but was of that nature that passed between Christ and the Doctors in the temple Luk. 2. 46. with Act. 17. 2.  
Neither is that which we perform in our assemblies, the worship 
Repl.  of the whole church of the Christians, but of our own particular Church: neither is our reading the scriptures, the worship of God properly so called: as before I have manifested. So in the man's answer, lodgeth guile and deceit.  
Though all the jews worshipped at the temple thrice in the year, yet followeth it not thereupon they had no proper worship in their synagogues. For Mr. Smyth himself counteth prophesy or preaching, proper worship; and this was in their synagogues. Again Prayer & thanksgiving is worship properly; & this they did other where then in the temple as appeareth Act. 16. 13. Neither 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 called Oratories or prayer houses; as witnesseth Philo a jew in the Apostles age, who complaining of the outrage offered in Alexandria (the city where he lived) by throwing down the synagogues 
* Philo de legate. ad Caium.  caleth them Proseuchas Oratories; and mentioneth also the synagogues of Rome, by the same name.  
Fourthly (saith M. Sm.) if the Hellenists read the Seventies' translation 
Answ.  as a part of their proper worship having forgotten their own language, therein were committed these sins:  

1. Forgetting their tongue, one part of the ceremonial 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 unproper term wherewith Mr. S. would cloak 
Repl.  his error, before discovered. But had it been proper worship, yet this man's charge of them were both unproper and untrue. For, although the willing neglect and forgetting of their Hebrew, was sin: yet the constrained loss of it was not sin. The scripture alleged mought have taught him this; for 
† Neh. 13. 24  they that of lust married strange wives, which taught their children Azotik or Ashdod speech, are justly blamed by the holy Ghost: but were any blamed for speaking Babel's tongue, where they had been prisoners near 70. years? nay Ezra and Daniel wrote a great part of their books in Babylon's language, and not in Hebrew. And if it had been such a breach of the ceremonial law as is intimated; Daniel and his brethren who refused the 
* Dan. 1. ●. etc.  King of Babel's 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 abhor their languages, as dogs in sacrifice? Daniel was skilful both in Zion's tongue and Babel's: and he writing his book, recordeth his own prayer and thanksgiving in Babylon's language; Dan. 2. 20.— 23. He that should have condemned this for false worship: the godly jews would have counted him a dog. The Prophets warned Israel of the Idols of Babel, but never of their tongue: nay jeremy in Canaan, teacheth the people in the Chaldee tongue, how they should answer and confute Idolaters. jer. 10. 11. And what will this calumniator of the saints, say of Christ himself, who prayed on the cross, 
“ Mark. 15  Eloi Eloi lamma sabachthani, which was Syriac not▪ Hebrew, though the scripture which he had reference unto, Psal. 22. 1, was Hebrew. And ordinarily he spoke Syriac, as by 
† Mark. 7. 34. & 5. 41.  Ephphatha, Talitha coumi and other like words recorded by the Evangelists, may be probably gathered.  
Lastly (saith M. Sm.) if they read the Seventies' translation, and the 
Answer.  Apostles came in & heard: it followeth not they did allow it, as a part of the worship of the new testament, any more than circumcision etc.  
First this followeth, that the bible translated, is the bible still; 
Repl.  and Moses turned into Greek, is Moses still: for it is not said that apocryphal human 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 human, as M. Sm. avoucheth. hereupon it will follow undenyablie, that they are to be read in all Christian churches now, as then in Israel: and not as profane & apocryphal, to be quite thrust out of God's worship. The Apostles showed an end 
* Act. 15. 24. etc. Col 2, 16. 17.  of circumcision, and like legal shadows: but never any end or ceasing or reading the scriptures: nay they show 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. Objection.  and therefore the law of reading is perpetual: the moral reasons are, hearing, learning, fearing God, and keeping his laws.  
Hereunto M. Smyth answereth: First the law of reading is not moral in 
Answer.  the particular act, but in the equity, for it was commanded to be done but once in seven year, 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, seeing it began with Moses, and it should continue after the end of the world, for moralities endure for ever: but books and so reading of books shall perish.  
Men should 
“ Pr. 24. 26  kiss the lips of him that answereth upright words: 
Reply.  but our adversary answereth with a froward mouth. He saith 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 ears of all together; not intending to read it but then. For every sabbath, was to be 
† Exod. 20.  sanctified, and all things are sanctified by the word and prayer; and Israel knew this well, and therefore from old time read the word in the synagogues 
* Act. 15. 21.  every sabbath; and our Lord Christ 
“ Luk. 4. 16.  accompanied them in this holy work; so that he is more than Sadducean blind, which saith it was commanded to be done but once in seven year.  
No better is the next plea, that because writing & reading began with Moses & was not from the beginning of the world, therefore the law of reading is not perpetual, neither bindeth us now: a Familist or Atheist may likewise say, baptism or the Lord's supper in the particular outward act, is not to continued till the world's end, because it was not from the beginning, but began with Christ. A practice commanded of God, at what time soever; is to continue till by him it be repealed, which reading the scriptures never was, but repeated and augmented, by the Apostles writings. Like vanity is in the reason following: books and reading of books shall perish, when the world is at an end: therefore now whiles the world continueth, we are not bound to read God's book. Mought he not have made these reasons against preaching the word, and other ordinances of God, as well as against reading; seeing these shall cease also at the end of the world. But a 
* Isai. 44. 20.  seduced heart hath deceived this man, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?  
Secondly (saith he) it is moral in the equity, that is, that all means must 
Answer.  be used to attain the knowledge of the truth, whereof reading is a principal: and yet hence it followeth not, that reading is either part or means of spiritual worship: For books are things merely artificial, as are pictures and images, Gen. 4. 22.  
Here again the enemy is caught in the snare of his own tongue: 
Reply.  for if reading God's law be a principal mean to attain 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 well to read God's word in our church, for that end: and M. Sm. hath done wickedly for it to blame us, and charge us with idolatry. To hide this his shame, he runs into his old borough, that it is no part or means of spiritual worship; but out of this he hath been often hunted before: and we are sure that observing it according to Gods will, we worship & serve God in spirit and truth, as well in this as in other like ordinances of the gospel.  
His matching of books with Tubalcains craft (Gen. 4. 22.) & images, showeth how his idol error hath 
† Isa. 44. 1●  shut his eyes that he cannot see, his heart that he cannot understand. For in holy scriptures (whereof we speak) the mind 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 plain words teach us: whereas in handicrafts we see or enjoy but the fruit of man's wit and skill; and an image without life, is the 
“ Hab. 2. 18  teacher of lies. Such impious comparisons seem rather to come from Tubalcains forge, then from any possessed with the spirit of God.  
Reading the law was performed in the Synagogue, and not tied to the 
4 Objection  temple: 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 tied 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 objection, are for the most part true, being well understood: but in part false, when by the way he denieth reading the law to be a moral action; whereof he giveth no reason at all: and the thing is handled before.  
Luk 4. 16. Christ stood up to read and red his text, and then preached 
5. Object.  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. etc.  read where it was written The spirit of the Lord is upon me etc. This text Luke setteth down in Greek, which Esaias wrote in Hebrew; whereupon it followeth, that the scripture translated into an other language, is the same scripture still for the substance of it, though the letter and language differ, and is not an apocryphal human writing, and so an idol in God's worship, as Mr. Smyth blasphemed. Else, Luke and the new testament cannot be defended against jew that should cavil, how human apocryphal writings, are cited for divine and canonical. Thus serveth it to prove the reading of translated scriptures, by necessary consequence: and that we are not bound to bring the book of the law and prophets in Hebrew when we would read to the people, and so interpret or read mentally out of it, as M. Smyth then dreamt: though since he is fallen to forbid the Original Hebrew also, in God's worship, as we have heard before. But M. S. finding (as seemeth) this objection too heavy for him, hath sought to change it, as he could best make answer: which is thus.  
First in that it was done 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 custom was, (saith 
* Luk. 4. 16  the scripture) went into the synagogue 
Reply.  on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read: and after speaking from the scripture which he had read, 
“ ver. 22.  all bore him witness, and wondered at the gracious words, which proceeded out of his mouth. He 
† Mat. 26. 25. Joh. 18. 20.  sat daily teaching in the temple and in the synagogues among the people. But all this reading and teaching: was no proper part of the worship of the old testament, (with M. Smyth) because he was neither Priest nor Levite. Howbeit, 
* Dif. p. 6.  before he would needs persuade us by a mystical interpretation, that Christ having by the use of the book fulfilled the law of reading, he shut the book, to signify that the ceremony of book-worship was now expired. So sweet an accord & harmony is in his writing. Well, Christ's action here is excluded from being a part of God's worship. But M. Smyth though he were neither Priest nor Levite of the old testament, nor Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor nor teacher, no nor member of the church of the new 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 else of the devil, properly so called. And hath not this man behaved himself like a proud Korah, that without all office would presume to do these things which he counteth proper worship; and yet censureth Christ's action in reading & preaching of the word to be no proper part of worship, because he was neither Priest nor Levite? Shall the word out of Christ's mouth, read and applied with all grace of the spirit (which he had without measure) be no proper part of God's worship; and shall the word which Mr. Smyth uttereth out of his heart, 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 God's worship? He was I am sure 
“ Luk. 2. 49 46. 47.  in his father's business, among the teachers of the word, whom he heard, whom he asked, whom he answered with such understanding as astonished all that heard him. If M. Smyth esteem 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 all true Christians, to be holden Anathema.  
But reading (saith he) is searching the scriptures, which is not worship. But reading (say I) as Christ now did, is proclaiming 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 (saith M. Smyth) Christ had the Originals the Hebrew 
Answer.  text of Esay the Prophet, and read or interpreted out of it: for it is doubtful whither he uttered the Hebrew words, or spoke the sense of the Hebrew in the Syriac dialect, and therefore from hence reading a translation cannot be concluded, but either reading or interpreting the Originals.  
How it maketh for translations, I showed before against 
Reply.  M. Smyth's fraud: and to that we have no answer, but by-matters brought as clouds 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 showed. He doubteth whither Christ spoke in Syriac or not: but if he so did, & preached or prophesied in that common language, (as before I have showed it most likely,) and preaching or prophesying be properly worship; and instituting worship in a common tongue, Be as unlawful as sacrificing a dog, as M. Smyth before 
† Dif. p. 15.  affirmed: will not he be found a blasphemer of Christ, as one that speaks not by the spirit of God, 
* 1 Cor. 12. 3.  calling jesus execrable?  
Thirdly (saith he) hence cannot be concluded that manner of preaching 
Answer.  now used, that a man shall take his text, and then divide it into parts, analysing it rhetorically and logically, collecting doctrines and uses from every member, etc. of his text, all this while he having his book before his eye, to help him at all assays: a thing whereof I am assured the holy scripture yieldeth 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, than an Ecclesiastical worship, it is rather an inquisition and searching of the holy spirits intent and purpose then prophesying  
If the scriptures may be so handled, and that for very profitable use: 
Reply.  surely Mr. Smyth's schism, and charge of idolatry laid upon us, had very unprofitable use, and wicked end. For his own conscience can testify for us, if it be not feared; that we never pleaded for other use of the scriptures, than was in Israel, where Christ 
† Luk. 4.  read the text, and after taught from and applied 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 apocryphas,) he accused us of idollatrie, that is the worship or service of idols; we maintained it to be theo-latrie, that is, the worship or service of God, because it was God's word, not man's, 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 called worship: which I have cleared before.  
His sophistical distinction of scholastical lecture, and ecclesiastical worship; we heard not of till now; and it serveth him in no stead: for every such lecture in the Church to Christ's 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 & search, when he prepareth himself privately by reading, study and meditation, to expound the scriptures in public. 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 (saith M. S.) if we must needs be tied to this example of Christ, 
Answer.  (which I see no reason for, seeing reading was of the old testament,) then the example of Christ shall bind also thus far, as that the book shallbe laid aside, so soon as the text is read, and the book that is used, shallbe the originals, which is nothing for vocal but for mental reading, or for interpreting, which I never have thought to contradict. etc.  
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 Christ's example here, to read, open and apply the scriptures; as by other examples of him also, to preach without reading. The main thing is left, and new questions set on foot.  
We know well, 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 runs on in error. His conceit of mental reading, as it hath no ground from 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 uncertain 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 prophesy. Which he deneyeth. Of this point, though it was not controverted between us, yet I will speak what I mind about it. Not condemning it, as doth he; nor justifying it, as it is abused by some; but showing 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 search their books in time of hearing. I deny the consequence; for in reading the law & expounding it, comparing words with that which went before and after; the hearers mought search and see; though it were with more difficulty.  
Secondly the Hebrew 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 Prophet's answerable to it. Whither the first writers did this, or the Church after them, I will not dispute; but that thus they might do, I make no doubt: For God hath left to the discretion of the Church and Ministers, what quantity of scripture to read and teach of. And this was the practice in th' Apostles days; for it was not possible that every sabbathall the law and prophets should be read over: & the Hebrew letters and marginal notes, are sufficient records of the antiquity of them. The Church's practice in the books of the Prophets, showeth us our liberty in the Apostles writings; which cannot be read over at once. And long before Henry Stephen's time the Greek copies of the new Testament had chapters and sections though otherwise than we now have. And Matthewes gospel parted into 68 chapters or titles, and 355. sections, was in a manner as easy for the readers to search, 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 only say it is written by Zacharie, by Jeremy; the scripture saith, etc. This reason dependeth on the former, and is there answered, in part. Further I observe, the Apostles speak diversely, sometime naming 
† Act. 13. 47.  no book at all; sometime naming the book, as 
* Act. 1. 20  the Psalms; sometime a part of the book; as 
“ Act. 13. 33.  the second psalm, and how they particulated matters in their doctrine, is not set down; the summonely of things is recorded. The argument therefore 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 Hilary an ancient writer 
† Prologue. 〈◊〉 Psal. expla.  recordeth that the seventy Greek interpreters did number and order the Psalms; and we find that sometimes the Apostles quoted what Psalm in number they alleged; it may warrant us such like use of human labours, for help of our memory.  
His third reason is of like nature, that no mention is made of any hearer that had his book etc. yet mought it be, say I, though it were not mentioned, they used to dispute in their synagogues (after the lecture was ended); and that 
† Act. 17. 2  by the scriptures: and the hearers searched 
* vers. 11.  the scriptures daily for trial of doctrine. Who now can say that the hearers had or used no books in the synagogues?  
His 4. reason is, that searching quotations hindereth attention, for the mind and affections are distracted from hearing by seeking the places etc. This I grant to be amiss, in all that so use their books; for diligent ear should be given to all that is spoken. Howbeit this abuse, may not abolish the lawful use: for as by turning of leaves many hinder themselves in time of hearing; so many again attentively hearkening, and comparing things spoken with the matters before and after in the chapter, are not hindered 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 done 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 books; but there is only one kind of true and profitable hearing: either all to have books and search 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 will not bring their liberty 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 equity from God's law: who permitteth us free use of the scriptures for our edification, according to which if men use them in private or public, they do well.  
Thus am I at an end about the main controversy of the scriptures, which for the readers good I have beaten out and explained, showing 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 seeming to allow translations, sometime bitterly writing against them: that as easy it is to know 
* Pro. 30. 18. 19  the way of a serpent upon the rock; as the way of a man with his minion error.   

A DEFENCE OF CHRIST'S ministery in the church: against the contradiction of M. Smyth.  
Unto the former battle against the scriptures, M. Sm. addeth strife about the ministery: affirming that the triformed presbytery (as he calleth it) consisting of three kind of Elders, viz. Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, is none of God's ordinance, but man's devise; and that lay elders (so called) are antichristian.  
That other point, being an idol of his own invention, which he would have had worshipped 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 will the more briefly answer.  
M. Smyth a while before, both agreed in judgement with us; and wrote 
† Principles etc.  in defence of this ministery which now he oppugneth: but that his first faith 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 ministery, and the covenant of grace, three main 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 presbytery 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. jer. 23. 1— 4. Ezek. 34. 1— 6.  
If this opposite would have avouched the contrary, he mought with far more reason have alleged these scriptures. For Isa. 66. 21. speaketh of Priests & Levites., which had charge of the sacrifices & sanctuary: and Num. 11. 24. mentioneth the LXX. elders of Israel, joined with Moses to aid 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 Uniformity in the presbytery, than was between those Elders and the Priests, he fighteth with his own shadow, not with us: who hold a more strict agreement in the Eldership of the church now, then was in that Eldership and priesthood of the law; where one tended to civil causes, the other to ecclesiastical. But I will come to his 
† Dif. p. 23.  reasons, proving the Elders to be of one sort, viz. all Pastors.  
First in the old testament (saith he) there was but one kind of Priests, 
1. Reason.  who had equal authority to administer all 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 succeed the Priests in the dispensation of holy things. Esa. 66. 21.  
Behold here at first, the falsehood of this adversary: even now 
Answer.  he quoted scriptures that spoke of Priests, Levites and other Elders; all which were different: and here he taketh one sort only, Priests, to conclude about the Eldership of the church of Christ. But thus to reason from part of the figure; to the whole thing figured, is mere deceit.  
Again, he misseth in his proportion, making all the Elders now, to succeed the Priests then, who had equal authority to administer all the holy things. For the prophet speaketh both of Priests and Levites Isa 66▪ 21. which had not equal authority in all the holy things, as the law plainly showeth, Numb. 16. 8. 9 10. 40. and 18. 2. 3. If now all the Elders be of one sort, & equally administer all the holy things, proportion is not kept with the Priests and Levites of the law as Esaias prophesied.  
M. Sm. saw this inconvenience, and therefore 
* pag. 28.  afterwards seeketh thus to shift it off. The Deacons (saith he) in the new testament are answerable to the Levites in the old; as the Elders are answerable to their Priests Esa. 66. 21. compared with 1 Chron. 26. 20.  
Here again he useth his former fallacy, concluding from part of the Levites, unto the whole. And taking one piece of scripture he neglecteth many other which make against him. For as 1 Chron. 26. 20. showeth that some Levites had charge of the treasures; so 1 Chron. 23. 27. 28. etc. and 25. 1, 2. etc. and 26. 1, 2. etc. & Num. 18▪ & other scriptures many, show that othersome were assistants to the Priests in the service of the Lords house in all businesses, standing 
“ 1 Chr. 23 30.  every morning and evening to give thanks and to praise the Lord: and together with the Priests 
† Neh. 8. 7. 9  did teach & instruct the people, 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 consisted 
2 Reason.  of 70. ancients for the administration of the kingdom, which was a type of the visible Church, all which elder in their first institution 
* Num. 11 25.  did prophesy and were of one kind under Moses: so in the new testament under Christ Jesus which is the King of the Church there 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 fallacy that we had before, concluding from 
Answer.  a part to the whole. For in the former, Esaias was cited for Priests and Levites to be figures of our Ministers, and now the Ancients of Israel are alleged for figures also; & because these Ancients were of one sort, therefore all the Presbytery figured both by Priests of Levi, and by Ancients of other tribes, must be all of one sort. The conclusion is vanity. Rather the reason should be framed thus, as the teaching Priests 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 politic, 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.  
Neither will 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 full of eyes, which incessantly praised 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 Priests that reigned on earth; and being as meet to signify the Teachers of the Church, as the 24. are to signify the ruling elders; will rather show a difference between the teachers and governors 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.  
Again (saith he) if Pastor, Teacher, Elder, had been 3. offices formally 
3. Reason.  differing, the Apostle intending to teach the several officers of the church, would have mentioned them, 1 Tim. 3. but there he only mentioneth Bishops and Deacons, according as Philip. 1. 1. go: Bishops are only of one sort or kind.  
How M. Sm. understandeth this phrase of formally differing, I 
Answer.  cannot tell; his logik is not like every man's: the speech being well taken, I admit of; and do deny 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 said, if Priests & 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 doth 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 (saith he) intendeth to teach the several offices of the Church. Not so; but rather he intendeth to show, how officers in general should be qualified; and setting down things common to all, it had been needless repetition to speak of the Pastor first, and the same things of the teacher, and again 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 well, some to labour in the word and doctrine. Of which we shall speak anon. And in his other Epistles, the like differences are plain. Rom. 12. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 28.  
Moreover, (saith he) if th' Apostles had ordained three kind 
4. Reason.  of ELDRS Acts. 14. 23. they would have mentioned them with their several kinds of ordinations: but that is not done: 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 vanity; for to say, such 
Answer.  a thing is not mentioned in such a place, therefore it was not done; is inconsequent.  
And here the minding of his own words, mought have stayed him from so concluding: for if Luke writing the action, doth in one phrase yea even in one word sum up both the election & the ordination, which yet are different, and done with many circumstances: may he not also under the general name Elders, imply different sorts. Again where the holy Ghost expresseth not any one kind of ordination, nor any one word spoken to the officers, concerning their charge and office laid upon them; which yet no doubt was done: Who would look for a several kind of ordination, to be mentioned in such a place?  
Further if there had been 3 kind of Elders at Ephesus, than the Apostle at Miletum would have given them several charges as having several duties 
5. Reason.  lying upon them: hut th' Apostle Act. 20. 28. giveth them one general charge common to them all, namely the duty of feeding, the work of the Pastor. go, they are all Pastors.  
These reasons be all of a suit: and the prayer of David seemeth to have prevailed against this man, for 
† Psal. 58. 7  when he shooteth arrows, they 
Answer.  are as broken: or like unto straws.  
First, we cannot say what several charges Paul gave those Elders; seeing all his words in particular are hot recorded. For there is no doubt, but he spoke many more words, then are set down: and it is usual in the scriptures, to sum up men's 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 will not this prove that they had all one undistinct office: any more than that Peter had no other than a common pastors office, because Christ gave him but a general charge common to all Pastors 
* joh. 21. 16.  poimaine, feed my sheep.  
The Priests and Levites had distinct offices, as before is manifested: yet Hezekiah speaking to them all generally, (as Paul doth here to the Elders,) gives them not several charges, according to their several duties, but useth one common exhortation to them all: which if one would pervert, (as this man doth Paul's speech,) he mought plead that all the Levits than were properly to burn incense, as that all the Elders now should properly do the Pastor's duty. See 2 Chro. 29. 4. 5.— 11.  
The conclusion which he maketh that therefore all 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 ambiguity: for Christ is a 
* joh. 10.  Pastor, the Apostles-were 
† Joh. 21.  Pastors, and so are all Bishops & governors generally: yet no man I think doubteth but these do differ.  
Besides. Eph. 4. 11. Pastors and Teachers are all one office. For whereas 
6. 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 himself doth say, Apostles, Prophets 
Answer.  Evengelists were several offices; yet can he not deny, but generally they were to poimaeinein, that is do the duty 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 value; unless 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 setteth down the diverse gifts and offices of the church: and therefore cannot be thought to express one & the same office by two names. For though he speak copulatively, pastors and teachers, yet is there no reason why these should be taken for one, seeing this word and, coupleth diverse things & diverse officers; as Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2. 20, and 3, 5. Apostles and Elders Act. 15, 2. Prophets & Teachers, Act 13, 1. and a thousand the like. Neither needed he teach exegetically, by way of exposition what the pastors office is; seeing it was as well, if not better known, than the Prophet's office or Evangelists: neither is it an exposition, when the latter is as dark and more than the former; and the first more proper than 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 explain the proper by the unproper, or common name, which neither Paul nor any wise writer useth to do.  
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 etc. doth in the last branch according to the elegancy both of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, omit the word some, putting and in the stead, in the very same meaning. An example of the Bebrue may be seen Hos. 3. 4. where the Prophet telleth how Israel should remain without King, and without Prince, and without offering, 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 doth express; 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 elegancy in the language: as all that have skill in it can tell.  
The like is in the Greek tongue, and in Paul's own writing▪ Gal. 3. 28. There is neither Jew (saith 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 diverse; and meaneth the same that nor did before.  
The very like phrase and elegancy 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 syriac, which speaketh of the two last as of the former, saying, and some Pastors and some Teachers. It is also manifested by Paul himself elsewhere 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 plain doctrine set down in scripture, but may be corrupted by such violent expositions as Mr. Smyth maketh of this place.  
Lastly (saith he) if all the Elders have the pastors gifts, and the works 
7. Reason.  of the pastor, and the pastors ordination, than they have all the pastors office. But all the Elders have the pastors gifts viz. the word of wisdom 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. Therefore all the Elders have the same office of the Pastor, and so are all of one sort.  
The second part of this reason is deceitful; for though in some 
Answer.  sort and common measure all the Elders have the pastors gifts, & ordination, and do the pastors work; being all 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 saith of Timothee an Evangelist, 
* 1 Cor. 16. 10.  he worketh the work of the Lord, even as I. Had these two therefore one office? Again, 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 show;) 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. Will M. Sm. hereupon conclude, therefore all pastors have the same office with the Evangelists? If he acknowledge an error in that, so may he do in this. For it is the special excellency of the gifts of exhorting, teaching, ruling, which causeth the pastors, teachers, rulers, to be designed unto several works and offices. For it were vanity 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. Every Levites lips were to preserve knowledge, for the people to seek the law at his mouth, as at the priests; Deut. 33. 8. 10. Mal. 2. 7. yet was their difference in the office So in Christ's Church where gifts are bestowed in variety, he that excelleth in the word of wisdom and exhortation more than doctrine, is (being lawfully called thereto, a pastor; and he that excelleth in doctrine more than in exhortation, is a teacher: and they that excel other brethren in discretion gravity etc. though they have not meet gifts for pastors or teachers, are (being called thereunto) Elders or governors, to assist the other in guiding the ways of the church. And needful are they unto the same, for one man may well teach an hundred, but two men will scarce govern half so many in peace and order: so great a difference there is, between the knowledge of the truth, and the due walking and practise of the same.  
Whereas therefore M. S. gives all the Elders, the word of wisdom, and so the pastors office; meaning strictly and properly: he contrarieth the Apostle who saith, 
† 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 again 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 work in general thereto, as in Tit. 1. Act. 20. and other like places. Of the ordination Act. 14. we spoke before.  
Now after all these reasons, M. Sm. thus concludeth. Hence this con●ectorie (saith he) ariseth: that the Eldership consisting of three sorts of Elders, is the invention of man, having both an antichristian ministery and government in it. And therefore when the popish prelacy was suppressed, and the triformed presbytery substituted, one antichrist was put down, and another was set up in his place. etc. with other like contumelies.  
But the falsehood and vanity of his reasons having been manifested, all these reproaches do turn into his own bosom, and in him is 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 gifts, diversities of administrations (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 Governors; between those Elders that 
* 1 Tim. 5. 17  rule well, and those that labour in the word & doctrine: it must needs be the spirit of Antichrist and of Satan, that thus despiteth Christ's holy ordinances, which this adversary himself sometime acknowledged and walked in; and now hath forsaken, without ground of truth. But he hath more yet to say, in answering the objections 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 only, 2. and those that teach and rule. And Ephe. 4. 11. he maketh 2. kinds of those that teach, Pastors and Doctors. Therefore there are 3. kinds of Elders formally differing each from other.  

Mr Smiths' answer.  
The Apostle to Timothee teacheth that Elders are to be honoured for 2. works, well ruling and laborious or painful teaching: and the place doth not import a distribution of Officers, but a commendation of several works of one office: and the specialty consisteth not in the works of ruling & teaching which are common to all Elders; but in the quality of the works, viz. well 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.   

Reply.  
If empty words mought carry away matters, it were woe with the truth of religion, for each spirit of error would bear it down. A doctrine most plain, set forth in evident words; is here turned aside, with a deceitful gloss, contrary to the tenor of the text.  
Two several works he acknowledgeth ruling and teaching: yet two several men for these works he will not admit of. But had he learned 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 sufficiency; how much more need have we weaklings? It is Gods usual administration in his church, for several works to appoint several persons: so to Moses he committed 
* Ex. 18. 16 etc.  the government political, to 
“ Exo. 28. 1  Aaron the ecclesiastical. To Moses he adjoined 
† Num. 11. 14. 16.  70. ancients of Israel; besides the 
* Ex. 18. 25  ordinary inferior governors: 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 Priests in sacrificing &c. some tending to song and music, some warding the Tabernacle, some looking to the treasures: all jointly 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.  divers persons, and also with 
* ver. 5.  diversities of ministries or offices, 
“ Rom. 12. 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 29.  some to teach, some to exhort, some to distribute, some to rule; that that gift which is dim 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 deny the diversities of works and operations required in the church: yet dareth deny the diversities of offices, and will have one man in one limited office of the Pastor, to do all that pertaineth to exhorting, teaching, and governing of the church: though the scriptures do 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 governors offices; this he exclaimeth to be Antichristian: for one office he thinks must do al.  
To this end wresteth he these words of Paul 
* 1 Tim. 5. 17.  The Elders that rule well, are worthy double honour: specially they that labour in the word & doctrine. The specialty saith M. S. consisteth not in the works of ruling & teaching, but in the quality of the works, viz, well ruling & fupainll teaching. I deny 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 widows (saith he) which are widows in deed. Give 
“ ver. 17.  double honour to the Elders that rule well: specially to them that labour in the word. As honour & double honour, respecteth several persons in their several estates and employments; so double honour and special double honour, respecteth several persons in and for their several works and employments; some ruling well, othersome labouring in the word. Thus the scripture is plain. But M. S. will have the specialty to consist in the quality of the work, viz, well ruling and painful teaching, As if Paul would have double honour given to them that rule and teach, but specially if they rule well & teach painfully. But thus he neither speaketh nor meaneth. For all rule is either well or ill: but ill rule deserves no honour, therefore it were unmeet to appoint double honour in this respect, where 
* ver. 20.  open rebuke rather is due, and where loss and damage followeth, because the work must burn. 1 Cor. 3. 14. 15. But take it as the Apostle speaks and intends, widows indeed are to have honour: the well ruling Elders are to have double honour, thus it is meet, and the meaning evident. Now the specialty cometh after well ruling, and respecteth an other work, labouring in the word: where the former word well is again to be understood. For false teachers laboured in the word, to seduce and deceive: 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 houses, though they use 
* Rom. 16. 18  fair speech and flattering, though they take such pains, as they 
“ Mat, 23, 18.  compass sea and land to make one of their profession.  
Again, the word labouring makes not the specialty: as M. Smyth interpreteth it, painful teaching; for labour is a common duty lying upon all church officers, whose office is not in idleness. None can rule well but with labour: none can teach well but with labour: and therefore PAUL 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, which some Elders did; differing from labour in government, which othersome did, as is evident both by this & other scriptures, as 1 Cor. 12. 28. thirdly teachers; after that governors: and Rom. 12. 7. 8. he that teacheth on teaching: he that ruleth with diligence.  
Thus several men were employed in these several labours or works, and in respect of the persons employed, is the word specially added, and purposely put between rulers & teachers, as if the Apostle should say, they that labour in ruling are worthy of double honour, specially they that labour in teaching. And that this is Paul's mind his plain words show, when he saith, they that rule, and they that labour: where this word, they, leadeth to divers persons; as in other scriptures, 
* joh. s. 29.  they that have done good, and they that have done evil; 
“ 1 Cor. 7. 30.  they that weep and they that rejoice; and innumerable such speeches. Again 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 saith, God is 
† 1 Tim. 4. 10.  the saviour of all men, specially of the faithful: the word specially distinguisheth the faithful from other common men of the world, who have not faith in God, and yet are saved or preserved by him, that is the preserver of all his creatures, and saveth 
* Psa. 36. 6.  man and beast. So to Titus he saith, 
“ 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 well ruling is first set down, and specially comes after, for such as labour in the word and doctrine:) we overthrew the force and grace of Paul's gradation, or stepping to his specialty. And if he had meant as M. S. takes it, for the quality of the works, done 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 than 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,   

Answer.  
That this is so see Tit. 1. 9 and 1 Thes. 5. 2. 1 3. with 1 Tim. 3. 1. 4.  
In Timothee the Apostle saith every Bishop must be didacticos, and proistamenos: and therefore that some Elders are only didacticoi, and not proistamenoi, is contrary to the Apostles intent. Further in Titus, the Apostle expoundeth didacticos to be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers: how then shall some of the Elders be rulers only?   

Reply.  
That all Bishops must be didacticoi, that is, apt and ready for to teach, reprove etc. I grant: yet that they must therefore have all one office Ideney. For Apost. prophets, Evangelists, etc. were all didacticoi, yet differed in office. But how then shall some of the Elders be rulers only? I answer, even Ruling Elders are to be didacticoi, and yet have the office of ruling only. For every one set over others to teach or inform them in faith or manners, must have aptness to teach the things pertaining to their office, and convince the contrary: or else they are unfit for the place.  
But have they not then the teacher's office? No, for this aptness to teach is common to all offices of government, but in several sorts, according to every man's function. For example, an Apostle must be apt to teach as an Apostle: and though a man have aptness to teach as a pastor, yet hath he not therefore aptness 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 therefore aptness to teach as a pastor, in whom greater skill is required.  
Let us see this in Israel▪ Aptness to teach was to be in all the Governors: in the whole tribe of Levi generally, Deut. 33. 10. in the priests 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 prophesy, Num. 11. 17. 25. And in the reformation by K. jehoshaphat, we find not only priests and Levites, but other Princes of the king, sent for to teach the people, 2 Chr. 17, 7, 8. 9 These all were didacticoi, apt to teach, but in several respects, and measures, and in several offices.  
otherwise if one will understand aptness to teach, strictly as in the pastors office: then are Paul's words to be taken figuratively 
† Synecdoche.  the whole for a part, or general for a particular: as a Bishop, that is a teac●hing Bishop, must be didacticos. And thus the scripture som●●me speaketh; as Deut. 33. 8. 10. of the whole tribe of Levi, it is said they shall teach; they shall put incense etc. when as, though all were to teach, yet all were not to burn incense but the 
* Luk. 1. 9 Num. 16. 40  Priests only; Also in Deut. 10. 8. of the Tribe of Levi in general, it is said, God separated them, to bear the ark, to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in his name. Yet were there special things about 
† Num. 6. 23  blessing, 
“ Deut. 31. ●.  bearing the ark, and other ministration, which belonged to the Priests 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 pertain to some only in particular.  
Touching the word Proistamenos; Provost or Ruler; although I will not deny but every Elder may be so called in a large sense: yet specially it is the title of Ruling Elders only. And it is an oversight in M. Smyth to write that th'Apostle saith, Every Bishop must be proistamenos: for that word hath relation to the 
† 1 Tim. 3. 4.  ruling of his own house, which every Bishop must be able well to do; but in relation to the Church, the governing elders only 
* 1 Tim. 5. 17.  are called proistamenois; 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 saith not some Pastors, some Teachers, but Pastors & Teachers copulatively. But that is before answered, and the plain meaning of Paul manifested, to be, some Pastors and some Teachers, as the ancient Syriac speaketh, and other reasons from that and the like scriptures do confirm.    

The 2, objection.  
1 Cor. 12. 5. 8. 28. The Apostle saith, there are diversities of ministries namely one that hath the word of wisdom, another that hath the word of knowledge, another that hath government, vers. 28. Therefore the Eldership consisteth of three sort of Elders. etc.  

Mr Smiths' answer.  
First it is granted that there are diversities of ministries, as Ephe. 4. 11. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 8. Phil. 1. 1. namely Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Deacons. Yet it followeth not hereupon, that elders are of diverse sorts, as is pleaded. see vers. 28.  
Again the word diaconia, signifieth sometime any spiritual work proceeding from any member or officer of the Church, as 2 Cor. 8. 4. alms is called 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. Only there are certain energemata mentioned in verse. 10.   

Reply.  
I perceive though the light shineth in darkness, yet 
* joh. 1. 5.  the darkness comprehendeth it not: especially when men do 
“ Mat. 13. 15.  wink with their eyes, lest they should see. The sun shineth not clearer at noon, than the truth shineth out of this scripture, with M. S. seeks to darken with a cloud 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 wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, etc. Secondly, that 
“ vers. 5.  one and the same Lord, (jesus 
¶ 1 Cor. 8. 6  Christ) giveth to his Church, diversities of ministries or offices, that so the diverse gifts may be ministered to the people, 
* Rom. 12. 7▪ 8.  doctrine by the teacher; exhortation by the exhorter or pastor; government by the ruler etc. 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 diverse gifts, and diverse ministries. For example; as Christ is given for 
¶ Act. 3. 22.  Prophet 
* Heb. 9 11  Priest and 
† Rev. 19 16.  King of the Church; a Prophet to work upon the knowledge of men, that they may discern sin and righteousness: a Priest to work upon the will and affections, killing them as sacrifices, 
“ Rom. 12. 1. 2.  that a new and reasonable creature may be given up to GOD; ask, that the things taught by prophesy; and applied by priesthood, 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 extraordinary miraculous ministries of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Tongues, gifts of healing and the like, which were but for a time,) he hath set ordinary permanent ministries to the world's 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 wisdom should exhort and apply the truth unto the conscience and heart of men; and of 
† 1 Cor. 12. 28.  Governors, that by 
“ Rom. 12. 8 1 Tim. 5. 17  diligent rule, should look unto the practice and walking of men, & conserve the church in order and peace. Thus God effecteth diverse effects by the diverse ministries in his Church, as the Apostle teacheth.  
Now though in the enumeration of the ministries, Teachers & Governors 
* 1 Cor. 12. 28.  are evidently distinguished, as thirdly teachers, after that, governors; and elsewhere 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 again, 
* Rom. 12. 7. 8.  he that teacheth on teaching: he that ruleth, with diligence: yet Mr Sm. would darken all this light, with this dim answer, it follows not hereupon that elders are of diverse sorts: see verse 28. as if he should say, though th'Apostle plainly speaks it, yet do not you believe him.  
So though Paul expresseth the office of Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. which M. S. will have to be the exegesis that is the exposition of the word Pastors Ephe. 4. 11. and so must needs be the proper and plain 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 ministery of Doctors or Teachers: as if he would have the world to take notice, that he meaneth to war against heaven.  
With like grace striveth he against the word Diaconia, ministery, (which the Apostle useth, 1 Cor. 12. 5.) saying that it signifieth sometime any spiritual work etc. and, so it may signify here. But if such shifting & winding may be admitted, we shall have no truth so plain, but may be oppugned: yea judaism and Atheism may be maintained. For we allege against jews to prove the death of Christ how the Angel prophesied Messiah shallbe slain Dan. 9 26. ay, saith the jew, but Messiah sometime signifieth any one that is anointed; Priest or King; & so may it here be meant of any anointed governor, & not of him that is properly the Messiah. Tell an Atheist that 
“ Gen. 1. 1.  God made heaven and earth; and he may answer that Aelohim God is sometime used to signify Angels, Psal. 8. 5. with Heb. 2. 7. sometime to signify Magistrates, Psal. 82. 1. 6. and therefore he beleeus not any such God properly, as we profess. Thus every truth, upon a divers use of the word, may be turned away.  
But showeth Mr. Sm. any reason, why diaconia should so signify here? none at all: but saith, so it may be, and telleth of certain energemata mentioned vers. 10. which is as much to the edifying of the reader, as if he had told him there are certain 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 clouds; the truth is clear and plain. For diaconia is the most proper fit word that the Apostle could possibly use; it being the ordinary word used for ministery of every kind; as the ministery or office of the Apostleship, Rom. 11. 13. 1 Tim. 1. 12, the ministery of the Evangelists, 2 Tim. 4. 5. the ministery of Pastors or Teachers, Col. 4. 17. the ministery of Rulers, and ministery of Deacons, Rom. 12. 7. 8. Act. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 12. 13. So Diaconos is every minister, and Diaconia every ministery or administration of what sort soever. Now Paul here spoke 
† 1 Cor. 12. 4.  before of diverse gifts to be administered; and 
* vers. 6.  after of diverse effects or operations of the gifts being administered; & between 
“ vers. 5.  booth mentioneth diversities (diaconioon) of ministries or offices whereby those gifts should be administered and manifested in the Church, that they might be effectual: which what can they be, but the offices or ministries committed to men and executed by them for this end? Even as immediately followeth 
* vers. 7.  the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal. And after by a similitude of 
† vers. 12. etc.  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.  poureth out her mind unto us, and maketh us to understand her words: yet some men 
† vers. 30.  will none of her counsel, they despise all her correction.    

The 3 Objection.  
The Apostle Rom. 12. 6. 8. maketh an opposition between prophesy and an office and maketh five kinds of officers, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, Deacons, Widows.  

M. S. Answer.  
That is denied to be the true resolution of the place etc. for although there be five several actions repeated, yet doth it not follow that there are five several officers to perform those actions: for one person may perform them all, and yet be no officer, viz. teach, exhort, rule, distribute, show mercy. 1 Cor. 14. 3. 26. 31. Rom. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 5. 5.   

Reply.  
Behemoth is so big that he 
“ job. 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 well of his 
† Num, 16. 1. 3. 10.  holiness and ability, that though he were but an ordinary Levite, he could do the Priests office also: but I never heard of man till now, that could perform all the actions that are to be done in a church. The Apostles could not 
* Act. 6. 2 3, 4.  tend to two offices therein at once, but got others to do one; & notwithstanding complained of their inability in that, saying 
“ 2 Cor. 2. 16.  who is sufficient for these things? And may one person now perform all actions? needs must the works become much more easy; or the person that doth them, much more mighty, than any that lived in the Apostles time. How ever it may be in distress and extremity, that one man may do some things one after another, about all these actions, yet perform them he cannot. And who but one stricken 
† Deut. 28. 28. 29.  with madness and blindness and astonying of heart, (as Moses did prophesy) to grope at noon day, as the blind gropeth in darkness, 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 persuade unto virtue, among virtues specially to 
* ver. 3.  sobriety or modesty, which beautifieth all good actions. Hereunto he persuadeth by this, that every man hath but his part and measure from God, & one hath not al. This he confirmeth by the similitude of the 
“ ver. 4.  body, whose members have not all one office or action, but many: 
† ver. 5.  so is it with the church; for God hath given 
* ver. 6.  diverse gifts unto the many members or persons of the same; some have simply the gift of prophesy, which they may use to the edifying of the church, some have an 
† ver, 7.  office or ministery also whereunto they are appointed and must attend. Some are Teachers, 
* ver. 8.  some Exhorters, some Distributers, some Rulers, some showers of mercy. Every one of these must look to the administration and dispensation of his gift, in sobriety, 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. etc. Now let him that readeth consider, whither M. Sm, doctrine that one person may perform all these, be not as directly opposite to the Apostles meaning and scope, as darkness to light? But he hath yet more to answer.   

Answer.  
Again the distributive particle Eite four times repeated, in prophesy, diaconia, exhorting, and teaching, importeth thus much: that the Apostles intention is not to subordinate teaching and exhorting to diaconia, but to oppose each of these 4. particulars to other, as thus: prophesy is the manifestation of a gift, 1 Cor. 14. 3. Diaconia is the office, & there are diverse kinds thereof 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 followeth that teaching & exhorting are aswell subordinate to prophesy as to diaconia.   

Reply.  
Thorns and snares (saith 
“ Pro. 22. ●  Solomon) are in the way of the froward: that find we here. For to trouble and entangle the simple reader, all shifts are sought out, least truth should prevail. First the objection was of M. Smyth's own contriveing, as he liked best to answer: otherwise 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. showing mercy, are all to be performed in the church by one person: or that Paul intends any such thing here. I have before showed the contrary.  
But I will labour to break his snare, that the simple fall not therein. diaconia he rightly interpreteth Office, and saith, there are divers kinds thereof: citing 1 Cor. 12. 5. Let this be compared compared with his answer before to the second objection: where he pleaded that diaconia in 1 Cor. 12. 5. mought signify a work. There he set himself to cavil against the truth, here unawares he granteth it. Well, seeing diaconia here is an office; and there be offices diverse: let us proceed. Teaching (saith he) is one work of the prophets or Officers; exhorting is an other work of them. Of them, I grant; for they are diverse: but is it of him, that is of one and the same officer? is there any word or title that intimateth this? none at all, but the contrary: for as the Apostle mentioneth diverse works, teaching exhorting &c. so mentioneth he diverse persons, the teacher, the exhorter, the distributer, the ruler. Neither doth he say, let him that teacheth, teach, & exhort, & distribute, and rule, as if one man should do all: 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 etc. Would any reasonable man think, that one member must do all 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 saith, or he that teacheth, or he that exhorteth, so noting two persons: M. Sm. saith or teaching, or exhorting, so noting two actions. Thus he intending to have many actions done by one person, wresteth the scripture, and maketh it speak after his own fancy.  
This being observed, his pleading about Eite will be little worth, for the Apostle by it, dis joineth things thus. 
* Rom. 12. 6.  Gifts ye have diverse, which gifts ye use and manifest, either by prophesy (which 
“ 1 Cor. 14. 1. 31,  any private person in the church may do, even as all other like gifts, of 
† vers. 26.  tongues, interpretations, Psalms and the like:) or by ministery that is by office and charge laid upon you, which as it 
* 1 Cor. 12. 5.  is diverse, so every one must 
“ Act. 6. 3. 4.  attend unto, and look that he 
† Col. 4. 17.  fulfil the same  
Thus is here a full and perfect distribution of all the gifts that are in the church, by the two general sorts of persons, or subjects that have them: 1. private brethren, or 2. public 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. Showers of mercy. The two first whereof have the sign of disjunction or before them, in the other it is to be understood: for such defect is common. Now all these persons are to be referred, either to the former 1. prophesy, or 2. ministery, that is office: or both. But seeing no scripture, that I know of, speaketh of distribution, or Ruling, or Showing mercy, under the name of prophesy: therefore I refer them to the latter word Office or ministery, to which they all agree. Teaching and exhorting I grant are done in 
† 1 Cor. 14. 3  prophesy, by private brethren: but that they are more specially done in 
* 1 Tim. 5. 17.  ministery by public officers, none I think will deny. And that here Paul refers them to ministery, seemeth to me most evident: for prophesy was limited by him, 
“ Ronvere, 12. 6.  according to the proportion of faith: so that if any brother in prophesying, kept unto the proportion of faith he did enough: but an officer must not only do this, but must also attend unto the continual doing of it, 
† 2 Tim. 4. 2  in season, out of season, 
* Act. 20. 20.  privately, publicly, and therefore 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 saith here, 
* Rom. 12. 7  an office should be in the office, or ministery in the ministration: meaning that it should be waited upon, and executed in sobriety. And then coming 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 modesty. So the officers, rather than the private brethren (upon whom no such burden is laid) seem here to be intended by teacher & exhorter, and so consequently divers officers, as there be diverse actions for them to perform, and have divers gifts of God for the same end.  
But M. S. continueth his answer thus.   

Further if Diaconia be the genus to these 5. species following, than I say 
Answer.  that Diaconia signifieth not an office, but a work: and of works there are those 5. kinds. That diaconia doth sometime signify a work is plain. 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 prophesy and diaconia, if he had intended to make them species subordinate to diaconia: therefore questionless that is not his intention.  
Rather than he will yield to the truth, he seeks every corner of error: 
Reply.  and now the divers use of the word diaconia must again be urged, against the proper meaning of the same, against the evident light of this scripture, & against the man's own former interpretation. And sure he is used to rough ways and words, that saith it is plain, diaconia signifies a work: the scriptures that he quoteth show it not. The word signifieth ministery or office, and ministration or service done unto any other: but work is an unproper interpretation. Let linguists judge. Nay let M. S. himself judge, if he willbe tried by himself; for in his book against M. Bernard (written after this) he hath this proposition; 
† Parallel. pag. 93.  The true ministery hath a true office, in execution whereof it is exercised; Rom. 12. 7. 1. Cor. 12. 5. 28 Eph. 4. 11. I would gladly know how M. Sm. will 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 be 
* Titus 3. 11.  autocatacrit●i, condemned of themselves. Yet were it translated work, what would it help him? Of works there are 5. kinds saith he. Who denies it? but are there not also as many kind of workers? let this be disproved: otherwise to strive for the former, is to fight with his shadow.  
The Apostle (we doubt not) knew well how to speak; and therefore spoke 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 ministery being mentioned in general, the several ministers are fitly next named. But of this point I spoke before.    

The 4. objection  
The Apostle by the commandment of Christ; writeth to the Angels of the ●▪ Churches of Asia Rev. 1. & 2. & 3. That is to the Pastors which are but one in every particular Church. For so the words are, to the Angel of the Church, etc.  

Mr Smiths' answer.  
First it can never be proved by scriptures, that there was but one Pastor in a Church, it is plain, Act. 20. 28. that there were many in the Church of Ephesus, (that was one of those 7. Church's) that did perform the work of the Pastor, which is poimainein to feed; even all the elders vers. 17. with verf. 28. And therefore there were many Pastors in that Church in Paul's time. Again, all churches had officers of one sort, & one kind of Presbytery; etc.   

Reply.  
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: seeing 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 whole, that is the Pastor. But it can not be proved (saith M. S.) that there was but one Pastor in a church. Neither can it be proved (say I) that there were many. Yes saith he, all the Elders in Ephesus were 
* Act. 20. 28.  poimainein to feed, or do the Pastors work therefore there were many Pastors. I answer, it followeth not; for the reason deceiveth by equivocation or double meaning of the word. Pastor, generally taken is any governor; paricularly and strictly (whereof now we speak) it is the 
“ Rom. 12.  Exhorter, or he that hath 
* 1 Cor. 12.  the word of wisdom. In the general meaning Christ is 
† Joh. 10.  the Pastor, the Apostles 
“ joh. 21. 16  Pastors, 
* 1 Pet. 5. 2  all the Elders of a particular Church are Pastors. Will he conclude hereupon, that an Apostle and a Pastor properly so called, is all one office?  
The Apostle showeth the contrary, Ephes. 4. 11. As then an Apostle and a Pastor be divers officers, though both do 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, jer. 23. 1. Ezek. 34. 2, had they all one particular office? far otherwise. For Priests and Levites were distinct in office, and other Elders distinct from them both, as before I have manifested. yea not only the Sacrificers, but the civil governors were Pastors. K. David was a Pastor 
“ Psal. 78. 70. 71. 72. 1 Chron. 11. 2.  taken to feed jaakob and Israel. Accordingly in Act. 20. & 1. Pet. 5. all the Elders may feed, & yet not all be in one & the same, but in distinct office.   

Answer  
Further, (saith Mr. Sm.) the Angel of every one of those Churches, doth not signfy one Pastor only in every Church, but either 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 zealous in life & doctrine. That an Angel signifieth a company of men, is plain, Rev. 14. 6. 8. 9 & 18, 4.   

Reply.  
It is not plain, but very obscure and figurative, if an Angel signifies at any time, a company of men; the scriptures alleged show 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 sincere and holy men; is further from the mark: seeing some are written to, in whom little zeal or sincerity can be gathered, Rev. 3. 1. 15. and to pass 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.   

Answer.  
Lastly (saith M. S.) in all likelihood there were some extraordinary men yet living in the Churches, either Prophets or Evangelists, that had extraordinary gifts, whose zeal and holiness might win them special estimation in the Churches: in regard whereof it might be the holy Ghost intending his Epistles to the whole Church, chiefly directeth them to these Persons so qualified, as men best able to prevail with the Church, and caleth them Angels, whether one or more: as john the Baptist is called an Angel. Mark. 1. 2.   

Reply  
Any thing hath more likelihood with Mr. Sm. then that which is most likely to be true. Can this have all likelihood, that the Evangelists or Prophets extraordinary, on whose 
* Ephe. 2. 20.  foundation Christ's Church is builded, should come to that corrupt estate, which some of these Angels were come into? Rev. 3. 1. 15. Hath it all likelihood that such as were officers of all the Churches in general, should be entitled Angels of particular Churches? But it seemeth M. Sm. thinketh the name Angel must needs import some zealous or godly person: wherein he is mistaken. For the Angels are the 
† Rev. 1. 20  stars in the firmament of the Church, and of these stars or Angels, many are 
“ Reu. 12. 4  cast by the Dragon's tail, from heaven to earth, and some have 
* Rev. 9 1.  the key of the bottomless pit; & some Angels 
† Rev. 7. 1. Song. 4. 16.  hold the wind of God's spirit from blowing on the earth. So that the Angels or stars in the book of Revelation, usually signify the ministers of the Churches, whither good or evil. Who rather in likelihood have the title of angels or messengers given unto them, both from the like title given by God himself to the Priests of Israel, Mal. 2. 7. and by the jews common phrase, who called him that was chief ruler in their Synagogues, Sheliach tsibbur, that is the Legate or Messenger of the congregation; which name Sheliach the Rabbins 
* R. D. Kimchi, Comment. in Mal. 2. 7. & Hag. 1. 13.  use for Maleach an Angel; and the Chaldee paraphrast putteth Meshammesh that is, a Minister, in the stead.  
Now Christ used to speak familiarly and to the understanding of the people, & so I doubt not but he doth here. And although it be questionable whither there may be more pastors than one in a Church; yet see I no likelihood of more than one here; though many Elders. For the Pastor both by his name 
¶ 1 Cor. 12. 8.  gift & 
“ Rom. 12. 8.  employment, 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 ministery to fulfil it, (though it is to be thought there were more Elders with him, as 
* Act. 14. 23.  in all other Churches:) so mought Polycarpus (the Pastor in john's 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 ministery, and so the other Pastors, the Angels, in their several Churches; that by them Christ's 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 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 john: and john writeth to the Angel of the church, the Minister: that by him it may come to all the Congregation.  
Thus have we heard the reasons and arguments whereby M. Sm. laboureth to manifest that the triformed presbytery (as he calleth it) consisting of three kinds of Elders, Pastors, Teachers, Rulers, is none of God's ordinance, but man's device: and Antichristian. wherein what weakness or vanity rather, hath appeared, the judicious reader, may discern; & how little cause this challenger had, to cry out the second time for an answer, with, 
* Char. of the B. Epis.  lo, we protest against them to have a false government of a triformed presbytery, But Christ who hath set these for officers in his church, and holdeth all the stars in his right hand; will rescue & deliver them from the hand of aliens, 
“ Ps. 144. 11.  whose mouth talketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.     

OF THE TREASURIE.  
THe last point of difference from us Mr. Smyth setteth down thus 
† Dif. after the preface.  We hold that in contributing to the church treasury, there ought to be both a separation from them that are 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 all, he notably abuseth both them and us. But of the two points mentioned in his article, I will briefly entreat. First, for the separation from them without, thus he writeth 
“ pag. 30.  There aught to be a separation in alms and contribution to the treasury, as well 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. therefore they that are without, if they give any thing, must lay it a part severally from the treasury, & it must be employed to common use. Mat. 27. 6. 7.  
How M. S. gathereth his proposition from those scriptures, & how far he will stretch them, I cannot tell: the first place (Act, 4, 32.) mentioneth community of all goods among the saints: the second place Act. 5. 13. showeth how no other man durst join unto than: the third place 2 Cor. 6. 17. requireth Gods people to come out and separate from unbelievers, and touch no unclean thing. If he match these things thus together, as if the goods of unbelievers are unclean, & not to be touched or received of the Saints, he misseth of Paul's intent: for upon this ground, that 
† Psa. 24. 1.  the earth is the Lords, and the plenty of it: the Apostle proveth it lawful for Christians to partake with unbelievers 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 go to their table, we may have them at ours: if in our poverty we may receive relief of them: in their poverty, we may and should releev them: wherefore there is that communion in these carnal things permitted: which in spiritual things, as prayer, sacraments etc. is unlawful: & though it be said Act 2. 42. they continued in the Apost. doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, & prayer: yet he that shall gather we may have no more communion with an unbeliever in eating & drinking, then in prayer; mistaketh quite. We know that to the defiled & unbelieving no thing is pure, 
“ Tit. 1. 15.  as Paul saith, but unto the pure all things are pure: and if an idol cannot defile God's creature so, but a Christian may 
† 1 Cor. 8. & 10, 25. etc.  use it, (so it be not with offence) neither can the idolater.  
In some outward things, I observe difference between the jews state and ours. They went not in to, nor ate with men uncircumcised, Act. 10. 28. & 11, 3. we go in to men unbaptized, & eat with them, 1 Cor. 10, 27. They did not eat of all meats set before them by infidels, Dan. 1. 8. we do eat of all 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 among them, that Solomon asked & received outward things as timber for the temple, 
* 2 Chr. 2. 3. 8.  of Huram King of tire: & king Darius gave 
“ Ezr. 6. 8. etc.  of his own revenues towards the temple & worship of God, & it was not refused. In Israel I find not that any admitted into the public place of the word and prayers, was forbidden there if he would to contribute: neither any such law made by Christ. Rather the ground laid by the Apostle showeth the contrary: if the Gentiles (saith he) be made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. Rom. 15. 27. unbelievers are admitted to the ministery of the word in Christian assemblies, & so made partakers of our spiritual things; if then & there they will 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 saints, whither they give it in public or private. For when he saith, 
† Heb. 13. 16.  to do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased; he meaneth it not only of public contribution in the church, but of private distribution to any at any time. Paul brought almose and offerings 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? Wherefore the Almose of the Saints are sacrifices, though one give to another 
* Mat. 6. 4.  in secret: yea if a Christian releev 
“ Gal 6. 10  an unbeliever in poverty and distress, it is a sacrifice and sweet odour to God. If therefore upon this ground we may not receive it of unbelievers in the public Church, because it is in the saints a communion of grace and sacrifice: how may we receive it of such in private?  
But (saith M. Sm.) they that are without if they give any thing, must lay it apart, several from the treasury, & it must be employed to common use. Mat. 27. 6. 7. This position I will not absolutely condemn: neither can I yet grant it, for the proof is insufficient. For whereas the jews (Mat. 27) would not put judas wages into their treasury, it was not because he was one without; for judas was a jew, no stranger unto them: but because it was the price of blood, therefore they mought not put it into the treasury. This teacheth us, that goods gotten by violence, extorsion, murder, theft or other like evil way: may not be put into the treasury, 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 all unbelievers gifts; I suppose this example will not bear it out. For if in the poverty and distress of Christ's church, they which are not of the same, minister relief thereunto, (which if they do not, it shallbe one reason of their 
* Mat. 25. 41— 45.  condemnation at the day of judgement:) hath not the church liberty to use & enjoy these benefits for themselves, seeing 
† 1 Cor. 10 26.  the earth is the Lords and the plenty thereof? must they needs bestow it for the behoof of strangers, as was judas hire? I am otherwise minded, for the reasons before rendered. Howbeit concerning these things if any shall better inform us, by the word of God, we shall be willing to receive it.  
For the latter branch, that it should be sanctified with blessing or thanks giving to God, we do well approve; upon that general ground of thanks unto God for all his benefits: and as any do give or send more special relief, so more special thanks to be rendered therefore, 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 contribution, & a special thanksgiving after: or whither in the general prayers of the Church, it is to be sanctified among other the public actions; there may be some question, and I will not contend: let every one use herein, the wisdom that God giveth them. Only I do observe, how M. Sm. himself makes 
* pag▪ 30.  a quere, at what time of the Lords day, and after what manner the treasury is to be collected: which showeth in him no certainty for the form of this business. & I doubt not but as he, so we all may be to seek, for the most convenient manner & 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 custom, neither the churches of God.    

A FEW OBSERVATIONS UPON SOME OF M. SMITHS' Censures, in his answer to M. Bernard.  
Mr Smyth in his 
“ printed 1609.  late book, called Parallels, censures etc. seeks occasion to censure some things which I had written in answer to Mr. Bern. but chiefly insisteth upon the question of ecclesiastical government, whereabout he chargeth me with antichristianism. If it were not for others that may stumble at this reproach, I would bear it in silence; minding my adversary so fickle and unconstant, as he holdeth almost to nothing that himself hath written; and I would restin God's 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 measure fell away himself. The constitution of our Church, (in which estate himself then professed to be with us,) he writeth of it thus 
“ Parall. pag, 15.  I am bold to pronounce etc. our true constitution to be the most honourable and beautiful ornament of our Church; more glorious than our true ministery, worship, and government. Contrary to this, a few days after, he sets out The character of the Beast, wherein (having dissolved & forsaking his former true and glorious constitution,) he exclaimeth against us, (as before 
* pag. 3.  I have showed,) as having a false Church falsely constituted, and therefore no one ordinance of the Lord true among us. Thus 
† Rev. 8. 10. 11.  Wormwood fell from heaven.  
Again 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 falsely constituted; and so the Churches of Antichrist in the N. Testament: contraryweise in his Character of the Beast, seeking shifts for his anabaptism, he saith 
† Char. pag. 48.  Israel's apostasy did not destroy the true constitution of the Church, but antichrist's doth, etc. I leave these and other like flowers of contradiction, for others to gather that deal in that controversy. Only because his answer to Mr. Bern. seemeth to be written in defence of our cause, and so may be taken of posterity: I would have the reader take notice, that the silver there is mixed with dross and the wine, with the 
* Deut. 32. 33.  gall of asps. As where Mr. Sm. saith, that 
“ Parall. p. 30.  to the constitution of the typical Church, (meaning the church of Israel) there was not required true holiness but ceremonial cleanness. This is a false and blasphemous assertion, injurious to God's holy majesty, 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. etc. 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. etc.  
So when he saith, the Israelites 
* Parall. p. 30.  did worship to repentance, we do worship from repentance: therefore they might and did worship, thereby to reconcile themselves to God, we being reconciled to God and accepted in Christ, do 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 communion to worship with us: with them first men were received into typical communion, and then they were trained up to repentance and faith in Christ etc. These & the like distinctions Mr. Sm. hath fetched out of his own heart, not from the word of God: for although there be differences many between them and us, as touching outward rites and services, ended & abolished by Christ, (as the Epistle to the hebrews showeth;) yet as touching the substance of their religion, worship, constitution etc. as touching repentance, faith, reconciliation to God etc. there was no such differences as Mr. Sm. feighneth. They had the law to show them their fyn, and to bring them to Christ: so have we. Mat. 5. 17. Rom. 3 30. 31 and 7. 7.— 12. 21. etc. jam. 2. 8. 9 10. 11. We have the gospel, to show us our righteousness 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. etc. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. Hebr. 11. Only in the manner of administration the Law & gospel, there be differences manifested.  
Also when he 
* Parall. p 30.  saith, that the jews moral uncleanness did not pollute their ceremonial communion; that their real wickedness 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 only a typical but a real seducer and deceiver of minds in deed; who would make us believe that if a man in Israel had but touched his own wife lying 
† Levit. 12. 2. 5. & 15. 19 etc.  in her childbed, or put aapart for her disease; if he came to worship in ●●e tabernacle, and had not washed and cleansed himself according to the law, he polluted the Church and communion of the Saints: but though he had committed adultery with his neighours wife, and came into the tabernacle in his sin to worship, without repentance; yet he polluted not the Church, but lawfully mought have communion in the word, prayer, sacrifices etc. 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. josh. 22. 16. 17. 18. 20.  
But upon these and like rotten grounds, M. S. hath now sought to build his tower of Anabaptisme, which the breath of the Lord, will throw down upon his head.  
Although therefore the cause which M. S. than had in hand was good, and many good things are in that book; yet the 
* Eccles. 10. 1.  dead flies have caused to stink, and putrefied the ointment of the apothecary: 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 foresaid 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 will believe him, that Christ's ruling power is in the Eldership; and that the Pope and Prelates, are 
* I said; are antichrists, not for taking. etc.  not Antichrists, for taking into their hands the power of the multitude, but the power of Christ.  
Here first Mr S. maketh his own collection, to be my assertion. I said not, neither would say thus absolutely, Christ's ruling power is in the Eldership, my words are these (Counterp. pa. 176) We acknowledge Christ to have ordained a 
* 1 Tim. 4. 14.  Presbytery 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 own word and laws.  
That which I wrote, I plainly confirmed by scriptures in the margin, which the reader may search and judge of: neither hath this adversary taken them away; or said aught against them; or yet set them down in his book (where he 
* pag. 68  printed my words) for his reader to take notice of.  
That which I have written, is further confirmed, for the substance of it, by Mr Sm. himself, in the very same book of Parallels, the last page but one, where he hath set down this argument. The government of the primitive Apostolic institution, was by a college of Pastors, or presbytery. The government of the English assemblies, is by an antichristian 
M. S. Argument.  Prelate and his officers. Therefore, The government of the English assemblies is not the primitius Apostolic government. The mayor is evident; etc.  
Again, in this very passage, where he treateth of popular government, 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 have the negative voice, etc. and a little after: yet we say the Elders are to lead and govern all persons and causes of the Church. Who now will not wonder, at this man's malice, to charge me with Antichristianisme for my writing: and himself in the same book, to write as he hath done.  
And were i● in deed Antichristianisme, as he saith, 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 Puritan. But let us turn the edge of his own argument against himself, thus: The government of the primitive Apostolic institution, was by a college of of pastors or presbytery. (This M. S. himself defendeth,) But popular government by the multitude, is not the government by a college of Pastors or presbytery. Therefore, popular government by the multitude (which yet M. Sm. would also plead for,) is not the government of the primitive Apostolic institution.  
Again his argument helpeth me thus, The government of the primitive apostolic institution is not Antichristianisme. The government which I plead for, in answer to M. Bern. is the government of the primitive Apostolic institution; (for it is the government by the Presbytery,) Therefore the government 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 remembered, that the power of Christ which they speak of, is a ministerial delegated power, given to man etc. I answer, that I had to deal with M. Bernard's 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 believe, there was no other difference, between Papist, protestant, puritan, and Brownist, (as he caleth them,) concerning church government; then only who should administer the same: whither the Pope, or a Prelate, or the presbytery, or the multitude: I thought it needful in my answer, to show the reader a further difference, even in the power and jurisdiction itself, which whosoever do administer, they make themselves antichrist's: seeing the Pope & all Papal prelate's, challenge such ruling power, as encroacheth upon Christ's 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 altogether to free the Pope of Antichristianitie, for taking the power of the multitude, which I acknowledge to be a heighnous sin in him: but for to show by way of comparison, that the other sin is much greater, to usurp the power of Christ. And thus I write, not only from the general equity of the law, which 
† Mat. 22. 37— 39 1 Sam. 2. 25  maketh a sin against God, to be much more than a sin against man: but also from the like speeches in the scriptures. For when jeremy said in the Lord's name to Israel, 
* jer. 7. 22.  I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, obey my voice etc. & when Paul 
“ 1 Cor. 1. 17  said Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach, etc. neither of them denied simply, the things which God had plainly 
† Num. 15. Lev. 1. etc.  spoken, & 
* 1 Cor. 1. 16  Paul practised; but only by way of comparison: even so do I. And yet if I should stand upon fit and proper terms, I would not call the Pope Antichrist, for doing that which the people in Christian liberty should do: but for doing that which Christ only is to do, who is L. and head of the church. Even as the Apostle john maketh such to be Antichrists in his days, as denied jesus 
“ 1 Joh. 2. 22. 2 Joh. 7.  to be the Christ, or come in the flesh: so all that in these days, deny or oppugn Christ, are properly Antichrists: and they that bereave the brethren of their liberty, are tyrants & oppressors of the church. But as things are some time taken largely, he that sinneth against his neighbour, may be said to sin against 
† Gen. 39 9  God & 
* 1 Cor. 8. 12  Christ. Anabaptists, Arrians, and all other heretics, are 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 thereby he may think to hurt me, pleadeth 
“ pag. 68  that the Pope doth not assume that power which Christ as king hath in his own hands reserved to himself. This is catholicly spoken of him and very favourably on the Pope's part: but how truly, let the sequel show. 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. ubi.) To be Cephas, that is (by his interpretation) Caput, the head of the Apostolic church. (Anaclet. dist. 22. cap. sacrosancta.) To be Lex animata in terris, a living law in earth; whose sentence & judgement 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 man 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 etc. even to judge the princes of the earth; to be one and the same head with Christ of the visible church: and therefore every earthly creature if he will be saved, must of necessity be subject to the Pope. (Bonifac. 8. Extrav. c. unam sanctam. De maior. & obed.) He by Romish religion, is that one 
† joh. 10.  Pastor, over the one fold: God himself and he his vicar, have but one consistory. (Hosti ens. in cap. Quant. de trans. praeb.) under his feet are all things subdued, 
* Psa. 8.  sheep and oxen & beasts of the field, fowls of heaven, and fishes of the sea, that is to say, (in catholic interpretation) jews, heretics, pagans, Christian men of all sorts, Angels in heaven, and souls in purgatory Antonin. sum. maior. 3. part. dist. 22. As for emperors and king's, (whom God himself honoureth 
“ Psa. 82.  with his own title of Gods,) they may serve to hold the Pope's stirrup, or kiss his foot: for they be more inferior to him, than lead is inferior to gold. P. Gelasius. Dist. 96. cap. duo. Wherefore 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. johan. 22. c. cum inter. In glosa. These and many more like testimonies which might be alleged, will tell every wise heart, 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 challenging Christ's kingly power proper to himself: & in another place also saith, 
† 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. etc.  
As for his friendly qualifications, 
* pag. 68  that the Pope claimeth to be a ministerial head▪ under Christ, & in that he doth many actions proper to Christ himself, it is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial headship, not understanding how far it extendeth, etc. these are but colours to hide the filthiness of that scarlet whore, who surmounting in arrogancy all the children of pride, yet will needs be called servant of the servants of God. But I set down, not what the Pope and papal Prelates say they be; (for the Devil will say he is an Angel of light,) nor what they plainly profess to do: but what they be & do in deed; though yet they profess so much, as any forehead might blush to say, the Pope claims not the power proper to Christ alone.  
And what if I would press Mr Smiths' words as much for the Pope on the other hand, namely that he claimeth to be ministerial Bishop under Christ, & in that he doth many actions proper to the Church, it is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial office, not understanding how far it extends, etc. and hereupon conclude, that properly the Pope is not Antichrist for challenging the Churches ruling power proper to itself; would not this plea be as good as Mr Smythes? And thus the Pope mought be freed from being Antichrist properly at all; or else Mr. S. pleading is but little worth.  
Again, for Papal Bishops among the Protestants, however they utter not such speeches of their power, (being kerbed through fear of the civil magistrate:) yet their Lordly jurisdiction, which they challenge and usurp over many parishes and provinces, together with the names of blasphemy upon their foreheads as Lords-spiritual, Archbishops etc. do prove them toincroch upon Christ's kingly power, and usurp the same; though neither they, nor the Pope, nor Belial himself, will say so much.  
Next for the government by Elders which I proved by scriptures; Mr Smyth, neither answering, nor once mentioning the scriptures quoted, seeketh to blind his reader with a 
* pag. 69.  We say, and a general disclaiming of mine error, (as he calleth it,) without conviction. And let the reader observe his manner of disputing against me. At the first, he said to me, 
† pag. 67.  This of you deny M. Ains. (which I think you do not) I say you are therein departed from the faith. Behold how his own heart checked him, when he began his invective against me; it told him, that I denied not the truth. But he proceeds; and after he had showed his own faith, he comes upon me with an other If, and conceles his own 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 do therefore utterly 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 ordained a Presbytery in every Church? why the scriptures which I cited prove it to be truth; and mine adversary hath nothing to say against it, but yieldeth it himself in the last leaf of his book as before I showed. Or is it mine error to hold, that this Presbytery is to teach and rule the Church by Christ's own words & laws? This seemeth in deed to be the scandal, which Mr. Sm. stumbleth at, & would thus spurn away. The power ministerial of the Elders (saith he) is rather a leading power, than a ruling power: neither are the Elders in all the new Testament (to my knowledge) called rulers Archontes, but overseers leaders, elders, prohistamenoi: whereby the holy ghost would teach, that their power is not to rule but to lead and direct. I do therefore utterly disclaim this your error etc.  
I answer that Mr. Sm. doth sophisticate & dally with the word Rule, whiles he maketh it to answer only to the greek word Archein; which signifieth to rule and reign as Princes; Mark. 10. 42. Rom. 15 12. whereas he knoweth or may know that other words also are fitly translated Rule; as poimainein, Rev. 2. 7. and proistasthai, Rom. 12 8. and he saw before his eyes, how I alleged for teaching and ruling 1. Tim. 5. 17. where this later word is used. Which he not knowing, as it seemeth, how to translate better, and yet not willing to brook the word Rule, saith they are not called Rulers archontes, but prohistamenoi. He might as well have said, neither are they called Overseers but Episcopoi, nor Leaders, but hegoumenoi, nor Elders but Presbyteroi; and so have bleared the simple reader's eyes, with all Greek words, to spoil Christ's Ministers of their authority, and to make men believe they stand but for ciphers. If he be so ignorant of the Greek tongue as he pretendeth, that he will neither allow Prohistamenoi to be translated Rulers, (which so many Greek authors will allow,) nor give us an other English word for it, I will leave him to his ignorance or frowardness rather, and refer the reader to 1 Tim. 3. 4. 5. 12. where this same Greek word is applied to the ruling or governing of a house, 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 houses 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 etc. 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. show where. yea I might add, that they are not called Overseers, nor Leaders, nor Elders, nor prohistamenoi; Therefore neither are they to rule the Church; and so it is to be without rule or government of man at all; which if M. Sm. do hold, it will be found that himself deneyes the faith. For however it be true, that only 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 imperial 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, 
* joh. 13. 20.  refuseth him.  
Whereas I further added of the Elders set to teach and rule, that unto them all the multitude, the members, the saints, aught to obey and submit themselves, as the scriptures teach; Heb. 13. 17. 1. Pet. 5. 5. this 
Luk. 10. 16  wholesome doctrine Mr. Sm. before misliked and kicked against, in answering Mr. Bern. & seeks to turn it away, with this peremptory and perverse answer 
“ Parall. p. 65.  To the place Heb. 13. 17. I say the Apostle doth not intend to teach that the whole body of the Church must yield to the voice of the Elders, in every thing that they list. O notable cavil! who saith they must yield to every thing the Elders list? Is this a fit answer to casshier the government of the Elders? Then away also with his popular government: for I say, no scripture intendeth to teach that either minister or member, must yield to the voice of the multitude, in every thing they list. If so; then Aaron had been blameless for making the golden calf; because it was the people's list, 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 contrary to their liking. I answer, the Elders are to teach and rule the Church by Christ's own word and laws, as I have 
“ Counter. p, 176.  expressed. And herein I presuppose that both the Elders will teach and rule according unto godliness, & the people will obey the godly doctrines & directions of their Elders, without mislike or discontentment. For Christ's sheep will 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 object, that they have not power to rule contrary to the people's liking, as if there could be no rule, but when the Elders and brethren are at war one with another. Of the Church it is written, 
† Act. 4. 32.  the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; yet none (I think) doubteth, but there was rule & government among them. And of such quiet rule spoke I, though M. Sm. would disturb it with his exception; which he mought also have alleged against the Presbyteries authority to pray preach and administer the sacraments; seeing these are no more to be done contrary to the people's liking, than rule and government: for God hath called us in peace. So for aught that is yet said; the government by Elders standeth fast.  
The last battery followeth. But (saith M. S.) the intent of the Apostle is to show, that all the particular members in all their affairs, 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 spouse & wife. Your argument therefore (saith he) is a fallation a coniunctione & divisione thus; All the particular members must obey the elders in their lawful instructions and their wholesome admonitions severally; Ergo the whole body must jointly obey the voice of the Elders.  
Here M. Sm. running himself into a fallacy, by dividing those that are joined together of the Lord, would bear himself out in his evil, by blaming an other first, but without all equity, as the judicious reader may easily perceive. For his reason is to this effect, If 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 yield to any save unto Christ, for he is the 
† 1 Cor. 8. 6. Mat. 23. 8. 10.  only Lord. But this man is blinded with his erroneous conceit. For as in civil government we are to obey and submit, not only to the King as unto the superior, but 
* 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14.  also to the governors that are sent of him: so in government ecclesiastical we are to obey and submit, not only 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. Again, I would fain 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 all & every one in the church: if nay, than I detest his sophistry; for by the same reason that he dissuadeth the whole flock from obedience, he mought also dissuade each particular member: which yet he doth not, but yieldeth the contrary. Now that the Apostle intendeth not only the particular members, but the general flock also, is apparent; First, by his reason which he annexeth, 
† Heb. 13. 17.  for they watch for your souls as they that must give accounts. All good Elders, I ween, do watch as well for the public church, as for the private members, and shall give account for the whole. If then the Apostles reason be of weight; the whole flock, as well as the particular sheep, must obey and submit to such as watch over them. Secondly the Apostle saith elsewhere, to the Elders of an other church, 
* Act. 20. 28.  take heed to all the flock, whereof the holy ghost hath made you overseers: poimainein, (that is to feed, rule, govern, guide, direct and do all other duties of good shepherds unto) the church of God. Now these words flock & church, mean not particular members, but the general company under charge & guidance. And if the holy Ghost have set Elders and shepherds over the whole flock: can any man doubt, but they must teach rule and direct the whole? & if they must do this by authority from God: is not the whole flock bound to be taught ruled & directed by them in the Lord? What perverting of the scripture than is this, that when the Apostle writing to a whole church, to obey and submit unto their guides: it should be restrained unto particular members for to obey? Such doctrines fit rather the confusion of Babylon, than the holy order & government of Zion. But it seemeth the stinch of this restraint, went up into the nose of the man himself as he wrote it: for presently he seeketh to sweeten the ill savour with these flowers: that 
* pag. 66.  All the saints shall yield obedience to the Elders in things commanded by God: and the Elders shall all of them obey the voice of the church in things commanded of God. He might also have added that both Elders and people should obey the voice of any particular person, in things commanded by God. For if the whole church do sin, and 
“ Lev. 4. 13 etc.  any one make it known unto them, and show them the law of God: they are bound to obey him, & submit to his good counsel in the Lord. But what is this to the purpose? The question is into whose hands Christ hath committed the ordinary teaching guiding governing and ruling of his saints 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, seeing he only ruleth by his own laws and officers, and not by Antichristian Lords and laws etc. And again, 
* pag. 107.  You refuse Christ's testament and his kingdom, and will not have him to reign over you in his own offices and laws, which is contrary to these places, Luk. 19 27. Apoc. 14. 9 10. 11. Lo here the truth which I defend, confirmed by my adversaries own pen; for this is the only thing which I plead, that Christ ruleth his people, only by his own laws and officers, as mine opposite himself granteth: & yet see, what an outcry he maketh against me, as teaching such Antichristianisme, as was never heard of before. But by his former dispute against the Presbytery, himself is found to be one of those enemies, that will not have Christ to reign over them, by his own offices and laws.  
Whereas he putteth 
† pag. 66.  the question thus, how far the sheep must obey the Elders which are shepherds: that is not the point between Mr. Bern. and me, neither meddle I with it: yet if any be desirous to know my mind in general, it is. So far as the shepherds do teach rule and direct the sheep in the ways of Christ, by his own word and laws; so far at they all jointly and every one severally, bound to obey and submit to their shepherds, and no further. For although this be the ordinary way of teaching and governing the Church; yet if extraordinarily it fall out, that the shepherds walk and lead awry, and the sheep go aright; then is neither the whole flock, nor any one sheep to follow or obey them, unless they will fall together into the ditch.  
Neither will that reason, which M. Sm. so laboureth about, namely that the Ministry is not by succession but by election of the church; make aught against me: unless the man thinketh this consequence good, If Elders be chosen by the Church, then are they not to teach and rule the Church by Christ's word and laws. The contrary rather is true. For if the Church be authorized and commanded of Christ to choose and set Elders over them, for to teach and rule them by his own word and laws; and are also commanded to obey and submit themselves unto their Elders: then are the Elders to teach & rule them by Christ's word and laws, and the Church is therein to obey. But the first is true, as the scriptures and reasons forealleged prove; Therefore alsothe latter.  
No more will that similitude of a body, (which as all parables will easily be perverted, being strained beyond the purpose of the holy spirit) help aught 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 several faculties, so as all the members have 
† Rom. 12. 4.  not one work; and as the eye for seeing, the ear for hearing, the mouth for speaking, etc. do administer, not for particular mebers only, but for the whole body: even so the Church hath many members with 
“ 1 Cor. 12. 4. 5. 6.  diversities of gifts, and diversities of offices or ministries; which they 
† Rom. 12. 6 7. 8.  are to attend unto and execute for the whole body: & the whole, (not the particular members only, as this man fancieth) are to obey and submit unto these distributions & administrations, being all of the Lord, as the Apostle teacheth. And as all 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 all: so in the church, all 
* vers. 29.  are not prophets, or all teachers, or all governors &c. but 
“ ver. 8.  to one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge etc. unto the administration of which gifts, by the due offices or members; all 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 disclaiming that position which M. Bernard imputed unto us; namely, that the power of Christ, that is, authority 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 authority to be committed to the Elders for reaching and ruling the church by Christ's own word and laws, unto whom the other brethren are to obey, always 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 all Christ's ministers: which they may, if the power and authority pertaineth unto them: for who may abridge the saints 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 point 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 endued with these gifts are given unto the church etc. If but some men in the church, have the gifts of preaching, administration of sacraments & governing: will M. S. blame me for deneying this position of M. Bernard, that Christ's power and authority to preach, administer the sacraments etc. belongeth to every one in the church. Have they authority to preach or govern, which have not the gifts of preaching or government? I leave the judgement of this controversy, to every wise heart.  
And this I hope may suffice for clearing myself of Antichristianisme, in that which I wrote about church government: being the main thing which M. Sm. hath wrested against me. Other things there are which he girdeth at briefly: 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 do not ordinardie (having means offered) live in a church rightly constituted: & we grant, that many of Christ's subjects for want of means, do not live in a true constituted church. If therefore he were not a caviller, he would not have reckoned this among our errors.  
This my answer M. S. of his liberality hath set down in 
* Parall. p. 16.  his book thus.  
M. Ains. answering M. Bern. pag. 173. useth these words. Neither is this position set down in our words, (to my knowledge:) if therefore M. Bern. were not a caviller, he would not have reckoned this among our errors. Thus having dealt more injuriously with my words, than the unjust steward 
“ Luk. 16. 6. 7.  did with his Master's reckoning, in abating more than half of my writing, without so much as any note or mark to intimate of further matter in my answer, (which he maketh almost senseless): he proceedeth to charge me with forsaking the defence of the truth and then runs on to justify 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 public, as the world now may see he hath done in high measure: I leave him unto God for mercy or judgement. Whose hand as it is heavy upon him already, in giving him over from error to error, & now at last to the abomination of Anabaptisme: so will the same hand still follow him unto further judgement if he do not repent. But I wish he may find grace in the eyes of the Lord.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped▪  
Pag. 12. line 2. for tunea read tuned.  
pag. 15. line 2. for alled, read called  
pag. 98. in. the last line, read well ruling, and painful. Other faults may easily by discerned and pardoned.