word the ministerie and the covenant of grace three mayn grounds of Christian religion to manifest himself one of those which 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 The presbyterie is uniform consisting of Officers of one sort Esa. 66. 28. compared with Exod. 28. 1. and Num. 11. 24. 25. 1 Tim. 3. 1 8. Act. 14. 23. Phil. 1. 1. Ier. 23. 1 4. Ezek. 34. 1 6. If this opposite would have avouched the contrarie he mought with farr more reason have alleged these scriptures For Isa. 66. 21. speaketh of Preists Levites which had charge of the sacrifices sanctuarie and Num. 11. 24. mentioneth the LXX elders of Israel joyned with Moses to ayd him in the government and which mought not meddle with the sacrifices And are these fit scriptures to prove Officers of one sort If he mean no other Uniformitie in the presbyterie then was between those Elders and the Preists he fighteth with his own shadow not with us who hold a more strict agreement in the Eldership of the church now then was in that Eldership and preisthood of the law where one tended to civil causes the other to ecclesiastical But I wil come to his reasons proving the Elders to be of one sort viz. al Pastors First in the old testament sayth he there was but one kind of Priests who had equal authority to administer al the holy things excepting the high Priest who typed forth Christ so proportionably in the new Testament there is but one sort of Elders who succede the Preists in the dispensation of holy things Esa. 66. 21. Behold here at first the falshood of this adversarie even now he quoted scriptures that spake of Preists Levites and other Elders al which were different and here he taketh one sort onely Preists to conclude about the Eldership of the church of Christ. But thus to reason from part of the figure to the whol thing figured is mere deceit Again he misseth in his proportion making al the Elders now to succeed the Preists then who had equal authoritie to administer al the holy things For the prophet speaketh both of Preists and Levites Isa 66 21. which had not equal authoritie in al the holy things as the law plainly sheweth Numb 16. 8. 9. 10. 40. and 18. 2. 3. If now al the Elders be of one sort equally administer al the holy things proportion is not kept with the Priests and Levites of the law as Esaias prophesied M. Sm. saw this inconvenience and therfore afterwards seeketh thus to shift it off The Deacons sayth he in the new testament are answerable to the Levites in the old as the Elders ar answerable to their Preists Esa. 66. 21. compared with 1 Chron. 26. 20. Here agayn he useth his former fallacie concluding from part of the Levites unto the whole And taking one peece of scripture he neglecteth many other vvhich make against him For as 1 Chron. 26. 20. shevveth that some Levites had charge of the treasures so 1 Chron. 23. 27. 28. c. and 25. 1 2. c. and 26. 1 2. c. Num. 18 other scriptures many shevv that othersome vvere assistants to the Preists in the service of the Lords hovvse in al businesses staÌ„ding every morning and evening to give thanks and to prayse the Lord and togither vvith the Preists 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 of 70. ancients for the administration of the kingdom which was a type of the visible Church all which elders in their first institution did prophesie and were of one kind under Moses so in the new testament under Christ Jesus which is the King of the Church ther is asuâ—â—drion or eldership consisting of ancients of one kind who administer for the good of the Church Rev. 4. 4. 5. 6. First here is the same fallacie that we had before concluding froÌ„ a part to the whol For in the former Esaias was cited for Preists and Levites to be figures of our Ministers and now the Ancients of Israel are alleged for figures also because these AncieÌ„ts were of one sort therefore all the Presbyterie figured both by Preists of Levi and by Ancients of other tribes must be all of one sort The conclusion is vanitie Rather the reason should be framed thus as the teaching Preists were of one sort and the governing Elders of an other so the teaching Ministers and the governing elders differ at this day Or taking those Elders politik to be figures of our Elders ecclesiastik as M. Sm. maketh them the true proportion is but this as governing elders then so governing elders now are all of one sort and this is that which we hold Neyther wil his other places Rev. 4. 4. and 5. 6. help him any better For he seemeth to understand by that vision the church and by the 24. elders about the throne all which were of one kind the eldership of the Church but he should with all have considered that besides those Elders there were 4. other winged creatures ful of eyes which incessantly praysed God and went before the Elders in this action of worship and these were of the number of the redeemed by Christ blood and of the Kings and Preists that reigned on earth and being as meet to signifie the Teachers of the Church as the 24. are to signifie the ruling elders wil rather shew a difference between the teachers and governours of the Church then that they should be of one sort How beit I rest not in his exposition of those Elders but that is another point Againe sayth he if Pastor Teacher Elder had been 3. offices formally differing the Apostle intending to teach the several officers of the church would have mentioned them 1 Tim. 3. but there he onely mentioneth Bishops and Deacons according as Philip. 1. 1. go Bishops are onely of one sort or kind How M. Sm. understandeth this phrase of formally differing I cannot tel his logik is not like every mans the speach being well taken I admit of and doe deney the consequence of his argument that if they differ formally they should have been mentioned 1 Tim. 3. for it is as if he should have sayd if Preists Levites differ formally Moses would so have mentioned them Deut. 33. 8 -10 Nay Moses having mentioned the difference other where thought it not needful to set it down here and so dooth th' Apostle It is a weak ground to conclude against a thing because it is not written
it hath not at al tymes a like proper signification M. Smyth spying this as by his limitation of properly so called may appear takes advantage to himself for to bolster out his former blasphemies to deal against us for Idolaters the holy Bible for an idol under the aequivocatiō or double meaning of this word worship restreyning it wher he should not inlarging it where he ought not And though he treateth of this thing at large handling the fountaine the helps the essence or nature with the parts and kinds of worship yet the divers use of the word which was needful first to be shewed if he meant not to deceiv he hath quite omitted that therfore I wil first manifest Worship in our English tongue and as it is used to expresse the original scriptures is diversly taken Somtime largely as when it expresseth the Greek word latreuo as Philip. 3 3. we ar the circumcision which worship God in the spirit Act. 24 14. so 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 worship God contrary to the law Act. 18 7 Iustus a worshipper of God And so both it the Greek answer to the Hebrew jaré which properly signifieth to fear or reverence as Mat. 15 9. in vaine they worship me for that which in Hebrue is their fear towards me Isa 29 13. So Iob. and Ionas as the Hebrew sayth feared as the Greek translateth Worshipped God Also when it interpreteth the Greek word threskeuo as Col. 2 18. the Worshipping of Angels and vers 23. in wil-worship or voluntary religion Thus worship is largely used for the feare and service of God or any religious action More strictly and properly worship is vsed to English the Greeke word proskuneo as Mat. 2. 2. We are come to worship him and Rev. 11. 16. they worshipped God Rev. 13. 4. they worshipped the Dragon c. And so both it and the Greek word doe expresse the Hebrue hishtachavah which properly signifieth to bow downe or prostrate ones self Exod. 20. 5. Thus the worship of God generally comprehendeth the performing of all duties required in the first table of the Law specially and properly to worship is to bow downe supplicate vnto God The meaning of the word being thus distinguished let vs now see how M. Smyth dooth deal in the point He where he professeth to handle the nature or essence of spiritual worship and the essentiall causes and kindes thereof sheweth these things in two particulars first in the essentiall causes 2. in the proper kindes or parts of the worship of the N. testament The essential causes are matter and forme The matter of Gods worship sayth he is the holy scriptures which conteyneth the word of God or the Gospell the subiect whereof is Christ Iesus The forme or sowl that quickeneth it is the spirit Col. 3. 16. with Ephe. 5. 18. 19. 20. Then he illustrateth this by the ceremoniall worship of the old testament And the matter of that he maketh to be beasts incense oil fat corn wine and the like creatures whereof the sacrifices c. wer made with all the actions thereto perteyning The forme he sayth appeared in 4. things 1. honey and 2. leven which must be absent for the most part and 3. fyre and 4. salt which must allwayes be present Then for the kindes of spirituall worship he sayth they are praying prophefying and singing Psalmes Psal. 50. 14 17. 1 Cor. 11. 4. and 14. 15. 17. 26. Iam. 5. 13. Rev. 19. 10. I wil not here stand to scan the good order which M. Smyth hath used in handling the nature and essence of worship whiles omitting the efficient causes obiects and ends which properly perteyne to the discourse of actions he insisteth vpon matter and forme which he calleth essentiall causes so taking that which is more vnproper difficult But seing he hath chosen this way I will follow him therein And first I observe how he intending to shut out the reading of the scriptures from spirituall worship yet maketh the scriptures to be the matter of worship now how the matter of a thing should be shut out and vnlawfull to be there it requireth some skill to know Secondly the scriptures being as he sayth the matter and the spirit the form of this action of worship though properly the spirit is the efficient cause it would be knowne why M. Smyth in an other place sayth that actions of administring the Church or kingdom of Christ are not actions of spirituall worship properly so called making those actions to be admonition examination excommunication pacification absolution c. are not these to have the matter of the scriptures and form of the spirit as well as prophesie which th' Apostle sayth is a speaking to edifying to exhortation and to comfort Are we not aswell bound to the scriptures in admonishing as in exhorting and must not the same spirit give life vnto both Let Paul himself be our example he teacheth that the whole scripture is profitable as for doctrine so for rebuke or conviction and for correction and he in practise rebuking and opposing against Elymas saying O ful of all subtilty and of all mischief child of the Divil c. did this by the holy spirit wherof he is noted then to be ful In preaching to the men of Antiochia he admonished them by the word of the prophet Abakuk in preaching to the Iewes in Rome he rebuked them by the word of the prophet Esaias And Peter in his Sermon at Ierusalem pacified their pricked consciences by the promise of God to them and to their children Actes 2. 37. 39. So the word and spirit were matter and form of their rebukes admonitions pacifications c. even as of their other doctrines exhortations and therfore by Mr Sm. owne grounds were spirituall worship and so his first plot where he made actions of opposition difference plea strife not to be actions of spiritual worship is a wagmire wherinto this his conceipt of prophesie or preaching to be spirituall worship is sunk and by it overthrown And sure the Prophets and Apostles and Christ himself never observed this new coyned difference for they in their prophesying or preaching of the word did intermixe rebukes with comforts admonitions with exhortations and opposed against syn and synners vsually in their sermons as the whole historie of the Bible sheweth Now by Mr Smyths divinitie they worshipped not God when they spake by way of opposition difference plea or strife in their doctrine but when they spake to edifying exhortation or comfort this was the worship of God properly so called If this
part of worship if properly so called help not here at a need M. Sm. wil be found a calumniator both of vs and of Israel and of Christ himself For he would have his reader think that we whom he opposeth made arguments for bookworship which here he answereth wheras we never spake or thought of reading to be worship in such a sense as he would draw it vnto nor othervveise worship then reading vvas in the synagogues by Christ himself neyther vvas there controversie about worship at all but onely whether it were Gods word or mans that we read in the Church in the worship of God But now to cloak his blasphemous error he hath dived into his wit to bring out a distinction of properly so called so cogging the reader with the die of deceit and calumniating vs. And hath he not also injuried Israel in charging them vvith book worship and belyed Christ himself that he should use and finish a ceremonie of book worship when yet here he granteth it vvas of another nature it vvas no part of worship properly so called it vvas that vvhich is coÌ„mon 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 a blessing promised therto Rev. 1â—5 and the coÌ„mandement is that it be practised in the church therfore it is a part or meanes of the worship of the new testament The summe of his answer hereunto is Not everie thing performed in the Church is a part of spiritual worship for al the parts of publik administration of the kingdom ar done in the Church and yet cannot be said to be parts of spiritual worship properly so caled chap. 1 and 2. Properly so called is a common vizar of deceit puld off before as here it shal be agayn For M. Smyth divided the whole leiturgie of the church into actions of the kingdom and of the Preisthood of the saincts chap. 1. and 2. The actions of administring the preisthood he made to be actions of concord and union and of these generally he sayth they be actions of spiritual worship properly so called The actions of administring the kingdom he made to be actions of opposition difference plea and strife and of them generally he sayth they are not actions of spiritual worship properly so caled Now here and often he deneyeth reading of the scriptures to be such spiritual worship therfore it is no action of the preisthood therfore no action of concord or union So when the Preists and Levites read the law in the synagogues and at their solemn feasts we may not say they did any action of the preisthood and when Christ read the prophet Esaias Luk. 4. we may not say he did an action of concord or union when Paul would have his Epistle read in the churches of Colosse Laodicea and Christ would have the Revelation read of al we must not understand them to meane reading as an action of concord or union in the church for then it must be an action of the preisthood and consequently worship properly so called which M. Sm. wil by no meanes admit of for he hath limited their bounds and if any read the scriptures in the church as an action of concord and union he wil draw it as by the haire of the head along these grounds to be antichristian idolatrous so setteth he his mouth against heaven Yet reading he granteth but it must be of an other nature and what is that trow we He is loth to speak of the preisthood it is no part and in handling the actions of the kingdom he specifieth it not onely there he sayth that bookes of al sorts may be produced for finding out of the truth and he quoteth among other Act. 7. 22. and 17. 28. 1 Cor. 15. 33 Tit. 1. 12. Where the learning of the Aegyptians and testimonies of the hethen poets are alleged and further he nameth particularly translations dictionaries histories chronicles commentaries c. Behold here what place this man alloweth the reading of the scriptures yea even of the Originals they must not be read but by way of opposition difference plea and strife they must not be read but where when and as histories chronicles commentaries books of hethen poets and al other like may be read and produced so they are tollerable otherweise there is no place allowed them though elswhere he esteemeth better of them then of other writings But in the actions of the preisthood in the actions of concord or union to read them is idolatrie What haeretik professing Christ could more have sought the disgrace of Gods holy book then thus to shut it quite out of Gods worship allowing it no other place by these his wicked grounds then Iulian the Apostata Christs deadly enemy would and did allow it though he esteemed worse of it in his blasphemous writings For eyen he in cases of opposition plea and strife alleged the testimonies of holy scriptures among other writings but in his worship of his Gods he would none of them No marvel though God have stroken this man like Elymas with the blindnes of Anabaptisme it is a just recompence of his former error that as he would have deprived the church of the use of the scriptures the instrument of Gods covenant so himself now should be deprived of the covenant with Abraham and his seed and become an alien from the common wealth of Israel But let us proceed with his answer Moreover sayth he when he commandeth his Epistles to be read in the 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 c. Loe here the shifts of haeretiks Paul willeth the church to read his Epistles yea chargeth them in the Lord to read them to al the brethren and writeth to them again to keep the instructions taught by his Epistle M. Smyth sayth the meaning is not strictly literal that the words which he wrote should be repeated but the sense ralated As if Paul waÌ„ted fit words to set down his meaning they that should read could tel it better He that readeth must read words as they ar written specially in Gods book Epistles from the holy Ghost wherein no one word is vaine idle or unprofitable no word misplaced or out of order and he that shal presume to add or diminish or change the order in reading Gods writings doth wickedly and is neer unto the curse If things in reading be difficult God hath given gifts unto
the word and one joynt action with it so as one and the same word is used in the holy tongue both for to read and to preach it is a part of the vvorship or service of God in spirit in the gospel of his son as Paul speaketh Rom. 1. 9. But woe unto them that speak good of evil and evil of good and vvith feighned vvords make merchandise of mens sovvls their judgment long agon is not farr off and their damnation sleepeth not A translation being the work of a mans wit and learning is asmuch and as truly an humane writing as the Apocrypha so commonly called writings are and seeing it hath not the allowance of holy men inspired but is of an hidden authoritie it may be iustly caled Apocryphon for the signification of the word importeth so much and therfore not to be brought into the worship of God to be read The Apocryphal vvritings are humane both in matter and form in language letter vvords sentences method and order the book of God set over into English notwithstanding the difference of the letters and sounds is yet for the substance divine the words sentences and methode heavenly He that translateth faythfully altereth not the nature of the work translated neyther maketh he it his own Luke translating into Greek Esaias prophesie from the Hebrue Luk. 4. 17. 18. and we translating it into English have not changed the prophesie it self from divine to humane from Gods work to mans it was no fruit of our wit or learning to find out such a prophesie of Christ but we understanding the originals expresse the same thing in English which Esaias wrote and it is his prophesie not ours And the visions of Iohn in the Revelation now Englished are not as much and as truely an humane writing as if M. Smyth should make a book of visions or dreames out of his own witt and learning and set it forth in English Wherefore his hart is striken with the darknes of Aegypt that can see no difference betwixt the Prophets and Apostles set over into our tongue and other mens apocryphal writings but maketh these alike asmuch and as truly humane Agayn this enemy of Gods book is herein condemned by his own mouth for the apocrypha commonly so called are holden and described thus These books c. are called apocrypha that is books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publikly in the church neyther yet served to prove any poynt of Christian religion save inasmuch as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same or rather whereon they were grounded These things are spoken of the Apocrypha not as touching the outward letter or language but for the substance or things in them conteyned But M. Smyth alloweth translations to be read and expounded publikly in in the Church and made a ground of our fayth which agreeth as wel with this his argument as did the evil servāts plea with his practise Luk 19. 20. 22. c. Al the arguments used against the reading of homilies and prayers may be applied against the reading of translations in time of worship as 1. they do stint or quench the spirit which is contrary to 1 Thes. 5. 19. 20. 2 Cor. 3. 17. 2. They are not the pure word of God and so contrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Mat. 15. 9. 3. They are the private works of men contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 7. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 20. 4. They are the private openings or interpretations of the prophesies of scripture contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 20. 5. They contradict the gifts bestowed by Christ upon the church for the work of the ministerie contrary to Eph. 4. 8. 11. 12. Act. 2. 4. Joh. 16. 7. 6. They derogate from the vertue of Christs ascention and dignity of his kingdom contrary to Ephe. 4. 8. 7. They blemish Christs bountie to and care of his church contrarie to Ioh. 14. 16. 18. 26. 8. They disgrace the spirit of God setting him to schole contrarie to 1 Ioh. 2. 27. 9. They bring into the church a strange ministration contrarie to 1 Cor. 12. 5. and so a new part of the Gospel or covenant contrarie to Gal. 3. 15. 10. They do not manifest the spirit which cometh from within but the letter which cometh from without 2 Cor. 3. 6. Therfore they are not spiritual worship Joh. 4 24. with 2 Cor. 3. 17. Gal. 5. 1. and 4. 31. Indeed if lyes may goe for arguments here is a heap What Lucian could have written more reprochfully slanderously of the holy scriptures Cannot the written word and spirit of God his scriptures and his gifts to open them stand togither but one must contradict stint quench and disgrace another Did Christ when he took the book read the text and after spake from the same to the people did he herein contradict his own gifts blemish his own boūtie stint or quench the spirit in him or did the church of Israel contradict Gods gifts or quench his spirit when they preached read the law every sabbath Or did the churches of Colosse Thessalonica c. run into any of these evils by reading the scriptures in the publik assemblies Nay rather this adversary would quench the spirit by abolishing the scriptures out of Gods worship seeing Gods spirit is in his scriptures and he having commanded them to be written commandeth also him that hath an ear to hear what in them the spirit speaketh to the churches Let him not here cavil that he meaneth these things of translations onely for vve have heard before hovv even the original scriptures are also by him shut out of Gods vvorship and the reading of them so condemned for ministration of the letter Iudaisme Antichristian But some special things here are vvhich he seemeth to bend at translations onely as that they are not the pure word of God and so cōtrary to Eccles. 12. 10. Math. 15. 9. So then belike vvhen vve read the lavves of God thou shalt not kil thou shalt not steal honour thy father and thy mother or any other scriptures hovv faythfully soever translated into English vve read not the pure word of God nor as Solomon sayth an upright writing the words of truth but we do that which Christ blamed the Pharisees for Matth. 15. 9. worship God in vain teaching doctrines the precepts of men Loe here some part of the deepnes of Satan who would perswade that the pure word of God the upright writing the words of truth cannot be written in English no nor spoken for if they may be spoken they may be written but vvhatsoevet is written by consequent spoken of us in our mother tongue is a doctrine and precept of men For thus farr reacheth this impious argument Againe wher he calleth them private works of men private openings or interpretations of prophesies contrarie to 1 Corin. 12. 7.