AN ARROW Against the Separation OF THE Brownists. Also an ADMONITION TOUCHING Talmudique & Rabbinical allegations.  
By JOHN PAGET.  
Printed at Amsterdam,  
By GEORGE VESELER, dwelling by the South-Church, at the sign of the HOPE. ANNO M.DC.XVIII.   

To the Christian Reader.  
OF those that separate from the Church of God, there are many sorts: Though the Brownists assume unto themselves the title of Separation, and call themselves the 
a joh. Smyth, Differences, Title. Hen. Ainsw. Defence against Mr. Sm. p. 1.  Churches of the Separation, yet is not this title sufficient to distinguish them; Separation being common to so many.  
Of the Brownists also there are sundry sects: Some 
b Christian plea, pa. 216. 217.  separate from the Church of England for corruptions; and yet confess both it & Room also to be a true Church, as the followers of Mr. johnson: Some 
c justific. p. 339. 340. 247.  renounce the Church of England as a false Church; and yet allow 
d Relig. come. p. 1, etc.  private communion with the godly therein, as Mr. Robinson and his followers: Some 
e Counterpoy. pag. 197.  renounce all Religious communion both public and private with any member of that Church whosoever, as Mr. Ainsworth and such as harken unto him, being deepest and stiffest in their Schism. The evil of this separation is great: First, the minds of many are troubled and distracted hereby; even of such as do not separate, but have some liking thereof; especially if it be true which Mr. Robinson writes of them, to wit; that they 
f Relig. comm. prefac. * iij.  seeing it not to be for their purposes, that the world should so esteem of them, do undoubtedly streyn and wring the neck of their consciences and courses, to look the contrary way, etc. What can be more miserable then to have the necks of consciences thus broken by the doctrine of separation? Secondly, for those that separate but do not yet join unto them, or being joined do withhold from actual communion, living alone and hearing the word of God in no Church, as some do; how great is their misery also? Mr. Robinson himself 
g Ibid. pag. 36.— 39  shows it at large, noting them to be Idol-members, such as break the commandment of Christ, lose the fruit of his ascension, and fail their own edification and salvation many ways, etc. Thirdly, for those that being joined unto them do also live with them, seeing they have in effect excommunicate themselves from all other Churches of Christ, and consequently from the fellowship of Christ jesus himself and from the participation of his grace and glory so far as he reveals the same by dwelling in those Churches: It is therefore no wonder to hear Mr. johnson 
h Treat. on Mat. 18. prefac. A. 2.  complaining of the evils among them, as Emulation, debate and other sins which daily arise & spread themselves to the great dishonour of God, etc. Fourthly, for further and greater evils into which they are given up; it is apparent that three or four hundred of the Brownists have brought forth more Apostate Anabaptists and Arians sometimes in one year then ten thousand members of the Reformed Dutch Church in this city, have done in ten years or more, though tempted and compassed about with seducers as much as any other. And this I may justly witness for the time of my abode in this 
% Amsterdan.  place, where I have ordinarily been present in the Classical assemblies, and seen the number of such as have fallen away, so far as is known unto the ministers hereof. And many other are the scandals of this schism, both towards them without & against the Reformed Churches whose communion they disclaim. My purpose at this time is to defend the lawful communion of that particular congregation, whereof I am a minister: Reason and Religion 
i 1. Thes. 4.11 Act. 20.28. 2 Pet. 5.2.  require that we should first look unto our own estate, and to the flock that dependeth upon us. This controversy being first discussed, I doubt not but the lawfulness of communion with the Church of England, will in great measure be manifested hereby, and a way prepared for them that are yet in error to discern the same. Mr. Ainsworth in his writings against me doth very often appeal unto and call for the judgement of the Reader; herein I agreed with him and do therefore also publish & present these things unto the view of Christian Readers: and have divided his last writing into Sections, not leaving out (to my knowledge) any one of his words; for their help that would compare things together, and so judge the more perfectly. The God of all grace bless these weak endeavours to the praise of his holy name and comfort of his people. Amen.  
J. P.   

AN ARROW AGAINST THE Separation of the Brownistes.  

THe Occasion of this writing: whereas N. N. coming lately out of England into the Low countries, desired to receive the Lords supper with us: she was upon just occasion wished, first to procure a testimony of her conversation out of England. And while she refused so to do, it was signified unto her, that she could not be admitted for a member of the Church with us. After this also falling into speech of marriage with one of the separation, she then began to leave our assembly and went unto the meeting of the Brownistes, pretending scruple of conscience about our use of the Lords prayer, as also about the truth of our Church & ministry: and requested me both by herself & others to deal with Mr. Ainsworth about these things. Here upon partly through her request, and partly through other provocations, I wrote unto Mr. Ainsworth, as followeth.  
Salutations in the Lord.  
Mr. Ainsworth, I understand by diverse witnesses that I am often and odiously provoked to confer with you, & in special by M. Baker who boasteth much against me, that I will not be brought to reason with you, that I dare not, that that day will never be seen, etc. but for yourself I think you have reason to judge otherwise. This provocation is (as I hear) vehemently again renewed this week by the same Mr, B. & this upon occasion of a certain maid who pretendeth that she is troubled to join with our Church because of the use of the Lords prayer among us; because of my calling unto this Church, whereof I am a Minister, which calling he tells her is unlawful; & because there is no difference betwixt us and the Church of England: concerning these particulars, not mentioning as yet any other unto me she saith that she desires satisfaction by a conference betwixt you & me; If therefore you will take upon you to prove that she hath just cause to refuse the communion of our Church, either for any of these 3 causes or afterwards for any other if these will not serve, I am ready by the grace of God to defend the contrary against you. And this I am content to do, not for any desire that I have to bring her into the communion of our Church, unless I could hear better testimony of her, then as yet I have found; but to remove offence, and to stop the mouths of such as causelessly do insult against me & against the Church of God. To this end, if either you require a more private conference and will take unto you, two or three persons for witness, I am willing either to come unto you at your own house or to wait for you at mine, taking also as many witnesses unto me. Or if you please to set down in writing any arguments concerning these points above mentioned, I am willing by writing also to give you an answer. Or if you desire a more solemn and public disputation touching these things, I will not refuse the same upon equal conditions, viz. that the arguments & answers may be written; that some grave & judicious men may be present, who may both be able to judge of things spoken and by their authority may better keep in order the multitude that shallbe present; that this meeting may be in convenient time and place, etc.  
july 12 N. saint 1617. JOHN PAGET.  
Resalutations in the Lord.  
Mr. Paget, I know not of any such provocation to conference as you writ of, neither know I the Woman that would join unto you. Wherefore if any thing pass between you and me, yourself shall unto me be the first provoker of it. And if you desire it, I will not refuse: and it shallbe at your own choice, whether by word or writing, and what point or points you will confer about. As I love not to begin controversy, so neither will I be wanting to do any good I can, to you or any other: or to defend any point of truth which God hath given me to see and witness, when I am duly called thereunto. So rest I  
yours in all Christian duty. The 12. of the 7. month, 1617. Henr. Ainsworth.  
Peace & truth from the Prince of Peace.  
Mr. Ains. beside the provocation of your people, which you hold not to be a sufficient cause of any thing passing between you and me, I take it that I am by yourself also much provoked, & that diverse ways; not only by your general doctrine of separation, which is in itself a common provocation unto all the Churches of Christ, and a beginning of controversy, but in special by your particular mentioning of my name in your public congregation & speaking against my calling, as formerly so also this last week again as I hear: by speaking against the particular congregation whereof I am a Minister, & condemning communion therewith by name: by causing such members of your Church as have heard a Sermon in ours, to make public confession of their fault, & to repent openly for the same: and further even by this your large offer of conference either by word or writing, about what points I would, and this to do me good, though for the present we take it, you have done us no good but much evil & wrong in the particulars above mentioned.  
Hereupon I am moved to desire you, according to your offer to set down in writing your reasons to prove that the use of the Lords prayer among us; that the unlawfulness of my calling; that our agreement with England: & that the Temple where we meet for the worship of God are any just causes of refusing communion with us. Since my last writing unto you, I hear that you alleged the place of our assembling together as a bar of communion unto that man, against whom you presently threaten your censure for coming unto us; And therefore I desire you to set down your reasons concerning this 4th matter also, or any other of our wants which might keep you from communicating with us. And having received your reasons I will also endeavour by mine answer to do you good, & if the Lord will to bring you unto the comfortable communion with the Churches of Christ from all which you are yet a stranger: Than might you be in truth, mine in all Christian duties, as you writ, whereas now in many of the 
* Ps. 55.13.14. Act. 2.1.46 &. 3.1.  chiefest of them, you are not: Than should I also rejoice to be, in a greater measure than I am, your loving brother in the Lord  
july 18. 1617. john Paget.  
The high way of the upright, is to departed from evil: He that keepeth his way, preserveth his soul. Pro. 16.17.  
I Have no reason, Mr. Paget, to hold that a sufficient provocation unto me, which never was: none have ever solicited me to controvert with you, but now yourself. By our general doctrine of separation, you may freely (I confess) take occasion to deal, if you can disprove it: but our doctrine & proofs are in public: so you might have had reasons from thence, to reply upon as you saw good, you needed not have called upon me for more. My particulier mentioning of your Church and you, was necessary: being pleaded for by him that is now falling from us. If you think you have cause to be moved herewith, you cannot but think there was like cause offered us by you: whiles you debar aged M r. P. from the Lords supper, (the greatest censure that you can lay upon him,) because he, being no member of your particular congregation but of the church of England, cometh sometime to hear God's word in our church. Yea more, whiles you keep that Religious young man I. S. from your communion, as is said, because he holdeth it in his judgement that he may hear us: though he told you he had never done it, neither purposed to do it: yet for not promising absolutely not to do it, he is said to be repelled. I suppose a man shall scarcely find such measure at the hands of any Bishop, minister or court in England.  
Whereas you take it I have done you no good, but much evil and wrong: I have learned to bear such imputations with comfort, because they are unjust. It is the best good, if men would so accept it, to have their aberrations manifested. Your church continueth one with the church of England: for proof, (besides the public doctrine among you, which proclaimeth us for schismatics, & the daily profession which your members make), I report me to that charitable libel which C. Lawn, I. Fowler & others, with their penman, have printed amongst you. There, in the title, they profess to be returned into the bosom of the Church of England their true mother. Now they suck the breasts of your church, and in the bosom thereof they most of them rest, and some of them have stood in election to ●eare office among you: so there willbe found an unity between the Daughter and Mother. And if we may blame men for returning to the one, (as our public writings yet unanswered do prove:) then for the other, I assure myself they will not be found innocent. And we in reproving the man who falling back unto you, professed to do the like in the assemblies of England if he were there: have done no wrong to you or them.  
Whereas you desire me, according to my offer (as you say) to set down in writing my reasons, etc. I answer, such offer I made you none, that I would set down my reasons either in word or writing. It is you that call me into this field, and in reason you should therefore give the first onsett. You had your choice to do it by word or writing, I being ready to defend by either. Now you choose writing; I accept it: if you had set down your reasons, I would have given you an aswer unto them. But when we have published so many reasons, in that one book of our Apology (besides others) yet unanswered: it is strange that you call for more. You need not want matter to work upon, out of that little book: and our other employments, little need to be called away, to writ again reasons unto particular persons, when we have set forth so many in public. Yet now to satisfy your desire, I set you down this. 

That separation which is only from sin, and communion therewith, is of God, & is all good men's duty:  
But our separation is only from sin, and communion with sin: wherein we were entangled in your mother church:  
Therefore our separation is of God, etc.   The first proposition is proved by the ten Commandments, which forbidden all sin, Exod 20. and by the Apostles doctrine, which forbiddeth all communion with sin: Eph. 5.11. 2. Cor. 6.14.15.16. The second is proved thus. The things which we have separated from, are;  
1. An human liturgy, translated out of the Pope's mass-book, a read and dead service which we were constrained to offer unto God, in stead of his spiritual worship: wherein also we were bound to observe many other Romish traditions: to keep holy days which God never sanctified: to have the sign of the cross, gossips, etc. with Baptism: to kneel before bread and wine: to hear vain, lying and apocryphal jewish fables, read in the church in stead of God's word: with many other particular impieties. Against which liturgy, we have set down many reasons in our Apology pag. 64. Posit. 9 and proofs of the several branches thereof, by scripture.  
2. The matter of that church; which was not taken of Saint's only, (which every Christian Church aught to be, as is proved in our Apolog. p. 44. posit 3. & confirmed by reasons from the scriptures,) but was first gathered and still continueth of a mixed multitude and their seed: whereof the most part was Popish, profane and wicked: who with the rest, were by human laws forced to be members of that church: as the public Acts and monuments show: and is further proved and manifested to be sinful, in justific. of Separate. pag. 89. 90. 91. and 459. 460.  
3. The form and order of that church, which is not the order set of God, (as we show in our Apolog. pag. 60. Posit. 8. and the reasons annexed to the first branch thereof,) but the order left by the Pope, in parishes, dioceses, provinces, and all conjoined in a national church, with courts and governors according. Disproved in justif. of Separ. p. 195. 196. 197.  
4. The ministery of that church, both superior or governing, with their courts and canons: and inferior or servile: which is not the ministery appointed by Christ in Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. Eph. 4. but a strange hierarchy and ministery derived from Rome. Against which we have produced many scriptures and reasons yet unanswered, in our Apol. Conf. art. 29. 30. 31. 32. and after in pag. 46. pos. 5. and proofs of the later branches of the same. Treat. of the Minist. against Mr. Hild. p. 98.— 105.  
From these and the like evils in that church, have we separated: not from any truth or good thing that is in the same. With these synns we were defiled, and could not but be defiled when we walked with that Church. Whereupon the conclusion followeth, that our separation was necessary, is of God, and the duty of every one that would obey God.  
These things, Mr. Paget, have been long since by us published, and by none hitherto disproved: I allege them now as my proofs unto you to warrant our separation, and do expect your answer to the particular reasons in the places cited, if you think good to controvert the cause with me, and would have me to reply upon you. It is needless to set down any other, or more, till those be refuted.  
Now to your particulars.  
1. You require my reasons, against the use of the Lords prayer among you.  
I answer, I have not laid this as a cause of refusing communion with you: so you have no reason to require this of me. We hold it good and holy, to use a right any of the Lords prayers, or any words of scripture, or those or any of those petitions taught us in Mat. 6. or Luke 11. in the words of either Evangelist, or other words, as the Spirit of God (which helpeth us to pray, Rom. 8.) leadeth us to any of them. If thus you do, I blame you not. But if after prayer by the Spirit, you read that part of scripture for a prayer, or say it over by rote, as is the fashion of many: that I approve not, it being neither the intendment of Christ, nor practise of his Apostles, that I can find: & I desire your proofs from God's word for so using it. What our reasons are against that abuse, are to be seen in our Apology in Posit. 9 thither I refer you. The chiefest thing that I mislike in you about prayer, is: that whereas in December last, Mr. H. your fellow minister taught you and your Church the truth openly, and condemned praying on books, as is reported: you received not the truth, but opposed it, and do yet oppose it unto some among you, that are troubled thereabout. It had been your own duty to have taught the people how to serve God aright: but to resist the truth when God offereth it by your own brethren, is an heavy sin. The discussing hereof, will fall out upon your answer given to the reasons which before I referred you unto, in our Apology, concerning prayer.  
2. About the lawfulness of your ministery, that which I spoke (as occasion then called me) was by way of inquiry: ask the man who is now declining unto you, whether you do administer here, by virtue of that calling which you had of the Bishops of England or have renounced it. And seeing he could not tell, I pray yourself to say, whether you still have or approve of that ministery which the Bishop gave you, and the oath or promise which you made to him, and do now administer wholly or in part by virtue thereof: and upon your answer, I will show you in my next, what I mislike in your ministery, and upon what ground. Secondly, the man supposing you had a new ordination here by the Eldership of an other Church: we asked him warrant for it from God, which he could not show. If therefore it be so with you, I desire your defence thereof by the book of God: for I am yet ignorant, what authority the Eldership of one Church hath to make or ordain ministers in another: now that apostles and all extraordinary functions are ceased.  
3. For your agreement with England, I have before showed from the work printed among yourselves, that the bosom of your church & of the Church of England is one: so the reasons before noted, which warrant our separation from England are a sufficient ground to keep us from you, till you bring a difference, and show how you separate also.  
4. For the Temple wherein you worship, which is as I take it, the nuns chapel, built for the worship of their breaden God and other idols: my reasons against your use of it, I refer you to see in our Apology p. 75. Pos 12. and the grounds from scriptures there alleged.  
Other things there are, wherein you know we differ from you: as your keeping of holy days besides the Lords days, and yet not half the holy days of the Church of England. Marriage a civil duty, is performed by your ministery in your Church. Your Eldership sitteth and judgeth matters apart from the congregation: and this your court I suppose will find no better allowance by the church or courts of England then doth our church, which you count schismatical. Of these things you may see yourselves reproved and convicted in our Apology aforesaid.  
Finally, you shape your Church according to the time and place wherein you live. In England your people use the communion Book, keep such holy days, have such ceremonies, officers, courts, etc. as the law there commandeth: here you are of an other seeming form, and use not the things which your mother church requireth. Now I hold, that the constitution, worship, ministery, government, holy days of the Church should be uniform, and not variable in every coast. But to the things by you propounded, I have given answer, and directed you to our reasons, which you may reply upon if you see cause. And if so you do: as my leisure serveth me, (who am for the present, employed in other affairs, which I have undertaken with Gods help to perform with my most convenient speed,) I will through Christ's assistance maintain them against you. God guide you into the way of truth and peace.  
The 25. of the 7. month. 1617. Henr. Ainsworth.  
Peace & truth from the Prince of Peace.  

FOr answer unto your preface, I pray you consider, that The provocation I spoke of, was of your people to me, & not to yourself: Their provocation of me, together with the signification of my readiness thereupon to maintain the lawfulness of our communion against you, I supposed to have been a sufficient cause of some thing passing between you & me though you thought otherwise as appeareth in your first writing: so that you needed not now in this second writing to have excused yourself by such a provocation & soliciting of you, as I never mentioned nor implied in my writing. But yet if provocations made unto you, and earnest solicitations of you be sufficient cause and calling for you to controvert, then have you cause and calling enough, being as I hear, so earnestly & so publicly by the people of your own Church moved, and solicited to defend your own opinion and practice against M r. Robinson who hath in print reproved and condemned the same.  
Whereas you confess that by your general doctrine of separation we may freely take occasion to deal, etc. you do therein also confess that you are the provoker and beginner of controversy, which yet in your first writing you say you love not, and would still so feign remove the suspicion thereof from you. And if thus your general doctrine give such free occasion, how much more doth your special condemning of particular churches by name, occasion and provoke them to deal with you, though you think you had just reason so to do? I have not denied neither do I deny but that our not admitting of such for membres of our congregation as would have liberty to hear in your Church as well as ours, might be some occasion also to move & provoke you to desire to deal with us likewise hereabouts; but yet so, that still you are to be held the first provokers who have first censured your people for coming to us and by name openly condemned our Church and ministry, long before we refused Mr. P. & I Sh. upon this late occasion.  
As for I. Sh. that unquiet & unstable young man he is not kept from our communion, because he holdeth it in his judgement that he may hear you: his private judgement we would have allowed unto him, so that he would have walked peaceably therein: but for his unpeaceable walking & breach of promise he was refused by us: Besides conference with him for his conviction at diverse times, there is also warrant and proof of this our dealing with him, given unto him in writing and sent unto Mr. Brewer the special patron of this halting practice & conversation, at whose urgent and importunate provocation, the writing hereof was first granted, & since that time he hath also a reply unto the answer which he wrote: If either they or you which cry out so loud against our dealing, can refute the same, you have occasion enough and liberty to do it.  
In the meame time I do only ask this of you, whether you can with good conscience admit them for members of your Church, who do profess they will hold their liberty to hear those whom they and you acknowledge to be in schism, & unjustly separate from the Church of Christ whereof they were members: for so do both aged Mr. P. and I Sh. judge of you. If you answer, no: Than how can you with any equity exclaim against us for that thing wherein yourself agreed with us: as though such measure was offered by us as is scarcely to be found at the hands of any Bp. minister or court in England, when as yet the same measure is to be expected at your own hand? If you answer, yea: that you would admit such: I doubt not but that your own writings may justly be brought against you for your reproof, & conviction herein.  
As for the commendation of your own patience, as having learned to bear with comfort such imputations of wrong as we complain of; me thinks you make too much haste unto your own praise: whether our patience in bearing with comfort your imputations of false Church, ministry and unlawful communion, etc. or your patience in bearing with comfort our complaints of wrong herein, be greater: let him that readeth judge upon the issue of your writing, when it appears how that best good of manifesting our aberrations unto us is performed by you.  
For proof that our Church continueth one with the church of England, you report yourself to the charitable libel which C. Lafoy, I. Fowler and others with their penman have printed, etc. For answer hereunto I would have you to understand, 1. 
* Mr. Clifton teacher in Mr. john's. his company.  The principal penman or scribe of the separation that hath written most and purposely against the book which you call a libel, hath long since acknowledged his fault for the same, & that under his hand in writing, acknowledging the great fruit, that comes by publishing the personal sins of them that continued in error: And thus by his repentance hath made some satisfaction for his offence, as in due time is further to be manifested. 2. As for the other penmen which in their writings here and there have snatched at the same book: there is for them an answer in readiness, to show that they themselves are extremely guilty of that which they unjustly impute unto others: and that the writings for their separation in respect of the manifold and horrible slanders contained therein, may indeed justly be noted, as most uncharitable Libels. 3. That part of the title objected by you, viz of returning into the bosom of the church of England their true Mother with the words going before, as also those that go immediately before their names, are an addition foisted into the title by some falsifyer with out their consent or knowledge: and thus your main hint and ground of proving our Church to be one with England, and consequently your devise to turn away the question from the state of our congregation unto the Church of England & so to derive and direct all your arguments thitherward is but a weak shift and stands upon a mere forgery and therefore not to be admitted: If any ask how you should know of this falsification: I answer, thus much was signified heretofore unto you in that Declaration prefixed before the book written in defence of Mr. Brightman against the vain collections of Io. the Cluse your Elder. Besides other falsifications there noted, they show that the title of their Book is doubly increased by the publisher: & suppose it were doubtful unto you, which part of the title was added, yet what godly wise man with out sinning against his conscience could build such a pernicious consequence tending to the overthrow of a Church upon so doubtful a conjecture? 4. Suppose those words had been their own, yea suppose they had in plain words affirmed that which you would infer from thence, viz. that our Church continueth one with the Church of England, and that there is an unity betwixt us, yet doth not this hinder, but that our Church is a distinct body from the Church of England: we are one with them in the doctrine of faith and salvation, and the members of our Church do not renounce the communion thereof but communicate with them as occasion is given: And thus much is also done by other Reformed Churches who disallow your course of separation, & embrace the bosom of the church of England, by entertaining communion there with as fully as we do, when occasion is given: though both of us do testify against the corruptions thereof. They refuse not to suck the breasts of the Church of England, but profess to do the like in the assemblies of England, as that man doth whom you reprove for declining to us.  
Whereas you deny your offer of setting down your reasons either in word or writing, &c: I have these reasons out of your first writing to make me think otherwise. 1. I having signified my willingness to confer with you if you would set down your reasons, etc. the sum of your answer is. Nothing shall pass betwixt us except I be the first provoker, except I desire it, that then you would not refuse: In my second writing I desired it, and so persuaded myself you would have set down your reasons. 2ly., you wrote and promised at first also that you would not be wanting to do any good you could unto me: therefore seeing the setting down of reasons is a means of doing some good, I persuaded myself you would do it if you could, when I desired the same. 3ly. You professed at first, that you were mine in all Christian duty: therefore seeing it is one Christian duty to set down our reasons for that which we hold the truth being desired of them whose we are, I did thence also persuade myself of this your kind offer. You object now, it is I that called you into this field and should therefore in reason give the first onsett. I answer 1. It was I indeed that first desired the same, but being first provoked by your people and yourself had just occasion so to do, as is showed before: 2ly. My calling you into the field was not absolute and indefinite, but conditional and limited after this manner if you will take upon you to prove, etc. If you please to set down in writing any arguments, etc. upon your large offer I am moved to desire, etc. Having received your reasons I will endeavour by my answer, etc. Such a desire of conference as this is yields a quite contrary conclusion to that which you would draw from the same.  
You complain yet further, and think it strange, that when you have published so many reasons in that one book of your Apology (besides others) yet unanswered, we should call for more, etc. Hereunto I answer: 1. A great number of the doctrines & reasons thereof contained in that book of your Apology are revoked by M r. johnson himself the chief Author thereof, as is by yourself acknowledged & by 
* Profane Schis. of Bro. p. 79. 80.  others recorded: & is it not then a favour unto you to give you liberty & occasion to set down your reasons again more warily & circumspectly as you might see it expedient, that you should not need to recant & refute them yourself as the Author of this Apology hath done? For this I deserved rather thanks at your hands, than any blame. 2ly. many of those reasons in this Apology are also set down very briefly & obscurely, not showing clearly wherein stands the force of your collection from the Scriptures there alleged, so that in this respect also, I had cause sufficient to desire you to set them down again to avoid mistaking and trouble afterwards in the examination thereof. 3ly. The reasons written in your Apology are directed against the Church of England and the ministry thereof: the reasons that I desired of you are such as you have for your separation from our particular Church and the ministry thereof. And who sees not then that for this regard especially I had reason to ask you for new reasons.   

TO come now unto your Syllogism, I deny your 2d. proposition, viz. that your separation is only from sin, etc. For proof of this you do allege 4 things that you separate from, viz. an human liturgy, translated out of the Pope's Mass-book, etc. a mixed multitude forced to be members, etc. a Popish order in Parishes, dioceses, etc. and a strange hierarchy, etc. Hereunto I answer; First, suppose you did justly in separating from these 4. things, yet is not your minor proved, viz that your separation is only from sin, and communion with sin: you do not separate only from these things, but as you separate from these Dutch and French reform Churches, as appears both by the Example of john de Cluse your Elder separating from the French Church, and by your doctrine in defence of him: 
* Answ. to Th. wh. p. 59 26.  so also do you separate from our Congregation, & censure those of your people that come unto us: this separation is not only from sin, & therefore not of God, nor the duty of any good man, though you affirm it. As you are bound by your own promise & express offer to deal with me about what point or points I will: So are you again here bound by the cords of your own syllogism, to prove your minor, that you separate from sin only. If therefore you will deal either honestly and truly in respect of your promise, or sound and directly in respect of your argument, you must show us those sins which are just causes of forsaking our Church: For those 4. things above mentioned are not to be found in our Church.  
Secondly, it is manifested unto you by M r. Robinson, 
Relig. Comm. from pa. 1. to pag. 17.  that your separation is not only from evil: but also from many good things in that you separate from private communion with the godly in England: For this cause he doth justly rebuke & reprove you as wanting 
* pag. 6.  Christian discretion; For confusion of judgement. For 
// pag. 12.  unequal dealing to the godly; 
° pag. 15.  For 
% pag. 16.  looking at them only with the left eye: For ill-advisednes in throwing away all at a venture for some evils: For destroying the unity of the Spirit: For your debarring men from their Christian liberty: & in sum for a dissembling & hypocritical course denying that indeed, which in word is professed by you: as if one should deem their friend a very honest man, but yet would neither trust him, nor have otherwise to deal with him for a farthing. This separation is not only from sin, & therefore not of God, nor the duty of any good men. Thus he shows you how weak your second proposition is. For this he brings many arguments and refutes your reasons to the contrary. You profess in your first writing to me, that you will not be wanting to defend any point of truth which God hath given you to see and witness, etc. But what truth is in your profession? If you hold it for truth, why do you not labour to defend it being so justly called thereunto? If you see your error why do not you acknowledge it, & give satisfaction unto M r. Bernard against whom you have witnessed 
* Counterpoy. p. 197.  this point of private separation? But it appears, that as you have confessed and affirmed, if private communion with the godly in England should be granted, the public would also follow, 
Nota.  so you do yet still esteem it the greatest policy that you can use, to devour and swallow up the rebuke that Mr. Robinson hath laid upon you, & to smother the matter, rather than by raking into it to raze the principles of your separation, and so to endanger your whole cause. But as yourself do insult aghast Mr. john's. for his tergiversation in one point: so and much more justly may Mr. Robinson. triumph over you for your tergiversation in this matter, & say unto you in your own words: 
* Animadvers. to Mr. Cl. advert. p. 60.  you wink and will not see it, you are mute & will not defend it, but wind away to other things, etc.  
Thirdly, as for your separation from the public estate and Communion with the Church of England: because you do so often boast of your books and reasons unanswered, even 4. or 5. times repeating it in this one leaf, I can not omit to tell you, and to bring to your remembrance, that your error about this public communion also hath been by sundry men refuted & this in diverse treatises both written and printed with yet remain unanswered: and as of old heretofore, so of later time, you may see, by the Second Manuduction for Mr. Robinson: by the unreasonableness of the separation: where whiles M r. john's. (whom it most concerneth) doth hold his peace, it lies next upon you who have so often sent us unto the treatise refuted, and are by name called upon to defend the same if you could. Also by A treatise written in defence of Communion with the Church of England, one part whereof was so imperfectly published by Mr. B. and hath been long in the hands of your Elder Mr. Th. These with sundry other both written and printed do remain unanswered. And by these it is manifested that your separation is not only from sin, & communion therewith, and therefore not of God.   

particular 1 AT length you come unto the particulars, where I expected you should have begun at first: & first, concerning the use of the L. Prayer among us: you say you have not laid this as a cause of refusing communion with us: that therefore I have no reason to require this of you, etc. I answer, that in my first writing I did not require your reason for this absolutely, but conditionally, if you thought it a just cause of refusing our communion: and this also I did upon occasion of the woman who professed that she was troubled about communion with us even for this cause: when as in your answer to this first writing you took no exception against this particular more than the rest, signifying also that you were willing to deal with me about what point I would, when as I had nominated this before; I was there upon moved to desire your reasons about this point also: But if you now agreed with us herein, I am the more glad of it.  
Whereas you add, if after prayer by the Spirit, you read that part of Scripture for a prayer or say it over by rote, as is the fashion of many: that you approve not, etc. First, I desire you to explain what you mean by saying it over by rote: if you mean, saying of it without understanding and feeling, this we also condemn as well as you: But if your meaning be according to H. Barow his slanderous & ungodly assertion, where speaking of concluding our prayers with the Lords prayer, he demandeth thus: 
* Discov. pag. 73.  What can be more gross, Popish, Idolatrous, superstitious than this? 
% Inquiry pag. 23. 30. 31. 85.  Or if your meaning be the same with the erroneous answer to Mr. White concerning this question where the use of the Lords Prayer as a prayer is so often impugned by you: Than all the reasons alleged unto that purpose in your Apology are insufficient. Our manner is as you cannot be ignorant ordinarily before or after every Sermon or both to conclude our prayers with the Lord prayer; after we have prayed by the help of the Spirit we persuade ourselves that we also conclude by the help of the same Spirit in this use of the Lord prayer: If you call this, saying it by rote and hold it to be sin and a worship not to be communicated with all, I pray you tell me plainly, and then I will (godwilling) in my next writing give answer unto those 
* Pag. 69. 70.  9 reasons in your Apology whereunto you refer me: for there is no soundness or truth in any of them.  
Secondly, suppose we should say over the Lord prayer by rote even in that worst sense, with out understanding and feeling, so as none can without injury imagine of us: though this should be our grievous sin, so to utter it, yet should it not be the sin of the people that join with us & therefore no just cause of refusing communion with us: about this point only is our question, & what you say beside the same is here impertinent.  
You add yet further; The chiefest thing that I mislike about prayer in you is: that whereas in December last, M r. H. your fellow minister taught you and your Church the truth openly and condemned praying on books: as is reported; you received not the truth but opposed it, etc. Hereunto I answer: 1. The report you heard is untrue in respect of the time of Mr. Hu. his preaching with us; it was not in December last, but a whole twelvemonth before. 2. Whereas he spoke some things ambiguously in his Sermon touching set forms of prayer, being spoken unto thereof by me before witnesses, he explained himself thus, that he did not condemn public set forms of prayer, but those only that did content themselves therewith using no other prayer in private unto God; he acknowledged that he had used the book of common prayer in England; and further that he had offered still to read prayers out of the same book so that he might enjoy his liberty to preach: when he perceyved how some understood his Sermon as hath been reported to you he complained that he was mistaken. 3. For the use which you draw from this false ground, I may justly apply it unto yourself in your own words: It had been your own duty to have taught the people the doctrine of religious communion both public and private; But to resist the truth when God offereth it by your own brethren partly by them of your own congregation who have protested openly against your Separation and forsaken the same, partly by Mr. Robinson, who hath written against it, this is an heavy sin.  
particular 2 TOuching the second particular, the lawfulness of my ministry: you tell me of the inquiry that you now made about it of the man declining unto us, and here also you come yourself to inquire of me, whether I do administer here by virtue of that calling which I had of the Bishops of England, or have renounced it. Hereunto I answer. 1. As it is a snare for a man to devour that which is holy: and after the vows to make inquiry. Prov. 20.25. So is it folly & sin in you first to condemn that which is lawful, as it hath been still reported, that you dealt with my calling and ministry from time to time, & now after so many censures and sentences of condemnation which you have passed upon your people that heard me, that you now at last come to make inquiry. 2. I answer you, that I do not at all administer, neither in whole nor part, by virtue of that calling which I had in England, though not of the Bishops: neither yet have I renounced the same. But as through out these Reformed Churches, he that is called from one congregation to an other doth administer by virtue of his new calling and his former calling ceaseth, though with out renunciation: So is it with me. And this my calling I may well avouch to be much more free and lawful, then that your entrance of old or creeping into this office which you now execute.  
Touching my ordination wherein our Church used the help of the Dutch reformed Church of this City, you desire my defence thereof by the book of God, professing that you are yet ignorant what authority the Eldership of one Church hath to make or ordain ministers in another: now that Apostles & all extraordinary functions are ceased. I answer first, suppose that there had been such an error in my ordination, as you pretend, yet doth it not follow that it is unlawful for any to hear me: I require your proofs for such a separation: for concerning this separation is our main controversy, and see that you wind not away from it.  
Secondly, if you be yet ignorant concerning this point, than I exhort you even in respect of your ignorance to take heed how you allege either this or any other the like doubtful matters for a ground of separation from us: lest you and your people be found to be of their number that 
// 2. Pet. 2.12.  speak evil of the things which they do not understand.  
Thirdly, to help your ignorance which you confess herein, I propound unto you these reasons from the book of God.  
1 〈◊〉 her ordination is not simply necessary: or else the help of o●… Churches and Elderships may be sought for & lawfully used therein: for otherwise Christ should not faithfully & sufficiently provide for the necessities of his Churches, seeing many of them do want fit and able persons to perform that work of ordination which consisteth 
* Exo. 29.1 35. Levit. 8.1.2. etc. Nub. 27.18.19.23. Deut. 31.7 Act. 6.6. & 13.2.3.  principally in public prayers and exhortations to be made both to officers and people touching their mutual duties, imposition of hands being but the outward sign of the charge imposed by exhortation, and of the blessing imposed by prayer▪ this for example may be seen in many Churches which are in the Dorpes or villages here in these Netherlandes, where though they be the true Churches of Ch. yet are there not fit and able persons thus to consecrated or ordain their ministers as by ample testimony may be confirmed unto you in sundry particulars. The wisdom and 
// Heb. 3.2 Esa. 5.3,4.  faithfulness of Ch. in his Father's house will not stand with so strait an order as you pled for.  
2. If the Eldership of one congregation may help an other for the discerning and convincing of errors & heresies in cases of controversy, as is both manifest by the 
* Act. 15.2 etc.  Scriptures; and also by your own practice & confession in 
// Animad. pag. 107. 109.  seeking and procuring the Eldership of that separate company at Leyden to come & help you in your controversy with Mr. johnson: then why may not also one Church desire the help of th'Eldership in an other for the consecration of their minister, whiles they want fit persons for the solemn & public performing of that work: seeing both these actions are a like holy and religious works, the service of God, & services of his Church one as well as the other? Is not this 
% 1. Tim. 5.21.  a partiality to prefer one commandment before an other without any warrant?  
3. The Deacons and widows of one Church are to perform service unto an other, when need requires in 
// Rom. 16 1. 1. Cor. 16.3 & 2. Cor. 8.19.22.24.  ministration unto their outward wants and necessities: why may not the pastors and teachers of one Church administer the word of exhortation & doctrine in an other also, & as well in the business of ordination as of any other? or why may any Church receyve help from the hand of a Deacon, rather than from the mouth of a teacher, that is in an other congregation?  
4. If those that have the gift of Prophecy being out of office may interpret the Scriptures by occasion in diverse Churches as yourself do 
* Confess. Art. 34.  acknowledge from Act. 13.15. Why may not such men upon occasion of ordination in the necessity of any Church apply their doctrines & exhortations to that purpose, & likewise call upon the name of God at the same time for the sanctification of the person ordained unto that work whereunto he is called, & for a blessing of his ministry unto that people.  
5. If the members of one Church may lawfully receyve the Lord's supper in an other upon occasion, as by your own practice you do acknowledge: then why may not the pastors and teachers of one Church administer he same also in an other when need requireth, seeing the 
// Heb. 13.17. 1. Thes. 5.12. Act. 20.28  state of people and ministers doth consist in an equal relation one to an other, and their actions of receyving & administering are mutual betwixt them? And if the Lord's supper may thus be administered some time by the help of neighbour-ministers, why not ordination also?  
6. To conclude, for as much as particular Churches, though in respect of their particular covenants, they be distinct bodies, yet in respect of 
† Tit. 1.4. 2. Pet. 1.1.  their common faith are all members of the same 
* Eph. 1.23 & 4.4.  body, of the same 
// Eph. 2.19. &. 3.15  city, and the same 
// Eph. 2.19. &. 3.15  family and household of God: this general bond directeth them to perform all possible help to one an other in all the works of 
* Jude 20. etc.  edification, so far as they are not restrained by some special commandment of God. Now this act of ordaining, consecrating or sanctifying a minister unto his office being a work of edification, and no restraint being showed out of the Scriptures to hinder a neighbour-minister from performing the same; it follows that the Churches which want persons apt to teach, like the 
// Cant. 8.8 9  little sisters that have no breasts, may in this business use the help of the ministers in other Churches, who in like manner being entreated thereunto may perform the same in the name of the Church that desireth their help.  
particular 3 TOuching our agreement with England and your inference of separation from us thereupon, I have before showed you the vanity thereof, but because you repeat it again: I do again further answer you. 1. we are a distinct and several body from the Church of England, and are no more under the authority and government of the prelate's, than any of the Dutch or French Churches in these Countries are. The bosom of the Church of England is embraced by these Churches, and their bosom again is open to the members of the Church of England as well as ours; And therefore you cannot without great partiality, in this respect refuse our communion rather than theirs. 2. You have condemned the communion of our Church, before the forged addition in the title of that book so misprinted (not among us but in England,) was published: And therefore your former injury cannot be justified by that which is done afterward. 3. You would have us show how far we separate: I answer, we profess separation from known evils, but not from the Churches of Ch. for evils among them: and for ourselves, our covenant hath been from the first establishment of our Church unto this present to serve the Lord in the Gospel of his Son, so far as is revealed unto us.  
particular 4 TOuching the fourth particular, viz. our temple, which you call the nuns Chapel built for the worship of their breaden God and other Idols: I answer, first I cannot find by inquiry that this is so as you take it: Those which keep the evidences & charter of the foundation of this building affirm the contrary. And it is probable, considering that the ordinary devotions performed in many Monasteries and Cloisters, were not the worship of the breaden God, but other songs and prayers, it being unlawful for those women that lived alone to execute the Priest's office in making a breaden God. Secondly, though it be uncertain, whether this Chapel was built for the worship of the breaden God, yet doubt I not but that much Idol-worship hath been performed therein, & therefore I come to examine your reasons against the use of such places, having now the true worship of God exercised in them.  
reason 1 Your first reason against the place of our worship, is, 
* Apol. pa. 76.  because the retaining thereof in such use is a breach of the second commandment. Exod. 20.4.5.6. with Deut. 12.2.3. As for Esay. 30.22. I suppose you allege it for an other particular which is not our question.  
Hereunto I answer: first, that commandment, Deut. 12. is as I take it a temporary ordinance, part of Moses Polity that is now abrogate and therefore not perpetual not binding us in these times: For howsoever the equity thereof continued, teaching us to detest Idolatry, yet doth it not bind us in such manner and by such means to signify our detestation thereof, as it did them in Moses time? For example: as God here command's to abolish Idolatrous places, so in the next ch. Deut. 13.12.— 15.16.17. God commands to abolish not only their places of worship, but also all their goods, their cattle and all the spoil of the Idolatrous apostates and to burn the same with fire. The equity of this commandment leads us to a great detestation of Idolatry and apostasy: but who will say that it is to be declared by the very same means and manner of judgement in destroying such things as are of necessary use? And yet according to your reasoning from this place: the goods, cattle & treasures of silver and Gold, even of thousand thousands of peoples at this day should be avoided as execrable things, and neither by changing, buying, selling, borrowing or any other dealing to be meddled with all.  
Secondly, as God commands to destroy idolatrous places, so he commands to abolish their names, and not to retain them Deut. 12.3. This commandment appears hereby to be temporary and ceremonial, because now in the new Testament, we see that the names of diverse Idols have been retained in the persons thereupon denominate: as the name of Mercury, Venus, Phebe, jupiter, Apollo, Fortuna, that were heathenish Idols worshipped for Gods and Goddesses and yet their names not abolished in the Saints mentioned by the Apostle, Rom. 16.14. Phil. 2.25. Rom. 16.1. Tit. 3.13. 2 Cor. 16.17.  
Thirdly, this commandment for destroying Idolatrous places as it is not perpetual for time, so also not universal for the place, but expressly determined and restrained to the Land of Canaan, to the Idols of those nations which Israel should possess; from that place they were to be cut off, as is thrice noted, in 3. verses together, Deu. 12.1.2.3. Even as God would have greater severity and detestation to be manifested towards the idolaters themselves in Canaan, then to those of other countries a far off, Deut. 20.10.— 15.16.17. Josh. 9.6.7, etc.  
Fourthly, seeing meats sacrificed to Idols were as much polluted as the places of their worship, & yet notwithstanding may now lawfully be retained for our necessary use, Ps. 24.1. with 1. Cor. 10.25.26.27. etc. Why not the temples also, conttrary to the ceremony of old?  
Fiftly, as God commands to abolish the high places of Canaan, so he doth as well command to abolish and consume his own holy things, when the Religious use of them ceased; for example he commands to burn the remainder of the Paschal Lamb which they could not eat the same night, Exod. 12.10. as also the flesh of the Ram of consecration with the bread thereof that remained to the morning, Exod. 29.34. And the like commandment was given for the flesh of the peace offering, Levit. 7,15.19. The equity of these ordinances continueth for ever, teaching us how to regard the holy things of God, not according to the common use of other things, but with a more high and precious estimation of them: but we may not according to the letter of the ceremony and according to your reasoning abolish them: for then the bread & wine that remains over after the administration of the Lords supper should still be burnt, or otherwise abolished.  
Lastly, there is not the like reason to abolish the buildings abused unto Idolatry now, as the high places of old, because God having then appointed one only place for sacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6, etc. Levit. 17.3.4. Those high places being for sacrifice were to be destroyed, though no Idolatry had been committed in them: but being polluted with the service of Idols, there was then double cause of their destruction, which is not now in these, while difference of place is taken away joh. 4 21  
Thus you may see though. Deut. 12.2.3. be compared with Exod. 20.4.5.6. Yet is there no strength therein for the purpose intended.  
reason 2 Your second reason is, because so long as they are continued, Antichrist with his abominations is not wholly banished out of the land: as the Lord hath appointed and will effect in his time. Rev. 17.16. & 18.11.12.13. etc. and 2 Thes. 2.8. with 2. Kin. 10.26.27.28.  
Ans. This argument is denied: The three first allegations show that Antichrist shallbe consumed, but they show not that our temples are any of his abominations: the 4th. allegation is taken from the policy of Moses that is now abrogate.  
reason 3 Your third reason against the places, is: because the consecrating of them peculiarly to the worship of God, now in the time of the Gospel, hath no warrant in the word of God.  
Ans. I grant this: but yet deny, that for the error of their consecration in former time, they must therefore of necessity be abolished now.  
reason 4 Unto your fourth reason. I answer; though it was of old a part of God's honour to be worshipped in the place that he chose and a part of his dishonour to destroy the same: though it be a part of popish devotion to hollow places for God's worship, and to put Religion in them: yet doth it not follow that he now requires the plucking down of the same, seeing there is a change of the Law Heb. 7.12. The scriptures alleged do not prove the consequence; they are of like nature, and are already answered.  
reason 5 Your fift reason is, because the godly Princes are commended in the scriptures for being careful to abolish false worship and the monuments thereof. 2. Chro. 17.6. 2 Kin. 18.4. and 23.12.13.14.15.  
Ans. Those Princes being under the policy of Moses are commended for their obedience and practice agreeing therewith, but the Godly Princes of our times not being under the same rudiments, are not bound to imitate them herein, further than the equity beforementioned doth require.  
reason 6 Your sixth reason for abolishing these places, is: Because this being done, the people are more easily persuaded and drawn to the true worship of God in Spirit and truth: whereas otherwise they are still nourished in superstition, and have means to be enticed daily to more corruption. Gen. 35.2.3.4. 2 Kin. 18.4. 2 Chron. 34. Chap. Act. 17.23. and 19.26.27. Levit. 13. and 14. Chap. with Jude, 23.  
Answ. That which belonged unto the temporary dispensation under Moses being set apart, the general equity of these Scriptures leads us no further then to abolish such monuments of superstition & corruption as have no necessary use, which may thus further appear unto us.  
1. If all monuments of superstition should be abolished like those Idols and earrings that were in jaakobs private household, Gen. 35.2. etc. Than an infinite number of private houses should have been and still aught to be razed and demolished, which yet we never read to have been either commanded of God or practised of the Godly. Among the Israelites, their private houses were polluted with Idolatry, and were nurseryes of superstition as well as their public high places: Josh. 24.23. judg. 17.4. Zeph. 1.5. with Deut. 27.15. The private houses of the Moschovites at this day, as those that have seen do testify, are full of images, and the manner of those that enter daily into one an others houses, is first to worship and bow down unto those Idols, before they may salute any man in the house. The private houses of Papists without number are daily hallowed and consecrated after their manner for Idolservice and private masses: And all these Idol-houses are memo●…alles of Idolatry, serving to nourish supestition, and means to entice thereunto, are they therefore all to be plucked down?  
2. As for the brazen serpent, 2 King. 18.4. It was of no necessary use, and therefore might well be abolished.  
3. The high places, the groves, altars, images destroyed by josias, 2 Chro. 34. were also of no necessary use: It doth not appear that the high places were houses meet to be converted unto Synagogues for the people to meet in: but were altars in high mountains and hills: And therefore not unfitly is Bamah, an high place, expounded by Bomos, an Altar.  
4. The Altar at Athens Act. 17. and the Silver temples of Diana made by Demetrius and his fellows Act. 19 were likewise things of no necessary use. But whiles I examine those places that you refer me unto, I there find that an Idolatrous place is converted by the Apostle unto the service of God: Act. 19.9.10. The School of Tyrannus being as the rest of the heathenish schools, the nurseries of superstition, Idolatry, false worship, and pernicious opinions, concerning God, his worship, and the sovereign happiness of man, was yet after this used by Paul for a place of God's worship, for a school of Religion to preach the Gospel of Christ in the same. In such schools the Philosophers and Poets, the 
* Tit. 1.12  Prophets of the Heathens did teach their Religions, and called upon the names of their false Gods: The Ephesians in special were infamous for their curïous and magical arts taught among them, who now 
// Act. 19.19.  burned their books being better instructed, and some of their Idolatrous 
% Asiarchai Beza Annot. on Act 19.31.  Priests (so deemed by some) became friends unto Paul: with such fruit and blessing of God was the Gospel preached daily in this place for two years together.  
5. Your allegation of Levitic. 13. and 14. doth also lead me to remember the equity of of that Law of God, whereby he ordained that things polluted being of less price should be broken, but being of more worth were to be purged and so retained, Levit. 11.32.33. and 6.28. As the merciful care of God for his people appeared herein even under the law: so much more under the Gospel, this type is fulfilled unto us, and the bountifulness of God in Christ is now enlarged abundantly by granting us the necessary use both of things polluted with Idolatry, as also of such things as were otherwise ceremonially unclean.  
6. If you will have memorials of superstition though of necessary use to be abolished, as being persuasions and enticements to Idolatry, then how will you excuse yourself that do not only not abolish them, but erect them a new: and those also of no necessary use: and not the monuments of them only, but the very Idols themselves: and such Antichristian Idols also as have dishonoured God as much if not more then over any did? You will ask me what and where they be: I answer, in your 
% Animadvers. Pag. 61.  book against Mr. johnson, where with your Pen as with a pencil you have painted that Popish Image of the Cross, and set it up for Religious use four times in one page, while you describe out of Bellarmine the manner of Popish Ordination, to teach men the evil thereof. If now an ignorant Papist in reading and seeing these Idols in your book shall come to bless an Idol in his heart: either to adore any one of those Idols that you have form, or some other sign of the cross which he remembreth upon this occasion; (for often do such things come to pass, and men stumble at the Gospel itself, and through their corruption are hardened by error by reading sound reasons against the same:) how could you now clear yourself in this case from the guiltimes of drawing men to Idolatry? when men stumble at the word of God or sound reason brought from the same, their sin is upon their own head only: But if men stumble at those devised ●…ndes of instruction which have no warrant from God, then comes their sin upon the head of their instructors also. And thus is it with your kind of instruction here; it hath no warrant from the Lord: When he in his word condemns the abominations of Molech, Chemosh, Ashtaroth, Baal, etc. he doth not 'cause the Shapes and figures of these Idols to be portrayed or painted before the eyes of men, as you have done with this Popish Idol of the Cross: And therefore here is no excuse left for you herein. Though some may have done this before you, yet will it help you little, who neglecting the example of all the Churches of Christ in that which is good, do yet follow a few in that error, which you, would seem most to condemn.  
reason 7 Your seventh reason is: Because the Lord hath promised a blessing to them which do reject & abolish them, and threatened a curse to the contrary: And so also hath performed indeed, Esa. 30.22.23, etc. Exod 20,5.6. 2 Chron. 17 Chap. and 31 20.21. with 2 Chron. 21.13.14, & 24. 17-25. & 28. Chap.  
Answ. Suppose that every one of these Scriptures did speak more peremptorily than they do for the rejecting and rasing the houses polluted with Idolatry, yet seeing they are all to be understood partly according to the state and condition of the old Testament, and partly according to the equity mentioned before with exception of necessary use, they do not therefore reprove that use of temples which we now have.   

THus far for answer unto the reasons in your Apology. Hereunto I have thought it meet to annex three or four reasons taken from your own practice, that you might be further convinced and judged even of your own selves:  
First, whereas the blind and obstinate jews are at this day a false Church without Christ and without true God, and their worship false and blasphemous: yet have you not refused, after your division and rent from Mr. johnson to meet together for the service of God in the Idol-temple of the jews, where they had exercised their Idolservice before you. How comes it to be lawful for you to assemble where the jews have served their God, and not for us where the Papists have been before us?  
Secondly, whereas you have rejected the ministry of Mr. johnsons company, as 
* Animadvers. p. 38.  a new established Hierarchy, and do else where condemn such ministers as 
// Counterpo. pag. 196.  Idols: from hence it followeth that the place where they meet together to fulfil their ministry was an Idol-temple; And yet even in that same place where those Idol-ministers met, you are now content to come and assemble together, they being dispossessed. Why may not that place 2. Kin. 18.4. be now urged against you, as well as against others by you? Why is not that Idol-house broken down as well as the brazen Serpent, etc.  
Thirdly, in that you allow your people, the members of your Church to receyve the alms of the Dutch, which is a sacrifice Phil. 4.18. and this in the same place which you condemn as an Idol-temple; If you will also allow them, at the same time to bless in the name of God those that distribute so mercifully unto them, according to the 
* Phil. 4.19.20. 2 Tim. 1.16. 2 Cor. 9,12 13,  duty of the godly poor: do ye not hereby allow the worship of God in Idol-temples as you call them?  
The answers which you give unto Mr. White concerning this matter are insufficient for  
1. Where you would have us to 
// Inquiry, pag. 56.  put difference between the ordinary public worship of the Church in such places, and the occasional receyving of alms therein by the poor: This difference cannot without manifest untruth be affirmed or applied unto the matter in hand: for the distribution of this alms here spoken of is not occasional, but an ordinary public work of mercy performed at certain set times; and as is the distribution so is the receyving thereof.  
2. You put difference between the benevolence of a Church to the ministers or Saints of Christ (which is the sacrifice spoken of Phil. 4.18.) & the relief of a city given to the poor that devil among them, be they of any Religion whatsoever, one or other. But neither will this distinction help you, for not only the benevolence given to the ministers or Saints of Christ, but that also which is given to the poor of any Religion whatsoever, one or other is a service and 
* Heb. 13.16. Gal. 6.10. 2 Cor. 9.13.  sacrifice of sweet odour pleasant and acceptable to God: and further this alms that we speak of, is not the relief of a City but chiefly the benevolence of a Church collected publicly every Lord's day in the congregation of the Saints, with whom you communicate in their public alms though not in public prayers.  
3. You put difference between the solemn appointed worship of God by the Church so assembled together, and the private duties of thankfulness, of salutation, or the like. But this distinction also cannot truly be applied unto this matter in hand, for the duties of godly thankfulness and blessing in the name of the Lord, which are and aught to be here performed, are not private duties but public even as is this alms that is always publicly administered in the presence of a great multitude assembled together.  
4. This question is asked by you; doth he think we hold it not lawful to walk up & down in the Idol temples, as they use in Pawles at London, etc. I answer, that in in Idol-temples, where Idolservice is still ordinarily performed, you cannot lawfully walk up and down, as men use to do in Paul's. 
Mat. 18.7.  For woe is denounced to the man by whom scandals do come. And I demand of you, whether you hold it lawful for men so to have walked up and down in the house of Baal, and there to have received alms as your people do in these temples whereof we speak:  
Fourthly, your own staggering and waver about this matter are worthy to be observed:  
1. The doubting of H. Barow, who had written so peremptorily hereof, is recorded in that piece of paper which is pasted upon the 
* Discov. pag. 133.  margin of his book over against the place where he had maintained such a vehement detestation of them. And that is there in part diminished touching the civil use of them.  
2. Mr. johnsons wavering is recorded in his book against Mr. White: His confession there noted by himself concerning the lawful hearing in these temples, was that 
// Inquiry. pag. 66.  it should not trouble himself and for others he would therein persuade them the best he could. And yet in the very same book both 
† pag. 57  before and 
% pag. 79.  after he doth again writ against them: In the very same 
* pag. 66.  page before noted, he blames Mr. White for changing and rechanging his faith and profession as if he thought he might dally with Religion at his pleasure: with what honesty and modesty is this done, while the same book testifyes his own changing, rechanging & changing again ofter than he could impute to M r. White? And since that also;, he hath of late tolerated sundry of his people to hear in those places.  
3. Mr. Robinson, though he have written in such high words against these temples: that 
// justific. pag. 443.  they are by lawful authority to be demolished and overthrown: & in the mean while as execrable things to be avoided by them which have none authority to deface or demolish them: though he pled against them, as being 
* Pag. 444.  Idols, unclean things not to be touched: the mark of the beast not to be received: & a Babylon to be gone out of, etc. Yet hath he for this long time tolerated Mr. Br. to hear the word of God in such places: and so according to his own writing suffered one of his people to go in to Babylon, to carry the mark of the beast, and to be defiled with an Idol and an execrable thing, like an other Achan among them And not only this, but now of late this last month as is witnessed unto me, he seeing (as it appears) how rashly and unsoundly he hath written against Mr. Bernard in this point, gins openly in the mids of his congregation to pled for the lawful use of these temples; and so to repair and build them up again, which before he would so feign have had to been plucked down.  
4. For yourself and your own congregation; do you not know, and is it not confessed unto you, that there is of your own people that sometimes hear the Dutch-ministers even in these temples which you do so much condemn? doth not W. S. profess that he will continued also thus to do? And if this practice be a breach of the 2d. commandement, & a transgression of so many Scriptures as you allege against it in your Apology: and if so heavy a curse be threatened against it as you there affirm, with what love of your brother or conscience of Christ's ordinance, do you suffer that person to walk on in such an accursed course as you make it? or how can you without partiality make this a ground of refusing communion with us, and yet tolerate it among yourselves? Is this that Highway of the upright man which you point at with your finger in the 
* Prov. 16.17.  sentence which you prefix before this your writing? Is this to keep your way and so to preserve your soul and the souls of those that you take charge of? Besides this, there are of your people that have helped to repair our temple and to make it fit for our use, by mending and making new seats for the people and new pulpit for the minister in the same: and do they not hereby seem to contradict your profession? I have here again just cause to speak unto you, as you did unjustly unto me upon occasion of Mr. H. his Sermon: The chiefest thing that I mislike in you about this matter, is: that whereas Mr. johnson & M r. Robinson your fellow ministers have openly witnessed the truth unto you by their practice, yet you do not receive the same, but oppose it still. It had been your duty to have laid aside this error of yourself, but to resist the truth when God offereth it by your own brethren, is an heavy sin.  
After these 4. particulars, you say, Other things there are where in we know you differ from us: as our keeping of holy days besides the Lords days, etc. Marriage a civil duty performed by our ministry in our Church: Our Eldership sitting and judging matters apart from the congregations, etc. Hereunto I answer.  
First, the question betwixt us, is not about all things wherein you differ from us, but only about those differences which you hold to be just causes of renouncing our communion. Other great or greater differences than these, there are also betwixt us: as that you allow not your people to marry with the members of the reformed Churches as we do, but make such Marriages to be a cause of excommunicating your people, as though the godly members of these true Churches were like the abominable Canaanites in your sight: That you allow marriages made among yourselves without consent and authority of the Magistrates: and this both in England and here also, where the laws do hold the Children of such as are so married to be illegitimate: That you also allow divorces among yourselves without the authority of the Magistrate: That you turn the Lords day into a session or Court-day, omitting and thrusting out in part sometimes the administration of the word & Sacraments, by spending so much time in controversies & contentions: That you condemn the set maintenance of ministers; with sundry other differences, which I know not whether you maintain as causes of separation from us. These are yet in Comparison your single errors, whereas your separation or schism is a double iniquity and an error of errors: If in defence hereof you can prove our Church and ministry to be false, as hath been often avouched by you: you may then lay the axe of your separation unto the root of our Religion and hue us down at once: If you can show our worship or place of worship to be unlawful, it would be something to the purpose: If you allege other differences, and do not prove them to be causes of separation, you wander from the question.  
Secondly, we know also that there are differences among yourselves, both about some of these same, and other greater matters: and not only betwixt you and Mr. Robinson, but in your own congregation also: as that some of your people upon the holy days by you mentioned, shut up their shops: others not, as is 
* Inquiry. p. 59 60.  acknowledged by yourselves unto Mr. White: That some of you hold an enforced divorce, and that the 
a Ibid. p. 32 33.  parties innocent either husband or wife which forgive one an other being guilty of adultery and live still together are to be excommunicated; others holding the contrary: That some of your people are of your mind in denying private communion with the godly in England and yet some even of your own congregation do allow such communion, holding rather with Mr. Robinson then with you, that refuse to answer him: So that if notwithstanding these and the like differences, you can yet hold communion among yourselves, and with Mr. Robinson, it may seem that these three last differences above noted by you, are not intended as causes of separation, and so belong not to our question.  
Thirdly, our differing in those 3 points nominated by you, is duly to be weighed of you: 1, for keeping of holy days: we hold all days (except the Lord's day) to be alike holy: If our people at the Magistrate's appointment do shut up their shops without putting holiness in the day, it is confessed that your people do the same also: That ordinary day of the week which we have for a sermon is sometimes changed unto one of those holy days (as they are called) and we preach on the same, to redeem time for men's labour, and to win opportunity to preach the word unto many in season or out of season; and this also, as I hear is done by you, and that by a memorable token at one time especially; the time of your rending from Mr. johnson being on a Christmas day so called, unto which day you had changed the ordinary time of your assembling in the week. Thus far you agreed with us: & this being granted lawful, the rest if it be any thing will follow. 2. For Marriages: we do not hold it as a thing of necessity, that they should be celebrated by ministers in the Church; we judge them lawful marriages that are made by the Magistrates without ministers: but yet we hold it lawful, more convenient, and comfortable that they be accomplished in the Church by the Ministers, both for showing the duties of the persons married and for obtaining a special blessing by the prayers of the congregation. 3. For our Eldership sitting and judging matters, etc. though our Eldership for the examination of parties and witnesses, and for their consultations thereabout do sit a part, as is meet; yet do we not exclude or debar any from hearing and seeing the conviction of any sin that is either public of itself or persisted in, when they desire the same; yea we ourselves have often desired their presence to behold the convictions, admonitions and rebukes of offenders: and further, before any sentence be given for the cutting off of any offender, we do first propound the matter unto the whole Church, requiring their prayers, advice and consent without which never yet any judgement of excommunication hath been executed against any amongst us: And this also is propounded unto them by diverse degrees, long and often before any pronouncing of sentence, that so our brethren may have sufficient time, both to inform themselves of the matter and to deliberate ripely thereof. And even this sitting of our Eldership a part from the congregation, seems to have been allowed by yourself, for as much as in a matter of controversy, you and your Elder Mr. Th. have not refused to come & appear before this our Eldership, and there to give what light & evidence you could unto the matter in question; and thus also have others of your people at other times voluntarily come and appeared as witnesses before us: and have so far communicated with our government.  
You say, you suppose that this our court shall find no better allowance by the Church or Courts of England then doth your Church which we count schismatical. A vain supposition: for 1. though our eldership should find no favour nor allowance from the prelates or courts of England, yet have we comfort in God's allowance: we depend on Christ and not upon prelate's. 2. The allowance of the reformed Churches which give us the right hand of fellowship, being laid in balance with the disallowance of prelate's is enough to countervail the same: A comfort that you are far from. 3. Even the chief defenders of the prelacy can not but give allowance unto our eldership, confessing that this government 
a D. Downam, sermon at lambeth pag. 95.  may be admitted, and that it is as silver, good; though they prefer their own as Gold before the same.  
You add further, that of these things we may see ourselves reproved and convicted in your Apology aforesaid. But this is also a vain speech: first, there is no such conviction to be seen in your Apology; but this we rather see, that Mr. johnson the Author of your Apology is in his conscience reproved & convicted of diverse of these errors that he hath written: we see some of his people coming unto our Sermons, even on those holy days you speak of: we see others of them willing and desirous to have their marriages celebrated in our congregation, even whiles they remain with him still: we see his government changed, but who knows what it now is? we see him broken & confounded in his courses but without such true repentance, as should bring him plainly to confess, to revoke & to refute his errors wherewith he hath been a means to ensnare so many. And the sight of this confusion in him might be sufficient to serve for your just reproof also, if you consider it a right.  
Secondly, suppose you had sufficiently convicted us by your Apology in those differences betwixt us, yet is not your refusal of our communion for the same justified thereby; that is the question that remains unproved. When I receyve any arguments from you to that purpose, I will then godwilling give answer both to those arguments for separation from us, as also to so many reasons as I can find in your Apology touching those three particulars themselves.  
In fine, you tell us, that we shape our Church according to the time and place wherein we live, etc. Touching this imputation of variableness, I answer for myself, that when I lived in England, I testified against the evils which I conceyved to be in the order of that Chureh: and when I was called hither I rejoiced to find those things that I had desired before and this with out variableness. And the communion which we still upon occasion hold with the Church of England, can no more destroy the truth of our Church, than it doth other reformed Churches which practise in like manner. But if you come to speak of variableness, and shaping a man's self to the time and place, you give us occasion to remember your own levity & scandal in this behalf: But I spare you for this time.  
To conclude, seeing that besides the common and general motives which may bind us to deal faithfully and conscionably in all our ways, we have at this present also the hand of God lying upon the City where we live, and his destroying angel is come into our streets: so that many fall both on the right hand and on the left, through the noisome pestilence that walketh in the dark and wasteth at noon day: let us therefore so writ as if the arrows of th'almighty did stick fast in us: Let us with all our might seek those things that may serve for the edification of the Church of God, with his praise and our peace therein: even so as if each of our writings were to be sealed with our present dissolution. He whose name is counsellor & the mighty God guide us hereunto: Farewell in the Lord.   
August. 21. 1617. john Paget:   

CHAP. I. Love the truth, and peace. Zach. 8.19.  


Hen. Ains.  I Like well of your counsel (Mr. Paget) in the conclusion of your writing, that we should so menage our causes, as may most tend to the edification of God's Church, with his praise and our peace therein: and through his grace (which I humbly crave,) I shall indedevour myself hereunto. One means to further this, I take to be the abridging and if it may be, the quite cutting off of all less needful matters, and holding to the main differences: an other, that we discuss things by the word of God, not of man.  
So first to end the strife about the provocation to this controversy: for as much as sundry works are published on your side and ours, I held them sufficient to show unto judicious Readers, that would examine the scriptures and reasons brought on either part, where the truth lieth, and purposed therefore to writ no more this way, unless further and more probable objections were publicly brought against us. And I turned the course of my studies an other way, as is openly to be seen. Neither would I take occasion to meddle, though provoked by you and yours, more than by any other: as I showed you in part, by instances of some that could not be admitted to the Lords supper with you, for that they heard the doctrine of our Church, or thought it lawful only (as was said,) though they never did it. This I yet think to be more severity on your part against us, than any Bishop in England would show: how justly you may do it, remaineth to be judged, when the differences between us are discussed. And as for the provocation of our people, whereon you insist: I know it not: the man whom you named, denied it to me before witnesses, and said: some of yours were the beginners of it, as he could prove. But now that you have taken such an occasion, and we are entered into these lists, let us proceed.  
For the order of our process, whereas you beginning with me, would yet urge me to set down my reasons, when as you saw them in print: I leave it unto judgement, how meet this was. As you knew that the chief Author of our Apology, had revoked some doctrines and reasons therein: so you might have known that I and others, interessed in that book, held to the things therein published. My large offer to yield to any kind of conference with you, at your request; was not intended, neither should be strained to any other than an orderly course. Yet I set you down a main ground, as you desired, and that I am content to follow.  
But you except against my argument and reasons confirming it in our Apology, that those reasons are directed against the Church of England and the ministery thereof: the reasons that you desired of me, were such as I had for our separation from your particular Church, and the ministery thereof.  
To which I answer: In that they are directed against the Church of England they are also against yours: for you were members of that Church, and guilty of the synns reproved in my argument, as we ourselves also were, whiles we continued among them. Now the removing of your dwelling into an other land, removeth not your synns from you, nor you from them: it is your repentance only, and faith in Christ, that can purge away your synns, Luke 13.3.5. Mar. 1.15. Papists that devil here, in England or other where, belong to the Church of Rome, till they break off themselves by repentance. Neither doth the abstaining from the practice clear the sinner: for the guilt of Cains murder, cleaved unto him all his days, because he was not cleansed by repentance and faith; although he never killed man more, after Abel. So though you here practise not the idolatries done in England yet in that you have practised them, and not repent, your guiltiness is upon you. How much more than do your synns remain, which oppose and speak evil of us, privately, publicly and in print, for departing from the evils, wherein we sometimes walked among them. Moreover I manifested your union with the Church of England by the very title of that book published by your own proselytes, which saith, they are returned into the bosom of the Church of England their true Mother. These words, with some other in the title, you disclaim, as being foisted in by some falsifier. Be it so, though I knew not of it: yet the thing itself you disclaim not: so it may be true, though they wrote not those words. 
* I pray you tell me in your next, in the name of your chur. whether you deny that you continue in the bosom of the church of England  And Chr. Lawn, the first pretended Author of that book, is known to live in the bosom of that Church, according to the title. And what will you answer to other words contained in the pamphlet: as in Pag. 1. Where they say, they sought to make a public renunciation of their unchristian separation, which with us they had undertaken from all the Churches of Christ. Meant they not the Church of England here for one? Let the 3 Page testify, where they say. These things being proved, their separation from England would hereupon appear to be unlawful. Let the 7. p. speak, where one of the causes of their excommunication, is for charging us to be Schismatics for our separation from the Church of England. And in their answer to this article, p. 8, they deny it not, but refer to their proofs in the copy of their charge. Finally, let us see what they say in pag. 2. We did openly renounce our covenant and profession of separation, which at our first entrance among them, we had made with them: we renounced it as being a most abominable and profane thing. Will you say that all these words were also foisted in by some falsifier? If not, why seek you now to turn away the discussing of the reasons of our separation from that Church of England, especially considering what profession we make in the preface to the Confession of our faith, (printed with our Apology) of our agreeing with other Christian reformed Churches round about us, (some of which we there name,) & of our separation only from the Antichristian Church of England for the causes there manifested. The covenant and profession of separation which they made with us at their first entrance, was from the Church of England whereof we had been; not from any of the Reformed churches whereof we had not been. Wherefore they returning unto you, with this renunciation of their covenant: who would not now expect at your hands, a justification of the Church of England?  
But you desired reasons for our separation from your particular Church. Whereas we rather might desire the reasons of your separation from our particular Church. For, beside that some of your members, were first members of us: our Church is before yours, being through God's mercy, seated and established here first: and you coming after gathered a people, and erected a ministery in this City by us; never communicating your purpose or proceedings with us; nor demanding of us the reasons of our separation; nor showing wherein you agreed with us, or dissented from us. If now one of us must needs be counted separators from an other: I think indifferent men will judge, the separation must lie upon yourselves.   

An answer to Preface-matters. Peace and truth from the Prince of Peace.  

joh. Pag.  Mr. Ainsworth, Had you observed your own directions for performing the counsel which you so well liked of, then would you not have brought in such store of human testimonies, and those of the worst sort, and them also in the worst manner, as you have done: then would you not have inserted so many less needful matters, but have kept more closely unto the main differences. When you speak of of ending the strife about the provocation to this controversy, you begin it a fresh by bringing such a reason of your silence, as serves for a strong provocation to deal against you: the sum of it is: there was so much written on both sides, as you held sufficient to show unto judicious Readers where the truth lay, & therefore purposed to writ no more this way, unless more probable objections were brought against you: as if you should have said in triumph: All is won: Separation hath gotten the victory: all of judgement may see it: there is nothing of weight or worth, nothing so probably written against us, that deserves any more answer, therefore I will rest. Who is it that sees the separation clapping her wings & crowing on this manner, boasting against all the Churches of Christ, and against all the godly & learned Ministers and members of the same, but they may justly be moved by such a provocation as this? Whereas you tell us of turning the course of your studies an other way: & that it may openly be seen: we see indeed that you are about a new translation of the Bible with annotations upon the same, but it were much better for you to turn back the course of your studies, to stay this work a while, and in the fear of God first to examine your separation more sound than you have done, and so to free & clear yourself of that error and scandal which you have given to the hurt and grief of many a soul. Unless you take this course, one of these two things will follow: Either you must make an unclean work, or have an unclean conscience: for if in your annotations you expound the scriptures all along as you go, according to that which you have done in your other former writings for the maintenance of separation, then shall you give many unclean notes, and defile the holy scriptures & lead unto schism: if in all your annotations for winning credit unto them you do conceal your meaning, and hide your opinion notwithstanding all opportunities given, what do you else but betray the supposed truth, when as in your account it is generally and unjustly oppugned, and pollute your own conscience with this unfaithful dealing?  
As for your provocation by us, in that we admit not such for members of our Church as would have liberty to hear your Sermons, I gave you answer in my former writing, which here you take no knowledge of. This is no good way, to abridge lesle needful matters, by repeating and renewing unjust complaints of hard dealing and omitting the answers given already thereunto. You refer the matter unto judgement of the Readers, and ten times you appeal unto them in this writing: I agreed with you herein, only I entreat the Readers to see what is written before, and still to compare our writings diligently together that they may see what is answered, and what is omitted & passed by: And therefore also have I caused these writings to be published, that the reader might have them to judge by. As for the man by whom I was provoked; If he deny it now, yet that impeacheth not the truth of my assertion, while I have sundry witnesses to confirm the same. And it skills not so much, what he now saith of himself before witness, as what the former witnesses do testify of him and his speeches.  
That I had cause enough to desire you to set down your reasons for separating from us notwithstanding those reasons already printed in your Apology, is plain: for first, though I knew you and some of your people had not yet openly revoked them, yet seeing M r. johnson the chief Author thereof had begun to recall them and refute them also himself, it was no blame worthy matter in me hereupon to give you occasion to think more seriously of them, and to give you liberty of setting them down more advisedly. My second reason noted also in my former writing, you touch not at all. You speak of straining your offer beyond an orderly course, but you cannot affirm, much less prove that I have done so by you. Unto my third defence of requiring your reasons for your separation from our particular Church and Ministry, because those in your Apology are directed against the Church of England and the ministry thereof & not against us: you reply that because we have not repent for being members of the Church of England, therefore our sins remain, and therefore the reasons directed against the Church of England, are against ours also. This want of repentance you do also allege sundry times again in the heart of your treatise, as your main ground to prove the unlawfulness both of our Church & ministry & to maintain your separation from the same: And there may you find a full and large answer hereunto, chap. 4. and 6. to show that you have cause to repent yourself for such manner of reasoning against the Church of God.  
When as to make way for the turning of your argument from us to the Church of England, you alleged the title of a book published against your schism and the proselytes thereof, I showed you that your allegation was a forgery, your excuse now is that you knew not of it: But I prevented this excuse before in my former writing and showed you the insufficiency thereof, seeing the matter was published unto you that you might have known it, see before p. 8. & 9 Again, you do here cite many places of that 
a Profane schism of Brow.  book, to show that the publishers thereof did renounce their separation from the Church of England, etc. But what an idle and lost labour is this to keep such a do for proof of that which we all do so freely and daily confess and profess before all, & I did also acknowledge in my former writing? Is this dealing agreeable to your pretence of abridging or quite cutting off all lesle needful matters? what is lesle needful than to be so large in proof of that which is not denied? Nay yourself do here acknowledge for us that we do not disclaim an union with the Church of England. Yet are you not content with this, but in the margin of your writing you pray me to tell you in the name of our Church whether we deny that we continued in the bosom of the Church of England. Though I told you plainly enough before in my 
b See before pag. 9  former writing, if you had had ears to hear, yet to satisfy your needless importunity, I answer you again in the behalf of our church, that if you mean by living in the bosom of the Church to live under the ecclesiastical censure and government of the Church, then do we not live in the bosom of the Church of England; but are here in these low countries a distinct body and Church from them: if you mean a retaining of Christian communion with them, in this sense we do remain in the bosom of that Church of Christ, practising communion upon all good occasion, and hold them guilty of schism that refuse to do the like. But than you demand further hereupon, why do I now seek to turn away the discussing of the reasons of your separation from the Church of England? who would not now expect at my hands a justification of the Church of England? I answer, 1. There is no reason to expect at my hands in this present controversy, a discussing of all that I hold & practise; so might I enter into an hundred controversies at once, touching all the articles of my faith and profession. 2. For the defence of the Church of England, there are many learned men that have already written sundry treatises and levied the lawfulness of the communion therein against you, whereas there is none that hath written any book in defence of this particular Church whereof I am a minister: neither is any man so much bound hereunto as I am. 3. Even this question which I undertake against you is not a turning away, but a leading of you by degrees unto communion with the Church of England: you know the plainest method of teaching is to proceed a notioribus ad minus nota, & I doubt not but you being convinced of your etrour in separating from this particular congregation, will thereby be prepared and holpen to discern the error of separation from the Church of England also.  
Here you insert yet a new reason why I should rather discuss the reasons of your separation from England namely, considering what profession you make in the preface to the confession of your faith (printed with your Apology) of your agreeing with other Christian reformed Churches round about us (some of which you there name) and of your separation only from the Antichristian Church of England, etc. But, o Mr. Ainsworth, what truth is there in these words? This your profession here mentioned by you is a counterfeit profession and most untrue; If you separate only from the Antichristian Church of England, why do you even in this very writing maintain the separation of your Elder Decluse from the French Church? why are not such of your people as understand their language allowed to hear in their Churches? Yea why do you publish in print concerning the Dutch and French Churches in these countries, that for the members of your Church they cannot partake with them, not not in hearing the word without declining and apostasy from the truth which you have received. 
Inquiry of Th. wh. Pag. 26.  In the beginning of your writing you prefix the saying of the Prophet, Love the truth and peace: but by this dealing you seem to love falsehood & dissembling more than truth; And now for this deceitful dealing there is so much the more reason to lay out your separation from other Churches as well as from England, that simple men may no more be beguiled by you.  
One other needful and weighty matter you will yet have to be considered, before you come to your argument, namely, that you rather might have desired the reasons of our separation from your particular church, for besides that some of our members were first members of you, your Church is before ours, etc. & we coming after, gathered. a prople and erected a ministry in this city by you never communicating our purpose or proceed with you, nor demanding of you reasons of, etc. Answ. 1. The reason why we consulted not with you at our first coming unto this city, was because you had already before my coming declared yourselves to be open adversaries of the truth by disclaiming and renouncing the communion of all the Churches of Christ, to the great offence of the godly in our own country, as also of the godly Magistrates Ministers and people in this city, I saw by your writings what evil counsellors you were, and what perverse reasonings you used therein and how you contemned the advice of such as had dealt with you and therefore thought it not meet to communicate our proceed with you. 2. Our purpose & proceed were communicated with many learned ministers English, Scottish, Dutch & French who gave us counsel & help in our endeavours, so that we needed not to communicate our affairs with you. The hand of God was with us: the Reformed churches gave us the right hand of fellowship: the hand of the Christian Magistrates was with us through the mercy of God that gave us favour in their eyes & put it into their hearts to further our enterprise, so that at my coming hither, there was then first established in this city a lawful congregation of the English, and then diverse which had before left your Church & gone unto the Dutch did from thence come & join themselves to us: & since that time many other of your people leaving your schism have come unto us, the Lord still increasing his blessing upon our labours. 3. Suppose here had been in this city a lawful English church before our coming hither, & that we had offended in not communicating our proceed with the same, yet had not this fault been like unto your separation; it is one thing to neglect the counsel of some godly men, an other to renounce communion of all true Churches. And yet see how you please and flatter yourself with opinion of other men's opinion touching you, in that you say; If now one of us, must needs be counted separatours from an other, you think, indifferent men will judge, the separation must lie upon us.    

CHAP. II. Touching the Argument, of Separating from sin only.  


Hen. Ains.  NOw therefore I come to my argument which was this.  
That separation which is only from sin and communion therewith, is of God, and is all good men's duty. But our separation only from sin and communion with sin, wherewith we were entangled in your mother Church. Therefore our separation is of God, etc. The first proposition confirmed by Exod. 20. Eph. 5.11. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. You except not against. The second I proved by showing the four chief heads of synns, for and from which we separated: and referred you to the scriptures & reasons in our public writings, for further manifestation.  
You answer: First suppose we did justly in separating from these four things, yet is not our minor proved. Your reason is, 1. We separate from the Dutch and French Churches. 2. We separate also from your congregation: & this separation (you say) is not only from sin, & therefore not of God, etc. Hereupon you labour to bind me by the chords of mine own syllogism (as you speak) to prove my Minor: and you urge my promise, and press me, If I will deal honestly & truly, or sound and directly, etc. as if you thought the very naming of these Churches would make me afraid. But the Lord is with us, and we will not fear what man can do unto us.  
First, consider I pray you, how sound and directly yourself do answer unto those 4. heads of transgression, which I named: when you neither ingenuously grant them, nor take upon you to convince them, but put a supposition only: that if any inconvenience follow, you may hereafter turn the tenor of your speech, and say we did unjustly in separating. Thus you will walk at large, and I must be bound in chords: I must prove directly, you may answer indirectly. It was expected not only by me, but by some even of your own flock, that you would try your strength to prove us schismatics from the church of England; but lo, how you withdraw at the first. Well, seeing you say no more, we will take your supposition for a certain truth: and let him that readeth, judge in discretion, whether of us dealeth more sound and directly.  
Secondly, to ensnare our separation in sin, you bring no one word of the Law of God, whereby sin is to be 
a Rom. 3.20  known; but allege the congregations of men. Which may, I grant, be a stumbling block to the weak: but cannot persuade any wise conscience. It hath been the Papists common practice, when scriptures fail them, to dazzle men's eyes with names of Church, councils, fathers, etc. But I would not have you to learn their ways. To the Law and to the Testimony, saith the Lord: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Esai. 8.20.  
Thirdly, you have no more reason, (if so much) to say that we have separated from the Dutch Churches, then that they have separated from us. For we being called of God, whiles we dwelled in England entered into covenant there, and became his Church and people: and so had equal right in Christ, his Gospel and ordinances, with all other Churches in the world. For came the word of God to Dutch men only came it not to the English also? We being thus established in Christ, 
b Counterp. p. 49. Answer to Th. While. Pag. 25.  acknowledged the reformed Churches, (upon the sight of their Confessions,) to be true Churches, & our brethren in the Lord: & to their Universities we dedicated the Confession of our faith. And how do they accept of us? To let pass other things which I could mention, behold what your Disciples have published in their foresaid libel, pag. 21. thus.  
The testimony of the Dutch Church concerning the Brownists. When as they sent their messengers with some questions unto the Dutch Eldership, they received this answer from them: That they did not acknowledge their assembly, to be an ecclesiastical assembly, or a lawful Church. And when Mr. johnson and others of them, were instant to hear reasons of this answer from them: it was further answered: They would do it, if they saw it needful, or if they found any thing that was worthy of answer.  
Now let these things testify before any equal judges, whether the separation be most on us, or on them.  
Fourthly, the instance of that one man that came unto us from the French Church, convinceth us no more of sinful separation; then the Dutch Churches receiving sundry of such as had been our members, convinceth them.  
Fiftly, the cause why Mr. Cluse left the French Church, being their synns in their public worship of God, & administration to the church; as praying out of human prescribed Leitourgies, and preaching from human apocryphal Catechisms: baptizing such as are not in the covenant of Christ, and the like; which are condemned by Exod. 20.4.5. Deut. 12.32. Esa. 29.13 Mat. 15.9. Gen. 17. It followeth necessarily upon my former main argument (which you have not yet infringed) that he left them lawfully: and so as yet, you have proved no sin in our separation.  
Sixtly, there is in him and us no other blame to be found then in you and yours: who professing (in your last writing) to separate from known evils: have gathered here an other Church, and do receive such as separate from some evils in the Church of England. And why then condemn you us, for receiving him that separated from known evils in the French Church?  
Your second exception is, that we separate also from your congregation, and censure those of our people that come unto you. I answer: first it is you that have made the separation, by gathering a new Church apart from us, who were here a Church before you, as while are I showed. Secondly, we have just cause to censure such of ours as come unto you, both for their schism, in leaving the true Church whereof they were: and for their falling back into great evils, as the renouncing of their holy covenant and profession of separation which at their first entrance amongst us they made with us: they renounce it as most abominable, as the Libelers amongst you (which sometime in profession were of us) have printed in their infamous book aforesaid, p. 2. & 7. Unless therefore you can disprove our Church, and separation from the synns in the Church of England the censuring of them is just.  
Your 3. exception is, that we separate also from the private communion of the Godly in England. To convince us of sin herein, you bring no one word of God, but would press us with the writings of men. How unworthy this is, of a man professing to teach religion, let the godly judge. In stead of proving this to be sin upon us, you would urge me to answer that book written for private communion: thus you endeavour to set us at variance amongst ourselves, whiles you may look on for advantage. And why I pray you, might not I as well urge you to answer the things written in that book against public communion, which you maintain? or to answer D. Bilsons' book of perpetual government, bend directly against your presbyteries and Church government, which hath been many more years in public than this which you mention to me. Or M r. Hookers 8. books of ecclesiastical polity, written to overthrew yours? Those last books have turned many from your side to the Prelate: and where there is one of us, there are a 1000 of you and more, to make answer. As for me, if I would answer it, you and others take a course to hinder me, by such private controversies as you begin and prosecute with me. And having in hand another necessary work (as is partly known in public) besides my private writings to you and sundry others, you yet would load me with more: showing yourself like an hard task-Maister, to lay so much work on me, and do so little yourself.  
But what need you urge this, seeing it is not to the matter in hand. For your former writings to me, were about Church communion▪ mine argument is also concerning the same. Now to ease yourself, you come in with private communion: which the Author of the book you mention, plainly distinguisheth from Church communion: which he disproveth evidently in the same book, as you may see. And whereas you say I have affirmed, if private communion be granted, public will also follow: you are mistaken if you apply it to the Church of England: This I hold, that public communion of such persons with us will follow: but not our public communion with their Church where so many gross evils are practised. You insult therefore in vain, as if this (if it were granted) would raze the principles of our separation, and as if I therefore refused to deal therewith. It is not possible that our principles of separation, which is from sin only, and communion therewith, as I have showed you, should ever be shaken, so long as God's word endureth.  
Now though I need say no more of this matter, seeing you have said nothing from the scriptures against us: yet I will show you what I judge of this doctrine. All private communion with the godly in England I deny not: such as are come to that measure of grace, as that they are worthy in Christ, to be received into the true visible Church, in that estate: with them I hold it lawful to have private communion, even before they be joined to the Church. But such as for their Antichristian estate and walking, are by the rules of God's word, debarred from admission into the Church of Christ till they repent & leave their sin: with them I hold it not lawful to have private communion, though some good things appear to be in them, which I will labour to cherish. And this is that which I intent in my answer to M. Bernard, in that place of my Book which you cite, and I never held otherwise. If you can prove sin in this doctrine, I will hear you, speaking from the word of God: other authority I refuse to be pressed with. And when you have proved us to sin herein, (if ever you be able:) then are you to begin a new with your Church estate, which will not at all be justified hereby.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  THese things being thus dispatched, you come now to your argument & repeat it. I denied your minor, which was, that you separated from sin only, etc. I showed the weakness of your proof of it from the insufficient enumeration of those things that you professed to separate from: My first exception was, that as you separated from the Dutch & French Churches so from ours also: mentioning your separation from the Dutch & French only to illustrate your fact & your dealing with ours: This exception you divide into two, & reply many things with little reason: And first, you pray me to consider how sound & directly I answer unto those 4. heads of transgression, which you named: when I neither ingenuously grant them, nor take upon me to convince them, etc. Hereunto I answer.  
First, my answer unto your argument is sound and direct though I meddle not with those 4. transgressions at all: It is enough to show the falsehood of any argument, if we show any part of the first or second proposition to be false: and it is in the answerers' choice to deny what he will: But you, as if you regarded not the laws of learning and the rules of right reasoning, do grudge this liberty unto me and expostulate with me as if the opponent might prescribe the answerer what to grant and what to deny. Doth not your argument of separating from sin only fall manifestly unto the ground, and the honour of it lie in the dust, when I give you some instances wherein you cannot prove that you separate from sin only? why do you then trifle about surmises of I know not what inconveniences? O, but you complain, that I will walk at liberty and you must be bound in cords: you must prove directly, & I may answer indirectly. But you are herein a very unjust murmurer: & you are herein like unto a Niggardly person who desiring to seem liberal makes proffer of some kindness, where he thinks it will not be accepted: but seeing it accepted contrary to his expectation, than he reputes and frets in himself and grumbles against the person that hath accepted his offer: did not you offer me to reason with me of 
a Fol. 2. a  what point or points I would? why do you now grudge to perform it? have not you framed and fashioned your argument yourself? why do you with such an ill-wil prosecute it in order? If it be a pain unto you that you are bound: it is but in the cords of your own offer and of your own argument: you must blame yourself for it. If I walk at liberty it is but in the plain pathway of direct reasoning: let men of learning judge. And why do you trifle about the expectation of it may be two or three of our people (which yet I know not of) that supposed the question betwixt us was otherwise then it is; as if I should altar the state of the question laid down betwixt us, upon such a pretence? How unjustly do you complain that I with draw at the first? I withdraw not one inch from the question laid down plainly of purpose by myself to avoid such cavils as these: But lo, it is you which speaking of our 
b Pag. 35.  entering into lists, which were described by me & approved by your self do yet at the very first encounter start aside from these lists or bounds into an other field, and at one skip leap out of Germany into England.  
Secondly, to salve or to mitigate a little the pain of your discontentment, if it may be, I do plainly signify unto you that my resolution and purpose is (the Lord assisting me with life & strength) to deal with you about your separation from the Church of England, and to manifest your error and schism therein also, when once this controversy about our particular congregation shallbe finished and sufficiently discussed. In the mean time I think to hold unto this, being so fit a preparation unto the other.  
In the next place you reply further, that to ensnare your separation in sin, I bring no one word of the Law of God, whereby sin is to be known, but allege the congregations of men. That this may be a stumbling block to the weak, etc. a common practice of the Papists too dazzle men's eyes, etc. To the law and to the testimony, etc. I answer.  
First, it is a great wrong and an urter perverting of my answer to say I allege the congregations of men to ensnare you in sin, as though I drew an argument from the authority of men to convince your error. I make no argument there at all, but give answer unto you, and there again only in a matter of fact I declare the manner of your separation to be otherwise then you pretended in speaking of your separation from those 4. heads of transgression: there I show that your separation is not only from those 4. things, but also that as you separate from the Dutch and French, so do you from ours, thereby to give you occasion to make good your argument for the rejecting of our congregation, and so to come unto the particulars concerning the same, in defence whereof I hope to manifest how much you have abused the scriptures.  
Secondly, the blame which you impute unto me for the allegation of human testimonies to dazzle the eyes of men, etc. is justly to be returned upon your own head, who do so often cite them and call for them to be your witnesses, even all sorts of them, heathenish, Popish, jewish Authors, yea the very witches themselves and the Spirits of divination. For example  
1. For the allegations of heathens, see how needlessly you allege them; when you show unto M r. johnson the disproportion betwixt the common wealth and ministers in the church, you content not yourself with the scriptures, but you 
c Animad. vers. p. 15.  call for the testimony of Cato to reprove him. When you tell him of aequivocating, and show it to be a common practice of such as would deceive, you 
d Ibid. pag. 35.  call for the witness of Aristotle against him, etc.  
For allegation of Popish witnesses, you produce many of them in this writing, as Pope Sylvester, Helmoldus, Geroldus & Vnwannus, & other fabulous writers to reprove our opinion and practice; you that so little regard 
e Rev. 14.1.2.  the harpers of mount Zion, the harmonious voice of the reformed Churches that witness against you, do not yet refuse to allege & bring against us those 
f Rev. 16.13.  croaking frogs, and unclean Spirits that come out of the mouth of the beast.  
3. For jewish writers, you produce them so often, both 
g Animadvers. p. 16. 17. etc.  against Mr. johnson and also in this your writing, that all men may see, you do not only go to the law and to the testimony, but to the Talmud & to the Rabbins, to the Infidel jews: though the 
h 1. Thes. 2 16.  curse of God be come upon them to the full, their 
i Rom. 11.10.  eyes being blinded, the 
k Mat. 21.43.  Kingdom of God taken from them, and they 
l Mat. 8.12.  cast into utter darkness, yet would you light our candle at them that sit in the shadow of death: yea you follow and imitate the vainest sort of them, the Cabalists in their curious speculations as in your translation of the Psalms, where you show that Israel is a name of power and principality, you note further that 
m Annotations on Ps. 14.7.  it may also be observed, how in this word ISRAEL are contained the first letters of the names of Abraham and of Sarah his wife; of Isaak and Rebekah his wife: of jaakob and of both his Wives Leah and Rachel, etc. If this were a lawful or tolerable observation, you might as well for the countemancing of your schism, make the like observation upon the name of Separation, for in this word, SEPARATION are also contained the first letters of the names of Abraham and of Sarah his Wife: of Isaak & Rebekah his wife: of jaakob and of Rachel his wife: you might likewise observe how in this word SEPARATION are also contained the initial or first letters of the names of those 
n Act. 5.6.  7. Saints Stephen, Philip, Prochorns, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas', and Nicolas, that had the honour to be the first Deacons of the new planted Christian Church in jerusalem: yea you might yet further observe that not only the first letters of the names of those 3. ancient patriarchs Abraham, Isaak and jaakob, but also the first letters of the names of the 4. later patriarchs of new Churches Mr. johnson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Robinson are in like manner contained in this word SEPARATION, with many other mysteries that by such kind of collections might be drawn from the same. But 
o jer. 23.28.  what is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord? what is 
p 1 Cor. 3.12.  hay and stubble of such observations to the Gold, Silver and precious stones of faithful doctrine? And what have the sincere ministers of Christ to do with such unsound, jewish and Cabalistical observations & annotations?  
4. For your allegation of the testimony of witches or Spirits of divination, your fault herein also appears to be very great. 1. In that you 
q Counterp. Pag 47. Animad. vers. p. 95.  allege the Oracles of the Sibylles, women possessed and inspired by the Devil: herein you offend against your own 
r Esa. 8.20  allegation, to the law and to the testimony; and consider the 
s Ibid. 19  verse going before in the same chapter: Should not a people inquire at their God, should they go from the living to the dead? A man might as well and as lawfully 
t 2 Kin. 1.2.3 4-16  with Ahaziah that wicked King of Israel have sent to inquire at the Oracle of Baalzebub the God of Ekron, as have gone to the orackle of Baalah. Sibylla: whose testimony you bring unto us. Our Saviour in the days of his flesh on earth 
u Luk 4.35 41.  rebuked the wicked Spirits for their testimony of him, & commanded them to hold their peace: Paul also was 
x Act. 16.17.18.  grieved at the testimony of the maid that had the Spirit of divination: but you on the contrary require the Spirit of divination to speak unto us, and call unto sybil that she may cry after us with her testimony. 2. This allegation is so much the more vile, than the testimony of many other witches that wicked men seek unto, in respect of the most filthy and abominable manner whereby this wretched wight did both receive and utter again the inspiration of the unclean Spirit, namely not by her mouth only, but her belly being swollen, and she sitting upon the sacred stool or Tripos, then came the stinking Oracle from under or out of the stool below. This kind of impure divination is noted both in the 
y Ob, & Oboth. Leu. 19.31 & 20.27.  title which the scripture gives, unto these miscreants, which signifieth a bottle or bladder in respect of that inspiration which makes their bellies as a blown bladder: & by the 
z Engastrimuthoi. ventriloqui. The 70 intepreters in Levit. 19.31, etc. Bar-schuma, the son of Swelling The Syriac translat. in Act. 13.6. See junius there, & Anal. on Deut. 18.11.  titles which other writers give them to signify their speaking out of their bellies: And this monstrous impurity is more largely described by sundry other witnesses and by some that are printed together with that book, from whence you allege those oracles of Sibylla. Wherefore then should such unclean stuff be brought unto Christian ears: and why do you Mr. Ainsworth adorn your writings with such excrements of unclean and wicked Spirits? 3. It is sin to go unto witches for any Silver or cattle or such like earthly goods when they are lost or stolen, but to go unto a Spirit of divination to inquire for the truth of Religion when it is hidden, lost or obscured by the adversaries thereof, who do by their controversies as it were steal the same: this is yet a greater iniquity, this is to make the father of lies a guide unto the truth, and to set Satan in God's seat. 4. Many in their necessities, dangers and temptations go unto wisardes: for as you tell Mr. johnson when he allegeth the opinion of Mr. junius for his cause: 
a Animad. vers. p. 98.  What will not men do for help in time of need? Yet are not such excused thereby: for God is 
b Gen. 17.1.  all sufficient unto his people. But how much more are they to blame that needlessly for wantonness, pleasure or vain ostentation do run unto them, as you do unto Sibylla? what needed you to run to the Spirit of divination to prove 
c Animad. vers. p. 95.  Antichrist to be Belial, as though the scriptures did not show it sufficiently? How frivolous and idle a flourish do you make with the testimony of Sibylla in the 
d Counterpoy. p. 47.  other place to give some colour unto such an exposition of scripture, as even yourself in the next page do reject as uncertain if not false? How just is the 
e Refutation of Giff. pag. 120.  reproof of H. Barow upon you, when he inveigheth against those that fetch the ornaments of their style and of their books from profane Writers though it were but to exemplify and illustrate that which the said? what would he have said think you, if he had seen you paint and varnish the margin of your books with such allegations as these? 5. Those writings, from whence you allege the testimonies of Sibylla are even by the publisher of that book himself in his preface manifested to be forged and counterfeit things for the most part: Now it is sin to lie of the Devil, why do you then allege in the name of Sibylla, you know not what? How greedy are you of vain allegations, that thus lick up the crumbs and fragments of sybil, & grasp after the shadow of a sorceress? Though some ancient writers have heretofore used the testimony of the Sibyls, against the pagans that worshipped the devil, to convince them by their own oracles, which then were not so counterfeit and forged as now they are, yet have not you the like excuse, that want the like occasion for the use of them. These things I have thought good to note the more largely (though many other evils might further be observed in these your allegations) because your manner still is through out your writings to upbraid us so much with that which yourself are more guilty of.  
In the third place, you reply that we have no more reason (if so much to say that you have separated from the Dutch Churches, then that they have separated from you, etc. I answer.  
1. This doth not diminish the truth of my former answer; if you have separated from the Dutch, then have you not separated only from those 4. heads, mentioned in your argument.  
2. Neither doth this diminish your sin, but increase the same: for if the Dutch have also separated from you, this might be an occasion of repentance unto you by making you to consider your ways more seriously, and so to find out your scandal condemned by the word of God. And the Papists, Arians and Anabaptists may say as well as you, that the Dutch Churches have separated from them as well as they have separated from the Dutch. And this serves for a further witness against them.  
3. If the word of God came not to Dutch men only, as you say: then are you for this chiefly to be humbled that have made a separation contrary to that word that came unto you also. And though you acknowledged the Reformed Churches to be true Churches and did dedicated your Confession unto their universities, yet when they saw your schism published therein, namely that 
f Confess. Art. 32.  all that willbe saved are bound by God's Commandment, with speed to come forth of their Antichristian estate in the Church of England, etc. Whereby you condemned all the godly therein as being in a damnable estate, & excluded from salvation in that estate: when they saw many of your exceptions against the Church of England to be such as did also necessarily lead unto separation from them, as well as from England, had they not reason to avoid and beware of the new Disciples of such a separation, as being an unlawful assembly established in Schism and not in Christ.  
4. For that which you allege concerning their answering of your reasons: namely, that they would do it, if they saw it needful, or if they found any thing that was worthy of answer. Might they not have their reasons so to answer? did they not discern your contentious disposition in other dealings before, as well as afterward, when the deputies both of Dutch and French churches dealing with your Eldership about the cause of Mr. john johnson to have stayed your pastor from the excommunication of his Father if it might have been, do yet 
g Profane Schism of Bro. p. 60.  testify that they could not get a 
h Categoricum tesponsum.  plain or direct answer from you? And if there were nothing else, had they not some reason to cease reasoning with them that would not answer plainly and directly?  
Lastly, as Mr. johnson himself writes that 
i Preface to D. B. sect. 6. Before answer to Mr. jacob.  experience the mistress of fools teacheth many things, so might the Dutch Eldership consider that the same schoolmistress might teach you that, which you would not learn of others; as they may also see it come to pass in Mr. johnson and the greatest part of your congregation who have now of themselves let fall many of those things for which they stood so eagerly against the Dutch heretofore.  
Your fourth reply is, that the instance of that one man that came unto you from the French Church, convinceth you no more of sinful Separation; then the Dutch Churches receyving sundry of such as had been your members convinceth them. I answer, this instance was not alleged as an argument to convince the unlawfulness and sin of your separation, but as an answer for matter of fact unto your argument, to illustrate your fact in separating from our congregation as you do from the French: & thus it shows as much as it was brought for: namely, that you do not separate only from the 4. things mentioned by you.  
In your fift reply, you tell us 3 of the causes for which Mr. Cluse your Elder left the French Church, viz. their use of human leitourgies, catechism, & baptizing such as are not in the covenant of Christ, etc. That for these sins according to your main argument he left them lawfully, etc. I answer.  
1. This story of your Elders separation is imperfectly set down: In the examination of his fact, it were expedient the Reader should know the circumstances thereof, & how it began in a most pregnant and remarkable discontment how it was concluded with shameful & false boasting: of these things I have ample testimony from Mr. La vigne the ancient & reverend pastor of that French Church delivered unto me in the presence of their Eldership which in due time is further to be manifested.  
2. For the causes of his separation, he alleged also the set maintenance of their ministers: their meeting in Idol-temples▪ their suffering of the innocent party to forgive the offendant that had committed adultery, and to live together again: their manner of exercising their discipline, etc. Touching Idol-temples, he may learn by this writing in defence of our particular congregation that he had no cause to separate upon such a pretence: and as for the rest of the points suppose they were all sins as you would have them: yet doth it not follow according to your main or mean argument, that therefore he should leave their Church: for he did not according to your argument separate from sin only, but from all that was good amongst them? and left their whole communion. That being true which followeth in the defence of our Church, Decluse may hereby perceive that he hath cause to humble himself for his offence given unto the French.  
Lastly, you reply, that there is in him & you, no other blame to be found then in me and ours, who profess to separate from known evils, etc. I answer, that there be two main differences betwixt us, which do make our estates to differ as far as East is from the West: 1, he and you in justifying of him, will have such things to be known evils, as are not evil at all: to wit, set maintenance of ministers: use of our temples: the innocent persons retaining of the repentant adulterer, etc. These we maintain to be lawful. 2. he & you in justifying of him, for pretended corruptions do utterly renounce communion, & quite leave a true Church as the hath done: but we on the contrary do not leave communion of true Churches for corruptions & sins, according to his example, but only abstain from the practice of evil in our own persons, and witness against it in others, still holding communion with the Churches of Christ.  
Unto my second exception (as you call it; though it be my first answer only illustrated with your separation from the French Church mentioned before) you reply two things. 1. You say, it is we that have made the separation by gathering a new Church apart from you, who were here a Church before us. I answer, though it be true that we renounce your schism & communion, yet doth not our gathering of a new Church apart from you, prove the same: for it may yet come to pass that there shallbe an other new English Church in this city gathered apart from us, and yet no separation, but a loving communion occasionally miainteyned betwixt us, though we be here a church before them By such a reason as this you might prove that Mr. Robinson and his company separated from you at his first coming into this land, because they gathered a new church apart from you in the same city, you being here a Church before them. 2. you say, you have just cause to censure such of yours as come unto us both for their schism in leaving you: & for their falling into great evils, as the renouncing of their holy covenant and profession of separation, etc. I answer, 1. You censure your people sometimes not only for separating from you: and for renouncing their covenant with you, but even for hearing one Sermon with us, and cut them off if they make not public repentance: yea though they hear us at such a time when you have no exercise: And this is a full proof of that point whereunto I brought it, namely to show the lameness of your argument, in that you did not separate only from those 4. things noted by you: but this fault you will not see nor acknowledge, though it be most palpable. 2. That your people aught to renounce their covenant made among you with profession of separation from the Church of England, it is already showed in those treatises which I have nominated unto you, which if they were duly weighed, the abomination of your schism might well be discerned notwithstanding all the libels which you have spread abroad against the Church of God.  
To my third exception, as you reckon it, touching your separation from the private communion of the godly in England, you reply many things in a heap: that to convince you of sin, I bring no one word of God, but would press you with the writings of men, etc. Hereunto I answer.  
First, touching your misreckoning: you deal with me as the Church of Rome in their Catechisms doth with the decalogue or 10, Commandments: when they leave out the second commandment which is against their Idolatry, yet to keep the number of ten, they divide the last commandment & make two of it: so when I gave you 3. answers to your argument, you leave out the last and omit it altogather, and yet keep the number by dividing the first and making two of it.  
Secondly, when I sent you here to the writings of Mr. Robinson refuting your private schism, do not I sand you to the word of God and scriptures which he hath alleged, as is largely to be 
a Relig. Com. from p. 7. to 17.  seen? How often do you yourself in your books sand us unto the writings of H. Barow, and Mr. johnson, upbraiding us for not answering of them? yea and furthet to show your blind partiality in this complaint, do not you yourself in your former 
b Pag. 4.  writing sand me unto M r. Robinson's book to answer it: and why may not I as well sand you to the very same Author? Nay, not only so, but you sand me unto such a book of Mr. Robinson as himself doth begin to revoke publicly as being unsound in diverse things, whereas I refer you unto a later book of his, made with riper deliberation, and in no part that I hear of, publicly revoked. His book which you sand me unto, being his justification of separation, is sick of King 
c Chro. 21.15.18.19.  jehorams' incurable disease, the guts of it fall out day by day, yea he openly plucks out some of the bowels thereof with his own hands: unto this rotten book you refer me, & yet blame me that refer you unto that which is more sound. What equity or honesty is there, in this dealing?  
Thirdly, for the setting of you at variance, it is yourselves that have done it, yea the Lord in his judgement hath done it: I only wish that you would not smother the matter, but search conscionably for the truth: and so I doubt not but it would redound to the advantage of the truth, and of many poor souls ensnared in your error, yea and to your own advantage at the last, by being made an occasion to find out the evil of your schism.  
Fourthly, for your now urging of me to answer the things that concern public communion in this foresaid book, do you not consider that upon the coming forth of this book, there was presently published a Manuduction for Mr. Robinson to lead him unto public communion, and this by the same person that had convinced his private separation to be unlawful? Those that do justly weigh those Manuductions may thereby discern his doctrine about public communion laid down in that book, to be already refuted.  
Fiftly, for your urging of me to answer D. Bilsons and M r. Hookers books, as well as I urge you to answer Mr. Robinson: I answer, there is not the like reason. 1. There is no minister or learned man to answer Mr. Robinson but only you, M r. johnson being against you also in this and no protestant minister in the world that holds such an unchristian error against private communion with the godly besides yourself that I can hear of: whereas for the answer of D.B. and Mr. H. there are many more fit and meet than I am. 2. I were never provoked to answer these men, as you have been openly in your own congregation by your own people desired and urged to answer Mr. Robinson. 3. The substance of that which is in those two men's books hath been answered already in many writings: the substance of that which M r. Robinson hath printed against your private Schism, hath not been refuted by any that I ever heard of.  
Sixtly, to that you say, there be for on of you, a 1000 of us & more, to make answer, etc. I answer, 1. Though we be more than you, yet seeing you be such men of might, and we but grasshoppers in your sight: seeing your people do so often take into their mouths that saying of Moses and apply it to themselves against us: 
Deut. 32.30.  one shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight: according to this account your excellency is equivalent unto our multitude. 2. If we be a 1000 to one of you, yet it appears that one of you have heretofore been as ready to contend for the separation, as a 1000 of us have been to strive against it: one of you hath stirred up as much contention as a 1000 of us. Heretofore when Mr. B. wrote a book against your schism, each of you strove to be on his back. M r. Smith & M r. Robinson pleaded that they had special right in the quarrel, and yet you prevented them both and rushed into the battle before them: Though then you three came against one, yet now when 3. of you are by name called upon to defend the unreasonableness of your separation, in the 
a In the preface:  book so entitled: there is not one of you appears: heretofore you were wont to snatch up private letters, broken notes of Sermons and other writings & made several books against them, still complaining (as even in your former writing) that you were not answered: why do you now begin to make a contrary complaint against me? It is yourself they lay load upon your own broad shoulders, by setting your hand with 
b Gen. 16.12.  Ishmael against every man in every Church of Christ.  
Seventhly, though my writings to you were about Church communion, and your argument also concern the same, yet if in this your argument you bring such a proposition, the falsehood whereof may be manifested by consideration of your private communion, is there not just occasion to note the same? And howsoever you intended your speech touching the inference of public communion from private, (if it were so as you now interpret yourself) the discussing thereof betwixt you would undoubtedly help to pluck down the tower of your separation. As for your presumptuous affirmation, that it is not possible that the principles of your separation which is from sin only and communion therewith should ever be shaken, so long as God's word endureth, it is but a puff of the flesh: and I would counsel you to beware of such vain confidence, which might move the Lord to 
c jam. 4.6.  smite you with hardness of heart: yea such presumption is not only a moving cause, but also a means whereby that judgement of obduration is executed: for many times when corrupt flesh hath spoken or written vainly & confidently, there is a veil of prejudice & frowardness spread over the heart thereby: a greater unwillingness to retract error is wrought in the heart thereby, & men come to say as Pilate did in an other case, 
d joh. 19.22.  That which I have written, I have written. The word of God is infallible & endureth for ever, but your knowledge of that word is fallible: Those two may not be compared together: Your separation is built upon the misunderstanding of that word. Whether you err & pervert the word of God in making that to be sin which is not: and in making that to be separation from sin only, which is also separation from good things, we are to consider by the examination of the particulars following for which you separate from us.  
Lastly, when you profess to show us your judgement touching communion with the godly in England, you do wrap up the matter so, that simple men may easily mistake you and be deceyved by you: you tell us that you hold private communion with such as are come to that measure of grace, as that they are worthy in Christ, to be received into the true visible Church: but who be they, Mr. Ainsworth? is there any one person, man, woman, or Child, high or low, that is a member of the Church of England, and uses to hear the Sermons of the sincerest Minister of that Church whosoever, whom you judge to be worthy in Christ to be received into the true visible Church? name any one if you can: Nay I know you can not according to your profession name one; for according to the whole tenor of your writings, they are all and every one of them Antichristians, yea gross idolaters, carrying the mark of the beast, and therefore all of them by you debarred from the Church of Christ, until they renounce that Church and every Minister thereof, separating as you have done. But yet you say, you will labour to cherish the good things that appear to be in them: Now what is your cherishing of them? you allow them not to hear the faithfullest Minister of the Land, which might cherish them: yourself deny all religious communion unto them even in private: you pronounce them all to be the Children of wrath and of the curse: and teach throughout your writings that there is no promise of Christ in his Gospel, no hope of salvation that belongs unto them in this their estate: This is your cherishing of them? This your private schism is confuted by M r. Robinson: he presseth you with the word of God, with the scriptures and with divine authority, though you would feign have the reader to imagine otherwise, by calling for the word of God, etc. Until you have answered the scriptures and the reasons alleged by him, it is needless for me to bring any more. In the mean time I will endeavour to maintain our Church-estate against you.    

CHAP. III. Touching the use of the Lords prayer.  

THE main argument for our Separation being thus established: I now come to the particulars. For the use or abuse of the Lords prayer (so called) first I mentioned the reading of that part of scripture for a prayer: and with this you meddle not. Secondly I misliked the saying it over by rote, as is the fashion of many. To this you say, if I mean without understanding and feeling, you condemn that also. I answer, I mean not that only: for men may also read it, yea may read human leitourgies with understanding and feeling, and yet offend in so praying: other things are requisite to true prayer besides understanding and feeling. I mean therefore by rote, after the common manner, without book: when men having committed it to memory, say it over for their prayer, after they have prayed by the spirit; as God enabled them.  
Thirdly I granted a lawful and holy use of that or any other part of scripture in our prayers, as the Spirit of God leadeth us to any of them. You say, your manner is ordinarily before or after every Sermon, to conclude your prayers with the Lords prayer: after you have prayed by the help of the Spirit, you persuade yourselves that you also conclude by the help of the same Spirit.  
This your practice and persuasion I approve not: being persuaded that our Lord intended not such an use of that scripture. My reasons I will show, when you have given answer to those things set down in our Apology, as you promise'.  
For Mr. H. his doctrine among you, that it should be ambiguous, and his meaning to be against those only that contented themselves with a set form, and used no other in private, etc. I can go no further then by report: others that heard him, say otherwise then you do. I hear also that he continueth like doctrine still where he teacheth, and privately dissuadeth from reading prayers in praying to God: and other reasons (which I spare now to mention) move me to think otherwise then you writ of him. And in speech with myself, about the same time, before two that came with him, he signified his dislike of reading prayers, without any such limitation as you allege. But if he taught as I heard it related, it was but the truth: from which your contrary judgement swarveth. Which in one of the proofs of my former argument, if you had fallen into it, would have come to the trial.   

Answer.  

Your main argument for separation from sin only will then be established when you have proved all those particular things which you blame in us, to be sin: and that you separate from them only: until such time, you do here in vain flatter yourself that your main argument is established: The truth and force of that general reason depends upon the particulars which we now come to examine. Touching our question about the use or abuse of the Lords prayer, you observe in the first place, how you mentioned the reading of that part of scripture for a prayer: and thereupon you note, that with this I meddle not. I answer, 1. The reason why I spoke not of reading that prayer out of the book, was because we do not in our Church so use to read it on a book, but utter it without a book as we do the other part of our prayers going before: Now the question laid down before betwixt you and me at this time is touching the practice of our particular congregation: and therefore it is you rather that go beside the question in this your mentioning of it. 2. Seeing the reading of it upon a book and uttering of it for our prayer without a book are both of them actions of like nature: seeing the reasons in your apology against our use of this prayer are expressly and indifferently directed as well against the reading of this prayer, as against the saying of it by rote, (as you call it:) and there is no thing that is there distinctly spoken more against the one than the other: when I then undertook to refute those reasons in your Apology, did I not therein also undertake to maintain the reading of that prayer against you? who sees not now, that your first note in this place is but a trifling observation. 3 I desire the readers to look back into the former part of our writings touching this point, both mine and yours: to compare them together: and then to judge who it is that hath winked and passed by the evils objected about this matter, and namely, beside other things the slanderous and ungodly assertion of H. Barow touching our use of the Lords prayer.  
In the second place, you explain your meaning of that phrase of saying by rote, contrary to the common acception of the word, of saying it not only without understanding and feeling, but of saying it after the common manner, without book, etc. you grant that men may also read it, yea and other human leitourgies with understanding and feeling, and yet offend in so praying: your reason is; other things are requisite to true prayer besides understanding and feeling. But what are those other things which cannot be reduced unto these two? understanding containeth under it the knowledge of God, his wisdom, power, love, truth and other attributes: his gracious covenant in Christ, his law, his works, etc. Likewise the knowledge both of our neighbour's estate and our own, our sins, miseries, deliverances, etc. Under feeling joined with knowledge, are comprehended the feeling of God's mercy in Christ by a lively faith: the sense of his glorious comforts by a lively hope: the feeling of our neighbour's estate by true love and compassion and joy for him: the feeling of our own sins, miseries, baseness, by true and godly sorrow, humility, etc. Hereupon I do thus reason against you from your own grant: That prayer which is uttered with knowledge, faith, hope, love, humility, etc. is acceptable unto God, & aught to be approved of Men. But the Lord's prayer is by us uttered with knowledge, faith, hope, love, humility, etc. Therefore it is acceptable to God, and aught to be approved. The first proposition is manifest from the 
a Ps. 25.1.2. Mark. 11.24.25. joh. 14.13. Heb. 11.4. jam. 5.15. 1 Tim. 1.5. Ps. 145.18.  scriptures, that do allow such use of prayer: The second proposition is granted by yourself, in that you yield the Lords prayer may be said of us with understanding and feeling, seeing those two graces do comprehend under them the rest above named which are required for the acceptation of our prayers.  
In the third place, whereas speaking of the Lords prayer, you grant a lawful and holy use of that or of any other part of scripture in our prayers, as the spirit of God leadeth us unto any of them: you do here again yield us the whole question and as much as we desire: for we require no other use of the Lords prayer, then as the spirit of God leadeth us unto it. A Christian man aught to be 
b Rom. 8.1 Gal. 5.16.— 25.  led by the Spirit of God in all his other actions and conversation, as well as in prayer: we hold also that as a Christian man of weak memory and unable to read having but two or three psalms without book, may yet daily and ordinarily sing the same unto God early and late, as his prayers, praises and thanksgivings & herein worship God in the Spirit: that even so the Lords prayer may also be daily used for our prayer and worship of God in the Spirit: seeing we are no otherwise taught to 
c 1. Cor. 14 15.  pray with the Spirit and with understanding, then as we are taught to sing with the Spirit & with understanding, which singing I think you will not deny but that it may be done in set words ordinarily.  
In the fourth place it is here to be observed that whereas in my former writing, I desired you to tell me plainly, whether you held our use of the Lord prayer to be sin and a worship to be communicated with all: to this you answer not. Whereas again I answered you distinctly in the 
d Pag. 14.  same place, that the saying of this prayer by rote even in the worst sense without feeling and understanding could be no warrant for the people to separate from us, though it should be our sin so to use it: to this also you give no reply but pass by it as if it had not been written, though I was instant with you, and showed that about this point only our question was, etc. further whereas in your fotmer 
e Pag. 4.  writing you confess that for the use of the Lords prayer among us, you have not laid it down as a cause of refusing communion with us, etc. If you be still of the same mind (as you have not yet declared the contrary though you have been so earnestly moved to declare your meaning herein) then may you plainly discern your separation overthrown hereby in respect of many of those causes that you do pretend for the same: for if our use of the Lords prayers be unlawful: if it be a transgression contrary to the word of God and to so many scriptures as you do allege to impugn the same: then why do you not separate for it, as well as for other sin which you impute unto us? as you approve not other things among us, so neither do you approve this; how can you without partiality give yourself a dispensation to hold communion with us notwithstanding this sin, rather than others? as for example, when you do maintain your Elder john Decluse separating from the French Church for their baptizing some Children which you hold aught not to be baptized, how could you have allowed him to have held communion with them using the Lords prayer in your judgement contrary to the scriptures as well as the former? so for other read prayers: for celebration of Marriages in the Church, and the like, how can you allege them as causes of separation, rather than this saying of the Lords prayer by rote, as you speak? Suppose you hold th' other to be greater sins than this, yet will not that clear you: for 1, a good conscience will take heed of being defiled 
f Mat. 5.19 & 23.23. Ps. 119.6.128.  with lesser known sins, and not with greater only: if there be such an unevitable pollution by communicating with that worship where any known sin is committed as your writings for separation do persuade men: how comes it that this abuse of the Lords prayer doth not pollute as well as the rest? 2, seeing the abuse of the more 
g Exo. 20.7 Numb. 4.15.  holy thing is the greater sin: if our use of the Lords prayer be a sin, then must it needs in this regard be a greater sin, than the use of other set forms of prayer written by men: in as much as it is a greater sin to abuse the words of Christ then the words of other men. 3, seeing this abuse of the Lords prayer (as you accounted it) is far more frequent than that baptising, and celebration of marriages which you allege as causes of refusing communion with the Reformed Churches, and seeing that evils 
h Esa. 59.12. Hos. 12.1.  often committed do the more pollute: how can you but refuse communion for this abuse as well as for th' other? 4, seeing in your main argument laid down before, you pled that separation to be of God, which is from sin only and communion therewith, and yet will not separate for this sin of abusing the Lords prayer, had you not need to acquit yourself wisely herein, unless you will have your main foundation of separation to be shaken in pieces?  
As for my promise which you mention, namely to answer your 9 reasons in your Apology, although my promise was made upon such a condition as is not by you performed, yet because the answer thereunto may serve for further defence of our Church in the use of the Lords prayer, I have not refused the labour to set down a refutation thereof, as followeth.   

 


apology.  

Apol. p. 69.  You pled that our use of the Lord prayer is unlawful. 1. Because Christ's doctrine there is, to teach us to pray after this manner: Math. 6.9. & is not, for our prayer, to read or say ever those words by rote, etc.   

Answer.  
First, this reason is inconsequent: because, though the manner and form of true prayer be there taught by Christ, that hinders not, but the same words may be our prayer also: One and the same pattern or form of a thing doth often serve both for present use in the work whereunto it is intended, and for imitation to make the like: As a just weight or balance serves both for our present use to weigh with all, and also for a pattern to make an other like the same by it. So the Lords prayer serves for a pattern of true prayer, & also for our present use at any time to call upon the name of the Lord with those words.  
Secondly, consider well your own practice in singing of Psalms, and you shall thereby discern your error in this kind of reasoning here used by you: In the 8. the 100, the 117. Psalms and other such like, the holy Ghost doth teach us after what manner we are to praise and glorify God: In the doctrine of them we have a pattern and form of spiritual songs and Hymns: and yet this hinders you not but that you use to read or say over by rote (as you call it) the very same words for your own spiritual songs in the worship of God. See you not now hereby, that the same words may serve both for a rule and pattern after what manner we are to worship, and also for our worship of God in the use of the very same words without any change?  
Thirdly, seeing the 
a Mat. 6.9. Luk. 11.2.  phrases used by our Saviour are such as serve sufficiently to express the minds of fathers & Schoolmasters, even then when they allow their Children and Scholars to rehearse their lessons verbatim, either in some forms of salutation, petition or the like: what reason have you to deny the common and ordinary signification of the phrases, there being nothing either in these texts or any other to enforce a change of this sense and meaning wherein they are used?    


Apology.  
2. Because both Matthew and Luke recording that form of prayer given by Christ, they have not the same words, nor the same number of words every where, etc.   

Answer.  
We do not contend that the same words and number of words in the Lord's prayer are always precisely and of necessity to be used, but we hold that it is lawful to use them as our prayer, either with or without such changes as are to be noted in the Evangelists recording them. If we precisely follow Matthew, it is no offence to Luke: If we use the words as they are in Luke, it is no offence against Matthew: If we vary in phrase from both of them, it may be without offence to either: our tenant is, that either the same words or to the same purpose may lawfully be used of us. And therefore this reason is wholly beside the question.    


Apology.  
3. Because all the circumstances in both the Evangelists do lead us thus to understand it. As namely, that Christ there showeth the right manner how to use prayer, like as he doth for the right use of alms & fasting: how to avoid ambition, hypocrisy, babbling, and the like therein: how also to come to God in prayer, as Children do to their parents, ask bread, an egg, fish, or the like: that is, making requests unto God according to our particular wants, in faith, hope, love, etc. Math. 6. 1-18. Luk. 11. 1-13.   

Answer.  
This argument is a mere assertion and most false, without any proof. There is no circumstance in either of the Evangelists that leads us to think we may not use the Lords prayer as a prayer. It can not be showed that this use of it, doth make us guilty of ambition, hypocrisy or babbling: or that in this use we can not come unto God with feeling of our particular wants as Children do to their parents: or that in this use of it there can not be the practice of faith, hope, love, etc. All this remains to be proved, until which time this argument might well for shame have hidden his head, and plucked in these horns of slander by which it pusheth at all the Saints in the Reformed Churches for their daily public & private use of this prayer, shutting them up under the condemnation of Ambitious persons, hypocrites, Babblers; as being without feeling of their particular wants: without faith, hope and love in their use of this prayer. Such arguments as this agreed fitly with the slanders of H. Barow, but cannot become any modest Christians.    


Apology.  
4. Because the Apostles (who both knew and carefully followed the true meaning of Christ herein) did neither bind themselves to these words, but prayed still as they had several occasions, according to this rule (Act. 1.24.25. & 4. 24-30, etc.   

Answer.  
First, though the Apostles did not bind themselves to these words, yet doth not this prove, that they never used the same as their prayer: they might pray according to their several occasions, according to this rule, and yet with the words of the rule. The ministers of Christ do here use to pray according to their several occasions, and yet with the words of this prayer also.  
Secondly, though we read not in their writings, that they did in express words teach men to say over the Lord's prayer, yet we read that by their example in their writings they did as much in teaching men other set forms of prayer in their salutations and valedictions: as appears, Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.3. 2 Cor. 1.2. Gal. 1.3. Eph. 1.2. Phil. 1.2. Col. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.1. 2 Thes. 1.2. Rom. 16.23. 1 Cor. 16.23. Phil. 4.23. 1 Thes. 5.28. 2 Thes. 3.18. At several times writing upon diverse occasions and unto diverse people, Paul yet (we see) used the same form of prayer, & the same words: And this is all one as if he had so many times used the Lords prayer: for wherefore should it be more unlawful to use the Lords prayer often, then to use these forms of words so often for his prayer.  
Thirdly, though the Apostles taught men according to their necessities and occasions to show their requests unto God in all manner prayer and supplication in the spirit with giving of thanks, with watchfulness and perseverance, yet this hinders not but that they might use the Lords prayer & other like set forms of prayer also: for the use of the Lords prayer as a prayer doth not destroy supplication in the Spirit, nor overthrew perseverance in prayer. Think you not, that there are many servants of Christ using to conclude their prayers with the Lords prayer, that yet watch with all perseverance to show their requests unto God in all manner prayer, as well as yourself, or any of your separated people? Answer me plainly according to that light and feeling which is in your conscience.    


apology.  
5. Else also how saith the Apostle (speaking of prayer in a strange tongue) when thou blessest, how shall he that occupieth the place of the unlearned say Amen, at thy giving of thanks seeing he knoweth not what thou speakest? 1 Cor. 14.16. For if they say over the words of this form of prayer, might not some have answered: yes we know what he saith, it is the Pater noster, the Lords prayer which we know aforehand, and therefore we can say Amen unto it, though it be spoken in a strange tongue.   

Answer.  
First, the Lords prayer might be used often as a prayer in the Church of Corinth, and yet the unlearned among them not be able to say Amen unto these that spoke strange languages of whom the Apostle here speaketh: because these men were extraordinary Prophets and did at some times by a special gift speak other tongues and strange languages. And therefore the Apostle might have replied again to any unlearned that should have answered as you suppose and feign: Nay, though the Lords prayer be used ordinarily among you, in your own speech, yet you know not what these extraordinary Prophets say, which come with new revelations in a strange tongue unto you and therefore you can not say Amen unto their prayers: so that I have still just cause to speak against their prayers in a strange tongue.  
Secondly, suppose the Corinthian Prophets had sometimes used the Lords prayer in a strange tongue, yet this might have been so seldom and at such times that the unlearned could not perceyve or understand the same: This seldom and rare use of it, though it might be a sufficient testimony how lawful they held it to be for their prayer, yet could it not be sufficient to enable the unlearned to say Amen unto it.  
Thirdly, suppose these extraordinary Prophets had so often & ordinarily used the Lords prayer in a strange tongue, that all the unlearned could have discerned when the Prophets repeated the same yet doth it not follow that they could in lawful manner have said Amen unto it: Because the lawful and right saying of Amen, whereof the Apostle speaks requires not only a confused knowledge, that the Lords prayer is said over at such a time: but also a distinct understanding of the several words therein, that their hearts and affections might go along with him that used the same, and so at length in the conclusion signify and witness their consent by saying Amen unto it.  
Fourthly, it is to be observed how H. Barow though upon a most absurd pretence doth yet in a contrary extremity contradict this your Apology: whiles he affirmeth touching our use of the Lords prayer, even in our mother-tongue: that it doth not edify the whole congregation, so that they may all mind one thing, or say Amen. 
Discov. p. 70.73.  If it be true which he saith, that men using it in their vulgar tongue, can not yet say Amen unto it: how can it be true which your Apology saith, that they which occupy the place of the unlearned may say Amen unto it; even when it is used in a strange tongue?  
Fiftly, if the people can say Amen unto the Lord's prayer, when the words thereof are usually said over, as your Apology here affirmeth: do you not hereby overthrew your own assertion in denying our use of it? for can we say Amen unto an unlawful prayer, which is not supplication in the Spirit; which is not made with feeling of our wants, in faith, hope, & c? Or if it be lawful for the people to follow us with their consent, and with their Amen, in the use of this prayer, is it not as lawful for us to go before them in the use thereof? Thus may you see how your own reasonings return upon your own head.    


Apology.  
6. If Christ have commanded to use those words in that number and order, than all such do sin as pray at any time and use not those words, for he saith, when ye pray, say, etc. Luk. 11.2. And the words when ye pray show that this commandment is to be observed at all times: And then the Apostles sinned which prayed and used not these words. Mat. 14.30. etc.   

Answer.  
This argument, which is so much and so often stood upon in 
b Discov. p. 70. 71. Inquir. pag. 85. Answer to M. Carp. pag. 24. justif. of Separ. p. 471. Answer to Mr. Hild. pag. 140.  your writings, at lest in six several books, is also with the rest most weak and frivolous, for  
First, though Christ's commandment of this prayer do include an allowance of the use of those very words & in the same number & order that either Matthew or Luke have recorded: yet doth it not follow, that we are therefore tied to them alone, & that all other prayers are excluded thereby. Common use of speech teacheth us to make an other construction of his words: for as a man that sends his Servant on a message, and commands him when he comes unto his friend to speak on this manner and to say, etc. doth thereby ordinarily warrant him either to deliver the same words verbatim, or else the same matter and substance of the message though with some change and variety of words and phrases. And as it were then a strange thing that he should be accounted a disobedient and unfaithful servant that should use the very words of his master without any change at all: so is it with the commandments of Christ. For example: Christ sending his Apostles and commanding them a form of prayer for salutation, when they came into any house, to say, 
Luk. 10.5.  Peace be to this house, doth thereby warrant them either to use the same words verbatim, or the same in substance: And either way his commandment was fulfilled. The holy Ghost prescribing a form of praise to say always, 
Psa. 40.16.  The Lord be praised, doth allow us either the very same words or such as are equivalent unto them. And even so for the use of the Lords prayer, our Saviour appoints either the same words for our prayer, or such as tend to the same purpose: and both ways is his commandment fulfilled.  
Secondly, as for that partickle hótan, when, which you do so much urge against us; it is not in the use thereof so general, nor so absolutely and largely extended unto all times, as you would persuade us: for example, Christ saith 
c Luk 11.24.25.26.  when the unclean Spirit goes forth, etc. when he comes again, he finds the house empty, etc. 
d Luk 12,54.  when ye see a cloud rising out of the west, strait way ye say a shower cometh & so it is. 
e Luk. 14,12.13.  when thou makest a feast call not thy friends, etc. But when thou makest a feast call the poor, the maimed, etc. Now sometimes the unclean Spirits were cast out and returned not: sometimes there are clouds out of the west without rain: sometimes men may invite to feasts their friends, brethren and rich neighbours. And therefore though our Saviour had also said, when ye pray, use these phrases and these very words for your prayers: etc. yet had he not thereby absolutely tied us unto them alone, and excluded all other: for the word hótan doth often note unto us as much as sometimes or for the most part as is evident in these instances & might also be showed in many more such like.  
This answer may also suffice for that other part of your objection, touching the excluding of all prayer in the Spirit alone that is without words or distinct voice.    


apology.  
7. Because that form of prayer doth plainly and fully direct & restrain our ignorant and inordinate desires, unto certain heads: in which whatsoever is needful and lawful to ask, etc.   

Answer.  
I may say of these your reasons and consequences as yourself once 
f Defenc. of Script. pag 92.  wrote to Mr. Smith: The prayer of David seems to have prevailed against you, for 
g Ps. 58.7.  when you shoot arrows they are as broken: or like unto straws: so weak and vain they are, for.  
First though all things needful or lawful to be asked, be contained in the heads of this prayer: though thousands of petitions are and may be derived by the Children of God according to their several wants, times & occasions from each of these heads: yet doth it not follow that the words of this prayer themselves may not be used by us for our prayer: here is no proof of this consequence.  
Secondly, whereas you say: The heads themselves are so general as no man can well for himself or others use them aright without some special relation or application to his or their particular estate or occasions: This is both false and inconsequent: 1. This is false, for even in a general respect and love of God's name, kingdom and will, we may well and lawfully use the words of this prayer, though for the present our thoughts do not light and settle upon the consideration of the particular means and ways, whereby his name is sanctified, his will accomplished, etc. 
Mat. 18.10 Dan. 7.10.  As the elect Angels do evermore behold the face of God & present themselves before him, waiting with reverence and with a general respect unto his will before they receive any particular or special commandments or commissions from him: so do the godly in the use of this prayer offer themselves to God: and so are they taught to do even by the words of this prayer itself, Mat. 6.10. again we may well and comfortably use the words of this prayer with a general respect of our sins to be forgiven, and with a general respect of temptations and afflictions that we desire to be delivered from, though for the instant we do not think upon any of our particular sins temptations or afflictions; where are the proofs that condemn us for so doing? 2. This is inconsequent: for suppose it were unlawful to use this prayer without some special relation or application thereof to our particular occasions, yet what hinders but that in the use of the very words of this prayer, we may also sometimes upon occasion have relation to our particular sins and temptations, & to the particular means of glorifying God, though the words be general which we use.  
Thirdly, whereas you say: Neither can any man's or Church's case and understanding reach unto all things needful for all occasions, times and persons, as those heads do comprehend, this is also doubly inconsequent. 1. In respect of our estate and condition; for suppose no man's case reach unto all things comprehended in this prayer: yet seeing there is no word of this prayer but it doth evermore in a great measure and in the main always concern every Christian man's estate, what forbids us to use the same as our prayer? 2. In respect of our understanding; though no man can reach unto all the things comprehended in this prayer, yet is it most senseless to argue from hence against the lawful use of this prayer: for by this kind of reasoning we might reject almost all prayers, all blessings and all salutations: for example, we are taught to pray thus in our salutations, 
Luk 10.5. Ruth. 2.4.  peace be unto you: The Lord be with you: The Lord bless thee: And who can reach unto the things that are comprehended in these short sentences while he useth the same? The whole sum of God's covenant with the innumerable fruits and benefits thereof are certainly comprised herein.    


apology.  
8. Else why should not the ministers be as well bound at the end of their Sermons, and all Magistrates and people at their instructions & exhortations given unto others, to say over the ten Commandments, because they do fully and shortly comprise all duties.   

Answer.  
First, our question is about the lawfulness, not about the necessity of using this prayer: we do not say that ministers are bound to say over the Lord's prayer at the end of every Sermon: much less do we say that all Magistrates and people are bound to use it at the end of their instructions and exhortations: and thus this argument faileth in the ground of that comparison from whence it is taken.  
Secondly, what law of God forbiddeth ministers to repeat the 10. Commandments at the end of their Sermons? For the Ministers of these Reformed Churches, there are diverse of them which do ordinarily upon the Lord's day before their exercise of Catechizing, repeat the 10. Commandments, & what is their sin in this? If judges and Magistrates who are appointed to be keepers of the Decalogue should with the repetition hereof, either begin or conclude their public and solemn charges and exhortations which at certain times they give unto people, who can condemn them for it? If Masters of families should every day begin or conclude their family instructions with rehearsal of the 10. Commandments, should not this be a testimony of their obedience to God's 
a Deut. 6.7 8.9.  law, rather than a transgression thereof?  
Thirdly, there is no equality nor just proportion in this comparison: The wisdom of God in his word teacheth us short forms of prayer for salutation in 2 or 3 words, because we have every day and hour occasion to use them: And seeing in like manner there is daily and hourly occasion of mutual exhortation, though it were an absurd and unreasonable thing contrary to the wisdom of God, to conclude each salutation & exhortation with the Lords prayer and 10. Commandments, more than an 100 times in a week, yet doth it not follow that it is unlawful or inconvenient once or twice in a week so to begin or conclude a solemn exercise in the Church of God.    


Apology.  
9  it is a most perfect form of prayer, wherein is no want or superfluity, if it were Christ's meaning to enjoin the saying over of those words for our prayer to God, then aught we to use these only and no other. Because it should be but babbling or presumption to join or put other prayers in stead of that which is so absolute and sufficient. For the Lord will be worshipped with the best we have, and he is accursed that having a male for sacrifice, doth offer a corrupt thing to the Lord. Mal. 1.14.   

Answer.  
First, touching the type and ceremony wherein this argument is grounded: God doth not by Malachi denounce the curse against those which refused to offer the best sacrifice which they had, but against those that offered corrupt contrary to the law which required a sacrifice 
b Leu. 1.3.10. & 3.1. & 4.3.23.  without blemish: against those especially which were hypocrites and deceyvers, pretending love of God and yet brought corrupt things, 
c Mal. 1.13 14.  torn, lame and sick, etc. A man that had a Kow and 2 Sheep was not bound to offer his Kow, but might lawfully retain the same and enjoy the blessing 
d Esa. 7.21 22.  promised of God unto his people. A poor man that had 10. Sheep, and some of them thrice so good as the rest, was not bound to offer the best: the law only required he should offer that which was not corrupt. Yea in some kind of services, as in tithes, God would not have the best to be chosen out for him, but 
e Levit. 27.32.33.  would have that which passed under the rod, the 10th as it came by tale, and this without change, the better might not be given to God in stead of the worse.  
Secondly, beside your error in the story of this ceremony, consider also how you err in the application of this type unto the question in hand. If you will have it to serve your turn, you must prove that all prayers besides the Lord's prayer are corrupt things, like the lame and torn sacrifices: for this place doth not prove that the excellency of one sacrifice did exclude an other which hath not the same degree and measure of goodness, but only the corrupt and no other.  
Thirdly, mark the contradiction of this argument with the 3 d. 4 th'. & 7 th'. reasons going before: here you will have the Lords prayer being commanded to be without superfluity: & all others joined with it to be but babbling: before you complained and pleaded against the use of it, because no man's or Church's case and understanding could reach unto so many things as were comprised in it: And is not this to condemn it of superfluity? Here you argue that no other but it alone must be used, because it is so absolute and sufficient, having no want in it: before you pleaded against the use of it because it did not serve to express our particular wants and necessities: And is not this to condemn it for the defects thereof? Thus is it apparent, that these your reasons do neither agreed with the truth, nor with themselves.     

TOuching Mr. Hu. his doctrine among us about the condemning of read prayer, having showed you the error of that report which you objected unto me, both for the time thereof, and the matter thereof: as also for the erroneous use you collected thence: you omit to speak of the first and last of these points: and touching the matter thereof you reply diverse things: 1, that you can go no further than report, etc. but you had done well not to have gone so far, as it seems the false report hath done: That which I have written unto you is upon my own knowledge that heard him: and likewise upon his own explanation of himself unto me before witnesses, as I showed you before. 2. You now tell me of an other report, you hear also that he continueth like doctrine still where he teacheth, etc. But where doth he teach? is it not in the Church of England? you do wisely not to name the place; the very naming thereof might well have helped to bring this report into suspicion of falsehood. Behold your partiality herein also: In this very page, where you writ this of Mr. H. you would collect against me that because I was a public minister in one of their Parishes in England I did by their ordinary calling there administer by an other liturgy than Christ's Testament, even by their book of common prayer, imposed upon all the Parishes. The error of this collection I am to show you, when I come unto it. But in the mean time, I pray you tell me Mr. Ainsworth: Is not Mr. H. as public a minister in one of the Parishes of England, as ever I was? was my public ministry there a sufficient proof that I used the book of common prayer, and is not his public ministry there as sufficient a proof that he allows praying on books, even the book of common prayer? who sees not your corrupt and partial reasoning against me? 3. You tell me further of his speech with yourself before two that came with him, how he signified his dislike of reading prayers without any such limitation, etc. But I answer, limitations are not always expressed, but oftentimes to be understood never the less. And if he had spoken any thing unto you contrary to that which he did to me, you might then lay some blame upon him, but not on me that have sufficient witnesses to confirm that I say. 4. Suppose Mr. H. had openly and absolutely condemned all read prayer as sin, yet what would this avail you? you tell me in your former writing that because I received not the truth from him but opposed it, 
f Fol. 4. B.  this is the chiefest thing that you mislike in me about prayer: May we not herein mark your disposition? howsoever you blame others for alleging the names of men and of Churches against you, yet when there is but a shadow or half a testimony of one man that seems to make for your cause, how greedily do you snatch at it, to make use of it for your advantage and our reproof, even to make it the chiefest thing that you mislike in me that I receive not such a testimony? How much more justly might I bring against you a cloud of witnesses and this upon certain knowledge and not uncertain reports, & of true ministers in the Reformed churches, whereas Mr. H. in your account is a false minister, a hireling a deceyver, & make it a chief matter of dislike in you that you despise the testimony of them all? Here also we have just cause to complain for want of sincere and upright dealing in you allowing that unto yourself which most partially you condemn in others.     

CHAP. FOUR Of communion with such a minister as hath not renounced his ministry in he Church of England.  

TOuching the second matter of your ministery: as I have not condemned that which is lawful: so neither is it folly or sin, to inquire further of particulars, in things known to be unlawful. I condemn the Romish ministery, & I hope you do so to: yet of some things about their calling and orders, I suppose we may without folly inquire. Moreover I think you are not ignorant, that questions may be asked, not only to inform ourselves, but to convince others by their own answers: which also was my purpose in my foresaid inquiry. For could the man have answered on your behalf, he had then heard further: and in that he could not, he showed his own folly and sin, in leaving the truth, and going to join himself he knew not to what.  
Whereas you profess that you have not renounced the calling which you had in England, you therein bewray the unlawfulness of your present estate: for having been a public minister there in one of their parishes, you did by the ordinary calling there, administer by an other liturgy than Christ's Testament, even by their book of common prayer imposed on all the parishes. Which being forbidden by the 2. Commandment, and largely disproved in some of the reasons whereto I referred you in my former argument, which you have let pass: you aught to repent of that, as of other synns wherein there you walked. God alloweth not such to declare his statutes, as continue in their idolatry: no man can serve two masters: the Temple of God, hath no agreement with idols: nor God's true spiritual worship, with human idolatrous leitourgies. 
2 Cor. 6.16.   
That you had no calling to the work of your ministery by the Bishops in England is not easy for me to believe. It is known, that the public ministers of the word and Sacraments there, are not admitted to their places, unless they have the bishops licence upon his ordination. If you had it not, I suppose the Church of England, which you accounted to be Christ's, will esteem of you as a creeper into the office you executed: whereof you would entwite me.   

Answer.  
WHereas I had showed your folly and sin in rash condemning of that thing, which afterwards you begin at last to inquire of; for this you bring an excuse or two in vain: First, you say, we condemn the Romish ministry, and yet of some things about their calling and orders, you suppose we may lawfully inquire. But I answer if we rashly condemn the Romish Ministry, in such particular points as are partly untrue and partly lawful: we do both sin against them, and 'cause the truth to be evil spoken of: and that so you have dealt with me, I hope the sequel will manifest. Again, you say, that questions may be asked not only to inform ourselves, but to convince others by their own answers, which also was your purpose, etc. But I answer, there is a further matter to be observed in your dealing, who make inquiry about such things as you are ignorant of both for matter of right and of the fact itself, and yet affirm so much concerning the same, as that you make yourself guilty of great error and slander, as appears in the next Chapter where you pled against the manner of my ordination and do most falsely allege the acts of Synods touching the same matter.  
The main reason you bring to prove the unlawfulness of my present estate and of my ministry, is this, that having been a public minister in one of their Parishes in England, I did by the ordinary calling there, administer by an other liturgy than Christ's Testament, even by their book of common prayer, imposed on all the Parishes, etc. that I aught to repent of that, as of other sins wherein there I walked. God alloweth not such to declare his statutes, etc. I answer.  
First, your reason from my being a public minister there, to show my administration by the book of common prayer is insufficient: for there have been many public ministers in the Church of England that have not been urged to read the book of common prayer: though it be imposed on all the Parishes, yet hath it not heretofore been imposed on all the Ministers in every parish. There be in many Parishes two Ministers, and formerly it hath been required no further, then that one of them should use the same: And so was it in the parish from whence I came into these countries, where an other minister did ordinarily use the same, so that it was not imposed on me. Though you may except that I was partaker of that worship, or did upon occasion use that book, yet always this shows the unsoundness and untruth of your collection touching my particular administration by the same.  
Secondly, whereas you writ here how I have let pass the reasons whereunto you referred me in your former argument, disprooving the administration by that liturgy, etc. It is enough that I show the falsehood of your argument in that you separate from our congregation, and therefore not from sin only as you pretend in your argument: This I show by manifesting the weakness of your reasons touching those pretended corruptions and want of repentance which you impute unto us for a ground of your separation from us. And therefore though you tell me ten times oftener of letting pass those reasons which you referred me unto as a devise to draw me from the present question laid down betwixt us, yet shall you be disappointed of your purpose herein.  
Thirdly, suppose I had sinned either in the use of the book of common prayer in my own administration or by allowing it in others, yet so long as this sin is only of ignorance, and I know it not to be sin: the want of particular repentance in this case doth not make my present ministry unlawful. By this reason of yours there should be no lawful ministry upon earth, seeing there is no minister whosoever but he hath some sins which are unknown unto him, even as 
a Ps. 19.12 & 40.12. & 139.24.  David, 
b jer. 17.9.  jeremy, 
c 1 Cor. 4.4  Paul, with other Prophets and Apostles: If they knew them not, then could they not have particular repentance for them they could not bring a particular sacrifice for their particular trespasses till they were 
d Leu. 4.14 23.28.  known unto them: Now by your reasoning they were all of them in an unlawful estate, and were not allowed of God to declare his statutes. If you tell me that my sin of unlawful ministery in the Church of England is made known unto me by your writings, that I deny: I may as well and better tell you of your sinful schism and slander of that Church made known unto you by diverse treatises which I named before unto you.  
Fourthly, suppose I had been convicted of an unlawful administration in England, and would not repent of the sin proved unto me, though this would provoke the Lord against me, yet could not this be a sufficient warrant for you to disclaim our communion as unlawful and polluted. The holy scriptures teach us otherwise: though the Sons of Eli were wicked and 
e 1 Sam. 3. 12-25.  unrepentant Ministers of the tabernackle in Shiloh, yet were not the godly taught to refuse communion with them, but still 
f Ibid. Chap. 1.3. & 3.1.  frequented the place of public worship where they administered. The Ministers of the temple in Christ's time were 
g Luk 7.30 Ioh 7.32.  wicked persons refusing to repent of those sins whereof they were convinced by Christ, and yet he taught not his Servants to forsake or disclaim their communion but both 
h Luk 17.14. Mat. 8.4.  sent others and 
i Luk 22 8 joh. 18.20  went himself to join in the public worship of God with them.  
Fiftly, if the not renouncing of my former calling in England do make me a false and unlawful Minister here, then are the ministers of these Reformed Churches unlawful Ministers also being accessary and partakers with me of that pretended sin which you impute unto me, because themselves occasionally do communicate with the ministry of England when they travel thither, and allow of my present estate without any renunciation thereof, giving me the right hand of fellowship herein. Now then seeing those that 
k Act. 22.20.  consent unto other men's sins, that 
l Esa. 5.14.  rejoice with them, that 
m ps. 50.18.  see a thief and run with him, that 
n judge. 20.12.13.14, etc.  see adulterers and maintain them, that 
o josh. 22.16 17.18.  see idolaters and favour them, do hereby enwrap themselves in the same condemnation: how comes it that you do not upon this ground also renounce and disclaim the communion of these unrepentant Ministers of the Reformed Churches? If this ground of renunciation be good why do you not also use it as a motive to stay such of your people as do from time to time leave you & come unto them & us? How can you approve them for true Ministers more than me, if thus they partake with me? I writ not these things to justify my estate by theirs as you use to deprave me, but to reprove & convince your partial judgement.  
Sixthly, by this reasoning you do yet further show your nakedness unto us. If communion with unrepentant Ministers is to be forsaken: then these Ministers of the Reformed Churches being by you admonished of 
p jnquir. of Th. white p. 78.79.  eleven several transgressions wherein they continued without repentance, and in special in the use of such read prayers as are in your account a human Idolatrous liturgy, aught by their people to be avoided for fear of polluting their souls with sin. If this be so, than you holding these people yet for your brethren, are bound by the law of God to warn them of this their unclean communion. According to your own doctrine you must be the only pure and unpolluted Angel in all the Churches of Christ, and of all the Angels of the Churches beside, not one that may be lawfully communicated withal: name, if you can, any one minister either pastor or teacher in the whole world with whom you dare communicate in the Lord's supper, or hear a Sermon from them, and also can do it without transgression of your own doctrine. You being then such a rare and extraordinary Angel, doth it not become you, to 
q Rev. 14.6.  fly in the mids of Heaven, or to 
r Rev. 19.17.  stand in the Sun, and openly with a loud voice to cry unto the Christians in every nation, and kindred and tongue and people that they beware and take heed of their polluted and unlawful ministers lest they be defiled by them? There was a promise or a show made some 
s Catal. Francof. Ano. 1608. Tractatus de communione. Ambsterodami apud Cornelium Nicolai in 8.  years since, that your book of the Communion of saints should have come forth in Latin at Franckfurdt Mart: but it was a false show and a mockery of the world: it is not yet come forth: But had it then been printed, your doctrine is couched therein so closely & obscurely, that none who knew you not before, could have found out your meaning thereby. If you will keep a good conscience in the profession of that truth which you think is revealed unto you, you are then 
t Levit. 19.17.  plainly to admonish your brethren: to 
u Esa. 8.1.  take a great roll and writ in it with a man's pen, make speed to separate, make haste to renounce all your ministers: you are to 
x Hab. 2.2.  writ the vision of your separation, and to make it plain upon tables, that he may run, that readeth it. At lest wise, you aught to admonish these many members of the Dutch and French Churches herein the same city with you and to prove unto them plainly and clearly this main point that they aught to refuse communion with their unrepentant Ministers. We accuse the pope of great cruelty in that he professeth he hath power to deliver all the Souls out of Purgatory, if he would: and yet will not do it: And we accuse you likewise of great cruelty, as wanting bowels of compassion and brotherly love in that you profess to see a holy & undefiled path of Christian communion: and yet seeing so many thousands of your brethren daily before your eyes to walk in an unclean path that pollutes their Souls, will not for all this show them the good way and set up marks unto them that they may walk in it. As you found means to publish your confession both in Latin and Dutch, so if you had zeal and conscience of this doctrine that you profess, you could soon find means to publish a few arguments in Dutch & Latin also to call away the faithful people in this city where you live from their unlawful Ministers. judgement, mercy and fidelity are the 
y Mat. 23.23.  chief matters of God's law, which aught chiefly to be done: but either you want assurance of the truth in that you profess, or else you want Christian love and compassion, which will not show the way of truth & peace unto those that go astray: especially when there is none to do it but yourself: considering also that you can find time to publish sundry other things, which in all reason should not so much touch your conscience. Think on these things in the fear of God.  
Seventhly, this your doctrine of schism leads us to see more of your partiality: for if communion with unrepentant ministers is to be refused: then how could you hitherto allow your people to hold communion with Mr. Robinson who reputes not of that sin which you impute unto him. In your judgement he is a teacher of false doctrine, and a practiser of the same, holding private communion with Antichristian idolaters, and members of a false Church as you esteem them: he openly persisteth herein and draws many with him to this practice; & this also when as he had once condemned this course he takes and written against the same, so that he is also an Apostate and a decliner from the truth formerly professed as you take it: and yet you have not renounced his communion. Behold then the balances of deceit and partiality in your hand: even the false balances that are an 
y Prov. 11.1, &. 20,10  abomination to the Lord: as a deceitful merchant you use one weight and measure in dealing with him, an other when you have to do with us even about the same matter; he though an unrepentant minister is not disclaimed and rejected by you, as others are, Is this to walk with a right foot unto the truth of the Gospel, or rather to halt down right in the paths of hypocrisy and dissimulation? Your separation is a sin great enough of itself, though it were maintained of mere ignorance, but when such partiality is added unto it, your sin becomes more sinful, & the burden of it more grievous.  
Eightly, as in the former answers, your sins of false doctrine cruelty and partiality were manifested, so in this place you are for them to hea●e the sentence of condemnation belonging unto yourself with as much reason as you have pronounced it against others: It appears by your dealing above noted, that you are not as Nathan●el an 
z joh. 1.47.  Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile: you are not a sincere and upright professor even of your own separation; but an open perverter of righteousness; what then is the sentence? your ministry is unlawful and to be rejected until you repent: As you thought to do unto others, so may you expect that others should do unto you. This is the fruit of your own arguing, God allows not such to declare his statutes as continued in sin, & therefore your communion is to be refused: Thus doth your foot slide into the pit that you digged for others.  
Ninthly, according to this your reasoning is the ministry of john Decluse your elder to be avoided also. His injurious & false dealing in the 
a Shield of defence p. 6. and 7.  printing of Mr. Brightmans' book is a public scandal: so are his manifold erroneous collections which he printed in his own book against Mr. Brightman whereof he is also convinced in that book which was shortly after written for the refutation and reproof of him: likewise his false boasting not only unto the Eldership of the French Church, but also unto the Magistrates of this city touching a public testification to be made by him in the body of the French congregation, where at last his heart failed him contrary to his word:  he hath not testified any due repentance for any of these open sins, therefore by your rule is his ministry unlawful not only unto himself, but unto you and all that do communicate with him.  
And note here Mr. Ainsworth, that you cannot help yourself in this strait by any distinction of sins that you can make. For when as 
b Pag. 44. & Fol. 3. B.  before to prove the first proposition of your main argument, namely that the separation which is only from sin and communion therewith is of God and all good men's duty: you there allege all the the ten Commandments at once Exo. 20. Eph. 5.11. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. You do hereby cut of yourself from any refuge or evasion by putting difference betwixt sin. For whether they be sins of constitution, or sins of public worship, or administration, or whether they be other personal particular sins whatsoever, yet are they all forbidden in the 10. Commandments: they are all unprofitable works of darkness: they are all an unclean thing not to be touched: and therefore making those places the ground of your separation from a Church or from the ministers thereof: you do alike without exception make any sin of what kind soever, little or great to be a warrant for separation when as it is openly known and tolerated without redress. Consider what a large separation you do make hereby: even such a one as will lead you to separate from all Churches: such an one as you are never like to keep a good conscience in the profession thereof: such an one as leads all your people to separate both from you and your elder Decluse both in respect of the former sins here noted, and in respect of many more public offences which I could manifest in you both.  
Tenthly, you may hereby discern what just cause there is to publish the personal sins of such as maintain your doctrines of schism, seeing one known sin of one particular person among them not repent of is sufficient to overthrew their ministry and Church itself, and so enough to stay any person from joining unto such a separation. H. Barow writeth, that 
c H. Barow discov. pag. 34.  the known and suffered sin of any one member is contagious unto all such as communicate with him in that estate & maketh them all which communicate in prayers and Sacraments with such an obstinate offender, as guilty in God's sight, as he himself is. And again the contrary doctrines of M r. Calvine and others, that the open sins of unrepentant offenders do hurt neither the Sacraments nor the godly receyvers, etc. he calleth the 
d jbid. P. 35.36.  smoky errors of Mr. Calvine and his disciples, he calleth them blasphemous hellish doctrine, which take away at once the whole Testament of Christ and word of God, or tolerate the open breach of them: which take away all Christian liberty, duty and communion. If these things be so as he writes and as you pled against me, to show the unlawfulness of my ministry for want of repentance touching my calling in England, then is it a just thing to take this compendious course for the manifesting of your unlawful estate, Church, Ministry and communion, as being contrary to the whole Testament of Christ and word of God, as being a blasphemous hellish profession, if any can declare and show the known and suffered sin of any one member among you. If these things be so, then have you no cause to complain and condemn the writings which bear witness of such sins among you, to be libels, but rather to yield that they are wholesome and necessary warnings to keep every Christian man from such a contagious and polluted communion.  
In the xi. place, it is not unmeet to observe and remember here, that you who are so hard and unrighteous a judge and censurer of all true Churches and ministers, are yet further guilty of such sins as though they were repent of, yet do they according to your own profession leave so deep a blot & stain upon you as that they make you uncapable of the ministry, & unlawful to be chosen by any people unto so holy a work. For if the Church of England be such a false church, such a Babylon and Egypt as you would make it: if their worship be such gross and abominable Idolatry, as 
e Counterpoy. from pag. 127. to 152.  you yourself do describe the same, then are you for your diverse Apostasies and declininges unto the same to be excluded and kept out of the ministry. They that 
f Esa. 52.11  bear the vessels of the Lord aught to be clean & holy in special manner: It is required that his ministers should be 
g 1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.5.7. and 2.15. 1 Tim. 4.12.  unreprovable as the stewards of God; that so they might the better speak, exhort and convince with all authority, and see that no man despise them. But as those that have been blotted with the shame of murder, adulteries, or Thefts after they have professed the Gospel, are unmeet to be chosen ministers for the rebuking of lesser sins, when themselves are so scandalously guilty of greater; so those Apostates & backsliders which after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and forsaken the false Church do again fall back unto Idolatry and this diverse times, do in like manner deprive themselves of the honour of being called unto the public ministry of the Gospel. Now you being such an Apostata as according to your present profession have sundry times turned back unto the Idolatrous false Church, as hath been by diverse persons witnessed, neither could Mr. johnson deny the same, when he 
h Inquir. of Th. wh. p. 41.42.  was most desirous to excuse you therein: though it was objected that you had turned your coat as often if not oftener than D. Perne: the unlawfulness of your calling and ministry doth then appear hereby. Let it be well observed that you are thus noted to have turned your coat & changed your religion five several times, namely, first being of our religion and a member of the church of England you forsook that Church and separated: Secondly, that being separated, you did again in London being in the hands of authority yield to join with the worship and ministry of the Church of England: Thirdly, that after this you did again slide back unto the separation and renounce the Church of England: Fourthly, that after this when you were in Ireland and in some danger of punishment for your scandal, you did again return unto the communion renounced by you, whether feignedly or unfeignedly, I leave unto yourself to consider: Fiftly, after this you change your profession again and fall back unto separation, and stick now presently in this Schism: and thus whiles by this often revolting you dishonour and disable yourself and your ministry, you will yet exalt yourself above all the Ministers of Christ in the world, and by your profession maintain that yourself only may be joined unto, and that no other Minister may lawfully be heard: & if this be not so, I pray you name who and how many there be that you durst allow your people to communicate with all. Is it not a rare and an extraordinary thing that such a scandalous and unstable apostata should yet notwithstanding maintain such a separation from all the faithful Ministers of the Lord, and therein boast of your own only lawful estate? Think not that I writ these things in any hatred of your person which I love: but for your good, for your humbling and the warning of others: I think verily that it should be my sin if upon so just occasion I should conceal this work of God upon you in judging and punishing your schism by giving you up unto these offensive and strange revolts, when as himself would have such 
c jude. 13.  wandering stars to be noted, observed and taken heed of.  
XII, not to insist upon many other things that might aggravate this your scandal, when as you were thus stained with apostasy▪ when as at this same time it was the profession of your Church not to admit such apostates into office among you: when as others among you had for the like apostasy been debarred from the inferior offices of Elder and Deacon among you, and many reasons had been written by Mr. johnson and others among you for the defence of this course, as I could show at large by the copy of those reasons which I have by me: yet notwithstanding even then contrary to the profession of your Church, you creep in deceitfully into the office of your teacher, your apostasy being hidden for the present from the eyes of your people that called you. As the deceitful woman that hath played the harlot before marriage and joineth herself unto a man that supposeth her to be a virgin, doth herein grievously 
d Deut. 22 20.21.  offend by taking upon her unlawfully the estate of marriage whereof she was uncapable while her sin was kept close: even so you being polluted with spiritual whoredom & fornication, with gross Idolatry and apostasy as your Church esteemeth it, do yet take upon you deceitfully such an estate, & such an office as by the present & public profession of your Church you were not capable of; and showed yourself to be far from plain and simple dealing. But further if that deceitful and dishonest harlot being by her husband pardoned and her deserved punishment by the judges remitted: If after all this I say, this scandalous woman should boast herself against all other honest women, as if she alone were the only lawful wife with whom a godly husband might safely live in conjugal society: might not this well be accounted a wonderful and strange insolency; and might we not justly say with the Prophet concerning such an impudent person, that she had a 
e jer. 3.3.  whore's forehead, & that would not be ashamed? And yet this is your very case and want of humility who after such scandal & unlawful creeping into office, after that the signs and tokens of your virginity were lost, do yet in like manner boast yourself and profess such a separation, that according to it no minister in the world but yourself alone may lawfully be heard & joined unto.  
Touching my calling in the Church of England notwithstanding the licence and allowance which I had from the Bishop, yet did the substance of my callling consist in the free & general consent of the people who being publicly assembled together, did then choose me to be a teacher unto them: If some in the Church of England do judge otherwise concerning the calling of Ministers, there are others again even in the same Church that are of the same judgement with me and with the Reformed Churches: But let the reader here observe that you who do so often use to blame others for alleging the judgements of other Churches and persons even then when they do it not, are yet ready upon the lest occasion to do the same thing that you condemn, if with any colour you can.  
XIII. Besides this, you being deposed from the office of a teacher by Mr. johnson and his company for your schism & rending from them, as they testify, having 
f Advert. of R. Clift. pag. 58.  a sinful usurpation of all the holy things of God used among you: and standing in this heavy estate, as he calleth it; it were now more meet you should look unto your own usurped office, then to seek to seduce the people of God from their lawful ministers wheresoever they are: For if M r. johnson and his people were a true Church and their communion lawful, during the time of your continuance among them: then were they so likewise at your departure from them. And suppose they erred in the change of their government, and in some other matters which you impute unto them, yet was that no sufficient warrant for you to separate from a tive Church. Godly men may keep their garments and 
g Rev. 3.4.  walk in white, even there where others continued in open sin. And therefore your separation from them being unjust, your deposition by them is just upon you, and your present estate & ministry unlawful.  
Lastly, as for the scriptures which you allege to show the unlawful estate of unrepentant ministers: viz, that God alloweth not such to declare his statutes, etc. that no man can serve two Masters: 
2 Cor. 6.16.  that the temple of God hath no agreement with Idols, etc. I answer, that although these scriptures serve to condemn unrepentant Ministers, yet do they not serve to condemn all such as communicate with them, which is the point in hand: our question being about separation, and the lawfulness of communion with unrepentant persons. The jewish ministers were such as hated 
h Mat. 21.45.46.  to be reform, & in that respect had no right to declare the statutes of the Lord: yet had others 
i Mat. 23.1.2.3.  right to hear them. Against them did our Saviour apply that saying: No 
k Luk. 16.13.14.  man can serve two Masters: and they skoffed at him. And yet in the next Chapter he 
l Luk. 17.14.  sends men to communicate with them. Of such as they were, the Prophet speaks when he denounceth woe unto the 
m Zach. 11 15 16.17 with Luk. 11.52.  Idol shepherds: Though for their wickedness they had no right unto the temple of God, yet did not our Saviour separate from that temple wherein these Idols ministered and remained: others lost not their right unto the temple of God, because of their unrighteousness in the same.    

CHAP. V Touching ordination of Ministers.  


Hen. Ains.  FOr your calling here, if there were that error only in your ordination which I intent, and no other fault to be found with you, in respect of your former estate in England before mentioned, or otherwise: I grant that therefore it is not unlawful for any to hear you, yet aught this error, as all other to be acknowledged & forsaken: and they are to be blamed, which leave the church and ministry erected according to God, to go unto corruptions.  
Whereas to help mine ignorance, you propound reasons from the book of God: had they been to the point in controversy, I would have thanked you for so doing: and the rather because in the former things, you pressed me with the names of churches. But your reasons do not satisfy the question, which was about Authority of the Eldership of one Church, to make or ordain ministers in another. As for mutual advice, counsel, help and the like: I accounted them good and lawful.  
To your 1. reason therefore I answer, the help of other churches may be sought for and used, if there be need, for counsel, instruction, exhortation, in all holy duties. But not to do those actions which are peculiar for every Church to do in itself: neither do any of the scriptures which you cite prove otherweise. Moses and the Apostles had extraordinary callings of God, to do things which ordinary Ministers may not do. If Churches at their first gathering, want knowledge to do their duty: let neighbour Churches direct them by the law of God, how to do it: but not usurp their power. Elders were to be ordained in every City, if any were found fit for the charge, Tit. 1.5.6. otherwise it were better to stay the work, (as the Apostle stayed and did it not himself,) then to have it done amiss. So if the Church be unfit to do the works thereof, they should stay till they be better informed: and not put it over to others, whom God hath not appointed thereto. The Churches in the villages of Netherlands, may not be urged for our pattern, unless they cannot err in their practice: but the Churches in God's book, obeying him, are to 
a 1 Thes. 1.6.7.  be our example.  
The same things I answer to your second reason.  
To your third: It appeareth not by Rom. 16.1. that Phoebe the Diaconcsse of the Church at Cenchrea, should execute her office in the Church at Rome: it followeth not because she had business there, and needed their assistance, that therefore she went to do the work of her ministery there. Neither because the Church at Corinth sent messengers to carry their liberality to jerusalem. 1 Cor 16.3. doth it follow that their ordinary Deacons were their messengers: much less that they should do their Deacons office in jerusalem, to gather and distribute the benevolence. Who would not rather think that they delivered their gift to the Church or Officers, and left them to dispose of it? And the same answer serveth unto 2 Cor. 8.19.22.24. which you allege: it proveth not those messengers were Deacons of one Church, and did the Deacons office in an other.  
To your 4. I grant that the Prophets of one Church, may prophesy in an other, Act. 13.15 and may apply their doctrines, exhortations & prayers, to any actions of the Churches where they speak: but this only by way of doctrine, etc. not to do the work which belongeth to the Church. It is holden by the Hebrews, and I think rightly, that 
b Thalmud in Negaghnim, c. 2  any wise man might see the plague of leprosy, and advice the Priest to pronounce it unclean or clean, or to shut up: yet none but the Priest himself, might pronounce it unclean or clean, Leu. 13.3.4. Deut. 24.8.  
To your 5. I confess, and it is our practice, that the members of one Church, may receive the Lords supper in another, coming thither occasionally, yet will it not hereupon follow, that the ministers of one church should administer the Sacraments, or ordain ministers by virtue of their office, in another Church. My reasons are: The Ministers have a peculiar relation to their particular flocks only, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5.1.2. Apostles, and all universal Ministers, are now ceased. As an husband is no husband but to his own wife: a Father, to none but his own children, etc. so a shepherd or minister, to none but his own flock. But for the seals of the covenant the case is otherwise. For a baptized person is baptized not to that particular Church only, but to all churches: and in every particular Church where he cometh, he hath all the Privileges of a baptized person, in respect of his Baptism, and is so to be esteemed of by them. Now all circumcised persons, had right thereby 
c Exod. 12.4.48. Deut. 16,1.2.  to eat the Passover in any society, in the place which God should choose to put his name there: so all baptized persons have right to the Lords supper, in every true church where God hath set his name. But the rulers of particular synagogues had not the same authority in all synagogues, nor pastors now in all, flocks. So when a Christian cometh to a flock where their Pastor feedeth them, he joineth himself to them for that time and action, & is fed with them as one of Christ's sheep. Show you the like warrant for Elderships to do the works peculiar to their office, in other Elderships or Churches: show that any eldership may ordain ministers in their consistories, & sand them as ministers to other churches: (though those churches, upon trial of their gifts, be content to accept them for their ministers,) as I have heard the practice is of some consistories, unto the Dorpes or Villages of Netherlands, whose example you alleged.  
To your 6 I answer, that the Ministers now, being over 
d Rev. ch. 2. and 3.  particular churches only, which in respect of their particular covenants are distinct bodies, as you acknowledge: herein lieth the restraint of their ministery, by the special ordinance of God, Act. 20.28. No man may take the honour of ministration of holy things, but he that is called 
e Heb. 5.4.  of God as Aaron: but God hath given them no office to administer in other churches. And if th'Apostles, who had a large ministery over all, yet would not boast of things without their 
f 2. Cor. 10 13.16.  measure, in an other man's line: much less may the ministers of particular churches. Although in the general bond of Christianity, they may afford any help, not passing the bounds of their calling, as before I granted. But the ordination or making of ministers, is a work of power or authority, Mat. 28.18.19. Heb. 5.1.4. which power is not given to one Church or minister over an other: and therefore cannot, by virtue of the common faith, be by them performed. And whereas you intimate, as if your Church entreated the ministers of an other church, to perform it in their name, etc. I have cause to doubt that the thing was not so carried: both for that I have not heard that the ministers of the other church, (being also of an other language,) ever came into your public congregation, (according to the laws in your first reason alleged, Exod. 29.4. Levit. 8.3.4.) to make public prayers, and to give exhortations to your Officers and people touching their mutual duties, and so to ordain your ministers: as also because it is not their manner to ordain ministers publicly in their own churches, it being by their 
g Synod in Graven Hague anno. 1586 art. 4. & Synod in Midleburgh. anno. 1581. art. 4.  canons, to be done in the classical assemblies or consistories. I have heard it also testified by some that have been long members both of the Dutch and French: that they never did see the ordination of the ministers, though sundry were taken into office in their time. Finally, in this your plea, how do you disable your own church, and the 3. other Elders that with you were authorised to feed your flock: as if there were not one amongst you, which could perform this work of ordination, or show the minister and people their mutual duties.   

Answer.  


Io. Pa.  AS I observed in my former writing and in my first answer touching this point, so you do here yield and grant, that it is not unlawful for any to hear me, namely in respect of the supposed error of my ordination if that were all: yet you add with all, that this error as all other aught to be acknowledged and forsaken, etc. Now in this your grant, you yield me the cause and overthrew yourself in the main question betwixt us touching the lawfulness of communion with our Church and ministry: for whereas before & after again you do object our want of repentance as the main ground of your separation from us, you do here notwithstanding confess that this pretended error of my ordination doth not destroy communion with us, and yet you know we neither acknowledge it nor forsake it, nor repent for it any more than for the rest of the errors which you impute unto us. Thus you do plainly yield against yourself, that there may be public corruptions and sins unrepented of, and yet a lawful communion with such impenitent persons. You alleged for your separation from sin the 10. commandments, Exod. 20. If the error of my ordination be a corruption to be acknowledged, & forsaken, them must it needs be a transgression of some of the ten commandments: and how comes it then that this error unrepented of hath a privilege not to be separated from, rather than other errors and corruptions? you alleged also Eph. 5.11. and 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. for a proof of your separation from sin and communion therewith: if the manner of my ordination be an error to be repent of as you say, then must it needs be a work of darkness: and tell me then I pray you how this work of darkness unrepented of gets a dispensation not to be separated from rather than other works of darkness. Surely your separation is not unlike the Pope in his dispensative, exemptive and transcendent power that can give at pleasure such special indulgence for special sins, errors and works of darkness unrepented of. You affirm hereafter that this work of ordination executed and done by the Elders of an other congregation is an usurpation contrary to the scriptures Act. 20.28. Mat. 28.18.19. Heb. 5.4. do you not herein then acknowledge that it is lawful to hold communion with such as do submit unto usurpers, and do administer the word and Sacraments by virtue of an ordination received and derived from an usurped power? Mr. Ainsworth, I do earnestly desire and require both you and your people in the name of Christ that you will consider of these things without prejudice and partiality, and so doing I doubt not but upon this your grant, you willbe led forward to entertain more Christian communion with us: & that other supposed errors among us shall not be a stumbling block unto you any more than this is. The Lord give you ears to hear and a heart to understand.  
Furthermore whereas I urged you so earnestly in my former writing to hold unto the matters of separation and you also professed to do the same: how comes it that you insist upon this dispute about my ordination, and yet acknowledge that for this error it is not unlawful for any to hear me? Had you confessed so much, or had I known so much at the first. I would not have propounded any arguments concerning this point, but would have held only to the pretended causes of your separation from us. Whereas you complain further that my reasons are not to the point in controversy, etc. I take it they touch the point sufficiently when as they both serve to justify the manner of my ordination, and to refute your contrary opinion: when as I show against you that the mutual counsel & help of neighbour churches are not only good and lawful in general, as you grant: but also in executing & performing this particular work of ordination one for another as need is, and as they are entreated thereunto.   


MY first argument to warrant the help of neighbour ministers for performing the work of ordination in other Churches, was taken from the necessity of many churches that often want fit persons among themselves for the performance thereof, etc. In your answer hereunto there are many faults:  
1. You pervert my allegation of scriptures from Moses and the Apostles, as if I had cited them to prove that ordinary ministers might imitate them or do as much as they in their extraordinary power which I neither wrote nor thought: But as appears by my former 
a Pag. 16.  writing together with the note of reference unto the Margin, I alleged them only to show that the work of ordination did consist principally in such public prayers and exhortations as that many Churches did want fit and able persons to perform the same. And so much the 
b Exod. 29. 1-35. Leut. 8.1.2. etc. Numb. 27.18.19.23. Deut. 31.7. Act. 6.6. & 13.2.3.  scriptures thereunto applied do prove unto us, neither can you justly deny the same.  
2. Whereas you say, that Elders were to be ordained in every city, if any were found fit for the charge, Tit. 1.5.6. otherwise it were better to stay the work, etc. And then further infer by way of simitude, that So if the Church be unfit to do the works thereof, they should stay till they be better informed, etc. I answer, that your comparison herein is very unequal: for of ministers and Elders God hath expressly and precisely required sundry special graces and endowments of his spirit, necessary for their public administration, without which they may not be ordained or chosen: It is reason their election should be stayed, until those graces that God requireth be in some measure discerned in them: But as for the other members of the Church, God never exacts of them such abilities of public exhorting and praying in the congregation; It is sufficient for them if they have true faith and repentance, though in weak measure; And therefore there is no reason that they should be deprived of a minister so long, until themselves be able to preach unto their preacher at his solemn ordination.  
3. Whereas I alleged, Heb. 3.2. and Esa. 5.3.4. to show that the wisdom and faithfulness of Christ in his Father's house would not stand with so strait an order as you pled for. To these scriptures you answer never a word, but smoothly pass by them, and so avoid the force of my argument comprised therein. According to your opinion it will follow that Israel of old were in better estate for obtaining of ministers in temple and synagogue by the order that Moses set down, than we are in the new Testament by the order that Christ hath left us: you will have that Christ cannot sing of his vineyard now as he did of old what could I have done more unto my vineyard that I have not done unto it? Of old there was away under Moses to call labourers into the vineyard, though the persons in several synagogues, could not preach for their ordination: this way is now stopped up by your doctrine.  
4. Rather than all the churches be deprived of ministers by staying till some among themselves were able to preach at their ordination according to your counsel, I would think it meet that ministers being lawfully chosen should proceed unto their administration without any solemn confirmation at all, according to the distinction which I propounded in the beginning of this first argument, viz, Either ordination is not simply necessary: or else, etc. For where is there any proof from the scriptures for such a necessity of ordination that the work of ministry is to be stayed for want thereof?  
5. As for the Churches in the villages of these Netherlands I did not allege their example for a rule of right that we are bound to imitate, as you would make the reader believe: and therefore you have needlessly alleged 1 Thess. 6.7. against me: but I only alleged their necessity and their want for an instance of that which I had said before to show what evil would follow upon your doctrine, to the desolation of many Churches by withholding ministers from them, till they were able to perform the great and weighty duties of that solemn ordination whereof I spoke.  
6. That which is here said concerning ordination may further appear if we consider an other work of examination which is as 
b 1 Tim. 3.10. & 5.22.  requisite (if not more) in the calling of a minister, as is ordination: and doth also as much belong to the power of the Church, as ordination: yet experience shows that many godly and simple Christians are not able to perform this work considering the subtlety of many deceitful and learned heretics which creep into churches. And therefore help to do the same from the Ministers of other churches is often most necessary, and not only to inform the churches herein but to perform this action for them.   

Unto my second reason which was taken from the like necessity of help in discerning and convincing of errors & heresies, you say that you answer the same things, which you did unto my former reason. Than will it follow hereupon  
1. That when your people sent unto Mr. Robinson & 
c Animad. vers. p. 133.  entreated him to come and help the Lord against the mighty, against Mr. johnson: according to your former answer unto me, he aught also to have answered your people, and said: I will give you the best help, counsel and advice that I can, I will direct & inform you how to convince Mr. johnson, but to do it myself I may not lest I should usurp the power of the Church. For the conviction of error is an Ecclesiastical action, & it is a work of power belonging to the church, and laid upon the Church, as well as is the pronouncing of the censure and sentence against sin convicted. But because he did not use this answer, but came to do the thing itself, it will follow by your answer that therefore he was an usurper herein, and you also guilty of his usurpation in seeking the same.  
2. It will follow hence also, that either some learned and subtle heretics shall be tolerated in the Church: or else that they must be rejected without sufficient conviction going before: for daily experience shows that some heretics are so learned, and the godly members of some congregations are so weak that they are not able sufficiently to convince such great deceivers. Neither is it in this case sufficient for neighbour ministers to help them with counsel and to inform them with arguments unless they come and do the deed themselves, unless they perform the work of conviction for them: even as it is not sufficient to put a sword into a 
d Heb. 5.11.14. with judge. 8.20.  Child's hand and to tell him how he shall use it to overcome a strong and expert warrior. If Vorstius had been minister in some of the weakest congregations in this country, which yet I think you acknowledge true churches, and should have seduced the wisest and greatest part of the Church to his manifold errors, what appearance is there that the rest could by their disputations have convinced him? If you would allow others in this case to come and undertake the disputation for their help, then is the Ecclesiastical action of convicting a sinner to be performed and done by the help of other Churches.   

MY third reason was taken from a like duty of the Deacons and widows of one church which are to perform service unto an other when need requires, etc. In your answer hereunto you pervert that I said, and touch not the point of my argument at all. As for Phoebe, I said not that she went to do the work of her ministery at Rome, but the commendation that Paul gives of her Rom. 16.1. compared with the verse following proves as much as I said, and that diverse ways. 1, upon that commendation of Paul, if she had been in need, the Deacons and widows of the Church of Rome. were bound to minister unto her though none of their Church. 2, if being at Rome she had desired help of that Church for the poor in Corinth; the Deacons of the Roman Church, upon that commendation of Paul were bound to have contributed and so by her to have performed service unto the Corinthian Church. 3, by the commendation that Paul gives her it appears that she had given hospitality unto many, and consequently, that the widows of one Church were to perform service unto an other in entertaining the strangers that came from them. Touching the messengers that were to carry the Corinthian alms unto jerusalem 1 Cor. 16,3. I said not that they were their ordinary Deacons as your answer imports: but seeing Paul promiseth to sand whomsoever they should allow by their letters, this shows that if they had entrusted their Deacons with this business, he would also have sent them: and so this proveth that the Deacons might lawfully have been sent and consequently this shows as much as I said: For .1. if the Deacons might have been sent, then though they had neither made any gathering nor further distribution at jerusalem, but only delivered their present unto the Officers there, as you say, yet this their labour in traveling so long & dangerous a journey even about a 1000 miles from Corinth to jerusalem might be a sufficient testimony, that the Deacons of one Church might perform service to an other, yea happily more service and labour of love, than they should have done at home in a whole twelve month together if they had not gone. 2, for as much as in the primitive Church there were many 
e Jude, 12. Act. 6.2. & 2.46.  love Feasts and tables provided, where the godly and the poor did eat their meat together with gladness and singleness of heart, admit now that the Deacons of the Corinthian Church having delivered some alms unto the Officers of the Church at jerusalem, should yet further in the name of those that sent them have made a love feast unto some afflicted members of that Church and girding themselves should have come forth and ministered cheerfully and lovingly unto them; what fault would you find in this service and ministration performed unto an other Church? 3, the afflictions, bands and imprisonment of the ministers & people in those days being great, admit that the Deacons of the Church of Corinth, should also by the appointment of the church have taken pains to seek them out in their prisons, & stayed some time both to distribute some particular gifts unto some by name and further also to minister unto them for their comfort, as 
f Philip. 2. 25-30.  Epaphroditus 
g 2 Tim. 1.16.17.18. , Onesiphorus & 
h Philem. 11.13.  Onesimus did unto Paul, what blame could you impute unto these Deacons that thus should perform service unto an other Church? And this same reply serves also to take away your answer made unto 2. Cor. 8.19.22.24. which I had alleged to the same purpose with the former place.   

IN answer to my 4th argument, you yield me the cause: for while you grant that the Prophets of one Church, may prophesy in an other and apply their doctrines, exhortations and prayers to any actions of the church where they speak; you do also grant that the act of ordination which consisteth in these things is then performed. When you distinguish that he may thus pray and Prophecy, by way of doctrine, etc. but not to do the work which belongeth to the Church, you do herein contradict yourself: for when doctrine, exhortations and prayers are solemnly applied to the person elected and to the church electing touching their mutual duty, etc. then is the act of ordination performed and done. If you had thought otherwise, you aught to have named the other particulars which are of necessity further required: as for the ceremony of imposition of hands. 1, there is no commandment that binds so strictly thereunto, that the act of ordination should be condemned for the want of it. 2, by your own confession this hath been heretofore the practice of your own church, 
i Animadvers. p. 65.  the outward sign being omitted at the ordination of the minister among you, when you had no Elders; and still you show your opinion in the case spoken of that for the 
k Ibid. p. 66.  outward sign only you would not contend. 3. If the Prophets of one congregation may approve the act of an other Church in their ordination, by word in doctrine and prayers, why may they not also by their hand declare the same approbation? we see that the 
l Act. 13.1.2.3.  Prophets in the Church of Antioch, though they were no universal ministers, did yet lay hands on Paul and Barnabas for their confirmation in that work of ministery which was to be exercised in other places.  
But for your help in this matter, you run unto the Thalmud and from thence you tell me, It is holden by the Hebrews and you think rightly, that any wise man might see the plague of Leprosy & advice the Priest to pronounce it unclean or clean, or to shut it up▪ Hereunto I answer.  
First, you give too much honour unto these authors alleged when you call them Hebrews, whereas you should rather have called them Thalmudists, whose language is 
n Schind. pentaglot. tit.  noted as a distinct speech from the Hebrew; their saying is, 
o Aben Ezra in Eccle. cap. 5. i  leschon mikra lechod, leschon Thalmud lechod; their language through their dispersion being degenerate and changed, like unto them 
p Nehem. 13.24.  that spoke half in the speech of Ashdod: A man that understood the Hebrew perfectly might yet be ignorant of this Thalmudicall barbarous speech. And these Thalmudists (as you yourself do 
q defence. against. Mr. Sm. p. 73. to 76  acknowledge concerning the Hellenists) could not say with the Apostle that they were 
r 2 Cor. 11.22. Phil. 3.5.  hebrews, or hebrews of Hebrews.  
Secondly, what have we to do with the opinions of these fabulous and blasphemous Thalmudists, whose dotages and blasphemies are innumerable? Cannot the controversy betwixt us be decided by the word of God, and by the voice of the holy scriptures, unless the voice of this unholy Thalmud be also called for and admitted to speak betwixt us?  
Thirdly, for this allegation in particular, your forgery or mistaking herein is very notable; for in the place of the Thalmud quoted by you, there is no such thing to be found as you mention. There is no such general mention of any wise man as you speak: There is not a word mentioned for the advising of the Priest to pronounce clean or unclean or to shut up any. Equity requires, that we corrupt not nor falsify the sayings of the worst men. He that depends upon the Thalmud for his direction shallbe fed with the wind and follow after the east wind as 
s Hos. 12.1  Ephraim did: But he that gives credit unto your allegations of the Thalmud, being like unto this, shallbe doubly deceyved.  
Fourthly, when as I searched for your allegation in the Thalmud, in stead of that which you say, I find in the same place such idle and vain traditions of the Rabbins as might justly serve to discredit the testimonies of such witnesses: as namely, their appointing of certain Canonical hours when the plague of leprosy is to be seen: 
t Thalmud in Negagh. c. 2. sec. 2.  not in the morning, nor in the evening, nor yet at noon tide, etc. also their traditional rule for the position both of the man and woman's body when their lepry is to be seen, viz. 
u Ibid. sec. 4.  that the man must be seen as a man that holds the plough or shakes the olives, meaning with the hands and feet spread forth, etc. that the woman must be seen as one that dresseth or giveth such to her child, as one that weaves, etc.  
Fiftly, beside these and other vain traditions, there be also such contradictions among them even in the same place, as may yet further show what little credit is to be given unto the allegations brought from such disagreeing witnesses: as first upon a Thalmudicall case propounded in the beginning of that 
x Ibid. sec. 1.  Chapter, concerning a strong spot appearing as the german contract, and as the Ethiopian contract, Rabbi Ishmael expounds it of a middle colour neither white nor black but betwixt both; R. Akiba expounds it of diverse figures appearing about the spot both white and black, and of middle colour, etc. R. jehudah hath yet an other exposition, and their chacamim an other different from them all. Again in the same 
y Sec. 2.  place, touching the canonical hours before mentioned, Rabbi Meir notes them to be the third, the fourth, the fift, the sixth, the seventh, the eight and the ninth hours; Rabbi juda notes them to be the fourth, the fift, the eight and the ninth; R. Schimeon in his gloss upon the Thalmud in the same place notes the exposition of R. Iose different from the former, namely that these hours were the fourth, the fift, the ninth and the tenth: and diverse others such like vanities & contradictions might be noted out of the same short chapter.  
Lastly, for the thing that you would teach us out of the Thalmud, & first for any wise man seeing the plague of leprosy, if you mean occasionally as he meets a leper, or as it is showed unto him, I deny it not; but if you mean that any wise man had authority to require an other to show him his spot or plague suspected, and to discover unto him his nakedness wheresoever the spot was, especially with such a position of Body as the Thalmudists describe, that remains to be proved; and 2, for the advising of the Priest upon occasion to shut up, or to pronounce clean or unclean, I would easily have consented unto you therein, though you had not called for witness unto this Lying Thalmud.  
Now whereas you add: yet none but the Priest himself might pronounce it unclean or clean, Leu. 13.3.4. Deut. 24.8. I answer.  
First, this is not altogather true, for though the scriptures alleged do show that the Priests might do this thing and with more authority to be submitted unto, than other men ordinarily could do: yet do not these places show that the Priest alone might pronounce a leper clean or unclean. For what law of God binds a man from declaring the truth and pronouncing that to be clean or unclean, which he certainly knows by the word of God to be so? The high Priest and other Priests are commanded to do many things which yet others might do also. And if the Priests wrested the law, might not others declare and pronounce and practise otherwise? either you must grant this or else you must in part destroy again that 
a Animadvers. p. 19.20.  proportion which yourself have made betwixt the Priests & Ministers, Israel of old and the people of Christ now, for removing the leper and putting away the wicked from among them.  
Secondly, for the application of this your assertion unto the question in hand, you show it not at all: for what though none but the Priest might pronounce clean or unclean? yourself confess and teach that the work of ordination may be performed by such as are no Ministers and so you practise: how then do you draw this argument from the special ministerial power of the Priesthood unto such an action as by your doctrine might be performed without either Priest or minister.   

MY fift reason was taken from the mutual & equal relation that is between ministers and their people together with your confession that the members of one Church may lawfully upon occasion receive the Lords supper in an other Church from the ministers thereof. This argument you deny. Your reasons are: The ministers have a peculiar relation to their particular flocks only, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.13 17. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. I answer, 1. The people have a peculiar relation to their particular ministers only in like manner, and the places here alleged do show a peculiar bond of submission whereby the people are in special manner tied unto their own overseers that care for them and must give an account for their Souls more than for others. 2, as this peculiar relation of the people doth not hinder them from receyving the Lords supper at the hands of an other minister, so neither doth the peculiar relation of a minister unto his flock hinder him from administering unto others being upon occasion entreated thereunto. You say; Apostles and all universal ministers are ceased. I answer that also an universal people or members of an universal visible Church are ceased; & yet as the combining of the people unto their own peculiar minister doth not quite cut off their communion with other ministers, so neither doth the restraining of a minister unto his peculiar flock quite cut him off from administering upon occasion unto an other people. Your similitudes from a husband and a father are against yourself: for as a husband notwithstanding his relation and bond unto his own wife, may yet become a 
b job. 31.16.17.18. & 29.12.16.  protector and guide of the poor widow, that wants a husband to perform these duties: & as a Father notwithstanding his relation unto his own Children & family, may yet perform the work of a father unto the poor and fatherless: so likewise a shepherd or minister notwithstanding the peculiar relation unto his own flock, may and aught upon occasion to perform the work of a minister unto an other neighbour flock that have lost their shepherd.  
You say, all circumcised persons, had right thereby 
c Exod. 12.4.48. Deut. 16.1.2.  to eat the  in any society, in the place which God should choose to put his name there: so all baptized persons have right to the Lords supper, in every true church where God hath set his name. I answer, 1. The scriptures alleged by you show that circumcised persons had right to eat the , but show not that they had right to eat the same in any society: nay the place quoted by you shows the contrary, for seeing the lamb was to be eaten of the same household, or if they were too few to eat it, the only others were to be taken unto them, and those also of their next neighbours, Exod. 12 4. and seeing also that the  prepared was by order to be distributed 
d 2 Chron. 35.11.12.13.  according to the divisions of the families of the Children of the people: therefore each person was bound to keep himself unto his own family, and could not without disturbance of this order intrude himself into any society. 2. This your comparing of the societies where the  was eaten, with every true Church where the Lords supper is now administered, is very unequal, and yet against yourself in the point of our controversy: for these societies had not each of them their distinct and peculiar ministers or Priests to administer and prepare the paschal-lambe for them, as each true Church hath now their own distinct officers: any Priest might indifferently prepare the  for many or any societies, as well for one as an other: if then this type is to be our direction in the point of our difference, any minister may now administer the Lords supper unto baptised persons in any church.  
Whereas you add: But the rulers of particular synagogues, had not the same authority in all synagogues, nor pastors now in all flocks, etc. I answer, 1. Though pastors have not the same authority in all flocks yet this hinders not but upon occasion in time of need they being requested may help to perform some works of a minister in an other congregation. 2, you make here an unequal proportion betwixt rulers of the synagogues & pastors of the churches now: for many rulers of the synagogues had not power of administering the  even to any of their own synagogue, for as much as we do not read that all the rulers of the synagogues were Priests who only might sprinkle the blood of the paschall-lamb according to the manner. 3, on th'other side some of the rulers of particular synagogues being Priests to teach and govern the people therein, had power also to administer the Sacrament unto them of other synagogues at the time and place apppoynted. 4, what know you but that the rulers of one synagogue had a hand in the government of other synagogues also by the combination which was in that Church of the jews? How know you that either the Priests, Levites or other teachets were restrained and bound to one synagogue and excluded from the government of the rest? If you will draw proportions and patterns for us from the rulers of the synagogues, show us from the scriptures if you can, what calling, election and ordination they had, whereby they were so strictly tied and restrained unto their several synagogues. The warrant which I have already brought to show that the Eldership of one Church may upon occasion perform the work of ordination in an other, is not yet infringed by you: But whereas you require me to show that any eldership may ordain ministers in their consistories & sand them as ministers to other churches, etc. You ask that which is quite beside our question, and your gross error therein with your false allegations for proof of the same is to be showed straightway in that which followeth.   

Wnto my 6t argument taken from the common faith binding all churches, ministers & people to perform all possible help for their mutual edification so far as they are not restrained by some special commandment of God: you give answer by showing restraint from the special ordinance of God, Rev. ch. 2. and 3. with Act. 20.28. Heb. 5.4, etc. Hereunto I reply:  
1. As for Rev. 2. and 3. with Act. 20.28. though the angels of the Churches be in special manner bound to take heed unto their own flocks and particular Churches, yet doth not that charge restrain them from taking heed unto others upon occasion for a time of need. The taking heed unto their flocks which Paul requires in this place doth comprehend under it not only, the administration of Sacraments, ordaining of ministers & such like actions, but also the administration of the word and prayers, godly counsel in private, &c: if then this taking heed must be restrained unto their own particular Churches only you may from hence as well conclude that it is unlawful for a minister to make a Sermon or to call upon the name of God in any congregation save his own: seeing both these kinds of duties are in like manner included in this exhortation of Paul.  
2. For Heb. 5.4. This condemns not those that are desired to help their neighbours in distress, but those that intrude themselves without desiring: Those Churches that call or entreat a neighbour minister to help them upon occasion for a time, they give the honour unto him, he takes it not unto himself.  
3. For both these places together, Act. 20. Heb. 5. The Apostle speaks in both of a ministerial charge & of an office, which every minister is to take heed unto, and not to usurp the same without a calling: But now yourself both by 
e Animadvers. p. 51.52.53, etc.  writing & practice do confess that this act of ordination may be executed and performed by such as have no office or ministery in the Church, how then do you reason for a restraint from these places that concern Officers, as though men usurped an office and took honour unto themselves in performing such a work as you grant may be done without any office?  
4. As for 2 Cor. 10.13.16. it shows that men may not boast of things without their measure, etc. But, 1. it shows not that those which perform the work of ordination in a neighbour church desired thereunto, are guilty of such boasting without their measure, in an other man's line, when as there is no other man in that congregation which is fit to perform the same, or willing to undertake that work. 2, this place doth rather reprove them as boasters of things without their measure which being private men and also wanting the gifts of public doctrine, exhortation & prayer do yet take the same upon them, so as of necessity they must do for the ordination of their minister or else have no minister at all ordained among them, whiles by your order you will not allow them to use the help of any other neighbour-minister or learned man. 3, seeing the Apostle doth further declare his meaning in the same place: namely, that such do stretch themselves beyond their measure, which boast 
f 2 Cor. 10.15.  of other men's labours, and 
g Ibid. verse 16.  of the things that are prepared already: I wish you to consider that those which by their erroneous doctrine do seduce many simple people and draw them into their schism from those that have been the means of their conversion, if they be at all converted: those I say boast of things without their measure & enter into the line of other men: those are they that steal the Children out of the cradles, the Children for whose new birth they never traveled with pain: like unto that 
h 1 Kin. 3.19.20.  wicked woman that having overlaid her own, did steal away an other son from the bosom of the true and right mother. Think seriously with yourself Mr. Ainsworth, whether this be not your sin.  
5. Whereas you pled from Mat 28.18.19. Heb. 5.1.4. that ordination is a work of power or authority, not given to one Church or minister over an other and therefore cannot by virtue of the common faith, be by them performed. This is not contrary to that which I hold, for I said not that ordination might be performed by virtue of the common faith alone, I noted it to be a work of power and authority in the end of this 6t. reason before, when as I said it was to be performed in the name of the Church that desireth help. But a neighbour minister receyving power and authority from the desire of those that seek his help, is then further bound by the common faith and general bond of Christianity to perfotme this service unto those that need it. If you would have reasoned to the point, you should have showed some reason why a Church cannot communicate this power unto a minister or Prophet in an other congregation, as well as unto a common member of their own Church; especially when they want fit members among themselves to perform this work.  
6. As it was before in general observed, so here again it is more particularly to be noted, that although so many transgressions be committed in the ordination of a minister: though he be ordained by such as are not appointed thereunto of the Holy Ghost; though he be made a minister by such usurpers as take this honour unto themselves, when they are not called of God thereunto, as Aaron was: though he be ordained by them that want authority and power to do it; by them that boast of things without their measure, in an other man's line: yet do you notwithstanding this unlawful ordination, (as you yourself reason against it) grant that it is not unlawful for any to hear such a minister so ordained. This being well considered will serve to overthrew many grounds of your separation. For as the 
i Maimony comment. in Thalmud tract. Negag. cap. 1. sec. 2 & R. Moses Kotsens. in SMG. Asin. 234.  Rabbins from Thorath Cohanim describing the 4. sorts or degrees of that leprosy, which is called Lebanah adamdemeth, wherein the read colour is mixed with the white, do note one to be greater than an other, comparing the first kind to a Cup of milk wherein are 2. drops of blood: the second to a Cup of milk wherein are 4. drops of blood; the third to a Cup of milk, wherein are 8. drops of blood; the fourth to a Cup of milk wherein are 16. drops of blood: and yet in the discerning of these do accounted them all as one, and 
k Thalmud Ibid. sec. 3.  give one judgement of them all, for the shutting up, for the pronouncing of them unclean, and for the purging of them: even so the unlawful ordination of ministers being in your account a sinful transgression of God's commandment, & consequently an unclean leprosy; if you were not now more partial than the Rabbins themselves, you would judge that one kind of unlawful ordination in the cup of any church should be a cause of separation as well as an other, though differing in degree, some Churches having more spots in their ordination, than some others have: especially considering that large pretence of sin unrepented, which you allege for a ground of your separation from us, as I noted before. But for the present I will insist no further, reserving this observation until further occasion be given of applying it against your schism & the grounds thereof.    

AFter these reasonings against the right of ordination performed by the ministers of an other congregation, you come to speak of the fact itself as it was performed among us in my ordination: and here you tell us of your surmises and suspicions, as though our Church did not entreat the ministers of an other Church to perform it in their name, as I had intimated unto you, etc. you say, you have cause to doubt that the thing was not so carried: both for that you have not heard that the ministers of the other Church, (being also of an other language) ever came into our public congregation, (according to the laws in your first reason alleged Exod. 29.4. Leu. 8.3.4) to make public prayers and to give exhortations, etc. But to deliver you (if it may be) from your vain conjectures and doubts, I will show you a little more plainly and expressly the manner of my ordination, which was this: Being elected to be pastor of this congregation by the free and voluntary consent and choice of the members thereof that had united themselves and agreed together in the Lord for his service and their own edification, some of them were then appointed by the rest to go unto the Dutch Eldership in this city and to desire both their counsel and help for my ordination. Hereupon, three reverend and learned ministers were deputed by the rest of their brethren to assist us in this business, namely Mr. Plancius Mr. Helmychius of blessed memory who now resteth in the Lord, and Mr. Lamere, all which did also understand the English tongue these three took unto them also by our desire a minister of the church of Scotland, Mr. Douglas, who being more able to speak in our language than they, did publicly preach concerning the mutual duties both of people and Pastor, and accordingly applied his prayers unto the action in hand. And herewithal did the ministers of the Dutch reformed Church at the same time give unto me their right hands of fellowship in the mids of our people, and in the body of our public congregation then assembled and prayed also for the blessing of God upon this my calling. And this they did at that time of the first gathering & establishing of our church, not assuming authority unto themselves over us, but in our name and by our request: being now established when as of late an other minister was called unto this our congregation, we used not their help herein as before, but his ordination was performed by our own ministery and Eldership without them.  
After this surmise, you bring a notorious untruth, and proceed from evil to worse, from a vain conjecture unto manifest falsehood: when under colour of reason for your former guess, you say, as also because it is not their manner to ordain ministers publicly in their own Churches, it being by their 
l Synod in Graven-Haghe Ano 1586. Art. 4. and Synod in Midleburgh. Ano 1581. Art. 4.  canons to be done in the Classical assemblies or consistories. Answer.  
First, it is an evident and open untruth which you affirm touching their manner of ordination: And daily experience bears witness against you: Their manner is to ordain ministers publicly in their own Churches.  
Secondly, as for the canons of the two Synods which you suborn like two false witnesses to prove your assertion, they are very injuriously perverted and falsified by you. That 4 th'. article of the Synod holden in the Hague Anno 1586 is directly against you, and in express words showeth that the ordination of a minister lawfully called must be an opentlijcke bevestinghe voor der Ghemeynte/ that is to say: an open or public confirmation of him before the Congregation: it shows further how it is to be performed with convenient stipulation, questions, exhortations, prayer, etc. and again it shows that this ordination must be done, naer het Formulier daer van zijnde; that is, according to the form which is prescribed for that purpose, which shows more largely in what manner it is to be performed before the Church. In the end of that article, there is an exception touching the ministers which are to be sent out of their country into the enemies land, inde Kercken onder t'Crupce/ unto the persecuted Churches, dispersed among the Papists in Colen, Antwerp, Brussels and such like places, where they have not such liberty for their solemn assemblies: but this concerns not the Churches in their own country. As for the Synod in Midleburgh, Anno 1581. art. 4. neither doth it impugn their manner of ordaining ministers publicly in their own Churches, but only leaves it free: the words of the article are, het zy in de Kercke opentlijck oft nae dat het gheleghen is inden Kercken Raet oft Class/ doch altijdt met openbaere ghebeden/ that is to say: either in the Church openly, or according as conveniency is, in the Consistory or Classis, but always with public prayer. Besides, this Synod at Midleburgh being holden five years before that of Gravenhaghe, as the date shows, is to be determined according to the later Synod, and therefore doth in no sort deny the public manner of ordaining ministers in the congregation. And further as appears in the same book of their Synods, there was yet an other Synod holden at Midleburgh ten years after the former, agreeing with that of the Hague also, wherein it is agreed that the 
m Synod in Midleburgh. Ano 1591. Art. 5.  ministers after that they have been propounded fourteen days unto the congregation without any special contradiction shall then publicly be confirmed in their ministery, and this naer her Formulier daer van zijnde/ which formulier, shows the manner thereof more largely. And thus it may easily appear how unworthily you abuse the testimonies of Synods, by wresting them quite contrary to their meaning, and contrary to the truth. In the forefront of this your last 
n Pag. 35.  writing, you prefix the saying of the Prophet Zacharie, Love the truth, etc. Zach. 8.19. Hereby, Truth seems to be as it were engraven upon the lintel or upper-door-poste of your house, so that unto those which pass by your porch, or draw near to enter in, your building at the first sight seems to be the House of truth; but unto them that enter further to view what deceitful work is in it, your building may then quickly be discerned to be the House of falsehood and forgery. Fie for shame, Mr. Answorth, that you will thus writ either you cannot tell what, or you care not what. It is one of the foulest faults that we do justly complain of in Bellarmine & Baronius, the Popish champions, that they do unconscionably and falsely allege many testimonies & matters of fact, and so join falsehood with their error; why fear you not to follow their crooked steps? It is great sin for any to speak untruth in their own name; but to make others guilty of untruth, by perverting their testimony to evil, is double iniquity.  
Yet you insist still, and tell us, that you have heard it also testified, by some that have been long members both of the Dutch and French: that they never did see the ordination of the ministers, though sundry were taken into office in their times. But 1. I pray you who be those apocryphal witnesses that have thus testified unto you? If they be such as devil in this city or in the country adjoining these may well bring upon themselves the blame of being negligent and careless persons, who have no better observed the practice of their own Churches: especially considering that before the ordination of their ministers, their names are always propounded unto the congregation two or three Lords days before, that so each member of the Church may take knowledge of that which is done. 2. Do you but look into the end of many Dutch Bibles where their form of prayers and administration of the Sacraments is described, there may you find the 
o Form van bevestinghe der Dienaren.  form of ordination according to the meaning of the Synods before mentioned▪ there may you see what their manner is, and that by the whole tenor of the words, as also by the titles or directions before them, the ordination of their ministers is performed in the mids of their whole congregation. How comes it that you who have lived more than 20. years as a neighbour unto the Reformed Churches in these countries should yet be such a stranger unto them and so ignorant of their estate and practise? 3. as for the French Churches here also, it is their manner likewise to ordain their ministers, Elders and Deacons in the public congregation of the people: The deputies of their Churches were present at the general Synod above mentioned holden in the Hague Anno 1586, in the time of the earl of Leycester, by whose authority that Synod was also approved and confirmed: from thence they received the formalier of ordination before spoken of: and though they have not a form printed with their Bibles as they Dutch have, yet do they keep it in writing and use the same every year in the ordination of their Elders and Deacons: and of their ministers when they choose them, as in particular of Monsieur Goulart, Morois, Bassecourt, all which have been publicly confirmed in their offices before the people. And if this be not enough, I can yet bring you more plentiful witness, both to help & heal your incredulity in respect of my estate, & to convince your false assertion, and false allegations in respect of the Reformed Churches.  
Finally, for conclusion of this matter, you infer against us from this plea, and ask, how do you disable your own church, & the the 3 other Elders that with you were authorised to feed your flock, as if there were not 〈◊〉 amongst you, which could perform this work of ordination, or show the minister and people their mutual duties? I answer.  
1. Our Elders and people are not abased nor disabled, when they profess themselves unmeet to perform that work which God hath in no place exacted or laid upon them. The work of ordination performed with public preaching and prayer in the solemn congregation (as it aught to be) requires a special gift of understanding and utterance, as well as any other ministerial work that is to be executed in the Church of God. 2. Our Elders also and their gifts at that time were not so known and discerned, as since; they were not at that time chosen into office, neither were they ordained or authorised with me, (as your answer imports) but a good while after. 3. It had been better also for your people, if they had not exalted themselves so much as they have done, nor 
p Ps. 131.1.2.  exercised themselves in things that are too hard for them: for example, your ancientest and busiest Elder john Decluse being once a member of the French church, affecting the office of the ministery, comes unto the Eldership of that Church, and earnestly desires to have his gifts tried his desire therein is granted, he is heard diverse times and allowed to make propositions in their consistory for trial; but in fine after trial, he is not allowed by them (though among you he is allowed to preach and Prophesy) they judge him unmeet for so holy a work and that in diverse respects; hereupon, and not before his discontentment appears: he gins now to quarrel with the Church, and so in fine falls into schism, and renounces the communion of that Church and is received of you. How much better had it been for him, to have kept himself within his measure, than thus to have been disabled by the Church of God? Every man that exalteth himself, shallbe brought low. 
Luk. 18.14      

CHAP. VI Touching separation from such as hold communion with the Church of England.  


Hen. Ains.  FOr your agreement with the Church of England I have showed it to be more than you would pretend. Your members with you, disclaim separation from it: some of them have publicly renounced as most abominable, the covenant which we have made, in separating from the synns of that Church, showed in my former argument. As for your covenant which you mention, to separate from known evils, and to serve the Lord in the Gospel of his Son, so far as is revealed unto you: they are but generals, such as Arians, Anabaptists Papists, (and who not that profess Christ?) will make also: that there can be no discerning, much less approbation of your Church hereby. We have in our Confession and Apology, showed the particular evils which we separate from, and order in the Gospel of Christ which we submit unto: till you do the like, we have no reason to approve of your Church: especially knowing your opposition against us, for the truth which we profess. Neither separate you from all known evils: for you have not repent of, and separated from the false worship by human leitourgies, or communion with the unlawful ministery and Church estate of the Parishes and Dioceses in England, though they have so many years been convinced to be evil, before your eyes. Yea you, in this your plea, disclaim not the authority and government of the prelate's as sinful simply, but in comparison, as do the Dutch and French churches as if the arm of flesh could not fail you, or be faulty in approving that which is to be condemned. Yet is your comparison unfit: for you were in your persons, members of that church, & under the prelate's rule, from which your abiding for the present in an other land, freeth you not: seeing all our synns remain upon us, and we are tied in their chords, till we break them off by 
q Act. 20.21. and 26.18.  repentance and faith in Christ, unto forgiveness, as I showed before.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  I Expected here some arguments to confirm the third main cause alleged to prove our Church false and our communion unlawful▪ In stead thereof you still quarrel about the matter of fact how far we agreed with the Church of England, but bring not one sound reason to conclude a separation from us in respect of that agreement. And even about the matter of fact itself, you deal very evilly in diverse regards. 1. Whereas I gave you 3 distinct answers touching the same: one part thereof you do quite omit, namely my second answer, and say not a word unto that wherein you were justly reproved: and the rest you do confusedly shuffle together. 2. That your separation, and covenant therein should be disclaimed as a most abominable thing, I have always professed; and you have not (as you affirm) showed our agreement with England, to be more than I would pretend: Therein you speak not truly 3. whereas you say of our profession to separate from known evils, but not from the Churches of Christ for evils among them, etc. that they are but generals such as Arians, Anabaptists, (& who not that profess Christ?) will make also; you offend diverse ways: for on the one side both you in your schism and many Anabaptists also will not make the like but the contrary profession: you profess that 
a Apolog. pag. 45. comm. of Saints, ch. 23.  by communion with open wicked retained among them all are defiled: The Anabaptists hold the same, and being refuted by Mr. Calvine, are herein defended by 
b Discov. p. 33.34.  H. Barow. The like profession is made by Lemar the Arian, as is testified by diverse: This being so, you did cunningly, but not honestly in the repetition of my words to leave out that part of them which might manifest this difference of our profession, viz. but not from the Churches of Christ for evils among them▪ On the other side there are some kind of Arians, Socinians, Familists, Anabaptists, Libertines, Church-Papists who do not profess separation from known evils, but are content to hold communion with known evils so deemed of them: so untruly and inconsiderately you writ in each respect. 4, whereas you require us to show the particular evils we separate from, as you have done in your confession and apology, etc. you do but trifle and hold off from the question; for know you not that we are one with the Dutch Church, that we are a member of their Classis kept in this city: that we hold the same faith described in the Belgic confession printed long since: and that we submit unto the same order of government with them? Doth it not hereby appear unto you, what particular evils we separate from? And what need we then to print any new confessions as you have done? If you object any difference in matters of lesle moment, you know them to be such, as that you approve us therein, rather than them. If you did not behold us with a squint eye, these things would be plain enough unto you▪ but it is not without cause, which Mr. Robinson in the refutation of your private schism, writes of you, concerning your looking at others 
c Relig. come. p. 12.  only with the left eye. 5. That which you say of the worship, ministry and Church estate in England so many years convinced, etc. is but a false boasting and flattering of yourself in vain: I have before nominated unto you diverse treatises wherein your errors about these matters are refuted. 6. You do notoriously pervert my words, when you speak of my disclaiming but in comparison, as do the Dutch and French Churches: as if the arm of flesh could not fail me, or be faulty in approving that which is to be condemned: upon these your words the reader which had not seen what I wrote, might be made to believe, that I had alleged the example of these Reformed Churches as an argument to justify our estate: but it is far otherwise▪ I showed their practice to be the same with ours▪ only to this end: that it might appear how inexcusably partial you are that condemn us as a false church, for that very thing which those whom you do confess to be true Churches, do hold as well as we. My words were plain and I desire the reader to mark them, and with all to judge how well you clear yourself of that partiality imputed: and whether my words have not been wrongfully wrested by you. 7. Where you say, my comparison is unfit, for that we were in our persons, members of that Church and under the Prelate's rule, etc. I answer, sundry people of our Church were never members of the Church of England, but came out of Scotland and from other places. Many members of the Dutch Church, have in their persons been members of the Church of England and under the prelate's rule: yea some of them have been ministers unto English congregations and under the prelate's. Many yea and the greatest part of our Church at the first gathering were such as in their persons were then members of the Dutch Church, and were from them translated unto us with testimony of their sound faith and godly conversation. Many that in their persons were never members of the church of England may be as much and more guilty in approving the corruptions of that Church, than such as have there lived under the rule of the prelate's. How vain then is that which you except against my comparison?  
In the last place, you bring some colour of an argument against the lawfulness of our communion: but it is far too light to prove us a false Church. You say, our abiding for the present in an other land, freeth us not [from the sins committed in England] seeing all our synns remain upon us, and we are tied in their cords, till we break them off 
d Act. 20.21. & 26.18.  by repentance and faith, etc. This is that which you objected 
e Pag. 36.  before, to prove that the reasons directed against the Church of England, are against ours also: you say, unto us, The removing of our dwelling into an other land, remooveth not your sins from you, nor you from them: it is your repentance only and faith in Christ, that can purge away your sins, Luk 13.3.5. Mark. 1.15 Papists that devil here, in England or other where belong to the church of Rome, till they break off themselves by repentance. Neither doth the abstaining from the practice clear the sinner: for the guilt of Cayns Murder, cleaved unto him all his days, because he was not cleansed by repentance and faith, although he never killed man more, after Abel. So though you here practise not the idolatries done in England, yet in that you have practised them & not repent, your guiltiness is upon you, etc. I answer,  
1. It is not our sin in communion with, but your sin in separating from the church of England that is to be repent of. As you are refuted and called unto repentance by Mr. Robinson, for one main part thereof, while he hath convinced your more private schism: so are you by sundry others for your public schism. When your separation from our particular congregation hath been well examined, I doubt not but your separation from England also will thereby appear in a great measure to be unwarrantable: and then the way being so prepared, my resolution is (the Lord assisting) if need be, to proceed further with you in showing your schism from ●ngland. In the mean time it would but draw us from the present controversy.  
2. If our communion with the Church of England were a sin, yet is it not known so to us; we assure ourselves of the contrary: all your objections we judge to be unsound. We repent us of our known sins: our secret sins we know to be innumerable, and we endeavour to be humbled for them: and believe that in Christ they are done away; So that if our communion with England were a sin, yet are we not tied in the cords thereof, as you teach. Nay your doctrine as it is applied and maintained against us, to the contrary, is a manifest and a main heresy, overthrowing the Gospel, and the foundation of Christian Religion both concerning faith and repentance in us, and concerning the Merit of Christ's death & obedience. Upon your reasoning it followeth; that no Repentance and faith is accepted unto satvation unless there be a particular acknowledgement of all sins disputed against, as you have done against us; that the Blood of Christ doth not cleanse us from all sin: but that we are still tied in the cords thereof, until there be a particular discerning and acknowledging of the same. This is contrary to the whole tenor of the Gospel, declared in the holy 
d Leu. 9.7. & 16. 5-30 job 9.3. with ch. 33 27.28. Esa. 44.22. Ps. 103.3. joh. 1.29. & 8.12. 1 joh. 1.7. 2 Pet. 1.3. with 1. Cor. 13.9. & 3.1.2.3. Philip. 1.5.9.  scriptures: all which do show that through faith in Christ we get remission of all our sins, even of those which through the great corruption of the flesh remaining even in the most faithful, we cannot discern often times, though the Lord for his part have given sufficient means to reveal and manifest the same unto us. What availeth it to say, that Christ died for sinners: while you propound such a condition, and require such a repentance as no man can attain unto? God hath decreed to magnify the perfection of his grace in the imperfection of our faith and repentance: The infinite virtue and dignity of Christ's divine nature appears most gloriously, as in others so in this particular of giving merit unto the sufferings of his manhood, to satisfy even for unknown sins that are not particularly and distinctly confessed & repent of. What mean you then to maintain such a fundamental and pernicious error as darkens the glory both of Christ's person and office, and defaceth the new testament? with what conscience can you say that we are tied in the cords of our sins, and are consequently to be rejected as a false Church, because we repent not of an unknown sin, unknown to us, and so controversial, that no minister of Chtiste on earth can discern the same: you being the only teacher that dare affirm such a thing?  
3. Suppose we were tied in the cords of our sin, for want of this particular repentance, which you require: yet doth it not follow that communion with us is unlawful: for the truth which we profess; for the true worship which we practise at this present; and at lest for their sakes among us, which never were members of the Church of England, some favour and felllowship should be yielded unto us by you. Our Saviour hath taught us to hold communion with wicked men, for the godly sake that were among them: yea with such as were tied in the cords of their sin, with such as did manifestly 
e joh. 8.21 59 with Luk. 22.7.8.  live and die in their sins, without repentance. Why do you then seek to lead men into the crooked path of schism contrary to the example of Christ? As in the former answer the height of your heresy was discovered so in this the depth of your schism is manifestly discerned, in calling men to separate not only from the practice of sin, but also from the true worship of God, upon pretence of some unrepentant persons, which might pollute you with their fellowship therein. As for the scriptures alleged by you, viz. Act. 20.21, and 26.18. Luk. 13.5. Mark. 1.15. They show indeed that men aught to repent, but there is not a word or syllable in them, that sounds to call us unto separation from such as do not repent. These scriptures are all abused by you: and touch not the question.  
4. Consider how by this manner of reasoning you contradict yourself: for whereas you acknowledge the Reformed Churches notwithstanding your separation from them, to be 
f Counterpo. p. 49.  true Churches & your brethren in Christ, and yet by your profession hold them to be tied in the cords of their sin, because they do not repent of diverse sins, which in your confession, dedicated unto their universities, are convinced to be evil, as you imagine I would now know of you, why our want of repentance makes us to be a false Church rather than them; especially, why more than the Dutch and French Churches of this city, whom you note to be tied in many cords of sin, whiles you 
g Ans. to Th. wh. p. 78.79.  charge them with the transgression of so many laws of God, for which they do not repent.  
5.  Mr. Robinson and his people do now (as diverse of themselves confess) receyve the members of the Church of England into their congregation, and this without any renunciation of the Church of England, without any repentance for their Idolatries committed in the Church of England: how can you hold them to be a true Church and communion with them lawful: seeing that by your reasoning they are tied in the cords of their sin, as well as we; their guiltiness is upon them, though they have removed their dwelling, and though they practise their Idolatries no more? At every turn your partiality appears. Paul 
h 1. Timon 5 21.  charged Timothy before God, and the Lord jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, that he should do nothing partially how little do you regard this vehement obtestation? How will you answer it before the Lord and his Angels in that great day?  
6. This your reasoning serves to bring confusion and dissipation upon your own particular Church: for it is manifest according to your own profession that there are many known sins among you unrepented off and to omit a multitude of others which I could name, consider but these: It is well known that some of your people do hear sermons in Idol-temples as you call them, and though you pled against me, that this is a heinous sin, yet you do now suffer it practised among you. Your Elder john Decluse alleged this among the rest for one cause of his separating from the french church, viz. because they suffered the party innocent to retain the offendant that had committed adultery & to live still together: & heretofore (as you 
i Ans. to Th. wh. p. 32.  confess) it was the practice of your Church to excommunicate the innocent parties that would forgive the offender either husband or wife upon their repentance in such case: since that time you confess also that your judgement is altered touching this matter, yet so that some of you are still persuaded that your former judgement and practice was just. Of those that are so minded I ask how they can (according to your reasoning against us) hold communion where such scandals and abominations as in their persuasion deserve excommunication, are yet openly tolerated without repentance. As for your Elder Decluse in special, if he be one of them that have altered his judgement, why doth he not acknowledge his fault unto the French Church for alleging unto them such an unjust & unsound cause of his separation from them? If he have not changed his judgement, how can he & the rest that are of his judgement retain fellowship, where judgement and and justice is openly perverted, where excommunicable crimes are contrary to the word of God covered & maintained? we have here just cause to speak unto you as Barow doth to the ministers of England, even touching this very point, when he would show how ill they teach and keep the seventh commandment: he saith, 
k H. Barow discov. p. 182.  And that your gravest and best conscienced preachers think not themselves in this case without blame, let them examine their corrupt consciences, how many of their chief hearers and devout proselytes they know both men and women, that know such crimes each by others, and yet for filthy lucre or fleshly respects continued together. Are not their consciences rather most corrupt, that knowing such crimes by one an other, and holding them to be just causes of excommunication do hold with all that for crimes unrepented & unredressed men aught to separate, and yet contrary to their profession do live in a polluted society? May I not say unto these men even in your own words Mr. Ainsworth, that 
l Animadvers. p. 125  if they which hold otherwise in judgement, shall yet let the true practice of the Gospel go: posterity after them, being brought into bondage, may justly blame and curse them, that would not stand for the right, etc. Further when Mr. johnson in his public doctrine had expounded Mat. 18.17. contrary to your practice, and by many disputes had publicly maintained his exposition, that he might quite subvert and change the form of government long practised among you: you tell us that yet in end you offered unto him before your parting, that 
m Ibid. p. 123.  notwithstanding your differences of judgement, you would continued together, if your former practice might be retained: howsoever you cover the matter under the Phrase of difference of judgements, yet cannot you deny but that he openly taught false doctrine, and that in a matter of great weight: and that therefore he was tied in the cords of his sin, though he had abstained from the practice of his doctrine; and yet signify that you are content to retain communion with an unrepentant teacher of false doctrine. Your first offer being refused, you tell us that then 
n Ibid. p. 126.  you desire of him, that you might have a praceable parting: and to be two distinct congregations, each practising as they were persuaded, yet nourishing brotherly love and unity. If your desire had been granted, yet could you not deny, but that Mr. johnson and his people had been tied in the cords of their sin; that their guiltiness had remained upon them, both for false doctrine, change of your former government, and great scandal which in your opinion followed thereupon, and yet with these unrepentant Apostates, you profess to hold and nourish brotherly love and unity: oh extreme partiality in you, that are so ready to smother scandals among yourselves without repentance of the Authors thereof; and yet so far from nourishing brotherly love and unity with other churches of Christ, whom you cannot with any colour accuse to be so deep in sin, by forsaking the truth formerly professed. Either repent of these offers, or else think, that according to your own plea against us, your own people cannot with good conscience communicate with you, that maintain so great partiality.    

CHAP. VII. Of temples: The first argument, examined.  

Section, 1.  


Hen. Ains.  FOr the nuns Chapel, (the place where you assemble,) you need search no records: I hope you think Christ instituted no such Nuns, Nunneries, or Chapels for them: but that they belong to Satan's synagogue, in what year soever they were founded. And they being gross idolaters, their chapel was an Idolie: (as the 
a 1 Cor. 8.10.  Apostle nameth it,) or Idol house. And though themselves said no mass, yet were they partakers of the mass said by their Priests, and as is likely, within their own Cloister, as was the custom in other Cloisters: and if not for that, yet for other false Gods it was erected.  
reason 1 To our first reason against the retaining of them to be places wherein we should worship God, from Exod. 20.4 5.6. with Deut. 12.3. You answer six things.  
1. That the commandment in Deut. 12. was a temporary ordinance, part of Moses polity now abrogate, etc. To prove this, you instance an other like law in Deut. 13. for destroying an apostate city, with all the spoils thereof, etc. not now in force.  
I answer, from our Saviour's testimony, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, Mat. 5.17. so that such judicials as appertained to the moral law written on the Tables, and are of common equity to all nations, are not by Christ abrogated, touching the substance of them. Such is this law, pertaining to the 2. Commandment, and it is of common equity to all nations for to shun 
b 1. Cor. 10.14. 1. joh. 5.21 Rev. 18.  idolatry: therefore it is not abrogated by Christ. And I add, touching the substance of them: because you insist upon such manner and means as were then used. For there might be some manner and means then used, which I say not that Magistrates are now bound unto: as that all such malefactors as were then to be stoned, must be stoned now, and may dye no other death. There were laws in Israel, to cut off murderers, adulterers, and other flagitious: yet some things pertaining to murder and adultery, were peculiar to that land and people, as cities of refuge, Num. 35. the expiation of murder when the Author was not known, Deut. 21. And so for the manner of punishing adultery, by stoning, joh. 8.5. by burning, Leu. 21 9 or other ways. Now I suppose you hold, that murderers and adulterers are by virtue of God's law at this day to dye: & yet you will not affirm that they must dye only after that manner that was in Israel. Even so do I hold touching Idolaters and Idol-temples.  
To your instance from Deut. 13 I answer, that it followeth not if an other law be all or any part of it abrogated, therefore this also in Deut. 12. is so likewise: as the law for a murderer to dye, is not now abolished because of that law in Deut. 21. Secondly, you show no reason why that law in Deut. 13. should not now stand in force: the inconvenience which you object of thousand thousands of people at this day, under that judgement, is but a supposition. I presume rather on the contrary, that you cannot name one city at this day in the world, liable to that judgement: but that manifest difference may be put in sundry things, from the plain words of the law, & the common exposition of the Hebrews concerning the same. Thirdly, if any ceasing of that law be at this day urged, it cannot in equity be for the idolaters themselves, or any instruments of their idolatry, but only for their civil goods, whereof there is no question between you and me. And for particular idolaters which were to dye, as their goods were 
c Deut. 17. 2-7  not unlawful: so the Hebrews hold, that if any of those cautions failed which Moses expresseth in Deut. 13. The persons that sinned, were to be stoned as particular persons, and 
d Maimony treat. of Idolatry, c. 4.  their goods went to their heirs, & so were not destroyed with them. Fourthly, if then judicial law against idols & idolaters be abrogated; then also against blasphemers, murderers, etc. Which is the opinion of the Anabaptists, who would take the sword from the Christian Magistrate, upon the erroneous opinion that the judicials of Moses are at an end. They have all a like authority; & the abolishing of one that is of perpetual equity, overthroweth all. But th' Apostle telleth us 
e Rom. 13.  that the Magistrate hath the sword, & is God's Minister: therefore he is to use his sword according to the will of God; & that will is not to be found, but in the judgements given by Moses. How should the Magistrate punish malefactors lawfully, unless he do it of faith? for whatsoever is not of 
f Rom. 14.23.  faith is sin. And how should he do it of faith, unless he have the word 
g Rom. 10.17.  of God authorizing him? And where is the word that authorizeth him to kill murderers, adulterers, buggers, blasphemers etc. but in the judicials of Moses? It is also the doctrine of the Church of England that the Christian Prince 
h Apology (By B. jewel) c. 11. divis. 2.  hath the charge of both Tables of the Law, committed to him of God; & for his power to abolish popery, it is by them alleged 
i Ibidem divis. 3.  how God by his Prophets often & earnestly commanded the Kings to cut down the groves, etc. yet you will not admit of the same reason now brought by us; but put it off as a temporary precept, and abrogated by Christ.   

Answer.  


joa. Pa.  IN this your declaration of the Idolatrous use of the place, wherein we meet for the true worship of God, we may observe: 1, the guiltiness of your former writing; your presumption in affirming you knew not what; in saying our Chapel was built for the breaden God and other Idols; yourself do now seem to stagger about it: you now come to speak of likelihoods, & with ifs: if not for that, yet for other false Gods, etc. but if not for that, than was your former assertion false. You say, I need search no records: If I had that faculty of presuming to speak of things unknown, as you do both touching true Churches; as before in the matter of ordination; & touching the building of Popish Churches as here and afterwards again, then would I not much stand upon the testimony of any records; but love of truth and sobriety teach men otherwise: 2, even in likelihood, whereof you speak; this Chapel was not built for the worship of the breaden God in the Mass; for beside the testimony of those that keep the evidence of this building, whereof I spoke before; there is this testimony in general touching chapels: 
o Hospinian. de orig. temp. lib. 3. cap. 2  Capellae ab initio, nihil altud quam oratoria sine missa: that at the first, they were nothing else but oratory's or places of prayer without the Mass: and if this were true touching other Chapels at the first building and erecting of them, much more in likelihood for this, where their ordinary devotions were to be performed, not by a Priest, but by the women themselves, that lived alone. 3, note the idleness of that which you say, touching their Idol-worship: seeing I granted so much before, and thereupon condescended to come unto the answer of your reasons against such places of worship, after that the Idolatrous use is removed. As it is presumption to affirm that which you cannot prove, so is it vain and idle, to insist upon that which is at first yielded unto you. 4, though I think (as you hope) that Christ instituted no such Nuns, Nunneries or chapels for them, etc. yet let us not make them worse than they are: It is sin to 
p job. 13.7.8, etc.  accept the person of God: and therefore on the contrary also a sin to talk wickedly or deceitfully against the idolaters themselves. Thus therefore I hold of them, that their principal evil, (so far as they were Nuns, and distinct from other Idolatrous people one with them in their common faith,) was their Separation: This Separation was double, in the worship of God, having their Chapels apart from others; and in single life, having their Cloisters apart from the company of men. And yet in both these respects, I hold that the new Monks and Nuns of your separation are more to be condemned, than these Nuns, whose Chapel we do now use. For first, these Nuns, though they worshipped apart from those that were of the same faith with them, yet did they this without renunciation and condemning of others, but approved them as lawful worshippers of God; you on the contrary in your Monastery separate with renunciation from those that are of the same faith with you, and leave their worship as a polluted thing in all Churches save your own. Again, for separation from marriage, this kind of Nuns, whose chapel we have, were not so bad as other sorts of them. This order of Nuns, being called Bagines were not bound by vow unto single life, as other orders of them were: 
q Etymolog. Teutonic. in vocabulo. Beghijne.  Beguinae sunt mulieres religiosae, nullo voto astrictae, in sacro mulierum contubernio viventes, quandiu illis gratum est. And besides this general and public evidence, touching this order, we have also more particular testimony touching the Nuns of this place, for the confirmation hereof: But on the contrary the Monks and Nuns of your separation have a greater necessity laid upon them, touching Marriage, and are not so free: your people are not allowed to marry with any godly person either in the Church of England, or yet in these reformed Churches: but you have excommunicated diverse of your people for marrying with the members of the Dutch Church in this city: These Baguines were free to marry when they would and to whom they would of their own faith, But in your Cloister of the separation there is far greater bondage: no permission to marry with those that are of the same faith, except they be of the same Order with you.   

TO come now unto your first argument: my first answer was that the commandment Deut. 12. was a temporary ordinance, etc. Your reply is, that Christ came not destroy the law but to fulfil it, Mat. 5.17. so that such iudicialles as appertained to the moral law written on the Tables and are of common equity to all nations are not by Christ abrogated touching the substance of them. Such is this law pertaining to the 2. Commandment, and it is of common equity unto all nations to shun 
r 1 Cor. 10 14. 1. joh. 5.21. Rev. 18.  idolatry: therefore it is not abrogated by Christ. Unto this argument I answer.  
1. Your marginal quotations of scripture, do not prove that the commandment of destroying Idolatrous places is of common equity to all nations: though they teach us to shun Idolarrie. Can not idolatry be shunned, unless the places be destroyed? This you aught to have proved: This is the point: this you leave as you found. You knew well enough before, that we grant Idolatry is to be avoided, but how do you thence conclude the destruction of the place? Your pretended common equity being applied unto the places and buildings themselves is against common sense, and not a word to colour the same, in any of these allegations.  
2. whereas you add that the judicialles touching the substance of them are not abrogate: & yield unto me that Magistrates are not now bound unto the same manner and means, etc. you do herein yield me the question: and all your instances from Numb. 35. Deut. 21. joh. 8. Leu. 21.9 do serve for the further declaration hereof. For the main equity and substance of that commandment Deut. 12. is to shun idolatry: the ceremonial manner and means were by destroying and abolishing the places and buildings: even as the substance of that law Numb. 35. for defence of the innocent that kills an other against his will, is perpetual, but the respect of the place, to be fled unto at that time, doth now cease: And what is more peculiar unto the manner and means of any action, then respect of the place: either places prohibited or places commanded? As the holiness of places commanded by law, doth now cease: so the unlawfulness of places prohibited by the same la, doth in like manner cease.  
3. Whereas you grant that Magistrates are not bound unto the same manner and means, in their execution of judgement, as by the same kind of death, by burning, stoning, etc.▪ & yet hold with all, that he cannot do any thing herein of faith, without the word of God authorizing him: I would know of you which be those places of scripture, that do now authorize a Magistrate to put a malefactor to death, by any other kind of death, than those that are peculiarly noted in the law: when you have nominated such places to allow a change of the punishments, you shall then find that the very same places will also give us allowance to shun Idolatry, without destroying and abolishing the places according to the manner and means in Israel. Forget not to prove this which I say unto you, as a special help to bring you to the sight of your error.  
4. Yet let me here warn you of your too much 
r Annot. on Exod. 21.25.  inclining to the Rabbins opinions, that allow the commutation or change of corporal punishments for money, using great indulgence & giving dispensations therein, in any of those cases Exo. 21.24.25. excepting only life for life, and this even under the law itself. About this point you seem to err doubly, both in ascribing a contrary opinion to the Sadduces, which you know not but it was as well the opinion of the Pharisees, considering Mat. 5.20. with 38. as also in preferring the worse opinion: though our Saviour require private men to forgive one an other yea for life itself taken away, yet this was no warrant for judges in public to change corporal punishments for money. When you bring grounds out of the new testament for the change of punishments, seek better than such.  
For explanation of my former answer, I gave instance in a like example, Deut. 13. whereunto your first reply is: that it followeth not, if an other law be all or any part of it abrogated, therefore this also in Deut. 12, etc. Hereunto I answer, 1. you might and aught to have conceyved of that instance not as of a new argument by itself to prove the abrogation of that law in Deut. 12. but only as of an illustration to make my answer more plain and evident: considering the phrase I used in alleging it thus, for example: As God, etc. 2. Seeing there is the like reason and consequence of things that are of like nature: though it follows not that the like law of killing the murderer is disannulled, because the law of expiation in Deut. 21. is abolished: the one of these laws being ceremonial, th'other not: yet because the laws in Deut. 12. and 13. are both of them ceremonial, appertaining unto the means and manner of shunning Idolatry, they are therefore both of them by the like consequence to be held abrogated, so far as concerns the destruction of places, buildings, etc.  
Your second reply unto that instance in Deut. 13, is: that the inconvenience which I object of thousand thousands of people at this day, under that judgement; is but a supposition: that you presume rather on the contrary, that I cannot name one city this day in the world, liable to that judgement, etc. I answer.  
1. You altar my words: I objected not that thousand thousands of people at this day were under that judgement, Deut. 13. whatsoever I might have done: but I said that the goods of so many persons should be avoided as execrable things, etc. if that law were in force. This might be, though so many persons were not guilty of that sin, nor liable unto that judgement: seeing the goods of one apostate city being dispersed abroad into many cities might make their riches unclean also, & unlawful for use, so that men should not know how to traffic safely with them, either by buying, selling, etc. for fear that some of the execrable goods might cleave unto their hands.  
2. I marvel that you who have so often stumbled upon Room when you should not, do now remove it so far out of your sight: To omit other Christian cities which have degenerate from Christianisme to turcism and Heathenism: that Idolatrous and apostate Room is the city which I name unto you, as liable unto the judgement Deut. 13. if that law were still in force. Show a difference from the plain words of the la as you speak, if you can. As for the common exposition of the Hebrews, whereof you also speak, they are contrary to the law of God and not worthy to be mentioned.  
Your third reply is, if any ceasing of that law be at this day urged, it cannot in equity be for the Idolaters themselves, or any instruments of their Idolatry, but only for their civil goods, etc. I answer.  
1. If that law be ceased for civil goods, then for the buildings and temples likewise which are the civil goods of men; even as the Chapel which we use is a part of the Magistrates civil goods, and by them lent unto us. The use which we have of them in God's worship hinders not but that they are our civil goods: even our Bibles though we have a religious use of them both in public and in private worship of God, are yet a part of our civil goods also. Your meeting house serving for your religious exercises in public, is it not a part of your civil goods? Unless you did use this plea before the Magistrates in your suits about the same, I think you would not long enjoy the same.  
2. If this law cease only in respect of civil goods, than what shall become of infants and other little Children, the 
s jer. 7.18.  instruments of Idolatry with their parents? Are the Magistrates bound to slay them with their apostate parents, as your jew doctors would have it?  
3. Whereas you say that the goods of particular Idolaters which were to die, were not unlawful: What reason have you so to interpret that law, Deut. 17.7. which maketh no mention of his goods at all? And if the particular Idolater did also seek to seduce others should not the equity and proportion of the former law in Deut. 13.17. be regarded? or should the greater sin have the lesser punishment?  
4. Whereas you run for help to Maimony your fellow labourer, and allege the opinion of the Hebrews holding that if any of those cautions failed which Moses expresseth, etc. You do hereby incur the blame which you do so often impute unto others: you make flesh you arm, which yet can not save you. For 1. The Cautions which the jewish expositors do observe from Deut. 13. touching the apostate city to make it liable unto the judgement there specified, are most vain and absurd, as may be seen in the commentary of R. Solomon upon that place▪ yet your 
t Misneh. tract. abodah zarah, sive de Idololat. Cap. 4.  Maimony goes far beyond him, even in the same chapter alleged by yourself, where he writes that the apostate city doth not come within compass of that judgement: unless the persons seducing the same were two or more than two: unless the persons seducing were men and not women: unless they were men and not Children: unless the seducers were of the same city and of the same tribe: unless the persons seduced were an hundred or upward: And a number of other absurdities might further be noted out of the same Chapter, which you might well be ashamed to mention, for had you acquainted the reader's therewith, they might easily have discerned, that your witnesses were not worthy to be heard. 2. As the jewish expositions are vain in themselves, so are they also contradictory unto one an other: where as Maimony requires a hundred persons to be seduced, for one condition of this apostasy: R. josias (as R Moses mikkotsi 
u in SMG. precept affirm. 15.  recordeth) requires but ten & upward: and many other cautions are there omitted also. 3. what if the goods of these apostates upon the want of any of these cautions, did pass unto their heirs, as the Rabbins would have it? This helps you nothing, nor yet hurts me at all, while I speak of the city apostate according to the conditions expressed by Moses.  
Your fourth reply is: if the judicial law against Idols and Idolaters be abrogated: then also against blasphemers, murderers, etc. which is the opinion of the Anabaptists, who would take the sword from the Christian Magistrates, etc. I answer.  
1. In this supposition you seek to encroach upon me, as though I had maintained that the judicial la against Idolalaters were abrogated: which is not our question, but only whether the places of Idol-worship, are of necessity to be abolished: There may judgements of God be executed by Magistrates upon Idolaters to the rooting out of false worship, though some of the places be converted unto the use and benefit of the Church in the true worship of God. Here therefore you turn quite out of way.  
2. If the judicial la against Idolaters be not abrogated: then think seriously and consider whether you yourself for your former Idolatries be not the Child of death appointed to dye by the hands of the Magistrate: I mean for your apostasy (after separation) unto the Idol-worship of the Church of England, which according to your profession and judgement declared in your writings, is a most horrible and heinous Idolatry: This judicial law of Moses doth not allow any repentance unto the idolater, more than to the murderer, to save him from death of the body: and therefore you cannot pled that you are freed from the guiltiness of death, thereby. If you can find out any other distinction, excuse or plea for the saving if your own life from the sword of Moses judicial la: you shall then find out and show us such distinctions, as will serve to frustrate & put away many of your own objections against us in sundry points: see therefore that you do not slightly pass over this matter.  
3. Whereas you say, touching the use of the sword that the will of God, is not to be found, but in the judgements given by Moses: & again ask us, where is the word that authorizeth the Magistrate to kill murderers, adulterers, buggers, blasphemers, etc.▪ but in the iudicialles of Moses? It is yourself that by these erroneous speeches do exceedingly gratify the Anabaptists: for howsoever the law of Moses doth afford sufficient warrant to put these malefactors to death: yet the most pregnant and evident determinations of the judicial law, are those places of the new testament which do expressly and particularly show some of them to be of perpetual equity: for example, touching each of the malefactors here named by yourself, there is special warrant in the Gospel to execute judgement upon them: on 
x Mat. 26.52. Rev. 13.10 & 18.20.  murderers on 
y Rev. 11.8 & 9.21.  adulterers, and buggers: on 
z Rev. 13.5.11. & 17.3.4.5. compared with Rev. 14. 14-20. & 17.1.16 & 18.6.7. & 19.17.18.  blasphemers, and Idolaters: for unto such the Lord threateneth vengeance, and calls the Magistrates to execute his will upon them: And thus hath Christ declared his will unto us & hereby authorizeth the judges and princes of the earth to root out evil from among men: they have not only a general warrant to use the sword, Rom. 13 as you allege: but they have also these particular directions to show them the several causes for which they are to draw their sword: And therefore while you deny these most sure warrants, & grounds of faith for the Magistrate to proceed by, sending him only unto the judicialles of Moses, you do hereby give great advantage unto the Anabaptists, and take away from the Church of God the principal weapons whereby they should convince those heretics and defend the authority of Christian Princes against them.  
4. Whereas you allege the doctrine of the Church of England. I grant the same: that the Christian Prince hath charge of both tables of the law, and that Deut. 12. may be alleged for the abolishing of popery: I showed before that the equity of that commandment leads us to the detestation of Idolatry; and consequently of popery: yet doth it not follow that it binds us to the same manner and means of detestation, in each ceremony & circumstance of place, time, etc. These aught to have been distinguished by you.  
5. Suppose that our temples were to be pulled down by the Magistrate in the same manner that was observed under Moses policy; and that the Magistrates did offend in retaining them: yet where is your warrant, for such an offence of the rulers to separate from the worship of God in those temples? I call for your proof herein: I pray you set it down plainly & fully. This concerns the point of separation and aught to be insisted upon more than many others.     

Section 2.  


Hen. Ains.  YOur 2. exception is, that God commands to abolish their names also, Deut. 12.3. But we find Idolatrous names retained upon sundry persons: Rom. 16. Phil. 2. 'tis 3, etc.  
I answer: First than it seemeth you hold, that Magistrates are neither bound to abolish idols, nor the names of false Gods out of their dominion: seeing the law in Deut. 12. which commandeth to destroy such, is in your judgement abrogated. Wherein you come short of the Zele which is said to have been in P. Silvester the first that he 
a Polydore Virgil. l. 6. c. 4.  abhorring the memorial of the vain gentle Gods, decreed that the days of the week which had afore the names and titles of the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, etc. should be called the first, second, third, fourth ferie (or day of the week) in semblable manner as the jews (from Gods warrant Gen. 1.) counted their days from the Sabbath day. Contrary unto you, I hold that law in Deut. 12. moral and perpetual, both for false Gods, and for their Name. For as the Church of old, 
b Num. 32.38.  changed the idolatrous names of Nebo, and Baal meon: so God promised, 
c Hos. 2.17  to take away the names of Baalim out of his people's mouth, that they should be no more remembered by their name. It is also prophesied of Christ (in Psal. 16.4.) that he should not take up the names of such, into his lips. Moreover, all uncleanness should 
d Eph. 5.3.  not once be named among the saints: and if not bodily uncleanness, neither spiritual, which is idolatry. Secondly, for the meaning of that law in Deut 12.3. I understand it not to forbidden absolutely all naming of false gods; seeing Moses and the Prophets do usually and lawfully name 
e Numb. 25 3 & 21.29 judge 2.13. and 11.24.  Baal, peor, Chemosh, Ashtaroth & other idols: but such naming, or retaining of their names, as tendeth any way to the upholding of their superstition. Even as on the contrary, by the putting of the true God's name in any place, Deut. 12.5. is meant the placing of his Religion and ordinances. And as Rabshakeh honoured not the true God, when he called him by his name 
f Esai. 36.7 10.  jehovah: so neither did the Prophet's honour idols, or sin against the Law in Deut. 12 3. when they mentioned their names which were set upon 
g Deut. 3.29.  places, 
h Esai. 37.38.  temples, and 
i Dan. 3.26 & 4.8.9.19  persons of men. So then for your allegation of names mentioned by the Apostle; First how prove you that those names, were at first given them in any respect of honour to the idols of the heathens? If you say, the notation of their names showeth it: that say I is insufficient. For why may not Hermes in Rom. 16.14. have his name of Hermes Trismegistus the Philosopher, as well as of Hermes the God Mercury? Or, without respect of either of them, of the notation of the name, an Interpreter? Why should Phoebe in Rom. 16.1. have reference to the heathen Goddess, rather than to the Moon, or to the signification of the word, which is chaste, or Pure; and which might in that respect, be a common name to many women? We find that Bel or Beel, was the name of an 
k Esai. 46.1  Idol: and in Beel-zebub it is the name of a false God, 2. King. 1.2. But when David named his Son 
l 1. Chron. 14.7.  Beel-jada; will you say he had reference to any idol: or rather simply to the common use and signification of that word? So for our times, you will not I hope deny but the Papists sin against Exod. 20. and Deut. 12. while they make and maintain images of S. Peter, S. Paul, S. james, etc. and erect temples to their honour, and name them S. Peter's Church, and the like. Yet when men give their Children civil names, of Peter, james, etc. must they needs herein communicate with the Papists idolatry? Or when a man is named George, must this name respect S. George the old idol of England and if we lived under Moses polity, would you say men sinned against Deut. 12.3. in giving such names: yea that whosoever calleth them by those names which their parents gave them, did break that law in Deut. 12? Wherefore it is yet for you to prove, that Paul in mentioning Phoebe, Hermes, and others by their common known names, did contrary to that commandment in Deut. 12.3. if it stand in force at this day. Again, the offices and names of Pope, Abbot, Monck, Friar, etc. are Antichristian, and to be banished out of Christ's Church, (as the name 
m Zeph. 1.4  of the Chemarims,) so that none of his ministers may in respect of their offices, be named a Pope or an Abbot, a monk or a friar: I hope you will not deny this. How be it, such ministers as have their civil names Pope, or Monck, or Abbot or Friar; may lawfully retain and be called by those names: yea though we were under Moses law, which you think is abrogated.  
But were it certain, and so granted that those in Rom. 16, etc. had their denomination of heathen Gods: it followeth not, that the law in Deut. 12.3. forbiddeth to mention them by their names: for Daniel was named Belteshazzar, 
n Dan. 4.8.  according to the name of Nebuchadnezars' God: yet the Prophet mentioneth this his own name, and the names of 
o Dan. 2 49 & 3.16.23 & 4.19.  Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego, which were likeweise idolatrous. So he speaketh to Nebuchadnezar, and to Belshazzar (named of their Gods 
p Esai. 46 1  Nebo and Bel,) and calleth them by those names, Dan. 2.28. & 3,16 & 5.18.22. Now Daniel who was so godly, as he would not break the ceremonial law of Moses in meat and drink, Dan. 1.8. would not have mentioned those idolatrous names, if that had been the meaning of the law in Deut. 12.3. which you would enforce. So this your 2. reason doth not yet prove that law to be abrogated.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  Unto my second answer touching the names of diverse Idols retained in the persons thereupon denominate in the new Testament, as the names of Mercury, Venus, Phoebe, jupiter, Apollo, Fortuna, etc. your first reply is, that then it seemeth I hold, that Magistrates are neither bound to abolish Idols, nor the names of false gods out of their dominions, etc. I answer.  
1. It is not altogather as it seems unto you: though I hold that law in Deut. 12. to be abrogate as touching the strict manner and means of abolishing Idolatry, yet hold I also that the equity of the same law teacheth Magistrates, to abolish both names and other monuments of Idolatry so far as they are not of necessary use: my exception in this place was not of the Magistrates duty, but of the people's retaining of these names, opposite unto your opinion, who teach that both Magistrates are still bound to destroy, and people also to forsake those things mentioned in Deut. 12. whereas on the contrary I show that the saints and faithful brethren in the new Testament did not forsake but still retained and carried the names of diverse Idols.  
2. Whereas in this first reply you object the testimony of Polydore Virgil, and the example of Pope Sylvester, saying, that I come short of the zeal which, etc. You do here again make flesh your arm, as before the flesh of the Infidel jews for your right arm, so here the flesh of blind Papists for your left arm which you stretch out against me: but 1. as for Polydore know you not that he is a fabulous writer, full of falsehood and forgery? read but those things that go a little before, or follow after this allegation which you bring from him and you shall easily discern the same; besides other manifold instances that might be brought for proof hereof: what mean you then to bring such notorious liars for your witnesses? yea even in his story of this Pope in particular, he is taxed by 
a joh. Bale Pageant of Popes, lib. 1 in Silvest. 1  better historians as a flatterer of this Sylvester, as the pope's parasite, etc. 2. As for Sylvester himself, neither do I come short of his zeal, for though I hold that private Christians are not bound now to change their names, (no more than your Sylvester a member of your Church, though this his name have been the title of sundry Popes, that were great Idols universally adored) yet do I hold that Magistrates should abolish Idol-names being of no use. 3, you have no such cause to commend the zeal of this Sylvester, who though he be said to have changed some particular names of the days, yet is he therewithal noted to have turned them unto an other Idolatrous name of ferie, which the heathens used to express their Idolatrous worship and feasts: feriae, a feriendo victimas: I could wish Christian Magistrates to go further than he, though in the mean time, I see no warrant for you and your people to change the names of days and Months in your speech and writings as you use to do: in such manner that many do not understand you.  
3. As for the promise of God Hos. 2.17. to take away the names of Baalim, etc. It was then performed for the substance of it: when Idol-worship was removed from them; even as on the contrary, the name of God, is said 
c Psal. 44.20.  to be forgotten, when false worship is set up. God might be true in accomplishing that promise, though the names of persons were not changed in such manner as in Numb 32.38. Therefore those two places should not be so strictly matched together. Thus also is that 
d Ps. 16.4.  prophesy concerning Christ to be understood: viz. that he would not take the names of the Idols into his mouth in any act of honour unto them, or in any unnecessary use. And thus also is that exhortation of the Apostle Eph. 5.3. to be understood of us.  
In the second place you come to show the meaning of that law Deut. 12.3. & therein, 1. you do needlessly and superfluously allege diverse scriptures, to prove that all naming of false Gods is not absolutely forbidden; for that is no part of our question, neither have I in any place denied the same. 2. Your interpretation is insufficient when you do so generally and confusedly tell us that such naming or retaining of their names, as tendeth any way to the upholding of their superstition, is forbidden; but do not tell us by what retaining of their names men do uphold their superstition: whereas in a just exposition you should distinctly and particularly have determined, whether the bearing of their names, as Phebe, Mercury, Fortune, or the like be a means to uphold their superstition; or if not that, what other retaining of their names.  
After these general replies, you come to speak of some of the Idolatrous names retained in the new Testament: & therein, 1. You do idly and impertinently ask me, How I prove that those names, were at first given them in any respect of honour to the Idols of the heathens? For what though the names of vile Idols were not given to that intent unto any person by his parents, at the first, could not then the retaining of such names in the time of the law be a transgression of that commandment Deut. 12 3 or doth this respect of the name-giver altar the law? herein you seem to stumble at the stone which the Papists do so often fall upon, namely in seeking to justify their actions by their good respects and intents.  
2. To your question of Hermes in Rom. 16.14. I answer, suppose he had his name either of Hermes Trismegistus, or of the notation of the name, an Interpreter: yet doth it not therefore cease to be the name of an Idol: The name of Baal, though given to diverse men: and though for the notation thereof it signify a Lord or an husband, and was 
e Esa. 54.5  sometimes given unto God, yet being also the name of an Idol, the Lord doth therefore forbidden the retaining thereof, commanding his people to 
f Hos. 2.16  call him Ishi, and to call him no more Baali.  
3. To your question concerning Phoebe, Rom. 16.1. I answer, 1. You do in vain distinguish between the heathen goddess and the moon: seeing the moon was that their goddess worshipped by them. 2, whether those that gave this name unto Phoebe had reference to the Idol, or to the signification of the name, that skills not much to the justifying of the action. Actions are to be judged of by the word of God, and not by the respects of men. If you should give unto your Children the names of Mercury, jupiter, Venus, Diana: and excuse it thus, that you had no reference unto the heathenish Idols but only to the signification of the names: could your conscience rest in this?  
4 You say, we find that 
g Esa. 46.1  Bell or Beell was the name of an Idol, and in Beelzebub it is the name of a false God, 2. Kin. 1.2. But when David named his son 
h 1. Chron, 14.7.  Beel-jada, will you say he had reference to any Idol: or rather simply to the common use and signification of that word? I answer, 1. you presume without warrant in saying that David named his Son Beel iada, we see that son hath an other name, to wit, Eliada, 2. Sam. 5.16. and 1. Chron. 3.8. how know you that Beel-jada, was the name that David chose? 2. The name of Bel and Beel are not properly Hebrew names to signify the Idol, but rather Babylonish or Syrian words; neither is it Beelzebub, as you writ, but Beelzebub in 2. Kin. 1.2. why should you think that David spoke in a strange dialect? 3. Suppose the name Beel-jada, had been given to that son at the first, yet seeing he hath an other name also, why might we not then think, that this was given as a correction of the first, as the name of jerubbaal was afterwards called 
i 2 Sam. 11 21.  jerubbesheth? 4. If David's reference to the common signification of the word might excuse him in giving the name of Baal unto his children, as you pled, then by the like reason he might have given unto other of his sons, the names of Dagon, Ashtaroth, Molech, Nebo, Chemosh & of other abominable Idols and have maintained his fact by his respect unto the notation of these names. And if this respect and reference might thus warrant the giving of a name, why might it not warrant the retaining of an Idols name, by changing the respect? And then what needed the Children of Reuben to have changed the names 
i Numb. 32 38.  of Nebo and Baalmeon, while they might have said, we have no longer reference to the Idols, but to the common use and signification of these words?  
5. Having spoken of Popish superstition performed to Peter, Paul and james, you then ask: when men give their Children civil names of Peter, james, etc., must they needs herein communicate with the Papists Idolatry? I answer, 1. your note of distinction and speech of civil names is vain: for the names of these apostles and holy men may as well be called religious names, yea and aught to be used for religious ends, serving to admonish us both of the faith, obedience and holy examples of such men that we might imitate the same, as also of the duties noted in the signification of the names: 
k Col. 4.6.  And seeing all our speech and words which we name aught to have Religious use and to serve for edification: how much more that special name whereby we are called? 2. The names of Peter, james, john and such like, as they are religious names, so are they also allowed of God and commended unto us in the scriptures for instruction and holy use: and therefore though they be abused by some, yet may they more lawfully be given unto Children, than other Idolatrous names which never received any such allowance from God. 3, as for other names of men turned into Idols, whereof you also speak, if they by the law of Moses without any sin, and without exception be given unto children: then might the most abominable Idols of the heathen be given and retained: seeing the most of their false Gods and Idols, as Saturn, jupiter, Neptune, Hercules, Isis & Osiris and the like are generally by the chiefest historians noted to have been men and women, deified, canonised and turned into Gods by the people that worshipped them and erected temples unto them. According to such expositions, the law of God might quickly have been made of no effect.  
6. Whereas you say: it is yet for me to prove, that Paul in mentioning Phoebe, Hermes and others by their common known names did contrary to that commandment in Deut. 12.3. if it stand in force at this day. I answer, 1. you pervert the question, as though I had affirmed Paul to have done contrary to the commandment, whereas I spoke of the retaining and not abolishing those Idol-names in the Saints which Paul mentioneth: Is there no difference with you betwixt the men retaining, or bearing an Idol name, for their title: and the mentioning of the same by others? Than Nabuchadnezzar, & Belshazzar did as lawfully in bearing the names of the Idols Nebo & Bel: as the Prophet mentioning their titles. 2, if the law in Deut. 12.3. standing in force did not forbidden men the retaining of the names Mercury, Venus, jupiter, Phebe, and the like wherein I instanced, then did it forbidden the use of no Idol-names, because none were more vile than these: nor scarce any manner of retaining them for the out ward action, more vile then upon the persons of the Saints, the temples of the holy Ghost.  
7. Again you object that the Antichristian names of Pope, Abbot, Monk, friar, etc. though unlawful to be given unto men in respect of their office, yet ministers might retain them as civil names, though they lived under Moses law, etc. Ans. 1, all that you here say, is a bore assertion and without proof, not to be admitted. 2, This distinction of civil names (if it be aught worth) reproves your practice, that do not retain the common and civil use of the names, given to the days of the week, but change the same. And why do you commend the needless zeal of Pope Sylvester in changing those names, when as the civil use of them without respect unto religion, might have sufficed? 3. If turning Idolatrous names unto civil use, was a sufficient warrant not to abolish them even under the law, than what needed that loss 
l 1 Deut. 12.2.3. 2. Chron. 14.3. & 17.6 & 31.1. & 34.3, etc.  in burning & breaking down temples & groves? might not they have been turned unto other profitable civil uses? Seeing the names & the places were in like manner forbidden, you may not use more indulgence in sparing one above the other. 4. If the law in Deut. 12. do not condemn the civil use of names & places abused unto Idolatry, them do you unjustly condemn our use of temples, which is for a civil help unto us as well as the seats & stools that men fit upon in the Church, and as well as the staves that old men lean upon in coming to the worship of God. We esteem all places a like in respect of holiness, using these only for civil conveniency and commodity. 5. The special warrant for the Saint's retaining those old Idolatrous names in the new Testament, is that great benefit purchased by the death of Christ, who hereby 
n Act. 10.15. 1 Cor. 10.25.26. Tit. 1.15. Rom. 14.20  purified for our use, those things which under the law were unclean and unlawful for our use; of which benefit more is to be spoken hereafter, when I come to answer your objection touching the same: where yet we are always to remember this caution that the creatures & things abused unto Idolatry, are to be forborn, save when there is a necessary use of them: as in the names of Hermes, Phebe Fortunatus and the like, which being formerly given unto private men, could not be changed by them without manifold scandals and discommodities, and therefore in that case of necessary use were lawfully retained by them. But as for your plea, of retaining Antichristian names, of Pope, Abbot, monk, etc. for civil use: it is not to be admitted under the law any more than the giving or retaining the names of Beelzebub, Baal-peor, Bel, Nebo & the like: no nor yet under the Gospel, when the case of necessity doth not excuse them: what Christian man can without scandal give such names as civil, without necessity unto his children? Therefore howsoever you do unjustly separate from the churches of God upon pretence of their Idolatry; you do now by this plea proceed to a further countenancing of idolatry; then that any godly Christian may follow your steps herein.  
Lastly, whereas you do again allege diverse places out of Daniel to prove that the law in Deut. 12.3. forbiddeth not to mention heathen Gods: you do but trifle, and turn from the question about retaining or bearing the names of Idols, unto a question about mentioning their names, which I never impugned. Can you have brought any sound matter against the question itself, you would not so often have slipped from it, even three times in this one section. As for the Idolatrous names given unto Daniel and his three friends, though he might lawfully in his story mention them: yet the law of Charity binds us to judge, that they bore and retained these names by constraint, being imposed upon them against their wills, and that they protested against them: otherwise, how could they have been innocent?    

Section. 3.  


Hen. Ains.  YOur 3. exception is, that the commandment in Deut. 12. is not universal for the place; but expressly determined and restrained to the land of Canaan, to the idols of those nations which Israel should possess; from that place they were to be cut of Deut. 12.1.2.3 even as God would have greater severity against the Canaanites, than other idolaters, Deut. 20. 10.-15.16.17. Ios. 9.6.7. etc.  
I answer, this your restraint to the idols of Canaan only, as if God would not have other idols destroyed also, is not according to the intent of the law: for be mentioneth that place, because they were to possess it: not intending that if they had possession of an other place, they should have let the idols remain, According to which equity, Magistrates now should destroy idols in their own dominions, and not thrust themselves into other people's possessions to do the like. And that this is the meaning, I manifest, first by an other like law in Leu. 18.3. where they were forbidden to do after the manner of Egypt wherein they dwelled, and of Canaan whither they should come: these lands are mentioned by occasion of Israel's dwelling in them: not that God permitted them to follow the customs of other heathens, but under these two, implied all. Secondly, I show it by other like words in that very law, Deut. 12. as when he saith in v. 2. all the places wherein the Nations which ye shall possess served their Gods: here the limitation is as well in respect of the Nations as of the Land. But that God respected not the places of those heathens only, appeareth by the execution of this law: when not only the places wherein the Canaanites worshipped false Gods, but also the places wherein the Israelites falsely worshipped the true God, were destroyed: as jeroboams temples & Altars, & other like, 2 Kin. 23,15.19. Thirdly because not the idols of Canaan only, but of all other nations, are Devils, Deut. 32.17. 1 Cor. 10.20. and therefore alike abhorred of God, and to be destroyed as abominable to men. Fourthly, because long after the destruction of the idols of Canaan, God teacheth his people the like detestation and destruction of all Idols in general, Esa. 30.22. jer. 10.11. and 51.17.18. Zach. 13.2. Ezek. 30.13. Fiftly, the Prophet speaking of the Egyptians, saith not only that God would break their images, but that he would also burn the houses of their gods with fire, jer. 43,13. wherefore the law extendeth not to the Idolies of Canaan only, as you suppose. As for God's greater severity against the Canaanites and other people's: there was cause of difference, in respect of the persons: these being come to the 
a Gen. 15.16.  fullness of their iniquity above other nations; and being Children of the 
b Gen. 9.25  curse, more than other. But between idols and idols, Divils' and Divils', there is no such difference, that God should root out some, & favour othersome: no not the idols of his own people, as before is showed; and so not the idols of Antichrist, which are 
c Rev. 9.20  devils also. And the example of Egypt confirmeth this: for God said. 
d Deut. 23.7.  Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; yet the idols and Temples of Egypt he would have burnt with fire, jer. 43.13.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  IN setting down my third answer: you do in the first place very deceitfully and unjustly repeat the same: for whereas I according to the question betwixt us, noted that the commandment for destroying idolatrous places was expressly determined and restrained to the Land of Canaan, to the Idols of those nations, etc. in stead of this, (the commandment in Deut. 12. being both against Idolatrous places, and the Idols themselves) first you omit and leave out that mention of Idolatrous places whereupon I insisted in particular, you speak generally of the Commandment in Deut. 12. and afterwards turn it in some of your answers unto the Idols themselves, as if God would not have other Idols destroyed, contrary unto my words and meaning: as the reader may see in my 
n Pag. 20.  former writing. There is a great difference betwixt these two sentences: The commandment in Deut. 12. is restrained to the destruction of the Idols of those nations, which I said not: and this, The commandment for destroying Idolatrous places is restrained to the Idols of those nations, etc. which was my answer.  
In the next place you bring 5. reasons to prove that there was no such restraint, etc. And first, you labour to manifest it, by an other like law in Levit. 18.3. where they were forbidden to do after the manner of Egypt wherein they dwelled, & of Canaan whither they should come, etc. I answer.  
1. Though God have forbidden men to imitate the manner & works of the Egyptians & other nations in their Idolatrous services and other abominable practices, as well as the Idolatries of Canaan: yet doth it not follow hence, that he hath condemned the use of the places in all alike. The law in Leu. 18.3. is not in this particular point of the place like unto that in Deut. 12. This you should have manifested, if you could.  
2. If using the place of false worshippers be a doing after their manner, then are you guilty of following the manner of the jews seeing since your separation from Mr. johnson, you have sometimes had your ordinary public meetings for the worship of God, in the same place where they have also ordinarily and publicly exercised their abominable Idolatries and false worship.  
Your second reason is taken from other like words in that very law, Deut. 12.2. all the places wherein the Nations which ye shall possess, etc. and the execution of this law in destroying the places of Idolatrous Israelites, as jeroboams temples, etc. Answ. Seeing even by your own confession and words, the limitation is as well in respect of the Nations as of the Land; all reason requires, when any commandment is described in diverse words, whereof some are more full and ample than others, that then the limitation should be understood according to those phrases that are of greatest extent: and consequently the commandment for the Land of Canaan, containing not only the particular places where the Canaanitish nations, but also the places where the Idolatrous Israelites did worship their Idols, might serve for a warrant unto josias to destroy jeroboams temples being within the Land of Canaan, 2. Kin. 23. But what is this to us that are without the, Land of Canaan? The fullest and amplest phrase in that commandment Deut. 12. doth not extend unto the places which we retain in the worship of God.  
Your third reason is, because not the idols of Canaan only, but of all other nations are Divilles, Deut. 32.17. 1 Cor. 10.20. and therefore alike abhorred of God and to be destroyed as abominable to men. I answer.  
1. Though Idols be called Devilles, yet doth it not follow from thence, that the places where they have been formerly served, may not be converted unto the use of Christians to worship God in the same: you bring scriptures to prove the antecedent of this reason, which you needed not: but for proof of the consequent you bring nothing, which you should have done: if you would have made your reason good.  
2. We know that Devilles are of 
o Mat. 17.21. & 12.45.  sundry kinds and some wicked Spirits are worse than others: as also are the Idols and the different services of them; and therefore we cannot say that they are alike abhorred of God; or that the places where they have been served are in like manner to be destroyed of men.  
3. Suppose that all Devilles, Idols and the services of them were in themselves & in their own nature equally evil; yet as the circumstance of the place doth often aggravate the sin, so God having taken and appropriated the Land of Canaan unto himself to be 
p Levit. 25.23.24.  his Land in a peculiar manner, how can you say but that the pollution of this holy Land by Idolatry, might in this regard deserve a greater detestation of all the monuments, instruments and means of such pollution?  
4. We see in 
q Mark. 16 9 Luk. 8.2.3  Mary Magdalene, that the very same breast which was first a real possession of wicked Spirits, a cage of unclean birds, and an habitation of Devilles, was afterwards sanctified to be an holy temple and habitation of God by his spirit: If the glorious and blessed God refuse not to be worshipped and devil in such a Den of Devilles after it is once purged, why should we in this respect of former pollution (having no other special restraint) refuse to worship God in such an habitation of idols, when as the Idolatry is removed, and the place purified from the former uncleanness of the Devil?  
5. If the worship of Devilles make places so polluted that no cleansing will make them fit for the public service of God, then is that place of your assembly unlawful, where you have taught the doctrine of Devilles; seeing 
r Mat. 15.9  their doctrines are part of their worship, even as the doctrines of God are a part of God's worship and service. In 
s Ans. to Mr. jacob. p. 135, 140 147.  your writings against the Church of England, to prove that they are departers from the faith, no true Christians, holding fundamental errors, teaching the doctrines of Devilles: you allege that that Church forbiddeth marriage, etc. namely, unto fellows of colleges, prentices, and to all men and women in Lent, Advent, Rogation week, etc. If this corruption draw such a heavy Burden upon the back of England, then will it bring as heavy a Doom upon your own heads, who teach the Doctrine of devilles by forbidding Marriage in a far worse manner than the Church of England doth, viz. by forbidding your people, all both men and women, to marry with the godly members of the Reformed Churches, & this not for any term of years, at any set time, but at all times: yea excommunicating such of your people as have so married with the members of the Dutch Church, setting down this marriage as one cause of your giving them to Satan: And in the cords of this sin you are still holden, wanting repentance for your evil: for this doctrine of Devilles, which is a part of their worship, according to your own reasoning, the very place where you have so worshipped is to be destroyed, and can never be cleansed unto a lawful use in the worship of God.  
Your fourth reason is, because long after the destruction of the Idols of Canaan, God teacheth his people the like detestation and destruction of all Idols in general, Esa. 30.22. jer. 10.11. & 51.17.18. Zach. 13.2. Ezek. 30.13. Answer. You do here run quite beside the question: from the Idolatrous places to the Idols themselves. And of all the scriptures that you here produce, there is not one of them that speaks a word, touching the destruction of such places, as have been abused to Idolatry but either of the Idols themselves or of other unnecessary appurtenances belonging unto them. When you show by any just consequence of argument, how they speak for you: you shall then (godwilling) receyve further answer.  
Your fift reason is, that the Prophet speaking of Egyptians, saith not only that God would break their images, but that he also would burn the houses of their Gods with fire, Ier 43.13. wherefore the law extendeth not to the Idolies of Canaan only, etc. I answer.  
1. Here indeed is speech, not only of the images, but also of their houses destroyed: and this you note so plainly and distinctly, that I wonder how you could not observe it, in your former reason, unless you did willingly wink and purposely turn away from the question. 2, there is yet in this speech no prescription or rule to bind us to deal in like manner with all other places abused to Idolatry: The destruction here noted is a judgement of God executed by 
t jer. 43.10  Nabuchadnezzar an Idolater himself, that had no conscience or regard of that commandment, Deut. 12. who did also by the like judgement of God burn the 
u jer. 52.13.  temple at jerusalem, and not only the house of the Lord, but also the King's house, and all the houses of jerusalem: So that by such reasonings as this, from the judgements of God by heathens, you might as well conclude the destroying and abolishing of private men's houses for their Idolatry: of palaces and judgements halls: and of Gods own house so often as it was defiled by Idols.  
That which I said for illustration of this point, in respect of greater severity showed unto the idolaters of Canaan themselves, in their own persons, as well as in their Idoll-places, is so plain, that in stead of refuting the same, you go about to confirm the same by bringing reasons thereof from the fullness of their sin: and because they were the Children of the curse more than other. And yet there is a further and higher cause thereof, even the hid counsel of God, and the good pleasure of his will: for others also as the jews came to 
w Mat. 23. 32-36. with 1. Thess. 2.15.16.  fullness of sin, and became the 
x Mat. 11.21.22.  Children of curse, more than other for their contempt of the Gospel: yea more than the Canaanites themselves; for the 
y Gen. 10.15.  Sidonians were Canaanites: yet was there no warrant for any thereupon to show so great severity against their persons. That which you repeat touching the difference betwixt idols and idols, devils and devils: as also touching the destruction of the temples of Egypt is already answered.    

Section 4.  


Hen. Ains.  YOur 4. exception is, seeing meats sacrificed to Idols were as much polluted as the places of their worship, and yet may now be retained for our necessary use, Psal. 24.1. with 1. Cor. 10.25.— 27. why not the temples also, contrary to the ceremony of old?  
I answer: The reason is because the abstaining from meats offered to idols, was a shadow among other shadows, 
a Col. 2.16.17.20.21. Heb. 9.10.  Touch not, taste not handle not: but the commandment to destroy idolies, was not a ceremony or shadow to be abrogated by Christ, as before is showed: but a moral precept and perpetual: and we are now plainly permitted to eat such sacrificed meat, 1 Cor. 10. and as plainly commanded still to keep ourselves from idols, 1. joh. 5,21. And such are Antichrists temples, being consecrated by many popish enchantments, unto the 
b Pontifical. de benedict. primi lap. pro ecclesia aedific.  honour of creatures; to be kept through the interceding merits of all saints and by infusion of grace, to be purified from all pollution: and to be no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven, etc. Now how these abominable places, should be by the blood of Christ, or by the word & prayer sanctified to be places for God's people to worship him in; appeareth not by Psal. 24. compared with 1 Cor. 10. but rather the contrary. For those meats offered to idols, which might be eaten sold in the shambleses, or at an infidels private table, might not be eaten in the idols temple: although such as did eat them there, knew that the idol was nothing, and thought it therefore in their Christian tibertie to sit at table there, 1. Cor. 8.4.10. and 10.19.— 22. Neither am I of your mind, that the meats offered to idols, are as much polluted as the idol or idol temple: for (if we may by the Apostles 
c 1. Cor. 10.18.  example, compare things with Israel after the flesh,) as the temple of God, was greater than the gold thereof, and the Altar greater than the gift offered thereon, being sanctified (as our saviour 
d Mat. 23.16.— 19  witnesseth,) by the temple and Altar: then by like reason, these idol-temples and altars in them, were worse than all the offerings, and did pollute the sacrifices, and not the sacrifices them. Moreover, in Deut. 12. which is the scripture in hand, you find no such commandment to destroy meats or other things offered to idols, as there is for the idols and idolies themselves: so where the law is silent, you should not speak. Finally, though it was lawful to eat Gods good creatures which the gentiles had sacrificed to idols; yet was it not lawful (by 1. Cor. 10.) to use things for that whereunto idolaters had in special manner consecrated them: but you use these Idoleys, for that whereunto idolaters 
e Bellarmin. de cultu sanct. l. 3. c. 4.  consecrated them: viz. for prayer, and for the words & Sacraments.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  IN your reply unto my fourth answer, taken from the lawful use of things sacrificed to Idols, though as much polluted as the places where the Idols were served,  
First, you do unjustly make one of these to be a shadow and ceremony rather than the other: And the places alleged by yourself do serve for your refutation. For doth not the Apostle Col. 2.21. describe the ceremonies there spoken of, as well by those words of Touch not, handle not; as by the words of Taste not? And do not men in abstaining from unclean places, observe the ceremony of Touch not; as well as they do the ceremony of Taste not, by abstaining from unclean meat? when God ordained and determined a ceremonial uncleanness, upon the 
z Numb. 19.14.  entering into the house of the dead, that men should be unclean by touching the ground of that place with their feet, as well as by handling the dead body with their hands: this shows that the ceremony of Touch not is to be observed & acknowledged in abstaining from places, as well as in abstaining from meats. This appeareth further by the 
a Levit. 13.46. & 12.4 Numb. 5.2.3. Exod. 3.5. & 19.12.  commandment of keeping unclean persons and that in diverse degrees from entering or coming into holy places, and from Touching of them, what aileth you then, that you cannot see a ceremony in abstaining from the unclean place of the dead idols, as well as in abstaining from the unclean meat of the dead Idols? And as for Heb. 9.10. doth not the Apostle as well mention carnal rites in general, as abstinence from meats and drinks in particular? And why is not the ceremony of not touching an unclean place, as well a carnal rite, as the not touching of an unclean meat? Against this you bring nothing: That which you say, you showed before, concerning the destroying of Idolies, is before answered also.  
Secondly, whereas you allege that we are still commanded to keep ourselves from Idols 1. joh. 5.21. & would show withal, that our temples are Idols, being consecrated by many popish enchantments, unto the honour of creatures, etc. I answer, 1. This kind of unlawful consecration though it be a grievous sin, yet doth it not make our temples to be Idols: you do only give us your bore word, but bring no show of scripture for proof of this point. 2, when you do bring any scripture to this end, you shall find, that the same scriptures will as well prove meats sacrificed to Idols, to be very Idols, as the places consecrated unto them: and that they will as much condemn the Idololythes, as the Idolies; seeing that the Idolothytes, or sacrificed meats are also consecrated by many heathenish and devilish rites unto the honour of creatures, as well as the Idolies or temples. 3. If our temples be very Idols, as afterwards again you speak, then with what conscience or warrant can you or any of yours frequent the same for the worship of God, as your manner is by coming unto the library of the great church in this city where I have diverse times found you? under the worship or service of God, according to your own description, is comprehended, 
b Arrow against Idolatry. Chap. 1. sec. 11.  all manner work, labour, industry of body or mind to help forward any Religious action; so that your study in the library must be acknowledged a worship of God, a gnabodah comprehending both dulias & latreia, as you note in the same place. Now as it is said of Moloch that there were many chambers in that huge Idol: so we see that Nebuchadnezzars Idol erected in the plain of Dura, being 
c Dan. 3.1.  threescore cubits high and six cubits broad in greatness like unto a stately and high tower or steeple which might contain in it many celles, chambers & rooms (though not so great as this Idol which you haunt:) and now according to your present practice and profession, if there had been a library in one of those rooms, & if you had lived in those times you would have made no scruple to have gone up into the chambers of that monstrous Idol, even for the worship of God to have sitten in the celles and studied in the library thereof. Though Ananias, Azarias and Mishael did choose rather to go into 
d Ibid. vers. 6.12.— 23.  a hot oven, then to do any honour unto that beast; yet you without fear or suspicion of doing any honour unto that fiend, would willingly in the sight of all have gone in at the door or mouth of that Image, couched in some hollow tooth, or sit in some great gut of that Devil (for all Idols are Devilles as you confess) and there have studied as in the oracle of Apollo. Yea and all this while, you would boldly have maintained your separation from all the churches of Christ, as being the one only minister in the earth, free from a polluted communion: while all other are condemned by you as defiled with the filthiness of Antichristian Idols. O Mr. Ainsworth, ponder with yourself what godly wisdom, modesty or sincerity can be in this your strange and contradictory practise and profession. If our temples be Devilles and Idols, devote unto destruction, and this of God, as you writ, how may any Servant of God imitate your example, in sitting so securely in that place over which the judgement of God and the sword of his vengeance doth hung continually, none knowing when it shall fall? As the Lord of old passing through Egypt did suddenly 
e Exo. 12.12.  destroy their Idols, so still he 
f Esa. 19.1. & 46.1.  threatens them: & their destruction is just that will tempt God and sit in the bosom of known Idols: If a sudden tumult by men, or a thunder bolt from heaven should come to dash out the brains of abominable Idols, how could you think to escape sitting as it were in the mids of the brains, studying in the books of this library in the Idol-temple as you take it? Yea, if it were but for any civil business, to do the work of any trade whatsoever, what conscionable man knowing the judgement of God against Idols, that durst make his shop in the belly of such an execrable, anathematized or damned Image? Though you have written a book, and called it, an Arrow against Idolatry, yet do you not fear, as is meet, the Arrows of God, which he hath made ready upon the strings of his Bow against the face of every Idol.  
Thirdly, where you say it doth not appear by ps. 24. compared with 1. Cor. 10. how these abominable places should be by the blood of Christ, and by the word and prayer sanctified, etc. I answer, 1. David in ps. 24. prophesying of Christ, the king of Glory; of the eternal durance of his Church, signified by the everlasting doors: of his entrance into and of his administration of that spiritual Kingdom, signified by the opening of the doors before him, and this according to your own 
g Annot. on ps. 24.7.  exposition also; doth in the beginning of the psalm show the largeness of his dominion, over all creatures and places in Sea and land, he being made 
h Heb. 1.2.  heir of all things: If therefore Christ be a King universal & a Monarch than may he be worshipped in every place, else that place should be none of his rightful dominion: If we also be 
i Rom. 8.17.  heirs with Christ of the earth, then may each place of our inheritance serve us for a place to worship the Lord in. This donation of the earth for our use being indefinite, is to be understood in the largest sense for our comfort, while no restraint is added. They that unwarrantably restrain this gift unto a civil use only, they rob both Christ and his Servants of a great part of their inheritance. 2, whereas you insist, that these meats sacrificed to jdols might not be eaten in the Idols-temple: the Apostle speaks according to the present estate of those temples, while jdolatry was still exercised in them; while those Idol-feasts were kept, which were a part of their 
k 1. Cor. 10.7 21  false worship performed unto the Idols: but what is this to the Religious use of these places purged from Idolatry and employed in the true worship of God?  
Fourthly, unto your comparative reason to prove Idol-temples worse than Idol-sacrifices, because they pollute the sacrifices and not the sacrifices them; as on the contrary the temple sanctified the gold, etc. I answer. 1, your comparison is unequal and unlike; for the sanctification of the oblations and sacrifices depended upon one temple and Altar therein: there being no other place to sanctify their offerings: but the consecration of these meats sacrificed to Idols did not depend upon any one temple or Altar: 
l Hos. 12.11.  their altars were many I as heaps in the furrows of the field: therefore a different power for consecration is to be observed. Neither is it true which you say that the Idol-sacrifices did not pollute the places: though the holy sacrifices could not so much sanctify the altar of the Lord as the altar them Mat. 23. yet might the Idols sacrifice as much pollute, the Idol-places, as the places them: because in unclean things there is often a 
m Hag. 2.13.14.  stronger working to pollute, than there is in holy things to sanctify. Yet further, that men be not deceyved in the misunderstanding of Christ's words, Mat. 23.17.19. it is also to be considered how God would that 
n Levit. 16 20. Numb. 7.10.88. 1 Kin. 8.63. 2 Chron. 29.21.24.  both altar and temple should be sanctified by the offerings, 2, suppose it were as you say, that Idol-places were worse than the Idol-sacrifices: than mark into what evils you cast yourself: Than the places where we worship are worse than the Idol-sacrifice of the Mass, worse than the sacrificing of a child unto Moloch: and communion in the true worship in one of these temples is worse than communion with the Mass or any of those abominable sacrificers offered out of the Idol-temples appointed thereunto: Than how is your apostasy aggravated hereby, when after your separation, you yielded to worship God in one of these polluted places, committing a more unclean sin then if you had yielded to hear the Mass, or to communicate in any heathenish idolothite out of the Idol-temple? Than how great is your sin still, which tolerate among you an Idolater, that daily worshippeth God in one of these temples? by this kind of reasoning, you might as well allow the members of your separate company to hear Mass, or to participate with other abominable Idolatries: Thus do you dash your feet against the stones, which you cast in our way: & crush yourself in pieces, with your own reasons returning upon your head.  
Fiftly, you say, that in Deut. 12. which is the scripture in hand, you find no such Commandment to destroy meats or other things offered to Idols, etc. I answer, 1. If I find it for you in other places of scripture, though not in that, yet have you no cause to accuse me, for speaking, where the law is silent. 2, even the analogy of that place Deut. 12. shows their destruction: for if there can be no further uncleanness and pollution showed in the places there appointed to be destroyed, then there is in the Idol-sacrifices: then doth the equity of that law require that like things should be alike destroyed. 3, we see more expressly in other places of scripture that things dedicated or given to Idols were to be destroyed: as the 
o 2 Kin. 23 11.  horses consecrated to the Sun which josias abolished: and the Charets of the Sun, which he burned with fire. 4, even yourself in this section confess abstinence from things offered to Idols to be a shadow or ceremony, etc. If they must be abstained from and not eaten them were they destroyed; whether burnt with fire, or given to the Dog, or otherwise destroyed, it skilleth not. How then do you forget yourself? 5, afterwards again in the next chapter you plainly argue that heathenish temples were to be destroyed, because they were part of their Religion and Idolatries: which you prove, because Cicero calls them holy and religious: Now I hope you will not deny but that Idolothytes or Idol-sacrifices were also a part of their religion and Idolatry, that the heathens accounted these sacrifices holy and religious, as well as their temples: and therefore it follows most plainly by your own reasoning, that they were to be destroyed as well as their temples. Thus you see there is no cause to complain of me for speaking, where yourself are not silent.  
Finally, you add, that it was not lawful (by 1 Cor. 10.) to use things for that whereunto Idolaters had in special manner consecrated them, etc. Answ. 1. It is showed before from ps. 24. with 1 Cor. 10. that we may have not only a civil but also a religious use of such things notwithstanding any such consecration. 2, though Bellarmin say, that their temples were consecrated for prayer, for the word and Sacraments; yet doth it not follow that we use them for the same things; because our prayers, preaching of the word & Sacraments are not the same with theirs; their prayers being Idolatrous invocations of creatures: their scriptures, apocryphal: their preachings, heretical; their Sacrament of Eucharist, an horrible Idol, etc. For these things they were consecrated some of them: but for these ends we use them not.    

Section. 5.  


Hen. Ains.  To your 5. exception, about the burning of the remnants of the sacrifices, etc. We do all agreed that those things with the ordinances about them, were shadows, and are abolished by Christ: and therefore no consequence can be gathered for the like outward practice now, but only for the spiritual equity.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  THough the holy things of God of old, as the remainder of the sacrifices, were to be abolished when the religious use ceased, yet can there no just consequence be gathered for the like practice now in abolishing the remainders of bread and wine in the Lord's supper: Thus much you grant; and thus far we agreed. But whereas in my answer unto you, I showed further, that God did in like manner command to abolish one as well as the other: the high places of Canaan, as the remainders of certain sacrifices: to this you say nothing. It remains therefore for you to show, why one of these commandments should still be in force rather than the other. If you think that one of these commandments is a ceremonial shadow rather than the other: though the contrary hath been already showed before, yet it may further also appear by this, because these things, viz. The abolishing of holy things after the religious use: & the abolishing of Idolatrous places after the unclean use, are commandments of like nature both for the action in themselves, and proportion unto things signified: the one shadowing out unto us a special estimation of God's ordinances, as the other shadowed out a special detestation of men's inventions.    

Section. 6.  


Hen. Ains.  YOur last exception is, that God of old appointed one only place for sacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6. Leu. 17.3.4. therefore those high places being for sacrifice, were to be destroyed, etc. but now difference of place is taken away, joh. 4.21.  
I answer: First the law speaketh of 
a Deut. 12.2.  all places wherein the nations served their Gods: so that though they were not for sacrifice, but for prayer, or other like use, they were to be pulled down. Secondly though there was to be but one place for sacrificing, yet followeth it not that that was the cause (at lest the only cause) why heathenish idols and idoleys should be destroyed: but for that they were devils, and devil's houses, and a part of their religion which God abhorreth, and men should detest, therefore were they to be demolished, as Moses showeth in Deut. 7.25.26. and Exod. 23.24. And this appeareth by jakobs practise, who 
b Gen. 35.2.3.4.  abolished idols and monuments of them, before any one place was chosen: and so did 
c Exo. 32.20.  Moses destroy the idols in the wilderness, before the Tabernacle was made. In other lands also, as 
d jer. 44.12.13. & 48.7.13. & 50 2. Ezek. 30 13.  in Egypt, Moab, Babylon, etc. where no one place was chosen for sacrifice: yet God would destroy the Idols and idol temples, for detestation of them. Thirdly, If we look upon the thing figured by that one place, it will lead us from these idol temples now, rather than to them. For principally the Temple of old, figured 
e joh. 2.19.21.  Christ: secondarily the 
f 2. Cor. 6.16.  Church of Christians. In both respects we should avoid to worship God under the shadow of the idols of Antichrist: for the Apostle saith, 
g 2 Cor. 6.15.16.  what concord hath Christ with Belial? and (of the Church he saith) what agreement hath the temple of God, with idols? So the type of one place, helpeth you nothing. Not more will the taking away of the difference of place; which you last insist upon. For our saviours words (in joh. 4) aught in reason to be expounded according to his Father's law, not against it, even by his own doctrine, Mat. 5.17. So that when idols and idolies are destroyed as God commanded, and the typical sanctity of jerusalem is ended: then are all places free to worship God in, in spirit and truth. And seeing Christ, to bring in the true spiritual worship, would not only end, but even 
h Dan. 9.26.  destroy the city & the Sanctuary, which once were holy: how can we think, that he would have the idolie of the Samaritans stand understroyed: or the abominations that his enemy Antichrist should afterwards erect? And the text itself, if it be considered, teacheth not otherweise. For first, it showeth that God shallbe worshipped, 
i Ioh 4.21.  neither in the mount of Samaria (where they committed idolatry) nor in jerusalem, (where the typical worship had been for a time.) Whereupon it followeth, that Antichrist having erected temples for idols, in imitation of jerusalems' temple purposely in the parts and Shape, as the 
k Bellarm. de cultu sanct. l. 3. c. 3.  Papists acknowledge: and conjured them with more Popeholy rites, and for more irreligious uses, than there were holy rites and uses of Solomon's temple, as is to be seen in the Pontifical: we are rather to conclude, that God is not to be worshipped in them. Secondly, Christ there teacheth all men to worship God 
l joh. 4.23.24.  in spirit and truth: which are opposed both to the figurative worship of the jews, and false worship of the gentiles but Antichrists temples are a part of the false worship which he hath forged as the gentiles did of old (as shall anon be more fully manifested:) therefore Christ by those words, rather calleth us from them then unto them, by his doctrine in joh. 4. Thirdly, we cannot in reason think, that there should be more indifferency of place now, then there is indifferency of other things, seeing th'Apostle saith 
m Tit. 1.15  unto the pure all things are pure: whereupon you may as well conclude a lawful use of popish garments, images, and other things of his religion, as of his idol places. And so the minister may wear a cope, mitre, surplice, etc. in his ministration (which the Pope appointed in imitation of the Levitical priestly garments) as well as minister in a popish sanctuary; and all other his abominable rites, may be retained of us Christians in our Churches, by as good reason as the temples of his ahomination. Which is as contrary to Christ's intendment in joh. 4. as darkness is to light. And thus Deut. 12.2.3. compared with Exod. 20.4.5 6. is of force to throw down idols and idol temples, notwithstanding all that you have said to uphold them. And according to your manner of pleading for idolies, the Corinthians, (whom Paul convinced of sin for eating in the idolie, 
n 1. Cor. 10 18.  by an argument of Israel's practice) might also have pleaded, that those things concerned Israel which were a special people separated from all other, and they were bound to eat of the sacrifices before God's sanctuary only, one peculiar place: but now, the earth is the Lords and the plenty thereof, all places are alike, all idols are nothing, & were by them so known & esteemed. And even as you pled against Deut. 12. which is an explanation of the 2. Commandment: so 
o Bellarm. de Imagine. l. 2. c. 7.  some Papists have also pleaded against the 2. commandment itself, that it was a temporal precept, and that now under the new Testament images are lawful.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  MY last answer to your first reason, was this, that there is not the like reason to abolish the buildings abused unto Idolatry now, as the high places of old, because God having then appointed one only place for sacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6, etc. Leu. 17.3.4. Those high places being for sacrifice were to be destroyed, though no Idolatry had been committed in them; but being polluted with the service of Idols, there was then double cause of their destruction, which is not now in these, while difference of place is taken away, joh. 4.21.  
Your first reply unto this, is: that the la speaketh of all places wherein the nations served their Gods: so that though they were not for sacrifice, but for prayer, or other like use, they were to be pulled down. I answer again, 1. though Moses speak generally of serving their Gods, yet this shows not that they had any place of solemn worship, wherein they did not sacrifice also: The high mountains, hills, and green trees, whereof Moses speaks were the ordinary places, where they did sacrifice as appears throughout the 
p 2. Kin. 17.8.— 11. & 1 Kin. 22.43. Esa. 57.5.6.7. jer. 3.6. with 17.2.3. Ezek. 6.13. & 20.28. Hos. 4.13.  scriptures: And the Israelites following the manners of the heathens herein also, did offer sacrifices in their own private 
q 2. Kin. 23.12. jer. 19.13. Zeph. 1.5.  houses unto the host of heaven and unto other false Gods. 2. Even you yourself have not brought any one instance or show of proof to manifest unto us, that these idolaters had any set places of worship either public or private, wherein they did not sacrifice as well as they prayed or performed any other service. And what weight is there then in a mere conjecture and supposition, against a common and general practice described unto us by the testimony of holy writ?  
Your second reply is, that though there was to be but one place for sacrificing, yet followeth it not that that was the cause, (at lest the only cause) why heathenish idols and idoleys should be destroyed, but for that they were devil's and devil's bouses, etc. I answer, 1. I said not, that the commandment for one place of sacrifice, was the only cause why Idol-places should be destroyed; your denial thereof is idle and beside the matter; and tends to deceive your reader, in making him to think that I had affirmed the same. 2, that the commandment of a peculiar set place of sacrifice was one cause it may appear by the coherence of the text and by the opposition betwixt the actions specified in Deut. 12. for whereas the destruction of the Idolatrous places is commanded vers. 2.3.4. the using of one place alone which God should choose to put his name there, is also immediately taught & appointed in the same place, and in the vers. 5. next following 3, as for their being devils houses, which you allege as the cause of their destruction, that is without warrant, as hath been showed before: and may further appear by this: because then every private Idolaters house, yea and every obstinate sinner's house should be destroyed, and be unlawful for use, seeing all such persons are called 
r joh. 6.70. & 8.44. Act. 13.10.  devilles and Children of the devil and therefore their houses, devilles houses. 4, those two places of scripture Exod. 23.24. Deut. 7.25.26. are in a double regard misalledged by you, for first they speak not a word for the abolishing of Idolatrous places, which is the question: but only of the Idols themselves; and secondly, if they did speak of abolishing the places, yet doth it not thence appear, that it should be upon this ground, because they are devilles houses, which is the point, that in this place remains to be proved of you. 5, As for jaakobs practise, Gen. 34.2.3.4. there is nothing said touching the destruction of any place defiled by Idolatry, but of other things of less necessary use, of which more is to be spoken hereafter, where that scripture is again alleged by you. And what mean you to tell us of Moses destroying the Idol, or gold Calf Exo. 32.20. as though there were no difference betwixt an Idol and the place where it stood? How often do you turn away from the question of the place, to an other question touching images themselves? 6. As for the destruction of Idols and Idol-temples in other lands also as Egypt, Moab, Babylon, etc. where no one place was chosen for sacrifice: touching that which was done in Egypt, jer. 43.12.13, and Ezek. 30.13. you have been answered already in the third section going before: And yet further you may observe this, that if the fact of Nabuchadnezzar in destroying Idolatrous countries and houses may thus be alleged as a rule to be followed of necessity, you may as well pled that the houses of other sinners are to be destroyed and not to be dwelled in, because of his and other prince's decrees to 
s Dan. 3.29 Ezra, 6.11.  pluck down and deface them for blasphemy, hindering the building of temple, etc. Than aught you not to have used that place which the blasphemous jews had once possessed and inhabited before you. Touching Moab & Babylon, jer. 48.7.13. & 50,2. The prophet saith nothing there touching the places themselves, but only for the Idols Chemosh, Bel, Merodach: of which our question is not. And in sum touching all these nations together, though no one place was chosen in them for sacrifice; yet seeing one place was chosen then in jerusalem for all the godly in the world to sacrifice in, and no other allowed for sacrifice in any of these nations: even in this respect also the use of such places, were double unlawful at that time, once for their sacrifices, and again for their Idol-sacrifice.  
Your third reply is, that if we look upon the thing figured by that one place, it will lead us from these Idol-temples now, rather than to them, etc. But I answer, though Christ and his Church were figured by the temple of old: though Christ have no concord with Belial, nor his Church any agreement with Idols, as you allege from 2 Cor. 6.15.16. yet what is this to the use of those temples from whence Belial and the Idols are cast out? Though a Legion of devilles have dwelled in any living temple or other place, yet when they are cast out and dispossessed, cannot Christ enter in and devil there, unless he hold a concord and agreement with them? That no agreement is to be had with Belial and Idols, we grant willingly, but that the worship of God in the places whence they are cast out is an agreement with them, we deny: for proof of this, which is the point, you have said nothing at all.  
In the next place you reply diverse things also touching the difference of place which is now taken away john. 4.21. You say,  Christ, to bring in the true spiritual worship, would not only end, but even 
t Dan. 9.26  destroy the city and the sanctuary, how can we think, that he would have the idolie of the Samaritans stand undestroyed; or the abominations that his enemy Antichrist should afterwards erect? I answer, 1. For that place, Dan. 9.26. though the Angel Gabriel there show that the sanctuary should be destroyed, yet doth he not show that it was unlawful for Christians afterwards to have met together for the spiritual worship of God in the same place: And therefore that kind of destruction is nothing to the purpose, being nothing like unto that which you pled for, even to the removing of the lawful public worship of God, for ever out of the place defiled by Idolservice. 2, as Gabriel foretells the destruction of the sanctuary, so in the very same verse he foretells the slaughter of the Messiah: both these were to be done by the providence of God, according to the determinate counsel of his will; neither of them according to his law by any warrant of his word, but both of them by the authority of the cruel and wicked Romans, which both destroyed the temple and slew Christ: Their fact in destroying the temple was abominable, even 
t Dan. 9.27 with Mat. 24.15. & Luk. 21.20.  the abomination of desolation: so that if you have no better arguments for throwing down our temples, than this example; your destruction of them shall be but an abominable desolation, without any warrant of God's word. 3, The Angel in this place doth show the will of God as well for the destruction of the city itself as of the sanctuary: so that for aught in this place, you might as well have collected and concluded the destruction of Idolatrous cities and the private houses of Idolaters, as the destruction of the temples abused unto Idolatry.  
But for the confirmation of your opinion, you pled further from that text joh. 4.21. and say, First, it showeth that God shallbe worshipped, neither in the mount of Samaria (where they committed Idolatry) nor in jerusalem, (where the typical worship had been for a time.) whereupon it followeth, that Antichrist having erected temples for Idols, in imitation of jerusalems' temple purposely in the parts and shape as the Papists acknowledge, etc. we are rather to conclude that God is not to be worshipped in them. I answer, 1. The denial of worship in the mount of Samaria and jerusalem, is not absolute, but the meaning is that men should not be tied to those places; and therefore Christ opposeth not any other local place unto those two, but only opposeth the manner of worship in spirit and truth, which might be now in any 
u 1 Tim. 2.8.  places without exception. 2, Though our temples had been made liker unto the temple in jerusalem then they are: yet doth it not follow that it is unlawful to worship God in them: for proof of this consequence you bring nothing: And as for the consecration of them and your testimony of Bellarmine, they are to be examined in the next Chapter, where you repeat the same at large.  
Secondly, you pled from joh. 4.23.24. that Christ there teacheth all men to worship God in spirit & truth: which are opposed both to figurative worship and false worship, etc. I answer, though Antichrists temples in his use of them are a part of his false worship: yet doth not that pollute us in our use of our own temples, being quite contrary unto his. The jews temple wherein you worshipped God after them, was in their use of it a part of their false worship, (as is anon more fully to be manifested,) was your use of it therefore condemned by joh. 4?  
Thirdly, you pled, that we cannot in reason think, that there should be more indifferency of place now, then there is of other things, etc. I answer, that we are to distinguish betwixt things of necessary use and other trifles: A place for the worship of God is of necessary use: and those which we have are of great conveniency for us, being civil helps in the service of God: & therefore we use them with good conscience, seeing all things are pure unto the pure, Tit. 1.15. But as for cope, mitre, surplice, and such like we do justly refuse and reject them, being vain inventions that are of no necessary use at all in the service of God.  
Whereas you say further, that according to my manner of pleading for Idolies, the Corinthians (whom Paul convinced of sin for eating in the idolie, by an argument of Israel's practice) might also have pleaded, that those things concerned Israel which were a special people, etc. I answer, that you compare things together very grossly: for Paul convinced the Corinthians of sin for eating in the Idol-house with the Idolaters, at that time and place when they did instantly commit Idolatry, those Idol-feasts being a part of their worship, as hath been showed before from 1 Cor. 10.7.21. but you in vain seek to convince us of sin for the lawful worship of God in those places from whence the Idols and Idolatry are removed: Now I pray you, what proportion or similitude is there betwixt these two things: viz. Communion in the true worship of God with the faithful in a place purged from Idolatry; which is our case: & Communion in an Idol-feast an Idolatrous worship, this with heathenish Infidels, even in the place where the Idols stood, and were presently worshipped; which was the case of the Corinthians? Let him that readeth judge, whether the Corinthians could make the like plea for themselves that we do.  
Finally as for your comparing of our defence unto the plea of some Papists in expounding the second commandment itself to be a temporal precept, which opinion of Catharinus even Bellarmine himself refuted in the place alleged by you: I answer, that any jew might as lawfully tell you the same, and say unto you, even as you hold and pled for the abrogating of the sacrifices and ceremonies of the law: so some Papists have also pleaded against the second commandment itself, that it was a temporal precept: If his comparison should be unjust against you: so is yours against us.     

CHAP. VIII. The Second reason concerning temples, examined.  


Hen. Ains.  Our 2. reason against them is, Because so long as they are continued, Antichrist with his abominations is not wholly abolished, as the Lord hath appointed, and will effect in his time, Rev. 17.16. and 18.11.12.13. 2. Thess. 2.8. 2 King. 10.26.27.28.  
This argument you deny: and say, The 3. first allegations show that Antichrist shallbe consumed: but they show not that our Temples are any of his abomination. The 4. allegation is taken (you say) from the policy of Moses, that is now abrogate.  
I answer; if we had brought this reason against the Mass, or any other of Antichrists synns, you might even as well have denied our argument, and be a pleader for all popery: seeing the Mass itself is not named in any of those places, more than his temples. But if they show that he (with his abominations) is to be abolished, as you deny not: it will soon appear that your temples are a part of them.  
First therefore, the text 
a Rev. 18.11 12.  mentioneth the merchandise of the whore, which no man should buy: naming Gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, byss, purple, scarlet, etc. Vessels of wood, brass, iron, marble, etc. Here I hope you understand not these things of merchandise properly, but (as is throughout the Revelation) to be an allusion to the Prophets, and in this place to the merchandise of 
b Ezek. 27.  tire. For you that are so large for the pope's idols and idoleys, if there may be any necessary use of them; it is not to be thought that you willbe so straight as to forbidden men to buy these civil wares of Papists, or merchants now to trade with Spain or Italy. Secondly then, to prove that your temples are Antichrists Merchandise, and none of the meanest: I will bring you into the Pope's own aware house, his Roman Pontifical, and other shops of his, where you may see it with your eyes. And first by the decree of Pope Nicolas, 
c De consecr. dist 1. c. Ecclesia.  it is not lawful for any man to build a Church or temple, without Commandment or leave of the Pope and Apostolic See. Than, unto the place where a temple is to be built, & where a cross is set to hollow it, cometh 
d Pontifical. de bened. primi lapidis pro ecclesia aedific.  a Bishop with his Mitre, and sprinkleth the place with holy water, and prayeth God to visit that place, through the interceding merits of the Virgin Marie, and S t. N. (naming the he saint or she saint unto whose honour and name the Church shallbe founded) and all other saints: and by infusion of his grace, to purify it from all pollution, etc. Than they say, the stone which the builders refused, that is become the head of the corner: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: Glory be to the Father, etc. Than sprinkling the stone with holy water, and graving the sign of the cross upon it: he prayeth God to bless that creature of stone, that it may be a saving remedy to mankind: and that whosoever shall afford help with a pure mind to build up that Church, may have both health of body, and cure of soul. Than placing that first stone on the foundation, with cross in the name of the Father, &c. it becometh a place destinate for prayer: and they sing, How fearful is this place! surely this is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven, etc. When the Church is builded, and is to be dedicated; 
e Pontifical. de eccles. dedicat.  the Archdeacon is to signify to clergy and people, that they fast before it be consecrated, and so must the Bishop do that consecrateth it. And the evening before, the Bishop prepareth the relics which are to be enclosed in the Altar, putting them in a vessel, with three grains of frankincense, and a writing on parchment signifying whose relics are there enclosed, and to whose honour and name, the Church and Altar is dedicated, etc. In the morning, they make ready holy chrism, holy oil, two pound of frankincense, a censer, ashes, salt, wine, an hyssop sprinkle, five little crosses for the Altar, two vessels of holy water: and they paint twelve crosses on the wall. The Bishop conjureth the salt, sprinkleth the holy water, and then they sing, Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shallbe clean, etc. The house of the Lord is founded on the top of the mountains, and exalted above all hills, and all nations shall come unto it, etc. The Bishop with his pastoral staff, smites the Church door, saying, Lift up your gates ye Princes, and be ye lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in: and a Deacon that is locked within, saith, Who is this King of Glory? The Bishop answereth. The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in war. Than going about the outside of the Church, he cometh and knocketh the second time, with like words: and so again the third time, & then he addeth, Open, Open, Open. Than the door is opened, and he goeth in with his clerks, (having first made the sign of the cross to drive away all phantasms) and he saith, Peace be to this houses: the Deacon answereth, By thy coming in: and all say, Amen: and sing, Everlasting peace be to this house, etc. Than ashes are sprinkled on the Church floor, & the Bishop with his pastoral staff, writeth on the ashes, the Greek and Latin Alphabets. He blesseth water with salt, ashes and wine: conjuring first the salt, that it may drive away the Fiend, and may profit them that take it, to health of soul and body: and conjureth, the water, to repel the Devil from the borders of the just, and that he be not in the shadow of that Church: he prayeth the Lord to power out the holy Ghost into that his Church and Altar, that it may profit to health of Body & soul unto them that worship him: to sand an Angel from heaven, to bless and sanctify those ashes, that they may be an healthful remedy to all that implore his name: and that they which sprinkle themselves with it for redemption of synns, may perceive health of body and protection of soul. He blesseth the wine, and maketh a mixture of water and wine and salt & ashes for the consecrating of that Church and Altar: and prayeth God to sand the Holy Ghost upon that wine, to profit the consecration of that Church: to sand a shower of grace upon that house, to give all good, repel all evil, destroy the Devil: that to the visitors of that house, there may be peace: that he will bless & keep that Habitation by the sprinkling of that water mixed with salt, wine and ashes: that he would repel darkness from it, infuse light, that it may be Gods own house, and the Fiend may have no leave to do hurt therein. Than they sing, this is God's house, firmly builded, well founded on the firm rock: this is no other but the house of God, and gate of heaven. They pray God to infuse his grace on that house of prayer, that the help of his mercy may be felt of all that there call on his name: that his eyes may be open to that house day & night: that he would favourably admit every man that comes to adore him in that place: that there the Priests may offer sacrifices of praise, the people may pay their vows: that in that house by the grace of God's spirit, the sick may be healed, the blind cured, Lepers cleansed, Divils' cast out, and the bonds of all synns unloosed. Than call they the saints of God to enter into the city of the Lord, for a new Church is builded for them, where the people aught to adore God's Majesty. Than the Bishop makes a short Sermon to the people, of the virtue and privileges of the dedication of the church, of Tithes, and other ecclesiastical fruits to be paid etc. and so the founder and people promise' to fulfil the Bishop's commandments. Indulgences are granted to all faithful Christians, for one year: and in the yearly day of the consecration of that Church, 40. days indulgence to all that visit it. They pray that God would enter into his house, and that that house which is made solemn by that dedication, may be made high by his habitation. And the Bishop saith, this temple be hallowed and consecrated, in the name of the Father, & of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to the honour of God, and of the glorious virgin Marie, and all saints, and the memory of S. N. Peace be unto thee. Than consecrateth he all the clotheses, garments, etc. for that Church: and prayeth God to illustrate by his habitation that Temple of his Majesty: to grant that all which shall come thither to pray, out of whatsoever tribulation they cry unto him, may obtain the benefit of his consolation. These temples, whose adorning consisteth 
f Bellarmin. de cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 6.  partly in the very frame or fabrik, partly in the images, crosses, vestments, etc. are builded 
g Ibidem. c. 3.  after the form of Solomon's temple, with three parts, and the most holy towards the east, (differing therein from the jews temple, for a popish mystery) and are erected 
h Ibidem c. 4.  for 4. ends: for sacrifice, called therefore Temples: for prayer, and therefore called Oratories: for to keep the relics of martyrs, called thereupon Basilisk's or Martyries: and for to feed the people with the word and Sacraments, called therefore Churches. And to go on 
i Ibidem c. 8.  pilgrimage to these and other like holy places, is pious and religious: and they are worthily esteemed 
k Ibidem c. 5.  holy and Venerable, & endued with a divine virtue. This place, to weet 
l Durand. Rational. l. 7. c. de festo dedicat.  the material Church, is holy: for it is hallowed to this end, that there the Lord may hear men's prayers, & therefore 
m praestat orantibus sanctitatem.  it giveth holiness to them that pray therein. Now let these things speak, whether your temples be not a notable part of Antichrists abominations: & therefore by God's word & spirit (according to 2. Thes. 2.8.) and by the Magistrate's sword (according to Rev. 17.16.) to be abolished, & dealt with as was 
n 2. King. 10.  Baal's house, which example is of perpetual morality for the substance of it, & not of Moses policy now abrogate, as before I showed. If the Faith & ordinances of the gospel, be Christians merchandise, which we are called to buy, Esai. 55.1. Rev. 3.18. then are these popish ordinance & idolatries, Antichrists wares, which no man should buy, Rev. 18.11. If Solomon's temple which he builded for 
o 2 Chron. 2.6. & 6.2.20.29.  sacrifice and prayer & for God to dwell in, was a part of the jews religion, as all the scripture witnesseth: and the destroying of it by the heathens, was a sin against the true God and his ordinances, as the 79. Psalm teacheth us: if the temples also of the gentiles were a part of their religion and idolatry; as we may learn by their own testimony, calling their Temples 
p Cicero Act. 6, in Verrem.  holy and religious: by their practice, as when Antiochus appointed 
q 1. Mac. cab. 1.47.  Chapels of Idols (or Idolies) to be set up; and by their profession, as the Town-clerk of Ephesus boasted of their devotion to their goddess Diana, in that their city was her 
r Neocoron. Act. 19 v. 35.  Temple keeper or Sexton: and finally by the Apostles doctrine, who as he calleth their false Gods and images Idols, so their temples he calleth 
s 1. Cor. 8.10. & 10.20.21.  Idolies, and blameth the Christians for eating idolothytes in those places: then can it not be denied, but these temples of yours, are Antichrists idolies, a part of his religion or abomnation rather, to be loathed of all good Christians, and aught (by evidence of the scriptures fore alleged) to be destroyed. And you that use them for two of those 4. ends for which Antichrist consecrated them, namely for places of prayer, and of ministration of the word & Sacraments: do so far forth partake with his abominations. And that the Pope traffiqueth with these temples, as with his other wares, even for the maintenance of his Kitchen also: a Friar 
t Bapt. Mantuan.  a Poet of his, testifieth saying, 
Venalia nobis  
Templa, Sacerdotes, Altaria, Sacra, Coronae.  So that to him it should be said, as to Tyrus of old: 
u Ezek 28.18.  Thou hast defiled thy Sanctuaries, by the multitude of thine iniquities; by the iniquity of thy traffic: therefore will I bring forth a Fire from the midst of thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth, in the sight of all them that behold thee.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  THe reason why I denied our temples to be the abominations of Antichrist, was not because they are not named in your allegations, as you would make the reader to believe: but because the scriptures alleged by you do not show it at all; I know well that the scriptures do show many things to be evil and abominable, which are not at all named in them. How unjust then is your inference from this pretext, viz. that I might as well have denied such a reason against the mass, seeing the Mass itself is not named in any of those places, more than his temples.  
But to prove that our temples are a part of his abominations, you do further urge both the scriptures, and popish writings: And first you say, the text, Rev. 18.11.12. mentioneth the merchandise of the whore, which no man should buy; naming Gold, silver, precious stones, etc. And you hope I understand not these things of merchandise properly, etc. I answer, 1. Suppose this merchandise is not to be understood properly, must our temples therefore needs be a part thereof? you have not yet brought so much as a colour of any proof for this, out of the scriptures alleged. 2, That Gold and silver, and such like things even properly taken are the merchandise of Rome, as well as other spiritual things, it appeareth evidently, by the infinite treasures & sums of money which that Church hath extorted from the nations of the earth, and divided the spoils thereof among her merchants: even by your own testimony out of Mantuan, the crowns and diadems of princes were sold at Rome unto such as would buy. All stories show, that even civil principalities, Kingdoms, Empires were bought and sold at Room: the pope setting on the emperors crown with his feet, and with his foot again dashing it from the head. 3, what though there be an allusion unto the Prophets through out the revelation, and in this place also to the merchandise of tire, as you allege? This hinders not but that many things in such allusions may be understood properly. The Angel that proclaims the destruction of Room, 
a Rev. 18.2. with Esa. 21.9. jer. 51.8.  alludes unto the destruction of Babylon: yet I hope you will not deny but that the destruction of the very city of Rome itself taken properly, may be understood thereby as well as the religion itself that is to be abolished; as in Babylon of old. 4, though I do not absolutely condemn all trade in civil wares with Spain and Italy, whereof you speak also; yet this helps you not: for neither are all the merchandise mentioned in Rev. 18. counted for the abominations of Antichrist: neither are our temples any part of his merchandise. The Lord in his judging of Antichrist will have even 
b Rev. 18.22.23.  civil commodities of Room to be abolished from that place, not as things unlawful for use, but yet to be taken away from the whore for a punishment of other sins.  
In the next place, after straining of the scriptures, you come unto the popish writings and promise to bring me unto the Pope's own Warehouse, etc. I answer.  
First, though you take upon you to be our guide to lead us into the Roman Pontifical and other shops of the Pope, yet am I & other to take heed how we follow such a guide, when before our eyes we see you to stumble at the first step, and to break your shins even at the very threshold of th' shop you enter into. Whereas you say, First by the 
c De consec. dist. 1. part. 3. c. ecclesia.  decree of Pope Nicocolas, it is not lawful for any man to build a Church or Temple, without commandment or leave of the Pope and Apostolic sea: you do herein falsify the words of the decretal, which doth not speak of building a Church without the Pope's leave, but of instituting a church. And this appears more plainly by the Popish Gloss upon the next Chapter in the same distinction, which saith 
d De consecrat. dist. 1. part. 4. c. Nemo.  Hitherto is showed by whose authority Churches are to be consecrated, but now by whose authority they are to be built. Whereby it appears that the Author of the Gloss interprets the decree of pope Nicolas not of building as you allege, but of the institution of Churches, according to the words of the decree: These two things are plainly distinguished in that place. But as before you dealt untruly with the 
e Pag. 107.  Thalmudique canons, and with the 
f Pag. 117.  canons of the Synods in the Reformed Churches, so do you here deal with the popish canons. What unclean fingers have you thus to defile and corrupt the several testimonies which you meddle withal?  
Secondly, what weight or authority is there in the Popish records of these uncertain and variable decrees? They were so often changed and altered, that upon the credit of them, you cannot say of our temples, that they were consecrated by such authority as is therein appointed. This uncertainty and variableness of the decrees, as it might be showed by many other instances, so doth it also appear most plainly even touching this point of consecrating churches & this also in the tractate alleged by yourself: for whereas the text of the decretal saith 
g De consecrat. dist. 1. par. 3. Cap. De locorum.  Church is to be consecrated without the authority of the pope: The Gloss upon the same place saith concerning that decree, hody non tenet: This decree was then altered: And the explication of this matter is further described in the same place. And thus we see that the authority of the pope was not necessary, either for building or yet for consecrating of our temples. These things were in the power of the Bishop, as well as of the pope: and therefore it is also written in their law: 
h Extravagant. johan. 22. tit. 5. in Glossa.  The Bishops can do as much as the Pope in those things which are of the efficacy of consecration.  
Thirdly, as there is this difference in the decrees touching the authority by whom, so much more in the diverse rites and customs used in the manner of consecration of temples: This diversity of rites is confessed by themselves: saying, 
i Durand. rational. in praefat.  It aught to be considered that in the divine service there is found a variety of manifold rites: for almost every Church hath their peculiar observations, etc. Therefore let not the mind of the reader be moved: if happily he read in this work such things, as he doth not know to be observed in his own Church: or if he do not find, whatsoever is there observed. In this regard you cannot say of our temples with any assurance that those peculiar rites and customs mentioned by you in this place, were observed in the consecration of them. In ancient time, temples were consecrated 
k Hospinian de Templ. p. 105.  only by prayer; and being once consecrated in such manner, they were not to be consecrated again with these rites, even by the testimony of the Popish 
l De consecrat. dist. 1. part. 7. c. ecclesijs.  decrees themselves. Therefore all that you have said touching these rites, is a mere uncertainty, especially touching such Oratories as this place is wherein our particular congregation doth meet together for the worship of God: This difference they show betwixt oratory's and other Churches, viz. that 
m Panormitan. de consecrat. Eccl. C. p. Auctoritate.  an Oratory is not consecrated, neither hath a dowry appointed, neither is made principally that Mass should be celebrated therein, but for prayer, etc.  
Fourthly touching the frame and Fabric of these temples built (as you allege out of Bellarmine) after the form of Solomon's temple, with three parts and the most holy towards the east, differing therein from the jews temple for a mystery, etc. Herein also there is great difference of temples; neither do you so faithfully relate the testimony of Bellarmine touching this matter as was meet: for he speaks not indefinitely of them as you do, but with such words as imply an exception: when he saith of their 3. parts, 
n Bellarmin. de cult. sanct. lib. 3. c. 3.  ferè omnes, almost all are so built: and of their looking to the east, he saith it is ut plurimum, for the most part implying that some are otherwise: And his fellow-cardinall acknowledgeth, that some Churches, as 
o Caes. Baron. Annal. Eccles. Tom. 5. p. 140.  that of Gaza by Eudoxias means made in form of a Cross, were built otherwise: differing mainly therein from the form of Solomon's temple. And for the temples of this city they are of diverse shapes: no one fully like unto an other: for our temple in particular, it hath not those 3. parts whereby it should resemble Solomon's temple, wanting both porch, & chancel: so that your reasoning here against us in respect of the form and shape of temples (as you did also in the former Chapter) is as vain as any things else.  
Fiftly, as for that which you speak of the holiness, mysteries, or mystical significations ascribed unto temples and unto the rites of their consecration by Bellarmine, Durandus, and others: they are many of them more different and uncertain than the rites themselves: Durandus himself in the 
p Rational. divin. office in praefat.  beginning of his book confesseth touching the popish rites, that there are diverse senses or significations given unto the same thing, and they pass from one meaning to an other: And the 
q joann Aloysius. ad Cardinal. Tiras.  pope's auditor in an Epistle printed in the end of the same book affirms that many priests, Bishops, archbishops for innumerable years had consecrated, and observed their rites and ceremonies being altogather ignorant what they did: And that now only & not before they understood the same by Durandus his explication of those mysteries. Hereby it appeareth that the mystical significations of holiness ascribed unto temples and other ceremonies were particular opinions invented at length by some special men, not known unto many of the learnedest among the Papists, and therefore not observed generally as parts of their worship.  
Sixtly, suppose that our temples had been consecrated each of them, even in the manner above mentioned by you, yet doth it not follow that they are a part of Antichrists abominations, as you would feign have the rites of their consecration to speak for you. Though in their Idolatrous use of them for false worship, and with vain confidence in them, they were unto the Papists a part of their abomination, yet not so unto us, that reject those superstitions and use them lawfully in the true worship of God: Even as Goliath his sword though an instrument of cruelty and murder serving for the maintenance of heathenish Idolatry in the hand of the Giant, was yet 
r 1. Sam. 17.51. & cap. 21.9.  lawfully used by David as an instrument of justice to the glory God: yea though happily that sword were consecrated with magical enchantments, according to the manner of the heathen which used enchanted armour and weapons. When you conclude from the Christians merchandise Esai. 55.1. Rev. 3.18, that these popish ordinances and Idolatries are Antichrists wares, you conclude beside the question: Those popish ordinances and Idolatries are in our assemblies daily confuted, condemned and consumed by the word and spirit of Christ as 2 Thes. 2.8. and the authority of the Magistrate hath made the whore naked and desolate in taking away these temples from her and converting them to the true worship of God, according to Rev. 17.16. though they be not destroyed as Baal's house was according to the policy of Moses which is now abrogate; That which you showed before to the contrary is already answered. Though Solomon's temple to the jews, and the heathenish temples unto Cicero, Antiochus, the Ephesians, and other heathens in their use of them were circumstances and instruments of their religion (for you do unfitly call them parts of their religion) yet the proportion thereof reacheth no further, then to show that popish temples were unto the papists instruments of their religion in their use of them: but that our temples in our use of them are so, you cannot show from hence. That which you allege of the heathens sin from ps. 79. in destroying the temple is Idle, for it was also a sin of the heathen to destroy the private houses of the jews. That which you say of the Corinthian Idol-houses hath been answered before. The testimony of Mantuan for selling of temples at Room, is against yourself, and shows that our temples are not the Pope's merchandise, because he cannot for the maintenance of his kitchen cell the same according to the meaning of Mantuan: The pope should have but a lean kitchen, if he had no greater revenues than the profit which he now gets by the sale of our temples. That allegation of Ezek. 28.18. is abused by you, for the Prophet there speaks of the whole city & Kingdom of Tyrus to be destroyed for their sins: and you might from thence as well conclude the destruction of King's palaces and the private houses of wicked Merchants for their false barganies, and fraudulent dealings as of Idol temples, for their superstition.  
Seventhly, if for the superstitious rites of consecration, our temples aught to be destroyed and abolished, then how comes it that the churchyards are not liable to the same judgements, seeing they have been also consecrated by Bishops in like manner with such abominable rites and idolatrous superstitions, as the temples were? How can you according to your manner communicate with the churchyard; in the burial of the dead, and yet deny us the church, when as the pollution of their consecration is alike for both? your own 
t Pontifical. de caemiteríj benedictione.  Authors tell us: that the day before the consecration of the churchyard, five wooden crosses are to be set up in the churchyard; one higher than the rest in the midst, and other 4. according to the height of a man: one before the middle cross in the utmost part of the Churchyard: an other behind the middle cross in the utmost part of the Churchyard: a third in the utmost part on the right hand of the middle cross: and a fourth in the utmost part on the left hand: After this before each of the 5. crosses an other piece of wood is to be set, that may receive 3. candles on the top of it, each of them of 3 ounces weight or thereabout: then a ladder is to be set for the Bishop to climb up to the top of the crosses: then a vessel full of water to be hallowed, and a vessel full of salt. In the morning the Bishop being dressed in the vestry with his garments, the albe, girdle, stole, pluvial of white colour, single mitre and pastoral staff comes with his ministers unto this churchyard which is to be consecrated, where there is a faldistorie prepared for him before the middle cross, than he makes a short Sermon touching the holiness and liberty of the churchyard: this being done fifteen candles are lighted and fastened, 3 before each cross: then the Bishop coming before the middle cross, lays aside his mitre, and prays that God who is the keeper of the souls and bodies of the faithful would look mercifully unto that duty of their service, and that he would at their coming thither purge, bless, consecrated and sanctify that churchyard that the human bodies resting there after the course of this life, might after the terms of this life deserve to obtain the joys of everlasting life, etc. After this the Bishop goes to the other 4. crosses likewise, and before each of them performs his devotions, with prayer, crosses, holy water, songs and other ceremonies too long to be repeated. And being thus consecrated this Churchyard 
u Durand. Rational. lib. 1. de eccles. dedication.  enjoys the same privileges that the Church doth: for after it is blest, it becomes a holy place: and is reconciled by the Bishop even as the Church by the sprinkling of water solemnly with holy wine and ashes, etc. And furthermore it is then used for a place of Idolatrous and false worship, when as in the daily burial of the dead, they pray before the graves for the dead and to the dead, etc. Yourself also do acknowledge these 
w Arrow against Idolat. Chap. 5. sect. 18.  holy churchyards to be the abominations of the whore: and do there also reckon them with the rest to be very Gillulim, the loathsome Idols & excrements of the Queen of Sodom, and the filthiness of her fornication. Tell us now by what means you have purified these Churchyards for your use in funerals, and why the temples themselves may not as well be purified for our use, seeing both have been alike defiled by their consecration. It will not be sufficient for you to say, that your use of these Churchyards is only a civil use, otherwise then our use of the temples: for that commandment in Deut. 12.1.2.3. doth as well condemn the retaining of such places for civil use, as otherwise. That commandment is so expounded by H. Barow, not only for the times before Christ, but also for our time when he saith of our temples: 
x Discov. p. 138.  Again the Idolatrous shape so cleaveth to every stone, as it by no means can be severed from them whiles there is a stone left standing upon a stone. So that neither they can be used to the worship of God, nor we have any civil use of them, seeing they are execrable and devote to destruction: so that they that use such execrable and unclean things, cannot be clean, but must needs be defiled with the filthiness of these Idols. By his verdict therefore you must needs be defiled even with the civil use of these execrable things. And not only Barow but yourself also do condemn the retaining of these places for civil use: in that you hold they are to be thrown down & demolished by the Magistrate's sword: for if it were lawful for the Magistrates to convert these places unto civil uses, as unto judgements halls, courts or the like, what needed they to be thrown down or burnt with fire, as you teach in this place? Yea even in this Chapter you teach that they are to be dealt with as was Baal's house, which was thrown down by jehu, and 
y 2. Kin. 10 27.  a jakes made of it. If these places in respect of former abuse are still to be reputed so base and dishonourable, what mean you to deal so unnaturally with the bodies of your friends as to bury them in these Idol-places, places of so great dishonour: yea to execute upon them the 
z Leu. 26.30.  curse that is denounced against such as the soul of the Lord abhors, even to cast their carcases upon the bodies of these filthy Idols, as you call them? The calamity which you bring upon your friends is (according to your own profession) much like unto that which josias inflicted upon the Idolaters: he 
a 2 Kin. 23 16.  took their dead bones out of the graves and consumed them with fire upon the Altars polluted with Idoltary: you take the dead bones of your friends and bring them to be consumed in those graves which are in the Temples and Churchyards polluted with Idolatry. The Papists sinned grievously against the martyrs of Christ, when they caused them to be buried in dunghills, as they 
b joh. Fox. Acts & Mon. p. 1743. edit. an 1602.  dealt with john Careless; and the 
c Ibidem. p. 1785.  wife of Peter Martyr: and we count it a remarkable judgement of God upon 
d Ibid. p. 1915.  Boner the persecuting Bishop, that his body was buried in the place appointed for burial of thieves and murderers: but you (as it seems) care not to sin against your friends, in causing them to lie under the judgement of God by burying their bodies in places more vile & odious then common dunghilles, yea then common privies even in those polluted places which are as you say, very Gillulim, the loathsome Idols and excrements of the Queen of Sodom, etc. Your writings condemn these temples and Churchyards to be thus abominable in the sight of God and in your own eyes, even for the present: but your hope and expectation further is that the next Christian Magistrate which riseth up according to your mind, shall also actually reduce these places unto the state of Baal's house: that example if jehu being (as you say) of perpetual morality for the substance of it, etc.  
Eighthly, if our temples formerly defiled with Idolatry, and superstitious rites of consecration are therefore of necessity to be abolished, forsaken and new ones to be sought: then will it also follow that popish baptism being in like manner defiled with Idolatrous rites, aught by the like necessity to be abolished, forsaken and a new Baptism to be sought. And while you retain among you the Baptism administered in popery, you can not without partiality refuse our temples. For the declaration of this consequence, you may observe, 1. The pollution of baptism by so many superstitious ceremonies of crossing, exorcizing or adjuration of Devilles, exsufflation, salt, spittle, oil, etc. is as great as the pollution of temples by their consecration: yea if there be any difference, rather baptism is more polluted, as may appear both by your 
e Animad. vers. p. 68.69.72.73.  own writings, and might further be manifested out of the Roman pontifical, missal, decretales and other popish writings, if need were: 2. As Baptism is necessary and ordained of God, so is an house or place of worship for the faithful to assemble 
f Esa. 4.5. 1 Cor. 5.4.  in, necessary & appointed of God. If therefore the general commandment of baptizing do warrant us to retain even that same particular baptism which was so superstitiously administered at the first, than likewise will the general commandment of having a place to assemble in, warrant us to retain even the same particular place that was so superstitiously consecrated at the first. 3, if the persons unlawfully circumcised and baptized in Idolatrous and false Churches, might yet through faith and repentance come to a lawful & comfortable use of their former circumcision and baptism, as yourself do 
g Animadvers. p. 69. 70.  acknowledge: then why can not our repentance and faith as well sanctify unto us the places superstitiously consecrated, while we do in like manner disclaim and renounce the superstitions of each of these? 4. your doctrine touching the retaining of baptism doth confirm unto us that distinction, which serves for answer unto your main objection against our retaining of temples: H. Barow saith 
h Discov. p. 119.  Peradventure hereupon may be collected that such baptism as is delivered by an infidel, which never had knowledge of God in Christ, being afterward repent of and sorrowed, that their body hath been guilty of such profanation, etc., the outward Baptism may in like manner remain, and not be repeated when they join unto the true Church. This may at no hand be brought to pass, neither indeed doth it here-hence follow: for easy it is to put difference betwixt an Infidel which never knew God in Christ: and an Apostata which hath had knowledge of, and still outwardly (though corruptly) professeth God and Christ. The one sort know not what the Church, worship and Sacraments mean: the other (though corrupted in their knowledge) yet carry a show of Church, worship, Sacraments, ministry; yea & hath them though corrupt and adulterate: so there is neither sequel nor comparison betwixt them. According to this distinction may we answer your reason from Deut. 12. and other like scriptures touching the abolishing of temples defiled with Idolatry: viz. that it is easy to put difference betwixt heathenish Infidels such as the Canaanites were that never knew God in Christ: and the Apostate Church of Rome, which still outwardly (though corruptly) professeth God and Christ, etc. And therefore there is no sequel nor comparison, that the temples erected by Papists should be abolished, because the heathenish temples of pagans and infidels were to be destroyed. Though in other places you will not admit of this distinction but cavil against it, yet this doctrine of Barow (which you 
h Animadvers. p. 70.  also sand us unto) doth here plainly confirm the same.  
Ninthly, if the superstitious consecration of places unto Idolatry do necessarily infer the destruction of the same, then are private houses and many other implements also of Idolaters to be destroyed: because they also are often hallowed with many superstitious rites, etc. you labour here to prove that the temples of the gentiles were a part of their religion and Idolatry, by the testimony of 
i Cicero Act. 6. in verr.  Cicero, which calleth their temples holy and religious: and hereupon infer that such places aught to be destroyed. If this kind of arguing be sound, then will it also follow by the testimony of the same orator that private houses are in like manner to be destroyed, as being a part of the Idolaters religion: for he saith of private houses, 
k Cic. Orat. pro domo suâ ad pontiff.  Quid est sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniuscuiusque civium? hîc arae sunt, hîc foci, hîc dij penates, hîc sacrae religionis ceremoniae continentur: hîc perfugium est ita sanctum omnibus, ut inde abripi neminem fas fit. This testimony ascribes as much holiness to private houses in respect of the household Gods, Altars, & Ceremonies of worship there kept and observed, as the former testimony gave unto public temples. To prove our temples to be the merchandise of Rome to be abolished, you allege Mantuan, saying 
Venalia nobis  
Templa, sacerdotes, Altaria, sacra, coronae.  And see you not here that ornaments & crowns are by this Poet reckoned up among the Pope's wares, as well as temples and Altars? And what is it that the Pope sells without some consecration? The crowns which he gives are 
l Pontifical. de benedictione coronarum.  consecrated with prayers, crosses, holy water. The like also may be observed touching the consecration of 
m Ibid. de benedictione ensis.  swords for knights and soldiers. And not only these, but a great multitude of other things are also consecrated with holy water in the Romish Church, as 
n Sleidan. commentar. lib. 21.  herbs, flowers, fruits of trees and other unreasonable creatures: But as 
o 2. Sam. 12.30.  David heretofore refused not that the crown of the Idolatrous King of Ammon should be set upon his head; so neither are princes nor people bound at this day, to refuse either swords, crowns or houses either public or private, in respect of any Idolatrous consecration wherewith they were once defiled in the Romish Church, while themselves do renounce & disclaim such superstition.  
Tenthly, if temples and houses defiled with superstitious consecrations are to be destroyed, as being the Pope's merchandise; then will it also follow that the living temples and persons, as the infants in their popish baptism, and popish ministers in their superstitious ordinations and popish princes in their coronations being as much defiled with Idolatrous rites, as our temples, are in like manner to be destroyed, and lest of all to be used in the worship of God. As for the measure of pollution, it were easy to make as large a narration and story of superstitious ceremonies and devilish enchantments used in the hallowing of these infants, priests and Princes, as you have made touching the consecration of temples: but I take it to be needless: the matter is plain out of the 
p Pontifical.  Authors alleged by yourself, that you cannot deny the same. And as for the aptness to receive guiltiness by pollution; shall the dead and senseless creatures and instruments of stone and wooden temples abused unto Idolatry be subject unto destruction: and shall not much more the reasonable creatures, polluting those instruments be subject unto the like judgement? shall 
q Josh. 7.24.25.  Achans tent be burnt and not Achan himself? This is the rather to be marked, because 
r Rev. 18,13. with 2 Pet. 2.3.  the souls of men are expressly mentioned and reckoned among the wares and merchandise of Antichrist, so as the temples are not. You confess 
s Apol. p. 112.  that some of yourselves have been baptized in the times and places of popery; Such persons defiled with popish conjurations and exorcisms you do not refuse to communicate withal in the worship of God: why then do you blame us for communicating with temples once defiled, whiles we do as well disclaim the superstitious consecration of temples, as the members of your Church do disclaim the superstitious rites of their Baptism wherewith they were once polluted? Look well upon john De Cluse your elder, once an Idolater a popish Idol, and defiled with many superstitious ceremonies: when he stands up to Prophecy among you, consider that he hath been an Idol-temple, anoyled, greased, sprinkled, and conjured with many magical ceremonies: if you can lawfully join with him in the public worship of God, because he hath disclaimed his former superstition: then may we lawfully use our temples in the worship of God, because we also have disclaimed their former superstition. If still you will be froward, yet remember this, that so often as you allow this man to rise up in your assembly, and to go before you in any religious action, so often doth he rise up as a witness for us, and as a judge against yourselves to condemn you of partiality. I might press you yet further and show how your kind of reasoning would lead you even to treason and to the destruction of lawful princes in respect of the superstition used in their coronations, but I spare you herein.  
Lastly to conclude, howsoever there are many abominations and sinful abuses of scripture in the popish manner of consecrating temples, yet this I hold for truth and hope to manifest the same, that your abuse of scripture perverted for the erecting and consecrating of your separated Church is as sinful as many of the popish wrest of the same. You tell us how the consecrating Bishop saith, Lift up your gates ye Princes, and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors and the King of Glory shall come in: how he knocks at the Church door three times and then cries, Open, Open, Open: yourself cry out against every true Church of God in the world this day, Come out of her my people: Touch no unclean thing; what concord hath Christ with Belial: Making as it were a cross upon every Church door, you cry Shut up, Shut up, Shut up; because Antichrist the King of Babel is there still with sundry of his abominations. You tell us that in the popish consecration they sing concerning the new founded church, surely this is no other than the house of God, and the gate of heaven, etc. but touching your new founded Church, you sing in a higher strain, and say in effect: surely there is no other house of God, where a lawful communion may be had, but in this our church: there is no other gate of heaven then this, etc. All other Churches or temples are Devilles and Devilles houses, etc. The communion of the Reformed Churches is unto you an 
t Ans. to Th. white pag. 26.  Apostasy: and therefore john De Cluse separated from the French Church, not dating to enter into heaven by the gate of life opened in their Church, as though there were no other gate of heaven, or lawful entrance into the Kingdom of God, but by your separation. You tell us how the consecrating Bishop maketh crosses and coniureth salt and water to drive away Phantasms, to drive away the fiend, to repel the Devil, etc. H. Barow speaking of the 
u Discov. p. 144. 145.  learned & best reformed preachers in the Church of England, saith they are the most pernicious deceavers: that 
w Ibid. p. 164.  the very light of that Church is darkness, & the very smoke of the bottomless pit: and that their preaching of the Gospel is of all other the most detestable and pernicious, even the strongest snare and delusion of Satan, whereby he allureth, deceaveth, and holdeth captive the miserable world in the Chains of transgression, error, Idolatry, abomination and impenitency, unto judgement. Again he saith: 
x Ibid. p. 154.  As for the comfort received by their preaching it having no promise of blessing in the word of God (your Church & whole ministry being accursed) is rather a fearful sign of the effectual working of their delusions, than any reason whereby you may assure yourselves or justify them in their ungodly proceed, whom the word of God in all their works condemneth. This is the conjured salt of the separation to vnhallow the Church of God: this is your holy water wherewith you sprinkle the faithful ministers and people of Christ. You tell us that at the consecration of the popish temples; Indulgences are granted to all faithful Christians, for one year: and in the yearly day of the consecration of that Church, 40. days indulgence to all that visit it. This their practice of giving Indulgence or pardons is very gross: and yet your doctrine and practice of giving Indulgence is as bad: To those that visit your Church and join unto it you give Indulgence and pardon of all their sins: and pronounce blessedness unto them, in their visible estate: but unto the godliest and faithfullest servants of the Lord either ministers or people whosoever which are in the Church of England, you grant no indulgence unto them in their estate, but pronounce the curse of God upon every one of them without exception. Your Elder john de Cluse writes of that Church, that 
y Advertisement against Mr. Brightman p. 9  there is nothing to be expected from Christ, by any member thereof, but a pouring out of his eternal wrath upon them. And again exhorting all to leave that Church, in the same book he saith, 
z Ibid. p. 11.  what is there then to be done, even this that every soul who hath any care of salvation, and of escaping the eternal flames of everlasting damnation be careful to come out with speed from Babylon, etc. Thus without any Indulgence, he leaves them all in the flames of hell: and this he learned from you, who say likewise, 
a Confession of faith. art. 32.  All that will be saved are bound by God's Commandment with speed to come forth of this Antichristian estate, etc. As you tell us that the consecrating Bishop, had his clerks to say Amen unto his prayers: so have you john de Cluse as your Clerk to say Amen unto your separation. Into your secret let not my soul come. The Popish consecration, and this your separation are both to be abhorred.    

CHAP. IX. The third reason concerning temples, examined:  


Hen. Ains.  Our 3. reason against them is, Because the consecrating of any garments, places, or the like, peculiarly to the worship of God now in the time of the Gospel, hath no warrant in the word of God.  
You grant this; but yet deny that for the error of their consecration in former time they must therefore of necessity be abolished now.  
 you grant this, than it followeth, they are vain and Idolatrous, Mat. 15.9. Colos. 2.22.23. then are they a part of Antichrists abominations, and by your grant of our former reason, are to be consumed with him: then are they to be shunned of Christians, 1. joh. 5.21. and not to be employed by them, unto that use for which Antichrist consecrated them, but to be abolished 
a Rom. 13.3.4.  by the Magistrate. And by such a pretext as you now make, the Corinthians might have pleaded for their sin, who 
b 1 Cor. 8. and 10. ch.  did eat in the Idols temple, that the gentiles error in consecrating it before, could not hinder their liberty, who knew that the Idol was nothing, and the consecrating of the temple was of no force. Your answer also serveth as well, for wearing a Mitre, a cope, a cornered cap, a Priests cloak, a surplice, etc. the error in consecrating these, is no more than in the temples, if it be so much. But in deed you nourish the error of their consecration, whiles you use them for that unto which they were consecrated, so occasioning the simple people, to esteem them holy places still: and you give Papists occasion to reproach, who boast how their 
c Papists supplic. to the K. Ano 1604. Art. 6.  Religion builded all the Churches, etc. and that your religion could not without such their Churches, provision and ordinances, ever have carried the exterior show it doth. And so being a means to harden them in evil, your practice is an occasion of offence, contrary to the Commandment of God, in 1. Cor. 10.32.33. And if they can get their temples out of your hands (as they have done in some towns of these countries) you shall plainly see that the error of their consecration continueth as a fretting Leprosy upon the walls of these temples: and even now whiles they are in your hands, they are visited and prayed in by Papists, as holy consecrated places: yea even by thousands which are not professed Papists, as is to be seen throughout the Parishes of England. So great is the iniquity of their enchanted consecration, which yet remaineth.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  seeing no places now in the time of the Gospel are to be peculiarly consecrated unto the worship of God, it follows therefore from hence, that those who do so consecrated them, and put holiness in them and teach others to do so, that such (I say) do offend against the Scriptures, Mat. 15.9. Col. 2.22.23. But that we also offend, which on the quite contrary do condemn such doctrines and precepts of men, and teach that all places are alike holy and lawful for the service of God; this consequence you will not prove in haste. When you prove that those Temples are properly Idols in our use of them, than I will grant that all godly persons aught to shun them according to 1. joh. 5.21. and not to communicate with us in them, and that the Magistrate also is bound to correct this error, according to Rom. 13.3.4. But if there be any superstitious persons that put more holiness in them then they aught, though such in a large sense and metaphorically may be called Idolaters, and be said to make Idols of them, yet this sin of theirs is not enough to prove that they aught to be abolished: even as the covetous persons that put their trust in their riches, and labours and say unto the wedge of Gold, Thou art my hope; may justly be called 
b Eph. 5.5. Col. 3.5. with Hab. 1.16. and job. 31.24  Idolaters, & their goods their Idols or gods, yet doth it not follow hence that these goods so trusted in are to be cast away or destroyed, but only to be 
c Luk 16.9 & 19.8.  used better and to be sanctified by the word of God. You do here also unjustly confounded Idolatrous places with Idols themselves; contrary to some of your selves who in that piece of paper which is printed in the margin of H. Barow his 
d Discov. p. 133.  book for a correction of the same, do there plainly distinguish betwixt the Synagogs' dedicated to Idolatry & defiled with Idols; and betwixt Idols which had a worship given unto them; though that note have other error amexed unto it, yet for the distinction itself you are further from the truth which it acknowledgeth.  
That which you say of the Corinthians eating in the Idols temple, 1. Cor. 8. & 10. chap. that they by such a pretext as I make, might have pleaded for their sin, etc. is far otherwise: Had they used the Idol-temple only to the lawful worship of God, after all exercise of Idolatry had been banished out of the same, then should not the gentiles error in consecrating it before, have polluted them: And this is our plea, for our use of temples at this time. But what could this excuse the Corinthians communicating with the Infidels & idolaters, in the very act of their present false worship, in their Idol-feasts and sacrifices, while their Idolatrous exercises were still in full force with them? What a huge distance is there betwixt these two cases? What Spirit of discerning have you, that can not or will not put difference betwixt communion with Papists, in the mass, in eating of their breaden God, in their Idol temple, which is like the practice of the Corinth's; and betwixt communion with true Christians, in true worship, in the place purged from Idols and false worship, which is our practice?  
Whereas you object further, that my answer serveth as well for wearing a mitre, a cope, etc. And that I do indeed hereby nourish the error of their consecrating, etc. I answer, 1. the mitre, cope, surplice and such like never had nor can have a necessary use in the service of God, nor be any civil helps in the same, unto such as have other clotheses to put on their backs: but a place & house to meet in for the service of God is a necessary circumstance that cannot be miss as hath been showed before: so that there being such difference betwixt these two things, if simple people or Papists be offended at that, which is of such use, their offence is upon their own heads only. 2, Consider also that simple people by your use of the Churchyards are occasioned to esteem them holy places still: The Papists may with like reason that they used in their supplication to the King boast that their Religion hath given and consecrated the Churchyards as well as the Churches: And your practice of burial in these places, being that end whereunto they were consecrated of Papists, is as much an occasion of offence, and reproach unto them; doth as much harden them in their error: and is as much against that Commandment 1 Cor. 10.32.33. as is our use of the Churches or temples: and if you do not defend your practice by the necessary use which you have of them, you will lie under that guilt which you would so feign lay upon us: where necessity excuseth not, the guilt of offences and scandals doth come upon men as well by civil as religious actions. And further according to your objection, consider that if the Papist can get their consecrated Churchyards, now used by you, into their hands again (as they have already done in some towns of these countries) you shall plainly see that the error of their consecration continueth with them: and even now whiles you do bury your dead in them, they are visited and prayed in by Papists, as holy consecrated places, etc. And if any difference be, they are like to be offended rather at the burial in the Churchyards and Churches, then at the worshipping in them, in as much as they are more superstitious about the burial than other services, holding it more lawful to pray and serve God in other places, then to bury in other places. Thus you may see, that if there be any force in this your reasoning, it is all against yourself.    

CHAP. X. The fourth reason concerning temples, examined:  


Hen. Ains.  Our 4th. reason you answer not, but altar it. We said, the worshipping of God in the places, etc. hallowed by himself, was a part of his honour, Deut. 12.5.6. Leu. 17.3 4, & this you grant. So on the contrary, (say we) the worshipping of God now, in the places, etc. hallowed by Antichrist, is a part of popish devotion. You answer, Though it be a part of popish devotion, to hollow places for God's worship, etc. yet God requires not the plucking down of them. Thus you shun the edge of our argument, who spoke not here of their hallowing, but of the people's worshipping in the places hallowed which being popish devotion, & so far forth an honour unto Antichrist, it must needs be sin. So in altering the case, you turn your eyes from your own sin in worshipping, to the pope's sin in hallowing. The Apostle to convince the Corinthians, showeth that the Israelites by eating of the sacrifices were 
a 1. Cor. 10.18.  partakers of the altar: so they, by eating of the heathenish sacrifices, were partakers of their altar. The same may be said of the Temple, that the Israelites coming thither to 
b 1. King. 8.33.  pray communicated with God's honour therein: so they that go to the heathens or Antichristians Temples to pray, communicate also with Antichrists honour; though men despise Antichrists idols in word now, as the Corinthians did the heathens idols than.  
When again we compare things thus: As the destroying of God's Temple tended to his dishonour. Psal. 79. & the building thereof, to the establishing of his worship, Hag. 1. so the rasing of Antichrists Temples, would be to his dishonour; & the contrary is in using, building & repairing them. To this you give no answer, but say: It doth not follow that God now requires the plucking down of the (temples)▪ seeing there is a change of the Law, Heb. 7.12. Whereas if you considered the weight of our reason, it must needs follow: for God would have Antichrist to be dishonoured, and 
c 2 Thes. 2 Rev. 13. & 18. chap  not honoured or maintained in any part of his cursed devotion: and such our argument showeth the rasing or repairing of his temples to be. The scripture which you cite, serveth nothing for your purpose. In Heb. 7.12. the Apostle speaketh of the priesthood, the Levitical ministery: which being changed & abrogate, there must of necessity be a change also of the Law: so their ministration ceaseth, & Christ our only Priest, performeth the work of our reconciliation to God. But we speak of the Magistracy, whose office yet remaineth and is not abrogated by Christ, but by his doctrine established in Rom. 13. and elsewhere. So that the Magistrate is 
d Rom. 13.4.  the Minister of God still, (which the legal Priest is not,) and hath the sword to cut of all synns, whereof popish superstition is not the lest: & with this sword and office, Christ 
e joh. 18.36.  meddled not: therefore you cannot in this respect without error say, there is a change of the Law. But the truth is, seeing the Magistrate continueth, there is a continuance also of the Law: for how else shall he do the work of a Minister of God, if he have no law of God to direct him? for the other scriptures in our reason alleged, Deut. 12. 2 King 10. & 14. & 23. You say they are already answered: and unto your answers, I have also replied before.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  THe complaint which here you make of my not answering but altering and shunning the edge of your argument, etc. is vain and unjust. Your argument is like unto an overworn knife, whose edge is so blunt, that a man cannot easily discern the edge from the back of it, nor find where the force of it lies: so little cause there is to shun the same for fear of cutting or wounding. You say that you spoke not here of hallowing, but of the people's worshipping in the places hallowing: but do you not here still utter a speech implying a contradiction in it? for what sense or colour of reason is there here against the people's worshipping except it be in respect of the places hallowed? do you not also in the beginning of this Chapter twice together make mention of hallowing when you repeat your argument, and tell us that you said thus: The worshipping of God in the places, etc. hallowed by himself was a part of his honour. So on the contrary, the worshipping of God now in the places, etc. hallowed by Antichrist, is a part of popish devotion? Again, in my answer also I did not only mention hallowing, but also which you omit, I mentioned, 
e see before Pag. 22.  putting of religion in places hallowed, & under that I comprehended such kind of unlawful worship as the Papists use, & yet still denied the consequence of your argument, against such use as we have of them, when as I said, yet follows it not that God requires the plucking down of such places.  
But let us further examine, whether now upon the second whetting, and putting of more strength to it, your blunt Axe have got a sharper edge to hue down our temples. You allege the conviction of the Corinthians for eating of heathenish sacrifices from 1 Cor. 10.18. but that plea is already twice answered: that place speaks of communion with 
f 1 Cor. 10.17.21.  Idolaters in false worship, and not of using the place only, in a lawful worship of God. You allege 1. Kin. 10.33. to show, that the Israelites coming to the temple to pray communicated with God's honour therein, etc. But I answer, that Solomon there speaks of true worship in the temple: otherwise those that came to the temple to pray and worship with Idolaters, as in the days of 
g 2. Kin. 21 4.5.7.  Manasses, and 
h Ezek. 8.3.16. jer. 32.34.  afterwards when the house of God was filled with Idols, did not communicate with God's honour hereby, but with the honour of Devilles & so on the contrary to make the opposition just & equal, those that go to pray in the temples of Antichristians, when as the Idolatry of Antichrist is purged out and removed thence, and do only use the worship appointed of God, praying and fight daily against Antichrist with the sword of the spirit, such do not herein communicate with Antichrists honour, but with the honour of Christ.  
Again, as if your comparison were an argument with two edges, you say that you also compare things thus; As the destroying of God's temple tended to his dishonour ps. 79, etc. so the rasing of Antichrists temples would be to his dishonour, etc. The sequel of this argument for the necessity of plucking down our temples, I denied, because there is a change of the law, Heb. 7.12. This you call no answer, etc. I answer you again more plainly and fully, 1. Though God would have Antichrist to be dishonoured: and though the rasing of his temples would in some regard be a dishonour unto him: yet are not we bound unto all means, nor yet unto this particular means and manner of dishonouring him by destruction of his temples: even as God would have Idolaters to be dishonoured, and the 
i Deut. 13.15.16.  destroying of their goods and cartel, their city and their habitation would be to their dishonour: yet doth it not follow, that we are now bound unto this means and manner of dishonouring them, as hath been showed before, because there is a change of the law. God would have blasphemers to be dishonoured; and the 
k Dan. 3.29.  plucking down of their houses, would be to their dishonour: yet doth it not follow that we are now bound unto this particular manner of dishonouring them. 2. Whereas you do allege three Chapters at random and at large, viz. 2 Thes 2. Rev. 13. and 18. to show that God would have Antichrist dishonoured; and not honoured, etc. you do but beaten the air in vain, unless you could have inferred thence that our not honouring of him could not stand without plucking down his temples. 3. Touching the change of the la, Heb. 7.12. you say the Apostle speaketh of the Priesthood and levitical ministery, etc. but we speak of the Magistracy, whose office remaineth, etc. But if you did seriously consider what you say, you might easily discern the truth that I showed you. For though the office of Magistracy continueth according to Rom. 13. yet if the Priesthood and levitical ministry be abrogate, then is a great part of the Magistrates charge abrogate also: seeing the Magistrates before Christ were 
l Exo. 12.15. Leu. 17.4.14. Numb. 1.51. & 3.38. & 18.7. Deut. 17.12. with ps. 101.8.  bound to see the Priesthood and ceremonial ordinances belonging unto the same, maintained: and to execute judgements upon the violatours thereof: Those ceremonial ordinances ceasing, the care and charge of the Magistrate about the same, ceaseth also. And so the commandment of destroying places abused unto Idolatry, being one of those ceremonial ordinances, Touch not, handle not Col. 2 as is showed before: though the office and authority of the Magistrates continueth for the maintenance of the decague or moral law: yet this ceremony concerning observation of places being changed, the authority of the Magistrate is therein changed also. 4. your allegation of joh. 18.36. to show that Christ meddled not with the sword and office of the Magistrate, etc. is both needless, if you allege it to prove the continuance of the Magistrates office which is not denied: and insufficient also, for if he had meddled with the sword of the Magistrate, would it therefore follow that the office of Magistracy had been abrogate? Nothing lesle: no more than it follows that the office of ministry is abrogate, because Christ meddled with that sword of the spirit, in preaching of the Gospel. As for Deut. 12. 2. Kin. 10, etc. where as you say that you have before replied unto my answers: so have I before answered you, and refuted your replies.    

CHAP. XI. The fift argument, examined:  


Hen. Ains.  Unto our 5t. reason, from the examples of godly Princes, that abolished false worship & the monuments thereof, 2 Chr. 17. 2 Kin. 18. & 23. you answer, that they being under Moses policy, are commended for their obedience and practice: but the godly Princes of our times, not being under the same rudiments, are not bound to imitate them herein, further than the equity before mentioned doth require.  
Repl. And how far equity requireth, I have before showed in my answers to your excepttons. But further I pray you tell us, under what policy, touching judicials Princes are at this day. If you say, under Christ's: that I deny, for Princes have their authority from 
a Rom. 13.  God, who is the 
b 1. Cor. 11 3.  head of Christ. If they had it from Christ, there could be no lawful Magistrates but Christians: so Paul's doctrine, to be subject to Caesar, should be overthrown. Christ hath neither given power to Magistrates, nor taken aught from them; but left them as they were authorised of his Father. Either then they are under Moses policy, (I mean, so as to execute the judgements taught of God by Moses) or else they are under none; but may judge and punish as they themselves think good, killing such as God by Moses law would not have to dye, and sparing such as he appointed to death. As for Christ, he hath given them no direction whom and how to punish, otherwise than he gave with God his Father at mount Sinai. And whereas first you say, under Moses policy, & after, speaking of our Princes, that they are not under the same Rudiments: you change the word amiss, to restrain Moses Policy unto his Rudiments. For rudiments, were such legal ordinances as led unto Christ, and are by him abolished, as the 
b Colos. 2.20.21. Gal. 4.3.  Apostle showeth, & under them, neither Magistrates nor people are: but Moses policy is more large. And that God's judgements against idolatry, are not such rudiments, but of perpetual right, is before manifested. For if the Decalogue given to Israel, remaineth still to us Christians, than the judgements due to the transgressions of the Decalogue, remain also: they being alike unchangeable, and common to all nations. As for jewish rudiments, your temples are a sinful reviving of them, after they were dead by Christ. The things appointed of God for his figurative worship, might not be imitated by men for any use, as the Law in Exod. 30.32.33. teacheth us: and the Hebrews from thence rightly concluded, 
c Maimony Beth habchirah. c. 7. s. 10.  It is unlawful for a man to make an house after the pattern of the Temple. But these your Temples, are purposely made 
d Bellarm. de cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 3.  after the form of the jews Temple, as the cope is in imitation of Aaron's Ephod, the Surplice like the priests linen coats, etc. Although Christ at his death ended all these rites. So you in using them as they were built by Antichrist, for places of divine worship, are faulty for reviving rudiments which God hath ceased: but Magistrates in demolishing them, should perform a judgement of eternal equity, which God hath commanded, Deut. 12.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  HOw far you have gone astray from equity in your reasoning about equity, I have also showed before: And am now to proceed unto those things which you add further.  
First, whereas you deny that Princes at this day are under Christ policy, touching judicials: This your denial appears to be an error; because God hath given unto his son Christ not only a special Kingdom of grace & dominion in his Church; but also a general and large dominion over all persons & their actions whatsoever, even 
m Mat. 28.18.  all power in heaven and in earth; a 
n Eph. 1.21 Phil. 2.9.10.  name above every name that is named, whereat every knee should bow: he is made 
o Heb. 1.2.  heir of all, 
p Act. 10.36.  Lord of all, 
q Rev. 19.16  King of Kings and Lord of Lords: how is all power given unto him, if Princes touching their judicialles be not under Christ's policy? what authority should Christ have to judge and punish Princes for their wicked decrees and judicial proceed, to 
r Ps. 2.9 & 110.5.6.  break them with a rod of iron like potter's vessels, if they were not under him touching judicialles? what needed Princes 
s Ps. 2.12.  to kiss the Son, to 
t Rev. 21.24.  bring their glory and honour unto the Church for the service thereof, if touching judicialles they were not subject unto him? According to your doctrine Princes (though subject in other things) yet might reserve one knee of judicial authority, which they need not bow unto Christ.  
Secondly, whereas for a reason of your former denial, you allege that Princes have their authority from God, who is the head of Christ. This hinders not but that they may have it under Christ, who by his Father's 
u Mat. 11.27. joh. 3.35.  grant hath all things given into his hand; and therefore even by authority received from his Father might change and abrogate some of the judicial laws given by Moses.  
Thirdly: when you say further touching the authority of Princes, If they had it from Christ, there could be no lawful Magistrates, but Christians so Paul's doctrine to be subject to Caesar, should be overthrown: This is also unsound: for though there be no Magistrates but Christians, which can lawfully retain and use their authority; yet doth it not follow that subjection unto all other Magistrates is unlawful: It is with Magistrates and their dominion and authority as it is with other men in all their possessions and heritage's: whosoever is not in Christ is an usurper and unlawful possessor of whatsoever he hath, notwithstanding any right or title that they may have thereunto by the providence of God in respect of human laws: because Christ is 
w Heb. 1.2 Rom. 8.17 Mat. 5.5. 1. Tim. 4.3 8. 1. cor. 3.21 22.23.  heir of all things and in him the meek and faithful only are the right heirs of the world: yet doth it not follow hence that men may take away their goods and inheritances from such. And even so every Magistrate that is not in Christ, is but an usurper & an unlawful possessor of whatsoever dominion or authority he exerciseth, notwithstanding any right or calling that he hath thereunto in respect of men: yet is this no warrant unto the subjects of such Infidel-Magistrates, to with draw themselves from their subjection, or to deny obedience and tribute unto them.  
Fourthly, to that you say, Christ hath neither given power to Magistrates, nor taken aught from them; but left them as they were authorised of his Father, etc. I answer, 1. for the kinds of offices themselves, that were authorised of God before Christ, it was 
* Exod. 18 23.24. Numb. 11 16.17. 1. Sam. 8.6.7.22.  unlawful to institute them heretofore without special allowance from God: but now by consent of common wealths it is lawful to ordain their form of civil government, and to make new offices, being but the 
x 1. Pet. 2.13.  creations of men, for the form of them. 2. For the causes of executing judgement, Christ hath changed many of them, he hath taken from Magistrates the 
y Mat. 5.31 32. and 19.8.9.  power of permitting divorces & polygamy, according to the iudicialles of Moses: he hath given 
z 1. Cor. 7.12. etc.  power unto the Magistrates to permit the marriage of believers and unbelievers without divorce contrary unto the policy of Moses: he hath also taken from the Magistrate the power of executing the judicial laws against the transgressers of ceremonial ordinances, as was showed before. 3, as for the manner of judgements and punishments themselves to be inflicted on evil doers, even by your own confession before noted, the Magistrates now are not tied unto the judicial law of Moses. 4, even for the time before Christ, the jews themselves were not absolutely bound unto the judicial law of Moses, save in their own land, whereunto God had apropriated those laws: for when 
a Ester 10.3. & 8.2.  Mordecai, 
b Dan. 2.48 49. & 6.2.  Daniel, and others were civil Magistrates in Persia and Babylon, they could not administer justice according to the policy of Moses, but according to the laws of those Kingdoms where they lived. If the observation of the judicial laws of Moses had been imposed on the jews, as strictly as the moral and ceremonial laws were, than could not Mordecai & Daniel have taken those offices and callings upon them with good conscience: so that hereby it may appear that there is great difference betwixt these laws, especially in these times. 5, yea even in the holy land itself, when as the judicial laws of the 
c Neh. 10.3.7.  Persians' & 
d Luk. 2.1.4 joh. 18.31  Romans, were established among the jews, who were then subject unto these nations and unto their officers, yet did the godly jews live under them and submit unto their authority, which they could not have done in suffering themselves to be guided by their civil laws, if the judicials of Moses had been imposed upon them by the Lord, as precisely and straightly as were the moral and ceremonial laws. 6, it is yet a further presumption, when as you say, that Christ gave Magistrates no direction whom and how to punish, otherwise than he gave with God his Father at Mount Sinai. For Christ with God his Father gave further direction how to 
e Num. 15 32.34.  punish the Sabath-breaker, after that they had departed from Mount Sinai. And afterwards again at the repetition of the law in the land of Moab, there was further direction given touching 
f Deut. 13.12. etc. & 21.1.10.15 & 25.9. etc.  many particulars which were not described in Exodus and Leviticus at mount Sinai. 7, to conclude though some of Moses judicials be abrogate, yet doth it not follow that Magistrates may judge and punish as they themselves think good, etc. as you would infer against us: The particular determinations of Christ in the new Testament, abrogating some, & confirming other of the judicial laws, compared with the general equity of the decalogue and the policy of Moses together now coincident with the doctrine of Christ, may and aught to be a rule of direction unto Princes and Magistrates in their judgements.  
As for the use of the words, policy, & rudiments, which I named one after an other, you make a false collection from thence: though I name both, it follows not that I hold both to be of like extent: neither do I restrain the policy of Moses unto his rudiments: but my speech argues that some part of his policy consists in ceremonies and rudiments; such as the abolishing of places defiled with Idolatry in such manner as I have manifested before from Col. 2. against your perverting of the same.  
After this you labour to prove that our Temples are a sinful reviving of jewish rudiments, after they were dead by Christ: your first allegation is, that the things appointed of God for his figurative worship, might not be imitated by men for any use, as the law in Exod 30.32.33. teacheth us. Hereunto I answer, 1. this is a bold presumption, to make the yoke of the legal ceremonies heavier without warrant: for though the holy ointment and perfume might not be imitated by men for any use, doth it follow hence that other things appointed for the figurative worship were in like manner forbidden? for example, we read of sundry kinds of meat offerings, and among the rest of some 
g Levit. 2.4.5.7. etc.  baked, some fried, and some made in the cauldron, and all for the figurative worship of God: how can you ever prove that these kinds of meats thus prepared, which might fitly serve for the ordinary use of man, were forbidden to be imitated? 2, suppose that before Christ these kind of meats had been forbidden, yet are you far wide to apply such a prohibition unto our time, and to deny unto us such preparations of meat as were then used in the figurative worship of God: yourself rather are herein guilty of a sinful reviviving of jewish rudiments by imposing upon us the ceremonial prohibitions and ordinances, which are 
h Gal. 4.3. Eph. 2.14.15. Rom. 7.1. etc.  dead by Christ. Yea you would make our burden heavier then the jews, by laying such a yoke of ceremonies on our necks, as you can not show that God ever laid upon them. 3, suppose, that the ointments, perfumes, meats and temples appointed for the figurative worship of God in old time, might not be imitated by men for any use as you say, and suppose that we offended also by imitating the form of the jewish temple, as you would have it: then are you and your people inexcusably guilty of the same sin with us, while you use these our temples for diverse uses; you for your study: diverse of your people for receyving of alms in them, etc. Thus are you caught and entangled in the snare which you laid for us: for you are to remember that the holy ointment whereof you speak, was 
i Exod. 30.32.33.  forbidden unto men not only in the worship of God (otherwise then is there expressed,) but for any use whatsoever: as yourself also confess: And therefore that ceremonial precept if it be still in force, according to your urging of the same, doth as well condemn your use of these temples, as ours.  
Secondly, for the countenancing and confirming of your objection, you content not yourself with holy scriptures, but you lead us from Moses been Amran unto Moses been Maimon, from faithful Moses the servant of Christ unto the Infidel Moses a professed adversary of Christ, and out of his scripture you tell us, speaking of holy ointment, that the Hebrews from thence rightly concluded, It is unlawful for a man to make an house after the pattern of the temple. I answer, 1. The collections of those degenerate Hebrews are most vain, and as in other things, so touching this holy ointment and pattern of the temple: R. Solomon 
k Comment. on Ex. 30.31.  upon those words, This shallbe an holy oynting oil unto me: throughout your generations; by a cabalistical rule collects that there were twelve logo or measures of this oil: because the numeral letters of Zeh the word there used for this do yield the number of twelve: And further they note that this anointing oil [then made] should continued unto the world to come, according to those words, throughout your generations. Touching Beth-habchirah, the temple or house elect for the name of God, their traditions are 
m R. Moses mikkots. Sepher mitsvoth haggadol precept. affir. 164. Thalmud jerusa. cap. haroeh.  that it is not lawful for men to assemble unto the mountain of that house, since the desolation thereof, having with them either staff, scrip or shoes on their feet, or dust on their feet, etc. That in the city jerusalem itself for the holiness thereof they might not give any place to strangers or sojourners therein: that they might not make any house of burial therein, except the burials of the house of David, and the burial of Huldah which had been there from the days of the former Prophets; that they might not plant any gardens or orchyards in it; that they might not keep any cocks in it, etc. R. Saadias' (as is recorded by 
n comment. on Exo. 31.1.  Aben Ezra) giveth this reason why Bezaleel of the tribe of judah, & Aholiab of tribe of Dan were chosen to make the tabernacle: namely because judah & Dan were compared unto lions whelps, the 
o Gen. 49.9.  one by jaakob, the 
p Deut. 33.22.  other by Moses; & that so according to the form of the Lion broad before and narrow behind, the tabernacle was also made in that form: But Aben Ezra himself contradicts this collection in the same place, and saith that the breadth of the tabernacle was equal, and that there was no cause why Bezaleel and Aholiab were called unto this work, but because there were none like unto them in Israel. And a number of such like collections vain in themselves, and contradictory unto one an other might further be brought, to show how unworthy a thing it is to allow any voice unto these Rabbins in the controversies and questions of right among Christians. 2, there is yet more colour and excuse for the Rabbins in this their error considering their estate, than there is for you: for they supposing that the levitical and ceremonial ordinances are still in force do more colourably hold that the holy things of God may not be applied unto or imitated in common use, but you knowing the ceremonies to be abolished, have less reason so to write as you have done.  
3. The testimony of the Rabbins in this matter doth not serve to condemn our temples in respect of the form thereof; for as they 
q R. Solomon & Aben Ezra comment. on Exo. 30.32  writ concerning the holy anointing oil, the composition made like unto it was then unlawful, when it consisted both in number and quantity of the same kind of spices, but if there were more or less in the composition it was lawful: so in like manner if our temples differ both in many parts, and in the proportion and measure of them from Solomon's Temple, by the same reason they are to be held lawful. 4. If our Temples be unlawful because they are made after the pattern of the jewish Temple, then doth this conclusion of the Rabbins as well condemn you in the use of these Temples as it doth us, for that which you say the Hebrues have rightly concluded is spoken of any private civil houses whatsoever made for civil use, such they hold to be unlawful for any use being made after the form of the Temple: And so all that you have said both from the Scripture & from Maimony is against yourself, considering the diverse uses which you have of these Temples, as I showed before.  
In the third place, whereas you do allege the testimony of Bellarmine to show that these our Temples are purposely made after the form of the jews Temple, etc. I answer, 1. you do unfaithfully allege the writings of Bellarmine, which are directly contrary unto that which you pretend and give forth in his name: for though he show that some Temples in some part were like unto Solomon's Temples, yet he 
r Bellarm. de cultu sanct. lib. 3. c. 3. sec. vlt  shows, that whereas the holiest place in the Temple of Solomon was built towards the west, that ours on the quite contrary were built looking towards the east, and this purposely to signify and testify a difference & opposition unto the jews: Though this was done for a mystery also as some other observe, and you note before, that hinders not this purpose of being opposite unto the jews, but may stand with the same. 2. As for our temple in special about which our question is, it is in no respect that you can allege like unto Solomons: & therefore no jewish rudiment to 'cause any separation from us in that regard.    

CHAP. XII. The sixth argument concerning Temples examined.  

Section. 1.  


Hen. Ains.  Our 6t. reason hath 2. branches, I. That by the destruction of Idolies, men are more easily drawn to God's true worship, etc. II. By retaining them, they are nourished in superstition, etc. Gen. 35. 2. King. 18. 2. Chron. 34. Act. 17. & 19 Leu. 13. & 14. with Jude 23.  
You answer; That which belonged to the temporary dispensation under Moses being set apart; the general equity of these scriptures leads us no further, then to abolish such monuments of superstition and corruption as have no necessary use.  
Repl. To your exception about Moses temporary dispensation, I have spoken before. This which you now add, of no necessary use, may in some sense be granted: for in deed Christians have no necessary use of Antichrists idols or idol Temples, let them therefore perish with him; as they shall, 
a er. 10.15 Rev. 18.  in the time of their visitation. But if by Necessary, you mean in respect of human pleasure or profit, as the Lutherans may think they have a necessary use of popish images (which they keep in their Churches) either to adorn their Temples, (which may also be pleaded for by Psal. 24.1. 1. Cor. 10 26. seeing we may use of the plenty of the earth even for ornament also) or to remember the saints deceased, though they worship them not: or, as others think they have a necessary use of idol Temples, because they would spare their purses, and be at no charge to build other convenient places to worship God in: this I judge to be but a carnal reason, and that it savoureth not of God's spirit, which throughout the Scriptures condemneth Idols and Idoleys, in respect of their 
b Exo. 34.12.13.14.15. Deut. 7.25.26. Ezek. 23.14.16. etc.  abomination before God, and snare that they are unto men. And if this your exception should take place, we should have very few idols destroyed. For they that are popishly affected, will find some necessary use for every idol, to maintain their superstition. The gentry may wear the pope's hallowed golden crucifixes and other sacred jewels for broochs on their hats, & tablets about their necks, and his beads, for ornaments about their hands. The images of their Lady, and other gods & goddesses, they may use to beautify their houses, yea to adorn the walls and corners of their Churches, as they still continue in the Church windows. The altar may be used for a communion table, the hallowed font, for a vessel to baptize in, as is usual in Engl. though these reformed Churches have done it away. The Bishops think they have as necessary use of their copes & other hallowed vestments, as you of your Temples, which many of them by reason of their bigness and form, are fit a great deal to sing a mass in, then to preach the gospel. So it will come to pass, that all the pope's abominations shallbe retained for some use or other, and idolatry nourished to the dishonour of God. If we should expound all the other commandments, as you interpret this concerning idolatry: God might justly condemn us as corrupters of his Law, and seducers of the people. But let us weigh your particular exceptions.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  FIrst, whereas by way of affirmation, you reply; in deed Christians have no necessary use of Antichrists Idols or Idol-temples: I answer, 1. If no necessary use: then is your use of them for study therein and for other purposes, the more condemnable, being idle and unnecessary. 2. These temples have some necessary use, because by retaining of them, that cost and charges which should be employed in the building of others in their stead, may serve to supply the wants of many godly poor: Such works and considerations the holy Ghost judgeth to be 
s Tit. 3.14.  necessary uses.  
Secondly, whereas by way of imprecation & cursing, you pray against our temples, wishing for the destruction of Antichrist, & of them together, saying, let them therefore perish with him. I answer, 1. you do herein worse than Balaam, who was feign to say, 
t Num. 23.8.  How shall I curse, where God hath not cursed? for the law of ceremonies being removed, you can not show by any warrant of Scripture that God doth curse the places formerly abused unto Idolatry, when as the Idolatrous use thereof is taken away: we see on the contrary by experience, and you might see that God blesseth our use of such Temples in all the Reformed Churches, even with that 
u Rom. 15.29.  abundance of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ, which is there administered; And therefore we may truly say unto the Lord concerning your curse, 
w Ps. 109.28.  though they curse, yet thou wilt bless. 2. Do you not see how you curse yourself in praying for the destruction of these Temples which you and your people frequent so often for diverse purposes? For what if God should hear your prayer, and while yourself are sitting at your study in one of these Temples, should suddenly raise a tempest and overthrew the temple? should not your blood be now upon your own head that had called for this judgement? dare you enter into and continued in such a place, against which you pray daily that God would destroy it? or are you content to perish yourself, so that one of these Temples might perish with you?  
Thirdly, whereas by way of prophecy or prognostication, you foretell the perishing of these Temples, & say; as they shall, in the time of their visitation. I answer, 1. that place jer. 10.15. which you allege for confirmation of your prophecy, speaketh not of Temples but of Idols, and therefore concludeth nothing against the place used by us. 2. If the destruction of the Babylonish and heathenish Temples had been there prophesied of and foretold, as is in other places the destruction even of the private houses of the Babylonians; yet doth not this show that the like event shallbe unto all places where Antichristian Idolatry hath been practised: for both in respect of equity, there is great difference betwixt Babylonish Temples not purged from their Idolatrous use; and our Temples that are converted to the lawful worship of the true God; and again in respect of the fact, suppose our Temples were as unclean as the Babylonians, yet is not God bound to deal with all sins alike in this world by executing the same judgements here upon all things that are defiled. There is indeed a time of visitation when 
x Ps. 102.26. Mat. 5.18.  heaven and earth shall perish; and then our temples are like to perish also; but this perishing shows them to be no more unlawful, than other creatures of God which are subject to vanity in like manner. 3. As for Rev. 18. which chapter you also allege at large for proof of your prediction in the ruin of our temples; why did you not nominate the verse and describe your collection from thence, that we might have considered the truth and evidence thereof? 4. Do not you remember, how one of your own fellowship and society hath of late time prophesied and foretold an universal massacre to come upon Christendom; & how he is deceyved, the time being past which he had nominated and limited for this event? Let his example warn you to take heed of being so rash in prophesying an universal massacre of our temples.  
Fourthly, you say if by Necessary, I mean in respect of human pleasure or profit: as the Lutherans may think they have a necessary use of images, which they keep in their Churches, etc. this you judge to be but a carnal reason and not to savour of God's spirit, etc. Hereunto I answer, that by necessary use, I do not mean such as you speak of in the Lutherans: but I mean (that which it seems you call sparing of the purse) such use as serves to supply the necessities of the faithful, and to support the burden of such as are oppressed with poverty and want, whiles the church is not charged with the cost and labour of such buildings: and with all I mean such a circumstance of place as is in general of necessary use for the assembling of people, in as much as the worship of God by his people can not be performed conveniently without such helps of a building. And that this regard of necessary use is not a carnal reason, but savouring of God's spirit: it may appear both by the equity of God's law even in the old Testament when as he would have 
y Hos. 6.6. 1. Sam. 21.4 5. etc. Mat. 12.1.7.  ceremonies some times and in some cases to give place unto works of mercy performed for the necessities of his people: & much more after the death of Christ, when for the profit of his people, that their outward necessities, wants & poverty might be the better sustained and relieved, he wholly 
z Act. 15.10 Col. 2.14.  took away the burden of his own ceremonial laws. If God would have his statutes and commandments once given concerning his own holy place and temple to be changed for the necessary use and profit of his people: how much more the statutes once given touching other places and temples abused to Idolatry?  
Fiftly, to prove that the retaining of our temples in respect of necessary use is but a carnal reason, you allege diverse scriptures, viz. Exo. 34.12.13.14.15. Deut. 7.25.26. Ezek 23.14.16, etc. wherein as you say, the spirit of God condemneth idols and idoleys, in respect of their abomination before God and snare that they are unto men. I answer; that God in his law condemned many things as an abomination unto himself and as a snare unto men, which yet are not now of necessity to be abolished as in old time: your own allegations may lead you to see the same. 1. In Exod. 34. God allows no compact or covenant with the Idolaters there mentioned: and this commandment of God as appears by conference with other places of scripture was so strict that the 
a Ezra. 10.10.11.12.19.— 44. Neh. 13.3.23.30.  covenants of marriage with such persons were to be dissolved and broken, even after Children borne unto them in such marriage, that the infidels should not be a snare unto the people of God. This law, notwithstanding the snare feared of old, is now changed and more liberty granted unto Christians, as the 
b 1. Cor. 7.12.13.14.16.  Apostle shows: but under Moses the unbelieving Idolatrous wife was not sanctified to the believing husband, neither the unbelieving heathenish husband sanctified to the believing jewesse his wife: Paul's plea would not have served in Ezra his time, when they put away their strange wives: A transgressor might not then justly have used Paul's words for retaining either husband or wife: they might not have said; what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thine husband? or what knowest thou, o man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? Herein therefore we see plainly that for the necessity and benefit of families, God hath changed his la, and taken away that respect of a snare, which he so severely commanded of old. 2. In Deut, 7.25.26. God allows not his people to take the silver and gold abused unto Idolatry: not so much as to turn it unto their civil use, by taking it to themselves, or bringing it into their houses; & this in respect of the snare and abomination you speak of: The transgression of this law was the 
c Josh. 7.1. etc.  destruction of Achan and his family, and a trouble unto all Israel. But now this law is changed, and the respect of the snare and the abomination is taken away, as appeareth in the 
d 1. Cor. 10 27.  Idolothytes now permitted unto our use, which heretofore were unlawful, as well as the silver and gold mentioned in your allegation. 3, as for that place, Ezek. 23.14.16. It doth not appear that the images there spoken of were religious images, but rather civil pictures, images of the Babylonians, such as was the 
e Mat. 22.20.  image of Caesar in his coin: And therefore were not unlawful even in the time of the law, otherwise then by immoderate and inordinate use: and so even many other lawful things became 
f Ps. 69.22.  a snare and a ruin unto men. So that the snare condemned in your allegations is such, as that the strength and stain thereof depended either upon a ceremonial commandment from which we are freed; or upon an unlawful use, which you can not justly impute unto us in the use of our temples.  
Sixtly, whereas you say, that if this my exception should take place, we should have very few idols destroyed, for they that are Popishly affected, will find some necessary use for every Idol, to maintain their superstition. The gentry may wear the pope's hallowed golden crucifixes, and other sacred jewels, for broochs in their hats, etc. Hereunto I answer, 1. You aught to put difference betwixt Idols themselves, and the places where they have been worshipped, as the 
g Discov. p. 133.  marginal note on Barow acknowledgeth: These you do unjustly confounded together at every turn in your reasoning; seeing more detestation is to be showed against the Idols, then against their houses. 2, As for Popish Idols, hallowed crucifixes, their lady's images, and such like things converted unto ornaments of temples and of the gentry; they are not things of necessary use in either of those respects that I noted before: they are neither necessary circumstances in the worship of God; neither doth this kind of retaining them help to supply the necessities of the faithful: for if these golden implements were broken quite in pieces and molten again, the poor and other faithful men might then afterwards have as much and more benefit and necessary use of them then before; but with our temples it is quite contrary in both respects. 3, though we may use the plenty of the earth even for ornament also, as you allege before from Ps. 24.1. 1. Cor. 10.26. yet as the Apostle shows in the same place, we may also better forbear the use of such things whereof we enjoy a plenty; then of other things whereof we stand in great necessity. As from this that the earth is the Lords, the Apostle 
h 1. Cor. 10 26. with vers. 28.  proves we may have a lawful use of each creature therein: so from the fullness, plenty and variety of creatures, he shows that in some cases we should forbear the use of one rather than an other: and of what rather than of such vain, and unnecessary ornaments, as you speak of? 4. As for copes and other hallowed vestments, there is also a manifest difference betwixt them and our temples: for whatsoever others may think, that skills not, while we see that an house is of necessary use in the service of God, & that the surplice is but a surplus, a superfluous thing of no necessary use: And hereby you may plainly discern the difference; because not only that very same surplice which Papists used and defiled with their use, is unlawful: but any other surplice newly made for a ministerial garment, yea though the form in some part be altered, though it be not consecrated as the 
i Pontifical. par. 2. de benedictione sacerdotal. indum.  Popish vestments were, yet being of no necessary use in the service of God, is still unlawful: neither do I think that you would willingly wear such an albe: but I hope you will not say so of all temples new made, as of the Zuyder Kerck in this city: And yet if you will argue against our temples as against a surplice: then are we to have no temple at all, but to meet sub dio under the welkin; because we are to have no surplice at all. If in your annotations on the holy scriptures you should expound the other commandments of God on this manner, you would yet prove a greater corrupter of his law and seducer of his people.    

Section. 2.  

AGainst the example of jakobs practice in Gen. 35.2. (which was before Moses policy) you object, how many private houses should then be razed: seeing they have been polluted with idolatry, and been nurseries of superstition, as well as their public high places, Ios. 24.23. judg. 17.4. Zeph. 1.5. with Deut. 27.15.  
I answer; first you change the state of the question, which is of Idols and idolies: and not of houses or other things polluted with idolatry. Secondly, there is no law of God to destroy such civil-houses, as there is to destroy idolies: (and where there is no Law, there is 
a Rom. 4.15.  no transgression:) but on the contrary, God gave Israel the Canaanites 
b Deut. 6.10 11.  Cities and houses to devil in, when he 
c Deut. 12.2.3.  commanded their idolies to be demolished. Thirdly, you have no reason to compare civil houses polluted with idolatry, with idols or idolies: seeing even Gods own house was polluted with idolatry, & yet was not counted an idolie, or destroyed, but 
d 2. King. 23 4.6.11.12.  cleansed: neither can it without impiety, be matched with the high places of idols, or counted a nursery of superstition, as well as they. Neither are any civil dwelling houses, though idols have been worshipped in them, such monuments of idolatry, or nurseries of superstition, as the temples of heathens or of Antichristians; which are merely and properly idolies yea very idols, as before I have manifested from the Pontifical. And this we may learn of the heathen 
e Act. 19.27  Demetrius, who complained how by the Apostles preaching, the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her Majesty should be destroyed: which he would never have spoken of the dwelling houses of Ephesus, though her worshippers kept in them. The Papists also will tell you, that the very 
f Bellarm. de cult. sanct. lib. 3. c. 4.  walls of their Churches dedicated unto God, do move unto piety, as do the Altars, crosses, images, etc. which incitements to devotion are not found otherwhere. That God is after 
g Ibidem.  a peculiar manner in the temple, and heareth men's prayers sooner there, by promise. That the temple is dedicated to sacred actions, and is not a profane house but an holy: and 
h Ibid. c. 5.  to signify that, it is anointed with oil. That the Devil 
i Ibidem.  is cast out of it and not suffered there to devil, therefore the door is knocked on, and the Devil is bidden go away. So that there is no comparison between these consecrated places, and the common houses of men: and let our very enemies be the judges. Fourthly, the Hebrew doctors who are most precise in condemning outward monuments of idolatry, and hold even a ceremonial pollution by the very touching of an idol; yet say of such civil houses wherein Idols are set up, that when the 
k Maimony treat. of Idolatry c. 8 s. 4.  the Idol is taken out, the house is lawful. And these things serve for answer to the scriptures by you cited; and to the houses of the Muscovites and Papists, and the houses wherein we ourselves meet, which you object unto us, and do untruly call one of them, the jews Idol-temple.   

Answer.  
WHen you argued that our temples were to be destroyed because they serve to nourish superstition, I showed the weakness of this argument, because of the inconvenience that would follow; namely, that then many private houses which both of ancienter and later times have been defiled with Idols, should likewise be destroyed, being nurseries of superstition as well as other public places: Touching this first, you say, I change the state of the question which is of Idols and Idolies, & not of houses or other things polluted with Idolatry. I answer, 1. either you do not mark my reason, or else you do not understand the laws of right reasoning: for that which I said of the lawful retaining of private houses was not to rest therein, as in a conclusion of the question; but the mention thereof served only as a medius terminus or as an argument to infer the conclusion, as if I had used this Syllogism: 

If all nurseries of superstition are to be utterly destroyed, then are private houses also to be destroyed for nourishing of superstition.  
But private houses are not to be destroyed for their nourishing of superstition.  
Therefore, all nurseries of superstition are not to be destroyed.   From hence you might have discerned the force of your reason, drawn from the nourishing of superstition, refuted. 2. If this kind of reasoning in me may not be admitted, then may I in like manner tell you when you seek to infer inconveniences upon me, by the cope, mitre, surplice, & such like things; that you change the state of the question betwixt us, which is not about vestments and surplices, but about places and temples abused unto Idolatry. 3. It is yourself who indeed seek to change the state of the question, in that you say, our question is of Idols, which it is not, but only of Idolies, or places abused unto Idolatry, as may appear by the questions propounded in my 
k Fol. 2. a.  first writings, accepted of by you: neither have you proved our Temples to be Idols, that so by that means you might bring in Idols within the compass of the question. 4. You do here contradict yourself, when you say, the question is of Idolies, and not of houses or other things polluted with Idolatry: For, I pray you, what is an Idolie, but an house or place polluted with Idolatry? As public houses polluted with Idols, are public Idolies; so are private houses polluted with Idolatry, private Idolies: And therefore both in the Syriaque and Arabic translations of 1. Cor. 8.10. in stead of Idolie, they have the house of Idols: and in other places of Scripture, these Idolies are called 
l judg. 17.4.5.  houses of Idols, and houses of Gods.  
Secondly, you say, there is no law of God to destroy such civil houses, as there is to destroy idolies, etc. I answer: seeing God gave unto Israel the cities and houses of the Canaanites to devil in, when as he commanded the public places of their Idolatry to be demolished, as you confess: this confirms that which I said, and shows that the commandment of destroying public idolies did not depend merely upon the nourishing of Idolatry, for then the private idolies should have been destroyed also for their nourishing of Idolatry: because the like sins deserve and call for the like judgement. And this appears yet further from your own allegation compared with other scriptures: for whereas in Deut. 6.10.11. God allows Israel to devil in the cities and houses of the Canaanites, to enjoy their wells, their vineyards and olive trees; yet at an other time according to the pleasure of his own will, he 
m 2. Kin. 3 19.25.  commands the cities and houses of Idolatrous Moabites to be destroyed; every fair tree to be felled; all their fountains of water to be stopped; and every good field to be marred with stones; to show his detestation of their sin, which yet he would not have to be showed against the Canaanites by the same means, although the snare and danger of being nourished in Idolatry and other sin, was greater and more to be feared from the Canaanites then from the Moabites. If God took such a different course with Idolatrous and nourishers of superstition under the law; it aught not to seem strange unto us that he declares his detestation of Idolatry now under the Gospel by other means and manner then under the law, according to the counsel of his own william.  
In the third place, you say, I have no reason to compare civil houses polluted with Idolatry, with Idols or Idolies: seeing even Gods own house was polluted with idolatry, and yet was not counted an Idolie, or destroyed, etc. I answer, 1. Suppose I had no reason to compare civil houses with Idolies as you say; yet your reason from God's house doth not warrant you so to say: for the temple of God having many privileges which civil houses had not, might be exempted from the judgement of present destruction more than they: & therefore your plea is insufficient. 2, though Gods own house, when it was polluted with Idolatry, was not to be destroyed, but cleansed as 2. Kin. 23. yet have you no warrant to say, that It was not counted an Idolie: but as it was sometimes denominate of other sins, and called 
n jer. 7 11. mat. 21.13  a Den of thieves, when such wickedness was maintained: so what hinders but that it might likewise be called a Den of Idolaters, or an Idolie, during the time that it was full of Idols and not cleansed from Idolatry? 3, it is also false which you say of the temple, that it cannot without impiety be matched with the high places, or counted a nursery of superstition as well as they. For when as the temple, through the abominable Idolatries 
o 2. Kin. 21 4.5. etc. jer. 2.10.11 & 3.11. Ezek. 16.46.47.51.52.57. & 23.11.39.40. etc.  practised in it was become an unclean stews of spiritual whoredom, above many of the Idol-places, being also more famous for the place and persons polluting it and enticing unto Idolatry, exceeding Sodom and Samaria in their heathenish Idolatries: did not this notorious scandal given in the temple of God nourish superstition ten times more than the Idolatries committed in some obscure Idol temples of the heathen? And though God gave no law for destroying of this his temple when it became a nursery of superstition, yet this hinders not but that it did sometimes match and overmatch the high places of the heathens in nourishing of Idolatry. The will of God was that some Idolies should be destroyed & some not. 4, for civil dwelling houses where Idols have been worshipped, though they be not such monuments and nurseries of superstition, as some other public Idolies, that impeacheth not my assertion: it is enough for me, that they have in some measure been nurseries of superstition: Even among the public Idolies themselves, some temples of Antichrist are not such nurseries of superstition as some other be, which are ten times more devoutly observed and waited on, than the rest. 5, how know you that that all the temples of the heathens had no civil dwellings in any part of them, & that they were (as you say) merely Idolies? how know you but that some of them might be inhabited, in such manner as your Idolie is, reserving the principal place for their Idol service and devotion? your making of them mere Idolies in this sense, seems to be a mere presumption and affirmation without proof. 6, I may rather say on the contrary, that they were not merely Idolies because some part of them were put to civil uses as one of your own 
p Cranz. Wandal. li. 4. c. 23.  Authors testifieth for the Idolie that Geroldus destroyed: there being a meeting in the court thereof every monday for judgements by the King and the flamine: It is also noted of diverse temples of Antichrist, that 
q Magdeb. centur. 12. col. 870. 871.  civil judgements, and other civil businesses were wont to be performed there: And that our temples are often put unto diverse civil uses also, daily experience witnesseth. That which you say of manifesting them to be very Idols, out of the Pontifical is already answered. 7. we cannot say but that some private Idolies, and civil dwelling houses, were equal in nourishing of superstition even unto some public Idolies: when as 
r Zeph. 1.5 2. Kin. 23.12.  Altars were made upon the house tops, especially upon Kings or Princes houses as upon Ahaz his chamber: The resort unto such places and the scandal by the Idol-worship there performed might nourish superstition more than the devotion performed in some other obscure Idolies and groves of the heathens. 8, How frivolous is that which you writ of the heathen Demetrius? how know you that he would never have spoken of the dwelling houses in Ephesus as he did of Diana's temple, concerning her majesty? seeing that which he spoke was for his 
s Act. 19.24.25.  gain: and seeing his gain consisted in selling little temples of Diana: it was suitable and fit for his purpose that men should think their private dwelling houses would be more holy if they had those little temples or shrines of Diana in them, and therefore who can say but that he would upon occasion complain that the majesty of Diana and of her great temple would be despised, if men did not show their devotion in buying those little temples for the hallowing of their houses and for the maintenance of her worship? And what if he would not so have complained? yet might their houses in Ephesus have been Idolies, in respect of their lares familiares, and other household Gods privately worshipped by them. 9 Unto that which you allege out of Bellarmine touching the Popish opinion of holiness in their temples, I answer that they will also tell you he like touching their private dwelling houses, when as they are consecrated also according to their manner: namely, that the walls of their houses being hallowed with the sign of the cross and holy water are more holy than other houses not blessed after that manner; that God is then after a peculiar manner present in such houses more than in other houses; that the devil is driven away and expelled: for such virtue and efficacy of 
t Bellarm. de imagine. sanc. lib. 2. cap. 29. Pontifical.  driving away evil spirits, of communicating holiness, and stirring up devotion they do eyery where ascribe unto the sign of the cross: Their common saying is: 
u Catechis. regin. Mariae, Angl.  per crucis signum fugiat hinc omne malignum, etc. Having therefore that Idolatrous sign over the doors of their dwelling houses without; and on the walls within, what holiness and virtue can be wanting unto them? And therefore though our enemies are not to be admitted for judges; except it be against themselves as Moses 
w Deut. 32 31.  allegeth them: yet in this matter their testimony is against you.  
Fourthly, you pled from the Hebrew doctors: & tell us out of Maimony, what is said concerning civil houses, namely that, when the Idol is taken out, the house is lawful: Hereunto I answer: 1. The testimony & authority of Maimony is of no weight nor worth: think you that I fear the arm of Rambam, that you come so often in his name against me? what mean you to tell us so often of hebrew doctors and jewe doctors, which are indeed neither jews nor doctors; but such as the holy Ghost speaks of, 
x Rev. 2.9.  which say they are jews and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan: 
y 1 Tim. 1.7  They would be doctors of the law and yet understand not what they speak: They are 
z 1. Tim. 6.4.  Doters about questions: puffed up and know nothing: 
a Ibid. us. 5  Separate thyself from such: But you that separate yourself from all the ministers of Christ, and in all this writing have not alleged one of the lights of the reformed Churches, do yet at every turn call for jewish, popish, heathenish writers to speak for you. You tell us they are most precise in condemning outward monuments of Idolatry etc. But it is hard to say whether theri preciseness be more impious or absurd; impious, in condemning the worship of God in Christ jesus to be Idolatry; absurd, in avoiding even the 
b Arba Turim, in lib. jore-dea. tract. cele haiajin. signo. 135. & tract. Pittim, sign. 112.  civil instruments and vessels and meat of Christians, as the pollutions of Idolatry: and this yet with great contradiction among themselves. Their preciseness is much like to that of the jews in the Gospel, which 
c joh. 18.28  would not go into the common hall jest they should be defiled: and yet in the mean time imbrued themselves in the blood of Christ: And even in the place alleged how vain are the traditions which Maimony teacheth, touching the body of the Idolatrous oak or other tree, being lawful for use but only the Boughs, branches & fruits unlawful: 
d Maimony in Abode. Zarah. c. 8.  with diverse such like. 2, you do also corrupt the testimony of Maimony in this place; for he speaks not of civil houses only as you would make him to speak by your application of his words: his speech may be understood of other houses also, as of Synagogues built for the worship and service of God: Neither is there any thing in that Chapter that should restrain his indefinite speech of a house unto civil houses: and therefore your own Author is even in this testimony here produced by you, contradictory unto yourself, who in an other 
e Counterpoy. p 199.  place do teach that though our Churches have not been built by Antichrist, though the Idols be also taken out of them, that yet they are to be destroyed: being herein more unreasonable than your precise and impious Maimony. 3. Suppose that Maimony here spoke of civil houses as being lawful for use when the Idol is taken away, then doth he in this point agreed with me who hold the same; and written so much before, viz. that 
f pag. 23.  God never commanded, nor the godly ever practised such a demolishing of private houses: but he is here against you who would have the houses which have been nurseries of Idolatry to be destroyed; and consequently the houses of the Moschovites, Papists and even of your own Idolies also, of which more hereafter in their proper place.    

Section. 3.  


Hen. Ains.  AGainst the example of the brazen serpent destroyed, 2. King. 18.4 You say, it was of no necessary use, and therefore might well be destroyed. I answer, there was as necessary use of it still, as there had been before: and therefore in that respect, no more cause to destroy it now, then in former times. Yea it being a monument of God's ancient mercy to his Church, and a figure 
a joh. 3.14.  of future grace: they might have pretended a much more necessary and profitable use to reserve it, than you can for reserving the idolies of the Pope. But the scripture itself showeth an other cause than you allege, namely for that the Israelits 
b 2. King. 18.4.  did burn incense unto it, and not for that there was no necessary use thereof. And the same cause (besides other) lieth against your idol temples: for to this day, many people burn incense unto them, esteeming and using them as sanctified places for the incense of their prayers, and other religious works. If you require a proof, you may see it in this city, if not at other times, at lest on Sacraments day, so called: when above other days, the papists visit their ancient Temple solemnly, some of them barefooted: & if the doors be shut that they cannot go in, yet they do their devotion in procession about the idolie. And wherefore may we think, have the Nuns a key of your chapel (as is reported) but for to do honour to their Diana's shrine: it is for no devotion to your worship therein, you may be sure, but rather that they may continued Temple keepers (or worshippers) of their former gods, as the Ephesians 
c Act. 19.35  were of their Diana. If you pled, that these burn not incense to the Temples, but to God in them: the same I answer for the Israelits, that they also burnt incense to God, before the brazen serpent, for they were not so sottish as to worship a piece of Brass. But the scripture useth to call the worshipping of God, by or before an idol, the worshipping of the idol itself: as in Act. 7.41. they are said to offer sacrifice unto the idol, whereas in Exod. 32. it appeareth they sacrificed to the Lord, the God that had brought them out of Egypt. So they that worshipped in the idolatrous groves, are said to 
d 2. Chron. 24.18.  serve the groves: and sundry the like.   

Answer.  

joh. Pag.  Unto my answer touching the brazen serpent, your reply is: there was as necessary use of it still, as there had been before, etc. I answer; And therefore I grant also, if in former times it had been abused unto Idolatry, in the time of the judges or of former Kings, there had been cause to have abolished the same, while there was no necessary use thereof: And what doth this help you?  
Secondly, whereas you proceed and add that it being a monument of God's ancient mercy and figure of future grace, they might have pretended a much more necessary use, etc. I answer further, though it had been a holy sign and type as joh. 3.14. yet this proves not so profitable a use thereof as we have of our temples: The 
g Exo. 12.22.  bunch of Hyssop where with they sprinkled their houses at the , was a monument of God's ancient mercy and a type 
h Ps. 51.7. 1. Pet. 1.2.  of future grace, yet after the sacred action of sprinkling ceased, there was no such necessary use either of it or of the brazen serpent, being now no necessary circumstances in the service of God, as a place or house to meet in still is, and the poor not able to receyve any such benefit by retaining the hyssop or the serpent, as now they may by retaining of these temples. As the holy mount after the law was delivered, and the sound of the Trumpet ended became 
i Exod. 19.12.13.  lawful for common use again and the religious observation thereof ceased: so was it with the brazen serpent, and the bunch of hyssop as touching the holiness thereof: but as for the civil help and benefit we have by these temples, the continuance thereof is apparent and manifest unto all.  
Thirdly, whereas you say that the scripture itself allegeth an other cause, namely for that the Israelites burned incense unto it, etc. You know well enough that I presuppose that cause & grant the same, according to your allegation, from 2. King. 18.4. which I myself before noted; and the state of our controversy which is concerning things abused unto Idolatry, doth also manifest unto every one: yet that hinders not but we may also consider this as a concurring cause to be joined with the former, and this so much the rather touching the destruction of the brazen serpent, because the original thereof was not for Idol service. Otherwise, if without regard of necessary use each temple abused unto Idolatry must be destroyed, as the brazen serpent was for the abuse thereof; than not only the temples built & dedicated by heathens & papists but also the temples newly built by the protestants for the true and lawful worship of God, such as are the Zuyder-Kerck in this city and diverse more in other places, (if the the papists should get them but one month or week into their hands & sing one mass therein) should in like manner be razed and demolished. But you must yet strain your wit to draw more subtle consequences before you can show us such temples in the belly of the brasen-serpent, which by your arguing you would make to be such a devouring Dragon. In Israel beside the temple were 
k Act. 15.21. Mat. 4.23. Ps. 74.4.8.  Synagogues built for the service of God: And Historians record (as yourself also 
l Annot. on ps. 74.4.  acknowledge) that in one city jerusalem there were above four hundred Synagogues: Now by your reasoning if an Idolatrous king had risen up over all Israel; & reigned but one month as did 
m 2. Kin. 15 13.  Shallum the son of jabesh & during that time had converted all their Synagogues unto the service of Idols, all those Synagogues throughout Israel must never more have been employed unto the service of the true God, but every one of them plucked down & destroyed: and this so often (if others were built again) as any new pollution should come upon them, though but for a month, or even for one hours abusing unto false worship. This havoc your Hammer and argument makes among the houses of God. As Nabuchadnezzar was once the 
n jer. 50.23  Hammer of the world; so if there were strength in your arm and authority according to your mind, we should have you to be the Hammer of Christendom, not only to break the constitution of their spiritual societies every where, but also to overturn & raze their material buildings: Not necessary use would serve for any plea or excuse before such a severe judge.  
Fourthly, you say: the same cause lieth against our Idol-temples: for to this day many people burn incense unto them: and for proof hereof, you allege that in this city if not at other times, at lest on Sacraments day, so called, we may see the papists visit their ancient temple solemnly; some of them barefooted, etc. Hereunto I answer. 1. This action of the Papists whereof you speak is not in any public solemn meeting, as your words might make the reader to imagine, and so deceive him thereby: but a thing done by stealth of some superstitious persons, who as I hear do now and then visit that temple as a holy place: The Magistrate of this city doth punish the Papists even for their secret meetings in private houses: and much lesle will they suffer public and solemn assemblies for Idolservice. If such a visitation of temples as this is be a just cause of destroying them, than what temple shall be free from destruction, if the Papists may have liberty at any time to come near it and to pollute it with their devotions? It is affirmed by many, (and it is agreeable to the Romish profession) that the Churchyard and Church newly built in this city, have in the night season been visited by the Papists and consecrated by their priest or Bishop for the burial of their dead, which are often buried there: And now by your reasoning, because the Papists have on this manner burned incense unto it, and hallowed it for their use, and esteem it a sanctified place, it should be destroyed as well as the brazen serpent was. 2, The superstitious devotions which by some straggling people are now and then performed at this temple whereof you speak, were in like manner practised by them, (as those that have seen do testify) even then when it was turned unto a civil use and made a pack house for wares: for unto such use it was by the Magistrate's appointment heretofore employed, until of later time, the city increasing, they found a necessary use of it for the people to meet in, unto the service of God. And this being so, that the retaining of this place for civil use hath given liberty unto Papists to burn incense unto it (as you speak) as well as the religious use thereof: then are you as deep in this sin as others whom you accuse for nourishing superstition: for it hath been and is the manner of your people to retain a civil use of these hallowed places for the burial of the dead. Though you have not power to destroy them, yet aught you to forbear the use of these hallowed places, if there be such a sinful nourishing of superstition thereby. Yea if any difference be, it is the retaining of these places for civil use that gives the Papist more liberty and occasion to perform and continued their devotions still, because they think that our use of their temples in the service of God doth more pollute them, and make them unfit for their use then turning of them to pack houses. 3, Suppose that there were offence given in retaining this particular temple which you mention & which some Papists do more dote upon, then upon other places; in respect of some miraculous virtue and holiness which they have imagined and believed to be in it through their popish delusions, yet this may not serve to condemn all other in like manner: And lest of all can it serve to condemn the place of our worship, about which in particular this our present controversy is. The woman that occasioned this dispute & pretended scruple of joining with our congregation in respect of our temple, need not to be offended at this place of ours, for the superstition that is practised in an other place.  
Fiftly, you ask wherefore the Nuns have a key of our Chapel (as is reported) but for to do honour to their Diana's shrine, etc. I answer: 1. The report which you repeat is a false report and untrue: The Baguines or women (whom you call Nuns) have no key whereby they may come into our Chapel: neither have had these many years; And therefore directly contrary unto that which the town clerk of Ephesus said boasting, & which you 
o Act. 19.35.  allege for them; they may take up a lamentation and say; who knoweth not, that we are no longer temple-keepers nor worshippers in the Chapel, which is taken from us: we have lost possession and have no keys of entrance, etc. Regard not such sleight reports: if you were wise you would not mention them, until you had more warrant & assurance of the truth thereof. 2, yourself are rather a Sexton or templ-keeper of an Idol-temple, having obtained to keep for your use a key of the library in that temple which you resort unto & yet would have it to be destroyed and razed: Not Nuns have any such door in our temple to be opened by them at their pleasure as you have there: But I pray you tell us, since you would not have these temples once abused by Antichrist to be exempted from ruin and destruction more than the rest: would you be content thus to have kept a key of some cel in Apollo's Oracle at Delphos, or of Baal-zebubs temple in Ekron where you might daily have heard the devil speaking aloud in his own person? If so, surely you do them less hate Idol-temples & devilles houses, than many of those whom you do so much accuse thereof.  
Sixtly, as for the distinction which you would preoccupate viz. of burning incense not to the temples but to God in them: though I condemn those that shall make such distinctions to defend their superstition withal: yet whereas you say further, that you answer the same thing for the Israelites, that they also burnt incense to God, before the brazen serpent, for they were not so sottish as to worship a piece of brass: this your saying is unwarrantable: for the folly & sottishness of Idolaters leads them to as great absurdities as the worshipping of a piece of brass: 
p Rom. 1.22.23.25. Ezec. 8.10.11.14.  they being so infatuate as to worship the basest creatures: they become not only 
q jer. 10.14  brutish as the beasts, but even 
r Ps. 115.8  blockish like the senseless stones which they serve: And then what warrant have you to limit their folly, as though they could not proceed thus far to worship a piece of brass: especially considering the 
s 2. Kin. 16 3.  rage of Idolatry that was about this time of Ahaz whom Hezekias succeeded and then destroyed the brazen serpent? you are in this point more erroneous than the Idolatrous jesuite himself 
t Bellarm. de imagine. lib. 2 c. 11 & 13.  who confesseth this sottishness of Idolaters, which you deny in the Israelites. And what though sometimes the scripture call the worshipping of God by an Idol, the worshipping of the Idol itself, as you show from Exo. 32 with Act. 7.41? must it needs do so therefore at all times? or must it therefore do so at this place concerning the brazen serpent? The sottishness of Idolaters in worshipping very wood & stone for their Gods is showed at large by 
u joan. Rainol. censur. Apocr. tom. 2. praelec. 223.  our writers who do therefore also justly reprove the slanders of Bellarmine who because Calvine collected from Exo. 32. that there and in such places the true God was worshipped by an Idol after a false manner, did therefore slander him as though he had said the jews did worship the true God in all their Idols. But your allegation & application of that place Exo. 32. unto the question in hand, is as vain as that which was slanderously imputed unto Calvine. Besides this, there is great difference betwixt worshipping God by or before an Idol, and the worshipping in or at an Idol-temple; These two are not to be matched together: As you allege that men are said to serve the groves, 2. Chron. 24.18. So by the like figurative speech men are said to serve the tabernacle or to do 
w Num. 18 4.6 1. Chro. 9 13. & 28.13.21.  the service of the tabernacle & of the house of God, because of their attendance upon the same in their several charges: yet this is not all one with kneeling down before a brazen bowl, a fleshook, or an embroidered Cherub in a curtain of the tabernacle and worshipping God thereby, as Idolaters use to do in the Idols: such serving of the tabernacle I think you will not allow: And so on the contrary the service of the groves, being a large and general speech is to be considered of more distinctly, than you have yet propounded the same unto us.    

Section. 4.  


Hen. Ains.  AGainst the example of josias, in 2. Chron. 34. you say, those things were also of no necessary use. I answer, you fall again into your former fallacy, putting that for the cause which was not. And besides the reasons which I fore-alleged, the text itself showeth otherweise, for he made 
// Vers. 4.7  dust of them. Can not the things have been put to some necessary use: and where they therefore turned to dust and powder? The godly zeal of the King, compared with God's law, persuadeth that his own profit or necessary use, was not the thing that he respected. And what if the high places were not houses meet to be converted into synagogues; yet might they have served for other uses: and the houses of Dagon and Baal, and the temples which Israel builded 
* Hos. 8.14  when they forgot their maker, were as fit for synagogues as Antichrists temples now. And if you will regard later examples: you may see many idol houses and monuments destroyed by Christian Princes, and by Bishops having leave from such: and this not because they could not have put them to necessary uses, but for zeal and detestation of idolatry. As 
1 Eusebius de vita Const. l. 3. c. 53.  Constantine the Emperor razed down Venus' temple, with all statues and monuments of it: & 
2 Socrates Hist. l. 1. c. 14.  the Python in Cilicia, with his temple. 
3 Theodoret hist. l. 5 c. 37. 20. 21. Sozom. l. 7 c. 20. 21  Theodosius commanded the temples of idols to be overthrown. 
4 Augustin de civ. Dei. l. 18. c. 54.  Gaudentius & jovius ruinated such places in the reign of Honorius. 
5 Cranz. l. 2 Saxon. c. 9 & 12.  Carolus Magnus, when he had conquered Saxony, did the like to the idolies of Maydenburgh and Mars mount. 
6 Theodor. hist. l. 3. c. 7  Marcus' Bishop of Arethusa, performed the like service in Constantine's days, and 
7 Sigonius l. 10. Imperij occident  Bishop Porphyry showed like zeal at Gaza, and 
8 Cassiod. lib. 3. Hist. tripart.  Bishop Abdas did the like among the Persians', upon their Temples consecrated to the Fire. john 
9 Theodor. l. 5. 2. 29.  Chrysostome sent men to do the like work in Phoenicia. 
10 Helmoldus in Sclavorun Chron.  Bishop Geroldus burned to ashes, a grove which the Sclavi had in sacred reverence. 
11 Chron. Mersburg. l. 2. c. 6.  Wigbertus' Bishop of Mersburgh did likeweise, and 
12 Cranz. in Metrop. l. 4. c. 1.  Vnwannus of Hamburgh, cut down all the idolatrous groves in his diocese. 
13 Cromer. l. 15. & Guagninus de Lituania.  In Lituania, the Temples and Altars of idols were demolished: and in sundry other places, as Historiographers do record. And now of late the Christians in France (as at Rochel) ruinated the popish Temples there: all which do bear witness to the true meaning of God's law, written in their hearts, otherwise then in yours, who pled to have such places continued for to worship God in upon a pretence of necessary use.   

Answer.  

joh. Pag.  THe reasons which you fore alleged against the consideration of necessary use in things abused unto Idolatry, are before answered: unto that which you now labour to show out of the text itself I answer further, 1. whereas you allege that josias made dust of the Altars and groves, etc. and thereupon ask whether they could not have been put to some necessary use, etc. If you mean a necessary use in any measure at all, I deny not the the same: for there is nothing so small or abject but some use may be made thereof: and even after these things were turned into dust, there might use be made of that dust, as there was: but you pervert my words if you stand so servilly unto the letter thereof: whereas I spoke of the great profit that might redound unto the maintenance of the Church: and namely such as might be proportionable unto the worth of many temples, of ten thousand Churches happily in some one Kingdom: and what is a basketfull of dust about which you trifle in comparison of this great commodity employed to supply the wants of the faithful? 2. Touching josias his zeal compared with the law of God though I doubt not but that he respected the Glory of God and not his own profit: yet this hinders not but that with a godly zeal and care of God's people he might also have respect unto the common benefit of them in reserving many Synagogues and houses of assembly built for the worship of God, and convert them to his service again though they had been polluted with Idolatry, contrary to your doctrine that requires the demolition of all such beside the temple alone. 3, as for the houses of Dagon, Baal and such like, though they were not mentioned in the 
x 2. Chr. 34  Chapter alleged by you to show us the example of josias, yet did I also in my former 
y pag. 22.  answer, show the warrant for their destruction, though they might have been turned unto necessary use, viz. in respect of the temporary dispensation under Moses, though now abrogate.  
In the next place, leaving the Scriptures, you betake yourself to an other help, and say in defence of your error, that if, I will regard later examples, I may see many Idol houses and monuments destroyed by Christian Princes, and by Bishops having leave from such, etc. Hereunto I answer in general, 1. We have here a notable spectacle of your great partiality; while you that do so often blame me for making flesh my arm, & for alleging the Examples of Reformed Churches against you even when I did it not, do yet yourself seek help of men, of Idolatrous men & fly for refuge unto them, and to their examples to oppugn us therewithal. When Mr. Spr. propounded unto your consideration, the example and judgement of 
z Counterpoy. pag. 15.  all the pure Reformed Churches in the world, & of all the godly learned & most excellent lights in the same, as Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Alasto, Knox, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Gualther, Symler, Zanchius, junius, Rollocus, etc. You answer as David did touching the armies of the heathens & infidels and say, though be come against you with horsemen and Charets, yet you 
// ps. 20.7.  will remember the name of the Lord, by whose word alone all doctrines must be tried, etc. How much more justly might I now answer you in your own words, and require you to lay aside carnal confidence and to remember the name of the Lord: I may justly complain of you as Solomon doth of the great evil which he saw under the Sun; He saw 
a Eccles. 10.7.  Servants on horses and Princes walking as Servants on the ground: In your examples alleged against me, you set Servants and Beggars on horseback, even the vassals & slaves of Antichrist, popish Priests & Prelates Geroldus, Wigbertus, Vnwannus & other Lituanians & Polonians, and will have their examples to be regarded of me; and yet make Princes to walk as servants on the ground, by making base account of the judgements & examples of the truest Churches & faithfullest Ministers, propounded unto you by others: Let those that fear the Lord judge whether this be not shameful and gross partiality and far from a sincere course.  
2. We may here observe not only, your partiality but a further deceit; for whereas in the beginning of your 
b Pag. 35.  last writing, your counsel is that we discuss things by the word of God, not of man: you are herein like unto a deceitful champion who being to combat with an other, would aforehand agreed upon the weapon and assistance to be used: but yet contrary to agreement brings with him into the field both other weapons and assistance than he pretended at the first: for so you making show that you would use the sword of the spirit only, do yet bring with you other carnal weapons and a company of hired Soldiers which you couch closely together and lay them in ambush: and here of a sudden they step forth, first a band of Emperors & Princes as of Constantine the great, Theodosius, Gaudentius, jovius, Carolus magnus or Charles the great; and the marching of these horsemen and Charets makes a terrible noise in the ears of many: after these you bring forth a second band of Popish prelate's, as Geroldus, Wigbertus, Vnwannus, to come rustling in their rochets against me: & besides these diverse others. Who would have expected such an onset, under your conduct, that made such show of the contrary at the first?  
3. As you have alledgedged the examples of these for breakin down of temples, so might you as easily have alleged their examples for the maintenance of many notorious corruptions some of them for the superstitious use of the sign of the cross; some of them to allow primates and metropolitanes: some of them to allow even the mass itself and all the abominations of popery. What weight is there in the example of such?  
4. The temples which these Princes and Bishops destroyed were all of them heathenish and built by the Pagans' for the worship of false Gods: other temples such as ours built for the service of Christ, they destroyed not, but built such themselves, as you would now have to be demolished. And suppose you could prove that the temples abused by Antichrist were to be destroyed as well as the Pagan-Idolies: yet at lest by the testimony and judgement of these your witnesses it was otherwise: so that look what the force of these examples is, it is all against yourself and not against us.  
But to come more particularly unto your examples: The first is, that Constantine the Emperor razed down Venus' Temple, with all statues and monuments of it: I answer, 1. It is uncertain whether this thing was done by Constantine or not: for Eusebius the author that records the same is 
c R. P. de Politeria Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 23. 24. 25. 26. Scaliger. Elenc. trihaeres. Serrar. c. 29  often taxed for many errors in matters of fact described by him. His testimony is therefore doubtful and not free from suspicion. 2. That Temple is recorded by Eusebius to have been an extraordinary wicked place, not only for heathenish Idolatry, but also for other monstrous and unnatural crimes committed in the same, which are also alleged as a cause why it was destroyed: Therefore the destruction thereof is no sufficient warrant for the subversion of our temples. 3, It is also noted by Eusebius in the same Chapter which you cite, that this temple of Venus was situate in a dearne place on a top of mount Libanus, out of the way & remote from conversation of men: therefore could it not even by his relation be converted unto such necessary uses as our temples are.  
4. That Idol temples were not destroyed by Constantine, it is confessed by an 
d Theodoret Hist. lib. 5. c. 20.  other of your witnesses: Therefore though he forbade the Idolaters to use them, yet do not your witnesses agreed that his conscience required the destruction of them all together according to your doctrine.  
The second example alleged by you is of Constantine also, that he destroyed the Python in Cilicia with his temple. I answer, 1. The truth of this fact may also be justly called into question, considering how uncertain or rather fabulous things are recorded by that Socrates your witness. In the 
e Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 13.  former Chapter next unto this alleged by you there is recorded the finding out of the holy cross by Helena the Mother of Constantine: the miraculous discerning of the same from the two other crosses of the thieves crucified with Christ, by the means of Macarius, etc. 2. If the things there recorded by Socrates be true, then was the superstition of Constantine very great; in taking a piece of that cross which his mother found and sent unto him, and hiding it in his own statue or image, believing perfectly that the city should be preserved safe, where it was kept: in taking also the nails which fastened the hands of Christ un-the cross, and putting them in his horse bridles and in his helmet (as an 
f Theodoret Hist. lib. 1. c. 18.  other of your Authors saith) to repel the darts of his enemies; and to accomplish the ancient 
g Zach. 14.20.  Prophecy, touching the holiness upon the bridles of the horses. Such examples are of no great authority with us. 3. These Author's witness further that in Constantine's time, they did 
h Euseb. hist. lib. 20 cap. 3.  consecrated Churches, and kept feasts of dedication: that he 
i Socrates hist. lib. 1. c. 13.  caused a temple to be built where the temple of Venus had stood: and an other at the 
k ibid. c. 14  oak of Mamre even in the Idol-place where heathenish sacrifices had been offered. Do you think that such examples are to be regarded and followed?  
For a third example you tell us that Theodosius commanded the temples of Idols to be overthrown: I answer, 1. Your historians witnessing this fact are so full of apparent fables that there is no great credit to be given unto them. As for Theodoret to go no further than these chapters alleged by you: in the 
l Theodoret Hist. lib. 5. .37.  first of them he tells great wonders of Eunomius the Bishop that alone resisted an army when others fainted, etc. in the 
m ibid. c. 20  second place, the story of Macedonius the divine eremite that was ignorant of the scriptures, is related: in the 
n ibid. c. 21.  third place is the story of the Devil that at first would not suffer the fire to burn the Idol-temple, but was after driven to run away by the virtue of holy water and the sign of the cross, etc. And Sozomen in the 
o Sozom. lib. 7. c. 21.  Chapter next-following unto that which you allege tells a strange story of john Baptists head which the mules would draw no further then to a certain place supposed therefore to be chosen of God for the keeping of that relic: and how Theodosius came thither either God or the Prophet moving him, etc. 2, Sozomen in the place cited by you shows that at length many of the Idol-temples were overthrown by Theodosius: If he had thought them simply unlawful according to Deut. 12. Than is it like that not many but all of them should have been destroyed by him. And beside he 
p ibid. c. 1●  shows that the temple of Bacchus in Alexandria was converted unto the use of the Christians under Theodosius: That in the temple of Serapis, there was heard to be sung Alleluia, by a strange voice, no person being seen for a token that Christians should afterwards sing psalms for the worship of God in that place. 3, In the first place which you allege out of Theodoret, there is also mention made of a certain impudent monk or contemplative person that brought the conscience of Theodosius into bondage with a vain excommunication, etc. And therefore not the consciences of such men but the word of God which is the perfect law of liberty must be our guide.  
In the fourth place you allege, that Gaudentius and jovius ruinated such places in the reign of Honorius. Answ. 1. Though they did so in one city, in Carthage, yet this shows not that they did so in other places, or that they thought all others bound to imitate their example: for oftentimes such works are done upon occasion of particular respects and specialll provocations, which at other times and places they would not do: as was also noted before in the practice of Constantine the great. 2. As for Augustine your Author, though he approve this fact in them; yet it appears else where, that at some other times and places he 
q August. ad Publicolan Epist. 154.  allowed the retaining of them: and shows reason for their converting to religious uses, even as sacrilegious and impious persons themselves are changed or converted unto true religion: And his reason is not to be despised: seeing living temples of the devil abused unto Idolatry being more capable of the infection of sin may be employed and turned unto the service of God; why not other dead temples made of wood and stone? 3. This your witness doth yet further condemn you, in that he 
r Ibidem.  allows the converting of Idol-temples and groves unto the worship of the true God, or unto other common and public uses, but not unto other private uses and commodities: whereas on the contrary you that do deny such public use of them in the service of God, are yet content to employ them to your own private use and benefit as by study in the library, etc.  
Your fift example is, that Carolus magnus when he had conquered Saxony, did the like to the Idolies of Maydenburgh and Mars mount. I answer. 1. Cranzius the popish writer whom you allege for these things is of such authority, that for many matters the golden legend of lies deserves as much credit as he: He tells 
s Cranzius Wandalia lib. 5. c. 41.  of strange apparitious at noon day made unto virgins for the receiving of Henricus the new Bishop: and of the great miracles that 
t cap. 42.  Evermodus the Bishop wrought in losing the chains of prisoners by the holy water that he sprinkled upon them: and how in the open congregation he beaten out the unmerciful devil that would not forgive the murderer. He records how 
u Ibid lib 4 cap. 19  Vicelinus the Bishop after his death appeared unto a certain woman complaining that the alms which were given for his soul's health were not duly bestowed by Tolcardus the Priest to whom that business was committed, etc. And that he appeared unto an other virgin, sending her to Eppo his old friend that lamented his death, to comfort him and to signify unto him, that he carried his tears in his garment which was upon him white as snow: And he shows also what a miracle he 
w Ibid. c. 20  wrought upon a blind woman unto whom he appeared in a dream and restored her sight by printing the sign of the cross upon her eyes, etc. He 
x Saxoniae lib. 2. c. 26.  records how Carolus magnus having begun to build a Church at Elize, and that dying his Son Lodowick succeeded him, who riding a hunting on a certain day, & hearing Mass in the field, his chaplain left the sacred relics behind him, to wit, some of the milk of S. Mary, and of the hairs of her head which he had hung upon a tree: but being come back and missing the same, ran again with haste unto the tree where he left them, but being come could by no means of any strength pluck them away from the tree. This they judged to be a sign that Mary had chosen that place to devil in and so they translated the Church begun at Eltze unto this place, etc. 2. In the place 
y Ibid. c. 1●  alleged by you, he shows that this Charles the great when he had broken down the temple of Venus at Maydenburgh, did erect an other even in the same place unto the honour of St. Stephen: and so destroying one Idol-temple he set up an other. Had I alleged against you such examples and such Authors, than had it been time for you to have called me, 
z Esa. 8.  to the law & to the testimony.  
In the sixth place you come from Emperors and Princes unto Bishops, destroying Idol-temples; and here you tell how Marcus Bishop of Arethusa performed the like service in Constantine's days. But (not to speak further of the author's uncertainty that records this fact) seeing the destruction of Temples is a work of the civil Magistrate, and by them to be executed as yourself confess; how could Marcus perform this work without usurpation of the civil sword? If you say that leave and authority from the Prince did warrant him thus to do, then by the like grant and warrant from Princes you may allow Bishops to be high commissioners and civil Magistrates: And they may as well allege these examples of Bishops for maintenance of their double authority, as you do for the destruction of temples. But more particularly touching this example when you come afterwards to allege it the second time.  
Your 7th. example is of Bishop Porphyry that showed the like zeal at Gaza. I answer, 1. It appears out of Sigonius in the place you allege, that Bishop Porphyry, was stirred up unto this fact by the injuries that he received from the gentiles which prevailed in Gaza: and therefore his zeal against Idolies is not very evident. 2, The manner of dealing which this Bishop and the Bishop of Caesarea that joined with him, did use in Prophesying unto the empress Eudoxia touching a Son to be borne unto her, to win her assistance in this matter, makes their zeal the more to be suspected. 3. Their baptizing of the emperors Child with the sign of the cross even at the same time when they got licence to destroy the Idol-temples at Gaza, doth show that you may as well allege their examples for the maintenance of other superstitions, as for the countenancing of your opinion in this controversy.  
Your 8. example is of Bishop Abdas that did the like among the Persians', upon their temples consecrated to the fire. I answer, That Cassiodorus who relates this fact (not in the 3. book, as you cite the same, but in the 10. book and 3. Chapter of his tripartite history) doth also justly reprove the same, both by the 
a Act. 17.22 23. etc.  example of Paul who though he showed the error of the Athenians, yet did he not himself destroy their altars and idols; as this bishop did without any lawful authority: as also by the woeful event that followed, namely that upon this fact all the Churches of the Christians were destroyed and overthrown by the Persians'; and not only this; but here upon also was raised a most cruel and extreme persecution of the Christians which continued for the space of 30 years together. And if this example aught to be followed, then aught you and your people to come with your hammers to break our temples, but I need not to dehort you from such folly.  
Your 9 example is that john Chrysostome sent men to do the like work in Phoenicia. Answ. 1. The men whom he sent about this work, were (as the author alleged by you 
b Theodoret. lib. 5. c. 29.  shows) monks inflamed with divine zeal: if you had alleged this testimony so in your authors own words, the weakness of such examples would the better have appeared unto the readers: for thereby they might have discerned your author commending monks, and showing the antiquity of monastical life, as well as he shows the ruin of Temples. 2. If the example of Chrysostome be of any worth in your eyes, we may then allege the same against your oppugning of set forms of prayer, which he allowed in the worship of God, as appears by the hymns and antiphones which as an other of your witnesses 
c Socrates hist. lib. 6. c. 8.  recordeth) he made for the Christians to use in their feasts of the Sabath and the Lords day at their nocturnal assemblies, etc.  
Your 10th. example is that Bishop Geroldus burned to ashes, a grove which the Sclavi had in sacred reverence. Answer. As for Helmoldus, your author that records this story; 1. He was a popish mass priest; His name in the native speech signifies 
* Etymologic. Teuton. in proprijs nominibus.  Hell-mouth, a fit memorial to show how you go from the mouth of God to Hell mouth for testimony in this controversy; for as is his name, so is his book, replenished with many fables, lying visions and miracles wrought by the sign of the cross, & some of them the same that I noted before out of Cranzius, & therefore his record is not much to be regarded; 2. He 
d Helmod. epist. ad canonicos Lubic.  confesseth that he was the scholar of this Geroldus, his venerable Mr. and that by his persuasion he was drawn to writ this story: And therefore being so fabulous in other parts of this writing, is yet more to be suspected of flattery in this which he saith touching his Master. 3. He was also an ignorant historian, & errs grossly in the very 
e lib. 1. c. 1.  entrance into his book where he writes that the Baltic sea is so called because by a long tract it is stretched out in manner of a girdle or belt through the Scythian regions even unto Graecia, contrary unto the testimony of all Cosmographers & of daily experience: He is herein refuted even by 
f Wandaliae lib. 2. c. 17.  Cranzius himself your other witness. His skill in Geography seems to be like unto yours, when by a like though a greater error, contrary to the description of maps, and contrary to the testimony of the Scriptures you do writ concerning the limits of the tribe of Isachar, that 
g Annot. on psal. 68.14.  it had the Philistians at one end, and the Ammonites on the other, that vexed them: where as by 
h Josh. 13.10. & 15.45. etc. & 19.17. etc.  conference of scriptures showing the topography and situation of the tribes, that tribe of Isachar had neither the Philistines on the one side of their limits nor the Ammonites on the other, neither is there any colour of reason, why the tribe of Isachar in special should be said to couch down in respect of any vexation by the Philistines or Ammonites. Such is your ignorance of history, when speaking of Tarsus mentioned in Act. 21.34. you call it 
i Annot. on psal. 48.8.  the chief city of Cilicia in Syria; as if you should have said, London the chief city of Middlesex, in Scotland; or Amsterdam the chief city of Holland in France: you might as well have said that Samaria was in Galilee; or judea in Moab, as have said that Cilicia was in Syria: not only 
k Ptolomaeus. Geogr. lib. 5. cap. 7  Cosmographers but the holy 
l Act. 15.23 41. Gal. 1.21  Scripture itself doth often distinguish those countries one from an other. An other the like error you commit in the same place, when speaking of that Tarsus in Cilicia, you say: from thence they went by shipping into far countries, Africa, India, Ophir, etc. 1. Kin. 22.48. & 10.22. For those voyages mentioned in the book of the Kings were not from Cilicia into Ophir by sailing through the Mediterranean Sea, as they needs must if they had gone from Tarsus: but 1. both a firm continent was in the way to hinder their passage, and the scripture itself 
m 2. Chron. 20.36.  shows that the ships intended for that voyage mentioned 1. Kin. 22. were made at Ezion geber, a city situate upon the red-sea, from whence there was a convenient passage into India. These your errors in misplacing of countries are like unto Mr. Smyths error in misplacing of the brazen altar, and if your reasoning thereupon against Mr. Smyth be sound, then may I upon the like occasion of Helmoldus, and of your errors observe against you in your own words, and say: 
n Defence against Mr. Sm. pag. 12  God would let the reader see how you are given over to blindness of heart, in judging spiritual things: by that blindness which is in you in discerning carnal things, and which are set before all men's eyes. As for Geroldus the popish Bishop, whose example you object unto me: 1. It doth not agreed with that which you propounded to show at the beginning viz. the examples of Christian Princes & of Bishops having leave from such: for where doth it appear that he had such leave to do this thing? It doth rather appear, to be a sudden motion, and an occasional thing falling out in his journey, when the story shows that 
o Helmold. Chron. Slavor. lib. 1. c. 84.  meeting with such a grove in his way he leapt from his horse, and fell upon that work exhorting others to follow him. 2. The destruction of such a Grove is not to be matched with the destruction of our temples, in respect of the necessary use whereunto they may be employed in the service of God, so as those trees and hedges could not. 3, It is noted of this Geroldus, that he 
p Cranzius Wandal. lib. 4. c. 21.  went to Room to be consecrated & made Bishop by the Pope; and though in the way the thieves met him and smote and wounded him in the forehead, yet would not that Balam turn back or desist from his journey: that he 
q Ibid. c. 26 Helmold. ubi supra.  also consecrated a Church in Oldenburgh unto the honour of St. john Baptist, etc. Thus you see that your Cousin M r. john Ains. might have alleged the example of this Geroldus against yourself for the defence of all popery, even as you do against us for the destruction of our temples.  
Your 11th example is that Wighertas Bishop of Mersburgh did likewise: If he did but likewise, than the like answer may serve for this, that was given unto the former examples. Touching this popish Wigbert, it is 
“ Magdeb. centur. 11. cap. 10. col. 602.  recorded indeed that he did destroy a certain grove consecrated unto the Idol Zuttiber, and reduced it unto a plain: but it is withal recorded that he did in the same place build a Chapel unto an other Idol, namely unto St. Roman. And where he had removed the heathenish Idolatry, even in the same place he set up popish Idolatry. Are we to be guided by such examples?  
Your 12th. Example is that Vnwannus of Hamburgh cut down all the idolatrous groves in his diocese. I answer, 1. It is to be observed how you omit the title of this Vnwannus, being Archbishop of Hamburgh, as your author in the 
r Cranz. metrop. l. 4 c. 1.  place alleged by you doth acknowledge: So before you omitted the title of Chrysostome being Archbish. of Constantinople: Those that were but Bishops you give all them their titles: but not so to either of the Archbishops. It seems you thought that so long as any were called Bishops, the reader might conceive they were no usurping Bishops: and so have regarded their examples the more, that name being given by the holy Ghost unto his ministers: but if you had named Archbishops, the reader might have conceived the weakness of their examples, serving as well to establish the primacy of Archbishops, as to destroy temples 2, It is further to be observed, that this Vnwannus was not only an Archbishop but also a popish Archbishop, that 
s Ibidem.  received his pall of Pope Benedict the 8t. that he built chapels in honour of Saints, as that of S. Vitus at Breme. The reader that considers this, might think that his example in destroying temples is of lesle weight, when he gave so foul an example for building Idolatrous temples. 3, even that which Vnwannus did in cutting down groves is against yourself: for of the groves he made Churches: 
t Ibidem.  ex lucis fecit ecclesias renovari, etc. This had been unlawful in the time of the la: The groves of the Canaanites might not be converted unto such use. If this example of the Archbishop may be imitated, then is the commandment in Deut. 12. a ceremonial and temporary ordinance, not binding us in these times.  
Your 13th. Example is, that in Lituania, the temples & Altars of Idols were demolished. According to your own authors the thing was done on this manner: 
u Cromerus de orig. & rebusgestis polonorun lib. 14.  jagello an heathen King of Lituania seeking to obtain Heduigis Queen of Poland for his wife, doth promise as a condition of the marriage, that his whole country shall become Christians. Hereupon 
w lib. 15.  his people being hardly drawn unto it: he is baptized and named Wladislaus: this honour is vouchsafed only to him and to his nobles: because it was counted too great a labour to baptize the common people, therefore they standing by great troops & companies together in stead of baptizing were sprinkled with holy water: and but one name given to each company as well of men as women: then by the King's commandment they destroy the Temple, Altar and oracle at vilna: the grove is cut down and the living Serpents which they worshipped were killed: a new Church is built at Vilna, and is consecrated to the memory of S. Stanislaus by Bozentas Archbishop of Cracow: then Andrea's vassil● a polonian of the order of the Franciscanes is instituted Bishop at vilna: And the King sends an Ambassador unto pope Vrban to promise' obedience unto him. Your other 
x Alexand. Guagninus in Sarmatiae Euroropeaes descript.  Author adds further, that there were thirty thousand of the Lituanians baptized in one day, & this of the polonian Priests which were ignorant of the Lituanian tongue: He 
y In Polonorun regum descript.  saith also: Heduigis was first betrothed unto Vilelmus Duke of Austria her father being alive: that these two were joined in Marriage also by the nobles of Poland in the castle of Cracow: but immediately again so soon as the Lituanian Kings coming was known, they expel the Duke, violate the marriage and urge the Queen against her mind to marry with the King. This is the worthy example that you propound unto us. From this barbarous adulterer and Idolaters conscience you will inform and illuminate the eyes and consciences of all faithful ministers and people at this day: from the rude and blind practice of these whom by your own profession you cannot esteem to be otherwise then a false Church, you insult against all the Churches of Christ: And of these mungrilles, half heathens, and half Papists you say of them with the rest, that all these bear witness to the true meaning of God's law written in their hearts other wise then in ours, etc.  
Your last example is, And now of late the Christians in France (as at Rochel) ruinated the popish temples there. I answer, 1. Had you noted any Chronicle or good writers where this act is particularly described, with the circumstances and occasion hereof, the reader might thereby have had satisfaction touching the same, which now your writing doth not afford. 2, As for ruinating some popish temples, it is that which hath also been practised in diverse other countries, and even in this city as that of the Minorites, etc. Yet this hinders not but that they have the true meaning of God's law written in their hearts otherwise then in yours that require all such of necessity to be destroyed, and do also separate from the worship of God in all such places: As Israel was to destroy 
z Josh. 6. & 7. ch.  jericho the first city of Canaan which they came unto after they passed Iorden; and to keep others for their use: so many Christians in the beginning of the reformation to show their detestation of popery destroyed some popish temples, and yet reserved the rest for their necessary use in the service of God. 3. As for them of Rochel in particular; the ancientest ministers of the French Church in this city, as they have testified unto me, do not know, neither can learn by any inquiry of their people, some whereof have formerly been members of that particular Church of Rochel, that ever the Christians there did make any question or scruple of worshipping God with the rest of their brethren in any popish temples being once purged from their Idolatry. And therefore until you bring better evidence of that which you writ, we have reason to hold the example of Rochel for ourselves against you. 4. Upon further inquiry, I am 
“ Anno 1618. jun. 8.  now of late advertised by letters from Monsieur Loumeau a reverend minister of the Church of Rochel; that the ruinating of some temples there was done not because they thought it unlawful to use them, but lest the Papists should have them; that some of them were broken down in respect of civil necessity, because they were of importance for fortification in their wars: that at the same time when they ruinated some, yet they reserved others for their use in the worship of God; as namely, a little temple of the nuns, wherein they preached long time after others were destroyed: and also that of the Convent of the Augustine's, wherein (as he testifieth) they do still preach unto this day. This being so, every one may plainly see how you abuse and pervert the examples of the Christians in the Reformed Churches as though they were witnesses for you and a bettours of your folly. If a fear of pollution in the use of them had caused them to pluck them down: then might their consciences have been polluted with the use of those two which they reserved, as well as with the rest. 5. The 
* Acta Colloquij Mompelgart. pag. 398.  testimony of Beza is, that the overthrow of temples in France was done tumultuously in the civil wars, not according to knowledge, that it was not approved by their confession and doctrine: That he himself could be a witness thereof, being present at the wars from the beginning to the end: That he and his fellow ministers did often admonish the Princes and captains: and did labour to hinder those enterprises which fell out in that disorder, but could not. You might as well pled that private houses and palaces of Papists were to be destroyed, because the unruly Soldiers in the heat of war, did sometimes destroy them also. Again for the overthrow of them in some other places, Beza 
// Respons. Theod. Be. ad acta colloq. Momp. part. 2. thes. 1.  avoucheth upon his own knowledge and the testimony of the cities, that they were constrained to do it for their safety against the violatours of public peace, the situation of the temples necessarily requiring the same. And this is the same reason that M r. Loumeau alleged before, as one cause of their practice in Rochel. And while they were guided by such civil respects, this argues no scruple of conscience in the use of such temples. 6. Suppose that this one Church of Rochel did condemn our use of temples, which you are not like to prove; yet th'other Churches in France, and that of Geneva also, (as many in this city upon their own knowledge do testify) do still keep the temples formerly abused unto popery, for their necessary use in the service of God. And Rochel being laid in the balance against the rest would be too light, & weak to abolish the necessary use which we have of our temples.    

Section. 5.  


Hen. Ains.  Unto the Scriptures Act 17 & 19 by us alleged: you say as before, that those things were of no necessary use. Whereto I answer, that as there is no necessary use of this your reason, so were it stronger than it is, yet would it not break the force of our argument, which is in regard that they are nourishments of superstition, and therefore to be abolished. For will you for your own profit and use, nourish superstition and Idolatry? Have you no otherweise learned the Law of God? How unlike are you herein to Marcus Bishop of Arethusia, 
Sozom. l. 5. Theodoret l. 3.  who having at the Commandment of Constantine pulled down a temple of Idols, and being after accused by the Arethusians to julian for a traitor: he was miserably tortured, to enforce him either to build the temple again, or to pay for the building: which he refusing, they promised to forgive him half. After that, denying but a small sum, he said, It is great wickedness to give a half penny in case of impiety, as if a man should bestow the whole. He for this is registered with honour in your own 
a Acts & Monuments p. 89. edit. Ao. 1610.  book of Martyrs. How much better than you, did the Emperor Theodosius, who when Constantine had shut up certain Idol temples, but destroyed them not: and after, julian opened and restored them: & others after him, shut them up: and others again opened them: Theodosius coming to the crown 
b theodoret l. 5. c. 20. & 37.  destroyed them utterly, that no footsteps of the ancient error might appear to posterity. And had you minded the scripture which we cite, you might see how th' Apostle calleth them their Devotions (Sebasmata) Act. 17.23. which word being used by him elsewhere 
c 2 thes. 2.4  in his prophesy of the Pope should teach us to abhor his temples, Altars, images, etc. which are his Sebasmata or Devotions in like manner, & not only unnecessary, but hurtful to the world. And could not the Christians which burned their books of curious arts, 
d Act. 19.19  whose price was 50000. pieces of Silver, have put them to some other necessary use then for the fire? Although there were many evil things in them, yet do you not think there were some good things also? whereof (when the other were put out) much profit, and some good use might have been made. Our generation is wiser, that can refine the Pope's Mass book, and make thereof a Communion book, not for civil use only, but for the highest spiritual use, to worship God thereby: and so having some what purged his temples, they put them to two of the 4. religious uses which Antichrist made them for: so greatly do they esteem of his Devotions.   

Answer.  

joh. Pa.  HEre in the first place to show that there is no profit of this distinction of necessary use, you ask whether we will for our own profit and use, nourish superstition and Idolatry; whether we have no otherwise learned the law of God, etc. I answer, 1. We do not for our own profit break the law of God; but God for our profit hath changed his own law: And they that do deny this, do deny the profit which comes by the death of Christ, and dishonour his merit. The benefit of Christ vouch safed us herein is exceeding great & unspeakable: Through his death we come more fully to enjoy the fullness of the earth: The meats which before were 
a Levit. 11.  unclean, are now 
b 1. Tim. 4.4.  sanctified for our use: and millions of treasure are gained yearly hereby: Again, the clean beasts & meats, which were of old in 
c Numb. 28 1. Kin. 3.4 & 8.5.  great abundance consumed in sacrifice, by thousands at once some time, are now given wholly unto us: and the benefit redounding hence every year is not to be reckoned: The unspeakable cost of traveling from all places unto the temple of the Lord is now 
d joh. 4.21.  taken away, etc. Yea besides this, the liberty of enjoying things abused unto idolatry and defiled by Idolaters is now granted unto us; as the 
e Deut. 13.  cities, houses, cattle and goods of Idolatrous apostates: the meats sacrificed unto Idols: & consequently in like manner the holy places and temples of Idolaters, which before were unlawful are now granted unto us: for he that hath now given us his own Son to die for us, 
f Rom. 8.32.  how shall he not with him give us all things also: now 
g 1. Cor. 3.21.22.23.  all things are ours; & 
h 1. Tim. 4 4.  nothing to be denied us, or refused by us. Those that with the jews do oppugn this truth and count it a carnal doctrine are such as under pretext of maintaining the law, do pervert the Gospel in a special point thereof. Among all the snares and enticements drawing unto superstition and Idolatry and nourishing the same, there were none more strong and effectual, than the 
i Deut. 7.3.4. 1. Kin. 11.4.  having of Idolatrous wives and husbands in so much that God commanded the 
k Ezra. 10.3  putting away of such even after marriage: whereas now since the death of Christ, for the benefit and commodity of Christian families, God 
l 1. Cor. 7.12.13. etc.  doth not require such marriages to be dissolved being once made: And this is an evident proof that God hath now otherwise determined and declared his meaning touching the occasions of superstition in case of necessary use, than he had under the law. 2. Even your Maimony, whose expositions you do so often commend unto us, whom you note to be so precise in avoiding things polluted with Idolatry, is not yet so precise in denying this exception of necessary use, as you yourself are. For he having first 
“ Maim. in Misn. in Abodah zarah cap. 11. sec. 1.  showed that it is unlawful to follow the heathens in wearing their kind of apparel and in cutting the hair after their manner, doth yet thus interpret himself: 
“ ibid. sec. 3  An Israelite that is a courtier and hath necessity of sitting before the Kings of the gentiles; if it be a dishonour unto him that he is not like unto them: behold, it is then lawful for him to put on their apparel, and to be shaved according to the manner that they use. Are not you more then jewishly ceremonious in this point, which deny that liberty unto Christians, which the jews permit? 3. But you do elsewhere contradict yourselves herein, for whereas you grant it to be 
m Inquiry of Th. wh. p. 56. 57  lawful to pray and preach in Idol-temples, as there might be occasion, if they were made prisons and you committed thither: it follows hereupon, that either you must confess the commandment in Deut. 12.2. as it is expounded by you against the worship of God in Idol-temples, to be a ceremonial commandment, in that you will have it give place unto that necessity which the prison brings with it, and so yield the praying, preaching and worshipping of God to be lawful in that place, which otherwise you condemn; or else you must grant that the moral la itself (if that commandment of abolishing Idol-temples be such) doth also give place unto necessity; and consequently that if you were in prison, it should also be lawful for you in such a straight and necessity to swear, forswear, lie, steal, kill and use treachery, or break any other commandment of the moral Law, as well as this of worshipping God in Idol-temples. Either therefore confess your fault in denying this commandment to be ceremonial, or else show us your dispensation to break one commandment of the moral law rather than an other, when you come into prison. In the mean time we hold that he which for his commodity, or necessity 
n jam. 2.10. Mat. 5.19.  breaks one of the lest of the moral commandments and teacheth men so, is guilty of all, and shallbe called lest in the Kingdom of heaven.  
In the next place you allege the example of Marcus Bishop of Arethusa who endured great torture rather than to give one half penny towards the building of an Idol-temple: who for this is registered with honour in our own book of Martyrs; & you ask, how unlike I am to him. I answer, 1. It is not recorded that he refused to worship God in such a place purged from Idolatry; but that he would not help forward the building of such a place, when he knew it should be employed to the service of Idols: neither am I herein unlike unto him, for I hold it to be the duty of a Christian man rather to die then to give any thing for the furtherance of Idolatry, though it were but a half penny. 2, if the example of this one Martyr be worthy to be regarded, how much more the rest, which in so great a number like a cloud of witnesses or Martyrs, are registered in our book of Martyrs, all bearing witness against you touching the use of temples formerly abused unto Idolatry in England and other places? How unlike are you unto them all? do they not all condemn your schisming from the churches of Christ upon such pretences? do they not all show the meaning of God's law to be written in their hearts otherwise then in yours? 3, for yourself in special, I may rather ask you and say: how unlike are you unto this constant and patiented Martyr, he enduring so much for his religion, and you so often changing your religion, and staining yourself so many times with apostasy, as hath been 
o pag. 91  showed before. Yet you tell us, 
p Preface to confess. of faith edit. Ao. 1596.  you trust, that God will one day raise up an other john fox to gather and compile the Acts & monuments of his later martyrs, for the view of posterity, etc. when this your own book of martyrs shallbe compiled and published, what place or memorial can you expect therein (if things be faithfully registered) but such as D. Perne hath in our book of Martyrs for his often turning of his coat?  
Moreover, whereas you do again repeat the example of Theodosius, whereunto I have already given answer in the former section; I do yet further answer, that your allegation that he utterly destroyed the Idol-temples, is contradicted and refuted even by the other examples cited by yourself: for if after this, the Idol temples at Gaza, at Carthage and in Phoenicia were destroyed under the reign of Arcadius and Honorius which succeeded and followed Theodosius in the empire, than were they not utterly destroyed by that Theodosius of whom Theodoret speaks, in the places by you alleged. As it is a sure argument that all the high places were not utterly destroyed in the days of Asa, because jehosaphat, which came after him, destroyed 
q 2. Chron. 17.6.  some, that remained unto his time: even so it is a sure token that all the Idol temples were not utterly destroyed in the days of Theodosius, whiles according to your own example others were destroyed in the times succeeding by jovius and Gaudentius, by Porphyry and by Chrysostome with his monks.  
Further, to prove our temples unnecessary, you pled that the Apostle calleth them their devotions (Sebasmata) Act. 17.23. which word being elsewhere used by him in his prophesy of the Pope should teach us to abhor his temples, etc. Answer. 1, though Paul mention the Devotions or Sebasmata of the Athenians Act. 17. yet doth it not follow that he speaks of their temples, themselves, for he might see their devotions though he saw not their temples: the 
r jer. 11.13  manner of Idolaters being to have their Altars and images in streets, and market places, and by the waysides and this many times without any houses or temples built over them. If the open places where such devotions were publicly performed, should be abolished as unnecessary, than not only houses and temples but streets and market places were in like manner also to be destroyed and made desolate, for as much as they also had been places to nourish superstition 2, as for the word Sebasma used again 2. Thes. 2.4. in a prophesy of the Pope, that may well be expounded of the Majesty and honourable estate of Kings and Emperors, above whom the Pope exalteth himself and thereby is known to be Antichrist; the 
s Sebastos & Sebaste. Act. 25.21 25. &. 27.1  like words being elsewhere again used to express the same dignity: yet doth not the attributing of this word unto Princes prove them to be of no necessary use. If your reasoning were sound, the Anabaptists by the like argument might abolish & condemn the estate of emperors and King's because of these titles given unto them.  
Lastly, you reason thus; could not the Christians which burned their books of curious arts, whose 
t Act. 19.19  price was 50000. pieces of silver, have put them to some other necessary use then for the fire? Although there were many evil things in them, yet do you not think, that there were some good things also? whereof (when the other were put out) much profit, and some good use might have been made, etc. Answer. 1, what you or I may think and conjecture touching some good things being in those books that were burned at Ephesus, it skills not much: If you could prove that such good things were in them, your objection or instance might then have had the greater colour to deceive a simple reader. 2, suppose there were some good things in them, whereof much profit and some good use might have been made, than I say that the evil things being put out, (which you also admit by supposition) we are not absolutely bound at all times to abolish such books but may keep them for that good use which may be reaped thereby: neither doth that example Act. 19.19 bind us to the contrary; for if Bellarm. repenting of his Idolatrous studies, & you of your schismatical studies, should in a 
u 2. Cor. 7.11.  holy revenge & detestation of your errors freely burn your deceitful books for a sacrifice unto the Lord as 
w 2. San. 23.16.17.  David powered out the water unto the Lord which he had longed for: yet this hinders not but that others might lawfuly retain the same books of yours for the conviction of such as had not repent of your errors. The books of Bellarmine of Becanus, of Vorstius have been of late justly burned by diverse Christian Princes, and yet some books of the same kind are justly retained by others for some good use that may be made of them. 3, if Idolatrous books & such as are of curious arts may not be retained for some good use of them, when the evil things are put out: then how guilty are you that retain such books and that for religious use even whiles the evil things are not put out of them: This your use of such books appears in the manifold testimonies which you bring and allege out of them. 4, by this your retaining and reading of Idolatrous books you do plainly condemn and overthrew yourself in this question of temples: for seeing Idolatrous books are strong nourishments of Idolatry unto many, yea far more effectual thereunto then are any shapes of Idolatrous buildings; if you can still allow the keeping and using of such books, while the evil things are not put out, how partial are you that will not allow the keeping of temples abused unto Idolatry, even when the images, Altars and Idolatrous worship are put out of them? And you do yet further condemn yourself herein, because in expounding the decalogue you make 
x Annot. on Exo. 20.5.  the reading of Idolatrous books to be a breach of the second commandment as well as building of temples unto Idols. Now the breach of the second commandment is simply a sin: and the building of a temple unto Idols is an heinous sin though the retaining of them when they are converted to the true worship of God be not so. Thus by your practice contrary to your doctrine, you strain out a Gnat and swallow a Camel, in dispensing with the use of Idolatrous books, while you condemn the use of our temples. How can you blame the Magistrates for not using their power to abolish our temples; whiles yourself having power to abolish some Idolatrous books, do yet keep them for your use and refuse to burn them? That which you say of a communion book is be side the present question: your unreverent speeches and blasphemies touching the same, notwithstanding any faults therein, may be showed in due time.    

Section. 6.  


Hen. Ains.  But you found (you say) an idolatrous place converted unto the service of God, Act. 19.9.10. the school of Tyrannus, being as the rest of the heathenish schools, the nurseries of superstition, etc. Whereto I answer: First you barely affirm and prove not that it was an heathenish school: for there might be a jews school in Ephesus, as well as there was a jews 
a Act. 19.8.  synagogue: and by the Hebrews canons, they were 
b Maimony in thalmud thorah. c. 2.  bound to have schools in every city and in every country, as well as synagogues. Neither doth the Schoolmaisters' Greek name Tyrannus hinder, but he might be a jew: for in Rom. 16. Iewes had names both Greek and Latin: yea Turnus or Turannus is a name mentioned of the Hebrew doctors, as is the Greek name School also. And Tyrannus might favour the truth, (as did Crispus and Sosthenes 
c Act. 18.8.17.  rulers of the synagogue) when others blasphemed it. Secondly, if it were an heathenish school as you say, yet I deny that it was an Idolie, or place devote to destruction by the law in Deut. 12. or any other. For God never commanded that heathenish schools, (wherein human arts and Philosophy were taught, though idolatry with them) should be destroyed, any more than other civil houses. And this is called the school of Tyrannus a man, and not the school of jupiter, Apollo, or any heathen God or Goddess, as the temples had their names 
d Act. 19.27  of such. Daniel also and his brethren, (who strictly 
e Dan. 1. vers. 8.  kept Moses ordinances, refused not 
f vers. 4. etc.  the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans, among whom idolatry was taught, as among other heathens Neither was there any such conversion of this school to the service of God, as you mention: for Paul disputed daily in the school, and turned it not from a school to a Christian synagogue, but it continued a school still. By which (if you apply it to an Idolie) you may conclude that Idol-temples may be used unto the service of God, whiles the idolservice is continued also in them. Moreover it appeareth by the 10. verse that both jews and Greeks heard Paul there disputing as they 
g Act. 18.4.  had done in the synagogues; but the jews hold it unlawful to come into an Idol temple, and they were under Moses polity (as while are you spoke) until they were converted to Christ. Finally in ages following, Christians who altogether refused communion with the the heathens in their Idolies, and sacrifices: yet used sometimes the heathenish schools: & were by julian the Emperor 
h Theodoret. l. 3. c. 8. Sozom. l. 5. c. 18.  forbidden both their schools and their books: of malice, because he would not have them learned. As for Epimenides the Cretian Prophet, or any Philosopher, Poet or Priest, teaching with humanity other curious arts or idolatie: it proveth not that either Idolies should be let stand, or that other should be pulled down: neither doth the equity of God's law extend so far. For such houses, (though idol Priests dwelled in them, and taught their idolatry everyday) were not nourishments of superstition, but only they that dwelled in them. Whereas these idol-temples of Antichrist, in themselves, and in all the parts & proportion of them, are idolatrous, and causes of sin to many. Even as on the contrary, God's temple in Israel was a nourishment of true religion: but the dwelling houses of the Priests and people, not so. And if Paul had holden it lawful to use idol-temples, as you think you may: why took he not occasion to go into Diana's 
i Act. 19.27  temple in Ephesus, as well as into Tyrannus school there? seeing it was lawful for Christians to go into such temples if they would, as some 
k 1. Cor. 8.10.  in Corinth did. It is not found that there or in any other city where Paul or any other of the Apostles came, they ever went to preach in any such place: who yet took all occasions to preach to the gentiles, wheresoever they might lawfully. Unto the jews, Paul became a jew: that he might gain them: and usually therefore went into their temples and synagogues, to preach unto them: unto the gentiles also, which were without law, he became 
l 1. Cor. 9.20.21.  as without law, that he might gain them: yet we never see him to preach in any of their temples or Idolies: though they were so common as it is recorded they had 
m Prudent. l. 1. contr. Symmachum.  as many temples of Gods in Rome, as there were sepulchres of noble men in the city.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  IN your first answer unto that which I said touching the school of Tyrannus converted unto the service of God, there are diverse things to be considered: first, though-yow say I barely affirm and prove not that it was an heathenish school, yet it seems the very recital and naming of the words of the Scripture, viz. of the school of Tyrannus was more than a bore affirmation, even by your own confession in this first answer, for what needed you to preoccupate the objection that might arise from the greek names of Tyrannus & his School, if there were not some appearance of a probable argument to be taken from them? It is an idle thing to prevent objections, where there is no danger of them.  
Secondly, whereas you say that I affirm it was a heathenish school, this is also something more than you might justly affirm: for suppose that I took it to be a jewish school, yet might I say as much as I did, viz. It being as the rest of the heathenish schools, etc. For both the 
y Eph. 2.3.  like phrase is used by the Scriptures, when speech is of the jews to compare them with the rest of the gentiles, and that the jewish Schools were nurseries of superstition as well as the gentiles it may appear by that which followeth hereafter.  
Thirdly, though there might be (as you object) a jewish school in Ephesus, as there was a jews Synagogue, yet this hinders not, but Tyrannus his school might be a heathenish school; unless you could show that there was but one school in that city.  
Fourthly, you run for help unto the great Eagle of the jews (as he is called) and fly upon his wings, when you tell us in the name of your doctor Maimony, that by the Hebrew canons they were bound to have schools in every city and in every country, as well as synagogues. Hereunto I answer, 1. you honour these infidel Rabbins too much, when you give unto their writings the title of Hebrew canons, which is a name more fit and agreeable to the canonical scriptures of the old Testament, unto Moses and the Prophets containing the 
z Gal. 6.16. Phil. 3.16.  canon or rule of our faith and obedience, even as the greek canons may likewise denote the scriptures of the new Testament. The name of the holy scriptures should not be given to superstitious writings, to jewish fables, and to legends of lies: And beside, these Thalmudicall canons are but carnal weapons; think not with such canons & ordinance to batter down our temples. 2. These canons, are many of them the inventions of later jews long after Paul's times, and you can not show that the jews in the apostles days were governed by them, how then will you apply this canon alleged by you unto the question of fact betwixt us? 3. Maimony in the 
a In Thalmud thorah, c. 2.  place alleged recording the canon you speak of, saith that the city which had not a school Mr. in the same, should be anathematized, or cursed, and if they did not repent, that city should be destroyed and wasted: And therefore suppose this canon had been more ancient than the Apostles, yet could it not have been executed in Ephesus the city that we speak of: the cities of the gentiles that had some jews dwelling among them, yea or the cities of the jews in their own land being under the dominion of the Romans were not subject unto such canons: would the Romans endure that the cities under their government should be wasted and made desolate upon such pretences? 4, Touching these canons also the Rabbins do contradict one an other: for R. jaakob in 
b Lib. jore degnah, tract. Thalmud thorah. signo. 245.  Arba Turim shows that R. Asher differs from Maimony in such manner touching the number of scholars and schoolmasters to be employed about them in each city, that if we were as credulous as the jews in regarding these forged canons yet could we have no certainty therein. 5. Suppose there were such ancient canons binding the jews in Ephesus to have a school among them, yet that doth not hinder but that the school of Tyrannus might be a heathenish school also. 6. If you will have the testimonies of men to be produced in these controversies, are we not much more to regard the writings of learned Christians, then of these impious jews, infamous as well for their fables, as for their infidelity & hatred of Christ? And the 
c Magdeburgenses, cent. 1. l. 2. cap. 7. de scholis. col. 516.  Christian writers of the Ecclesiastical history do expressly note this place to have been an heathenish School.  
Fiftly, whereas you say; Neither doth the Schoolmaisters Greek name Tyrannus hinder, but he might be a jew, etc. I answer, 1. Though I deny not but some jews had Greek names, as diverse of the Apostles themselves besides sundry others: yet considering that ordinarily jews were called by Hebrew names & Greekes by Greek names, and so men of other nations likewise, if things be equally weighed [caeteris paribus,] when there is no other particular testimony or determination touching any person to show what nation he is of, as there is not here for Tyrannus: then in all reason the name of such a man should lead us unto such a nation where his name is most ordinarily used: as the name of Pharaoh unto an Egyptian: the name of Agag to an Amalekite: and the name of Tyrannus to a Greek. Yea thus the holy Ghost purposely uset to distinguish & point out unto us special countries, times, places & offices of men by using a word of different language in those books of holy scripture which were written in an other tongue: as for example, Esay writing in Hebrew touching the ruin of Babel useth a 
d Madhebah Esa. 14 4.  Chaldaean word to signify the overthrow of the Chaldaean Monarchy; jeremy in his Hebrew Prophecy against Babel useth a 
e Sheshach jer. 25.26. & 51.41.  Babylonian word to note the very time of their fall, as they should be in the mids of their feasting: The Apostle writing in Greek of the judgement hall where Christ was condemned useth a 
f Praetorium joh. 18.28  Roman or latin word showing the Roman authority that was exercised in that place: and so the Evangelist in his Greek story useth a 
g Centurion Mark. 15.39.44 45.  Roman word for a Roman officer: And so the Syriaque Translatout in this place Act. 19.9 use the Greek word for a School, all the rest being Syriaque might hereby most fitly note unto us a Greek school of the gentiles: as the Greek name of Tyrannus to show a Greek Schoolmaster: there being no other proof to the contrary, to praeponderate this apparent reason. 2, it is also a great uncertainty and not proved of you by any instance, when as you affirm, that in Rom. 16. Iewes had names both Greek and Latin: As for Aquila the jew, vers. 3. Drusius 
h Praeteritorun lib. 5. in Act. 18.2  shows you how his name comes plainly and directly from an usual Hebrew word: As for the kinsmen of Paul, mentioned vers. 7.11.21. it is uncertain whether they were jews or proselytes, which might be his kinsmen though they were Romans or Greeks': As for any other mentioned in that place you have less colour to affirm that they were Iewes having Greek and Latin names. 3, you say that Turnus or Tyrannus is a name mentioned of the Hebrew doctors: but you do not show that he is mentioned as a jew: the Rabbins mention the names of sundry gentiles in their writings: & Turnus Rophus or Rufus that is mentioned in the 
i In Sanhedrin. c. 7. fol. 65. & in Babha bathra, c. 1. fol. 10.  Thalmud, is not said to be a jew: Such kind of their mentioning this name is against you, and leads us to think Tyrannus should be a gentle rather than a jew: but if an other Tyrannus in any rabbin be nominated for a jew, yet this hinders not but this Tyrannus in Act. 19 should rather be taken for a gentle, there being no determination of his person contrary to his name, ordinarily given to a Greek. 4, you allege, that Tyrannus might favour the truth as well as Crispus and Sosthenes rulers of the synagogue: but what mean you by this comparison? whether Crispus and Sosthenes were Iewes or proselytes it is uncertain, that Tyrannus whether jew or gentle might favour the truth, we doubt not: but how this should confirm your opinion, it appears not.  
In your second answer touching the school of Tyrannus, first you say, if it were an heathenish school, yet you deny that it was an Idolie, or place devote to destruction by the law in Deut. 12, etc. But herein you do first contradict yourself: for 
k pag. 165.  before in your reply unto the sixth answer which I gave unto your first reason, you said and urged this, that the Law speaketh of all places where in the nations served their gods: so that though they were not for sacrifice, but for prayer or other like use they were to be pulled down. Now, that the heathenish Gods were served in these Idolatrous schools, by schoolmasters it is manifest out of that 
l Tertullian. de Idololat. cap. 10.  Author whom yourself sometime produce for a witness, who shows that the Schoolmasters did preach the Gods of the nations & declare their names, their genealogies, fables and other honourable ornaments and observe their feasts, etc. that the first schoole-hyre of the new scholar was consecrated to the name and honour of Minerva. That idolothite was called Minerval. This Idolservice of the heathenish schools he shows at large as by Catechizing touching Idols, so by diverse other services. And therefore the Gods of the nations being served there, it follows by your former grant contrary to this later denial that such schools aught to be pulled down as places devote unto destruction. 2. You do here seem to make an Idolie or place devote to destruction to be the same thing, but this error is 
m pag. 220. 221.  before reproved: And when you labour to show that heathenish schools are not to be pulled down; you confirm that which I say in my argument against you.  
Secondly, you say, this is called the school of Tyrannus a man & not the school of jupiter, Apollo or any heathen God, etc. Answer. 1. It is Idolservice by your own grant from Deut. 12. that makes a place subject to destruction; and therefore the want of an Idol name could not in such case save or deliver the polluted place from destruction. 2, as 
n Dan. 6.7. Act. 14.11. Rev. 13.4.  Idolaters have been ready to perform divine worship unto living men many ways: so also by this that they have built temples, altars, images to their honour: Thus, to omit many other examples that might be noted, one of your own Authors whom yourself allege for your witness 
o joseph. Antiq. judaic. lib. 15. c. 12.13.  doth testify of Herod, that he built not only a city, but a temple unto Caesar, to the worship and honour of his name: And according to your reasoning, such Idolies might be thus excused, that these were called the temples of Caesar a man, and not the temple of jupiter, Apollo, etc.  
Thirdly, you say, Daniel also and his brethren (who strictly kept Moses ordinances) refused not the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans, among whom Idolatry was taught, as among other heathens. I answer, 1. Daniel and his fellows might be instructed in the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans though they did not frequent the schools or temples where Idolatry was publicly taught: And seeing Daniel was so careful to keep himself from pollution with unclean meat we are bound to judge that he wanted not care to preserve his soul from the unclean food of Idolatrous doctrines taught in their schools: And the 
p Dan. 1.9.  great favour which he had with their overseers may persuade that he found favour in this point as well as in the former. 2, your 
q R. Saadias', & R. Abraham Aben Ezra, Comment. on Dan. 1.4  jew doctors interpret this learning of the Chaldeans which Daniel refused not, to be the writing and language of the Chaldeans: Now this might easily have been learned by Daniel of some godly and faithful jews, though he had nothing at all to do with Chaldeans themselves: there being ordinarily enough of one nation that can speak and write in the language of an other nation. 3, though we grant that Daniel might learn of the Chaldeans themselves, not only, to speak, read and writ their language, but also other lawful and liberal sciences: yet this was to be done with caution of not learning their Idolatries and curious arts, which were 
r Deut. 18.10.— 14.  unlawful to be taught or learned: And this might the better be done, considering there were so many sects among the Chaldeans, of which some attended unto more lawful studies and as 
s Strabo geograph. lib. 16.  historians write, did condemn and reject the curious arts of the rest. 4, See what strange extremities you run into: You that condemn and forsake the true service of God in the Reformed Churches, in any temple formerly abused unto Idolatry, do yet here allow communion with Idolaters even in Idolservice by hearing & listening unto Idolatrous doctrines taught in their heathenish schools which were public Idol houses: yea you that condemn all religious communion both public and private with the Godliest Christians in the Church of England, & hold it unlawful to hear even a private lecture of divinity from any minister of that Church, though no error at all should be taught in the same, are not yet afraid to justify the hearing of a lecture of philosophy and Idolatry mixed together, & this from the Chaldaean Ministers or Prophets even in Babylon itself. o how is your conscience benumbed?  
Fourthly, you say further, neither was there any such conversion of this school to the service of God as I mention, etc. I Answer, 1. your reason to prove that it continued a school still is insufficient: for though it be said that Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus, this kind of speech doth no more prove that it continued a school still, than the speech of the Apostle saying of Antichrist that he 
t 2. Thes. 2 4.  sits in the Temple of God, doth prove that the Church of Rome doth still continued the Temple of God; do you not know that many places retain their old names, though the use of them be changed, and they couverted unto other services? your bold affirmation that it continued a school still is very unwarrantable. 2. Though I affirmed not, that it ceased to be a school of human learning, yet is it most probable that it was no longer such a school: for how could it conveniently serve for both uses? It is said that Paul 
v Act. 199  disputed there and that daily: such kind of disputes might often times require the greatest part of the day: and sometimes in 
w Act. 28.23.  other places such exercises continued from morning to night. It is said that Paul continued this exercise there 
x Act. 19.10  by the space of two years so that all they which dwelled in Asia heard the word of the Lord jesus, both jews & Grecians. This continuance in the place with such fame, could not but increase his auditors, and his employment and consequently decrease the opportunity of employing that place unto an other use. It is noted further what 
y Ibid. vers. 11.12. etc.  great miracles God wrought by the hand of Paul during this time, and what confluence of people such miracles wrought, appears in other places where upon like occasion, 
z Luk. 12.1  millions of people gathered together, & thronged to hear and see: upon such occasion there were so 
a Mark. 6.31.33.  many comers and goers unto Christ and his disciples, that they had no leisure to eat bread; And when he withdrew himself into the wilderness to rest a while, the people perceiving it, run a foot thither out of all cities, and came thither and assembled unto him, etc. And here being now the like occasion of concourse, what reason is there to think that there should be liberty & opportunity to keep an other school in this place, where in all appearance the time did hardly suffice for the disciples which came to be instructed of Paul in this school of Christianity? And this inconvenience for an other school in this place may further be discerned of you, if according to your allegation before, the Thalmudique canons are to be applied unto the schools in this time; for those canons require touching the jewish schools, that 
b Arba Turim, lib. jor. dea, Tract. Thalmud thorah, signo 245. Maymony in misneh, tract. Thalmud thorah cap. 2. sect. 2. & 3.  the school Mr. must sit and teach the children all the whole day & part of the night, so as he may instruct & teach them day and night; that they cease not at all, except in the evenings of the Sabaths, & in the evenings of the good days, in the end of those days: that on the sabaths they may not begin a new lesson, but may 'cause the children to repeat that which they have learned before, etc. That the school Mr. which lets the children rest & goes forth or which doth an other work with them, or which is idle, is altogether accursed for doing the work of the Lord negligently, etc. How could these canons possibly be observed, to teach children night and day, in that place, where Paul disputed daily with such concourse of people? 3. Suppose that heathenish schools being Idolies, and that this school being such an one, was still retained for a school, yet doth it not follow as you would infer that Idol-Temples may be used unto the service of God, whiles the Idolservice is continued also in them: For if we should grant unto you that it still continued a school, yet then any reasonable man would grant unto me withal, that it was reform by Paul that the curious arts and Idolatry were no more taught in the same, but only such human learning as was of lawful and good use; and thus the Idolservice being abolished both it & other such like places might then lawfully be used unto the service of God. 4. Whereas you pled further that both jews and Greeks heard Paul there disputing, etc. that the jews held it unlawful to come into an Idol Temple, etc. This latter clawse is affirmed but not confirmed by you: how prove you that the jews being under Moses polity held it unlawful to come into an Idol Temple, when the Idolatry was removed, especially being out of Canaan, as this place in Ephesus was?  
Fiftly you allege, that in ages following, Christians who altogether refused communion with the heathens in their Idolies and sacrifices; yet used sometimes the heathenish schools: and were by julian the Emperor forbidden both their schools and books; of malice, because he would not have them learned. Hereunto I answer, 1. That heathenish schools were sometimes lawfully used by Christians when as the heathenish Idolatry was no longer taught in them, is the thing that I pled for; and this serves most evidently to overthrew your error that deny Christians the use of other places abused unto Idolatry, even after that Idolatry is no longer taught in them. 2. If Christians did sometimes use the heathenish schools even while their Idolatry was still taught in them, this example hath no warrant from God's word: and we see that the Christians in those ages that you speak of, did sometimes pollute themselves with Idols, especially with their 
d Tertul. de corona militis cap. 3.  superstitious use of the sign of the cross, etc. Their example in using such places as were polluted with public & ordinary Idolservice, doth not hinder but that those places are to be esteemed Idolies. 3, though julian of malice might forbidden the heathenish schools and books unto Christians, yet might the Lord in mercy use the malice of that Emperor as 
e Hos. 2.6.7  a thorn to stop the way of his people and as a hedge to preserve them from the enticements of Idolaters, to whom all ages are too prove to harken. whereas the Lord requires that children should be initiated or 
f Prov. 22.6.  consecrated betimes in a good way, how dangerous a thing was it to seek their consecration from Idolatrous school Mrs, & to suffer their children to communicate with them in their heathenish lore, where (as one complains, and not without cause) 
g Tertul. de Idololat. cap. 10.  the first faith is edified unto the devil from the beginnings of their learning; where (as others 
h Euseb. Hist. lib. 9 c. 5. & 7.  record) these heathenish schoolmasters did sometimes teach their scholars blasphemous lessons composed of purpose against Christ jesus. 4. Do not you yourself note it for a transgression of the second commandment, to 
i Annot. on Exo 20.5.  read the books of them that be teachers of Idolatry? And is there any case of reading such books more dangerous, then when children in their tender age shall read them, & this in heathenish schools, among heathens, where Idolatrous schoolmasters shall commend the Idols & Idol service unto them? In these your different writings, you are like unto the 
k jam. 3.11  fountain that sends forth sweet and bitter. 5. You 
l Annot. on Exo. 20.5.  I tell us out of Maimony, that Idolaters have made many books of their service, and of the works and rites of the same; that the holy blessed God hath commanded us, that we should not at all read in those books. And I may again tell you out of Maimony from his own confession in an other place, that he himself did not observe this comandment, but doth often 
m Maimony in Moreh Nebuchim, chel. 3. per. 30. & 31.  allege the books of the Idol-Prophets, and repeats many fables out of the same, & notes their Idolatrous opinions, and saith: The knowledge of those opinions and works is a great Door, through which may be drawn forth reasons and causes of the comandments; seeing the foundation and pillar of the whole law whereupon it resteth is to blot out those opinions from the hearts of men, etc. Thus in regard of necessary help which he allegeth in this place he was content to retain the use of such books which he did so peremptorily condemn before; And except you defend yourself with the like regard of necessary use, you will also be found a transgressor of the second comandment, condemned even of your own mouth for reading the most Idolatrous books, that are extant at this day, as appears by your manifold allegations of them. And then further, if you will retain the most Idolatrous books, in regard of necessary use, how can you then condemn us that for necessary use do likewise retain our Temples though formerly abused unto Idolatry? yea if we compare these two things together, it is most evident, that Idolatrous books are far stronger nourishments of superstition and enticements unto Idolatry, then are our temples: The shape of our Churches doth not deceive as do the subtle persuasions of false teachers in their writings, continual experience witnesseth and proclaimeth the same unto us. And if your ears were not stopped with prejudice against the truth, this alone consideration might serve to convince your error touching our Temples.  
Sixthly, as for Epimenides the Cretian Prophet or any other Philosopher, Poet or Priest teaching with humanity other curious arts or Idolatry, etc. It is to be observed, 1. Seeing the public teaching of Idolatry and invocation of false Gods used by such Poets, Prophets or Priests are parts of Religious worship and service, seeing yourself confess in this writing here before noted, as also in 
n Counterpoy. p. 199  other of your writings that all the places where such Idolaters, served their Gods, were to be destroyed; if your doctrine were sound it would follow hereupon that all such heathenish schools, were to be destroyed as well as any other Temples. 2. If your sixth argument were sound, viz, that our temples are to be destroyed because they nourish superstition, as you say, then will it hence follow also, that the School of Tyrannus, suppose it were a jewish school, was yet to have been destroyed in like manner because the jewish schools were 
o Act. 23.3.4. with Act. 26.4.5. & phillip 3.5.6  nurseries of superstition, where vain inventions and traditions of men were taught. And if after your example we might allege the Thalmudique canons, and apply them as you do unto the school in question, than would it be far more evident, that the jewish Schools were in a high degree nurseries of superstition; for the Rabbins showing how Children are to be taught, have this rule of education among them, 
p Thalmud, tractat. cethuboth, c. 4. fol. 50.  Bar schith, lemikra: Bar gnasar lemischneh: Bar teresar, leragnanitha; that is: A child of six years, to the scripture: a child of ten, to the Thalmud: a child of twelve, to fasting: And again, in an other place: 
q Thalmud tract. Kìdduschim, c. 1. fol. 30.  R. Saphra, in the name of R. jehoshua the son of Hananiah saith: what is that which is written, Thou shalt rehearse them to thy Children? Read not, Schinnantem, thou shalt rehearse them, but Schillaschtem, thou shalt divide them into three parts: for ever shall a man divide his years into three parts: a third part, to the scripture: a third part to the Gemara, (which is one main part of the Thalmud) a third part, to mischneh: which is the other main part of the Thalmud: So that by these canons and testimonies of the Rabbins the Children in the jewish schools were fed with the milk of superstition, and loaden with traditions in learning the Thalmud, the grand forge of superstition: and twice so much pains they were to bestow therein, as they did in the scriptures: And therefore according to your arguing these schools were to be destroyed, for nourishing of superstition.  
Seventhly, where as you say of the Idolatrous schools, that such houses (though Idol-Priests dwelled in them, and taught Idolatry every day) were not nourishments of superstition; but only they that dwelled in them. Whereas these Idol-temples of Antichrist, in themselves, and in all the parts and proportion of them are Idolatrous and causes of sin to many, etc. I reply, 1. If this distinction be good, how will you prove that the Canaanitish Idol-temples were nourishments of superstition and to be destroyed in that regard? How can you say that they were in their shape, proportion and parts Idolatrous? The scripture shows not the form of them, nor yet any mysteries or sacred significations noted therein. We have no testimony touching the superstitious frame and structure of the house of Dagon, of Baal, or of jeroboams temples: And therefore according to your distinction in this place they were no nourishments of superstition, but only those that dwelled or taught Idolatry in them so that if the Altars, images and false worship had been removed, they might even under Moses have been converted unto the service of the Lord. 2. I have showed before that our temples, and especially that wherein we meet together, and about which our question is, doth not consist of such a superstitious structure and fabric as you pretend: yea it is manifest in experience and manifold instances might be given of sundry private houses which for the situation and three parts before noted by you, are liker unto Solomon's temple than ours is: and consequently to be rather destroyed as being idolatrous shrines. 3, if our temples in respect of their form, proportion and parts be nourishments of superstition, and therefore to be avoided; then are you as guilty in coming unto them as we: for whether you come for your study, or whether some of your people come for the alms distributed there: the visible shape and proportion of these temples in the form of their building doth as much present itself unto your eyes coming thither to serve yourselves: as unto our eyes when we come thither to serve the Lord. The outward shape of the Church may as well affect & ensnare him that walketh up and down therein for his pleasure or profit: as him that sitteth there to hear the word of God for his edification: so that if there be any weight in this pretence, it than lights upon your own head. 4, how know you also but that the heathenish schools might have a superstitious structure as well as temples: and that some mystical significations might be imputed or ascribed unto some parts thereof? and what then shall become of your distinction, where by you imagine and feign such a difference betwixt our temples and those public Schools? 5. That which you speak by way of comparison with the temple touching the dwelling houses of the Priests and people, is both unequally and unfitly applied unto the controversy in this place, seeing I spoke here of the public places and schools where the heathenish prophets or Poets did ordinarily and openly teach idolatry, and not of their private houses: and besides that, it is but a bore and false assertion which you utter of their private houses: seeing they also may justly receive a denomination of the works performed in them whether good or evil.  
Lastly, you object, if Paul, had holden it lawful to use idol Temples as we think we may; why took he not occasion to go into Diana's temple in Ephesus, as well as into Tyrannus school there, etc. I answer, 1. there is manifest reason for this, seeing Diana's temple was still retained for Idolatrous use, as may be observed from their text; but that it was so with Tyrannus his school, 
r Act. 19.28.— 35.  the text showeth not at all; but the contrary is plain by the daily use which it was put unto. 2. Where you say, it was lawful for Christians to go into such temples, if they would, as some in Corinth did: though I deny not but that in some cases of necessity this is lawful, yet doth not your allegation from 1. Cor. 8.10. prove the same; for neither, may the word Idolie there used be restrained unto an Idols temple, though it be commonly so translated in that place: it signifies a place of Idols, though there be no building over them, though they stand in open places, in mountains, or valleys, in streets and in market places, in baths, etc. as oftentimes the Idols were 
s Tertullian. de spectaculis. cap. 8  want to do. In such open places might a weak Christian in Corinth see many sitting at an Idols table: yea he might also discern & see some sitting in a temple without entering into the same: & further, if Paul had showed that some weak Christians in Corinth had entered into the very temples, yet is not a simple narration of such a fact, any justification thereof, to prove that it might lawfully be done, as you seem to pled. 3. Where you say also, It is not found that there or in any other city where Paul or any other of the Apostles came, they ever went to preach in any such place, etc. And again, yet we never see him to preach in any of their temples or idolies, etc. This is a very weak pretence, for what though it be not found; and what though we never see it? will you reason thus negatively from the scripture? It is not found in the scriptures, in what cities, nor so much as in what countries some of the Apostles did preach, much less in what temples. Also it is not found in the scriptures that ever Paul or any other of the Apostles did refuse to preach in such places purged from Idolatry. 4. It is very probable, that Paul did preach in the Idolie or Idol-place at Athens: for seeing as I noted before, it was the manner of the heathens, to make their streets and market places to be Idolies; seeing Athens is 
t Pausanias & Xenophon, citant Beza in Act. 17.16.  recorded to have far exceeded the other cities of Graecia in store of Idols and Idolatry: seeing Luke 
u Act. 17.16.17.18.23.  records how Paul passing by did see their Altars & superstition: and being stirred in spirit, did thereupon in the market daily dispute with whomsoever he met, as well as in the Synagogue with the jews: we have therefore reason to think that Paul did preach jesus in their Idolie or market place. It seems also that the man of God which came out of judah did preach in the 
w 1. Kin. 13.1.  Idolie of Bethel, (whether it was a temple or an other open place it is uncertain,) when as he denounced the wrath of God against Icroboams' Idolatry. Thus jeremy also 
x jer. 19.2. with jer. 7.31.  preached in the valley of Benhinnom, the Idolie of Moloch. And thus upon like occasion and like necessary use, it may still be lawful to preach in an Idol-temple in like manner, to protest against the Idolatry that is for the instant practised therein. 5. As for the testimony of Prudentius recording that they had as many temples of Gods in Rome, as there were sepulchres of noble men in this city, this makes against yourself: for if there were so many temples and Idolies in Room now in Prudentius his time when he wrote this (for that which he saith, he affirms for the time present) than this overthrows your former allegation out of Theodoret concerning all the temples destroyed under Theodosius This record of Prudentius being given 
y Magdeburgens. cent. 4. c. 10. Col. 1179.1180.  after the death of Theodosius. And again if according to your plea, Paul might not preach in any of those places where the noble men had been buried in Rome, they being all defiled with Idolatry: then do you hereby again incur the danger of that consequence which brings with it the destruction of private Idolies or houses abused unto Idolatry, as well as of public temples: for how know you that this multitude of noble men's sepulchres were all public, and that some of them were not in their private houses?    

Section. 7.  


Hen. Ains.  Unto our 5. allegation, from the leprous garments compared with the Apostles doctrine, Jude v. 23. warning us to hate even the garment spotted of the flesh, and consequently to hate the houses of Antichrist which are not only defiled with idols, but are idols themselves: you say nothing hereto, but take occasion from an other place to speak again of God's indulgence for some things of necessary use, whereof there is enough said before, and I shall leave it unto judgement.  
You here lay sore blame upon me, for that in showing out of the pontifical the popish manner of Ordination, I set it down with crosses, as it is printed in that book before. You say, I erect them a new, and set them up for religious use, etc. Whereto I answer, Howsoever you aggravate this thing, the most that you can truly say, is that I seek to pull them down from religious use after an unlawful manner, if so it be found: but let us weigh your reasons. The 1. is, that a Papist seeing them, may come to bless an idol in his heart, or adore one of them that he seethe. And so (say I) when he seethe or heareth the name of S t. Peter, or any other S t, or of a cross or crucifix, he may haply come to bless an idol in his heart, and with his mouth too: shall they not therefore be spoken of, or written? 2. Therefore you say, this devised kind of instruction hath no warrant from God, and so the sin comes on the instructors head. Your reason is, for that God in his word causeth not the shapes or figures of idols to be portrayed, when he nameth Chemosh, Moloch, etc. therefore there is no excuse left for me herein. I answer, neither doth God in his word, set down any figure of his Tabernacle, Ark, Temple, or of any man, beast, or other creature, or map of any country: is it not therefore lawful in private books to portray any of these? If it be, than your reason from a devised kind of instruction without warrant from God, willbe little worth in this case. But whereas you say, that I neglecting the examples of all the Churches of Christ in that which is good, do follow a few in that error which I would seem most to condemn: I will therefore leave it to the judgement of the Churches of God, and strive no more. For be it that I have offended herein, (as I confess I sin many other ways, and so may in this though I see it not) yet is there no help to your cause thereby at all. For, to justify evil because an other man doth the like, is but a sorry plea.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  Unto your allegation of Levit. 13. & 14. Chap. with Jude 23 I said the less because I supposed you did not direct the same against our temples, but against the garments mentioned also in the same place of your Apology: yet had you well regarded mine answer, you might have found sufficient therein, to show you that there is no consequence from the burning of an unprofitable leprous garment, to the abolishing of our temples. I alleged diverse 
z Leu. 11.32.33. & 6 28.  scriptures unto you, teaching that God allows the retaining of such things as are of more profitable use, though they have been formerly polluted: The 
a Leu. 15.12  earthen vessel being polluted was to be broken; but the vessel of wood or brass was to be rinsed and scoured only, and then made lawful for use again. And is there not as much difference be twixt our temples and a rag: as there is betwixt an earthen and a wooden vessel? To these scriptures you say nothing. I showed 
b Pag. 214 & 250.251  before that the goodness and bountifulness of the Lord towards his people was to be discerned herein: but you despise the bountifulness of the Lord and will have his benefit to bereiected. Your complaint against all you writ against, is that they bring not scripture: but when it is brought, we see that you are willing enough to pass by it sometimes, as if it had not been brought at all. You say that touching things of necessary use, there is enough said before: but touching this new reason from the scripture, nothing was said before: and that which you have said before for the rest is showed to be insufficient. Yourself do often allege one and the same scripture six or seven times over: And must we so often give answer unto your allegations, while you give no answer at all unto some of ours? But for the weight thereof, I am content to leave them unto the judgement of the reader.  
Touching the grand Idol, erected by yourself, portrayed & printed in your book, these are the things which I commend unto your consideration, 1. You do therefore deserve the sorer blame to be laid upon you, for setting up this Idol, because yourself do so unjustly labour to bring the blame of so heinous Idolatry upon all the Churches of God: and you should not complain (as you do) that this thing is aggravated against you, because the sight of your error herein may be a means to bring you unto some feeling of yourself and of your rash judgement. 2. Your fault hath not been so aggravated against you, but that it may yet be showed to be far greater, for though it be great in each of the respects which 
c Pag. 24.25  before I showed, because without any necessary use, you do a new erect, not a monument only, but a very Idol, and a principal Idol of Antichrist, even the Idol of the cross, though in your answer you have not been able to deny any one of these respects: yet your offence in setting up this Idol is by far the more heinous and notorious in respect of the place, where you have set it. The settle or shrine whereupon you have placed this Idol, is the name of God, even of the most holy Trinity, as appears in your printed 
d Animadvers. pag. 6.  book, where you have affixed the idol-crosse unto the name of each person in the Trinity, even as it is done in the idolatrous pontifical: And thus you do most unworthily abuse the name of God, in making it a footstool for a most filthy idol to stand on and tread upon the same. When the heathenish Idols or gods that could not carry themselves, were 
e Esa. 46.1.2.  carried upon the bunches of the camels or upon the backs of other beasts that bowed and fell down under the burden, it was folly to be laughed at and sin to be condemned; but to set the most abominable idol upon the back of the most holy and pure God; this is a sin of greater indignity, to be abhorred and trembled at. It is odious to see the pope that great beast carried upon the shoulders of men; but that the pope's Idol cross should ride upon the shoulders of the holy Trinity, as in a chariot of Triumph, as in your book you have made it, this is far more odious and detestable. The sin of Solomon was greater in respect of the place where he set up Idols, even 
f 1. Kin. 11 7.  in the mountain that is over against jerusalem: The sin of Manasses was yet greater in respect of the place where he set up Idols, even 
g 2. Kin. 21 4.5.7.  in the house of God: but if he had placed an Idol in the oracle, in the most holy place, even upon the mercy-seat over the ark, this had been more horrible: And if yet further he had placed there betwixt the Cherubims the most vile Idol, even Beelzebub the Prince of the devilles, this had been out of measure sinful and impious above the rest: And yet even this is the sin which you ignorantly run into, while yourself do confess the image of the Cross to be 
h Arrow against Idolat. cap. 5. sect. 13.  Beelzebub Prince of the Devilles, & yet place it over the ark, even upon the Glorious and fearful name of the Holy Trinity: You that so rashly blame all the Churches of Christ for their use of temples formerly polluted with Idolatry, have not feared to make the name of God an Idol-temple, where to this day the Idol-stands still: were your books as much worth as the Ephesians Act 19 you should do well to burn them all, that are yet in your hands, for a testimony of your repentance. And for so much as you have condemned the Church of Rome, for imprinting the very same Idol of the cross not only in their Churches and houses, but also 
i Ibidem.  in their books and writings; abolish your own book and writing wherein you have caused it to be imprinted. 3, whereas you pled, the most that I can truly say, is that you seek to pull them down from religious use after an unlawful manner, etc. I am indeed willing to judge the best of you, and think that your intent and meaning was to do God good service, (as I wrote before) in teaching men the evil of Idolatry. But the best that we can judge hereof is evil enough: we see many Authors of plays and comedies do set forth such interludes with intent to pluck down vice, but doing the same without any warrant of God's word, & using such a kind of instruction as God never appointed: they do strengthen the vices & wickedness which they would reprove. And what is the main breach of the second commandment but the serving of God after an unlawful manner? Therefore when you see yourself convicted of this unlawful manner by setting up an Idol, & making the name of God an Idolie for the same, your evil therein may be great enough though there be no more than that. 4, In setting down your answer to my reason against your Idol, you deal deceitfully, and use a fallacy ab iniquâ divisione, dividing that reason in to two, which was but one. The sum of it was: that such kind of instruction as did occasion men to stumble, to bless an Idol in their hearts, and to worship the same, and withal was a devised kind of instruction without warrant of God's word, that was unlawful. The latter part of this reason I set down by way of preoccupation, to prevent those vain answers, which yet you have made unto it: as may be seen in my 
k Pag. 25.  former writing, This reason being taken thus together, your answers do both vanish presently: for that which you answer first of men being offended and brought to bless an Idol, by seeing or hearing the name of a cross or crucifix, is cut of by the second part of my reason: because there is warrant in the scripture to writ or pronounce the name of an Idol, but not to picture them for religious use, as you have done the cross: That which you answer in the second place touching the tabernacle, ark, temple, and such like things described in maps, is cut of by the first part of my reason: because these figures and descriptions are not Idolatrous and scandalous as is the painting of Idols & images for religious use. That you may more plainly see how unequally and unreasonably you match these things together, which are so unlike: do but consider, that in the description of carnal adultery & uncleanness, it would be a sinful and scandalous thing to picture many stories in such manner, as they are recorded to have been done in the scriptures: as for example, to paint Bathsheba as she was 
l 2. Sam. 11 2.4.  seen of David, & defiled of David, to portray the images of 
m Gen. 38.18.  judah & Thamar: of 
n 2. Sam. 13.14.  Amnon & Thamar, & of diverse others as they are described in the word of God. You acknowledge, I doubt not but that their sin is great which make such offensive pictures, 
o Ezek. 23.14.16.  occasions of lust. And if the naked pictures of carnal adulteresses be unlawful, then are the pictures of spiritual whoredom in the case of offence unlawful also. And who sees not the great difference betwixt these unclean scandalous pictures, and the maps of countries or figures of the temple and such like things as you speak of? 5, of the 7. reasons which you bring against our use of temples, though they be all insufficient against us: yet there are 5. of them that do condemn this unnecessary use of the Idol-crosse erected in your book; namely, the first, second, fift, sixth and seventh which serve to reprove the Idols and monuments of Idolatry, whereof there is no profit to the Church of God. 6, whereas you seek to diminish your fault, by ask whether it be not lawful in private books to portray any of, etc. You wander far from the matter, and do ill apply this demand to the question in hand: for who sees not that your printed book wherein this Idol stands is a public writing, published unto the world, and to the eyes of all that can read? yea herein you reprove yourself, in that in your 
// Pag. 3.  former writing you do twice or thrice call your printed books your proofs in public: reasons set forth in public: how can you now make them to be private? And yet if your books were private only for your own house, yet to 
p Deut. 27.15.  set up an Idol in them in secret, is not free: The 
q Ibid. c. 13 6.  secret entiser unto Idolatry is subject unto judgement. 7. whereas you say concerning this Idol, that you will leave it to judgement, & strive no more: and confess also that you may sin in this matter though you see it not: you do hereby show some doubting and uncertainty in this question. It is also some sign of remorse in you, in that here 
r Pag. 175.  before having as much or more colour to paint crosses in showing the manner of consecrating Churches out of the pontifical, then in showing the manner of popish ordination, yet have you now (after admonition and warning) abstained from making these Idols. But as yourself said before, The abstaining from the practice doth not clear the Sinner; unless you do further repent and renounce your sin: yea if 
s Pag. 82.  your reasoning against us were sound, your ministry should be unlawful and not to be communicated withal until you had repent for making this Idol. If therefore you see not your sin herein, as you say, you aught not to rest, but rather to desire to hear more of this question in special, that your conscience might be settled and you come to some resolution. But as for your ceasing to strive upon that pretence because I spoke of some that had done this before you and of following a few herein, neglecting the examples of others, etc. this is very vain: if upon such pretences men should ceass to strive for the truth, you may see that many most necessary controversies would be cut of, and the truth not maintained as is meet. Lastly, I do not justify our evil by your doing the like, as you warn me not to pled: but I labour to condemn your evil, your making of an Idol without cause: if this were like unto our temples I should condemn myself also: And I show your fault herein to this end, that you seeing your error touching the nature of Idols and Idolatry, might learn to be more sober, & more swift to hear and slow to speak against the Church of God, and more slow to wrath in plucking down our temples over our heads, unless you could better show the wrath of God against them.     

CHAP. XIII. The seventh argument touching temples, examined.  


Hen. Ains.  Our 7. reason against idolies, etc. is from the blessing promised to them that abolish them, and curse threatened to the contrary, etc. Esai. 30.22.23, etc. Exod. 20.5.6. 2 Chron. 17. c. and 31.20.21. with 2. Chron. 21.13.14. and 24.17.— 25. and c. 28.  
To this you say as before, that these scriptures are all to be understood partly according to the state and condition of the old testament; and partly according to the equity mentioned before with exception of necessary use: and therefore they reprove not the use of temples which you now have.  
But both these your answers I have before refuted: showing idolatry and idols to be forbidden as well in the new Testament as in the old, 1 Cor. 10. 1. joh. 5. Rev. 18. and that the destruction of Idols and idolies is a moral and perpetual precept, not figurative or temporary. And your exception of necessary use, I have disproved: showing that for detestation of idols, God commanded and his people performed the demolishing of them, Exod. 34. Deut. 7. Ezek. 23. Gen. 35. Both these are confirmed by the first scripture in our reason here alleged. For in Esai 30.22, the cover and ornaments of idols are prophesied to be cast away with detestation: yet who knoweth not that of them there might be a necessary use to men? whereupon a promise of blessing followeth, v. 23, etc. And this prophesy respecteth the days of the Gospel, and so not the old Testament only: for the rivers of waters upon every mountain v. 25. the increase of the light of the Sun sevenfold, v. 26. the promises that they should weep no more, v. 19 nor want teachers v. 20. these and the like speeches show the prophesy to pertain unto the new Testament. So doth also the continuance of it, in Esai. 31. where again he foretelleth in v. 7. the casting away of their idols: not because they could not have no necessary use of them, but because they were their Sin: (which was the reason also, why Moses of old abolished 
a Deut. 9.21  the Calf of Israel:) and thereupon God promiseth the ruin of their enemies, by the example of the Assyrians v. 8. & in ch. 32. he showeth by whom this should be obtained, even by the King that should reign in righteousness, which is our Lord jesus Christ. So your exceptions are but pretexts: and our reasons remain in their force for the ruinating of all idolies, and so of Antichrists as bad as any.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  WHatsoever you have before objected against both my answers, is again answered; and for each of those places which you again repeat, viz 1. Cor. 10. 1. joh. 5. Rev. 18. Exo. 34. Deut. 7. Ezek. 23. Gen. 35. I have at large showed how you have perverted every one of them, & have in vain laboured to take away the distinction of temporary precepts; and the consideration of necessary use. As for the scriptures alleged in this seventh argument, you leave them all without defence, one only excepted: let us examine your allegation thereof, and see whether that be not also perverted. You say, in Esai. 30 22. the cover and ornaments of idols are prophesied to be cast away with detestation: yet who knoweth not, that of them there might be a necessary use to men, etc. I answer, 1. The casting away of the cover there mentioned is expressly noted and declared in the text, to be as the casting away of a stained garment, which was cast away, only during the stain upon it, but being washed with water might lawfully be used again; neither did God ever command otherwise in his law: And so this place is against yourself, showing that our temples being purged may yet be retained. 2, what comparison is there betwixt the clothing and covering of an Idol and our temples, but even such as there is betwixt the 
t Leu. 11.33 & 15.12.  earthen and the wooden vessel, whereof one was to be broken and cast away, the other to be washed and retained for the profit of God's people? 3. The covering and ornament of an Idol is of no necessary use in the service of God, but the circumstance of place is necessarily required to meet in: and our temples serving conveniently for such purpose may therefore be retained, rather than the ornaments of Idols. 4. Though this prophesy do respect the days of the Gospel as you show from Esa. 30.25.26, etc. Yet is it to be understood and expounded according to the determination of Christ and his Apostles in the new Testament, which show us a lawful use of every creature of God for the necessary help of his people. Otherwise without this caveat men might still retain the whole ceremonial law: seeing there are so many prophecies respecting the days of the Gospel, which yet tell us of 
u Esa. 19.19.21.  Altars, of sacrifice and oblation, of 
w Mal. 1.11  incense, of 
x Zach. 14.16.17.  going up to jerusalem to keep the feast of Tabernacles, of 
y Ezek. 40. chap. etc.  building a new temple with ceremonial observations therein, etc. All these prophecies respect the new Testament, describing a spiritual worship under carnal rites and shadows of the law: so that though Esay had spoken in this place more ceremonially in the description of our estate, than he had done: yet the determinations which I have before showed cut of the new Testament, must be our rule and guide to expound the same: and being so expounded your cause is not helped thereby. 5, as for Esay. 31.7. & Deut. 9.21. they speak not of places abused unto Idolatry, but of Idols themselves, such as you cannot prove our temples to be: And besides this, even Gods own ordinances in the abuse thereof are called 
z Esa. 1.13  a sin or iniquity: and therefore this phrase proves not an utter abolition of things so called, being attributed and given unto such things as after the purging thereof may and aught to be retained. Again as for the destruction of the Calf in Deut. 9 it was extraordinary, neither were men bound strictly to follow the same manner of showing detestation against idols, not not under the law itself. Your boasting in conclusion, that our exceptions are but pretexts, that your reasons remain in their force for the ruinating of all idolies, etc. is like unto a pleasant dream, wherein you fancy and imagine that which you feign would have: but you may not sit down in the throne to judge of your own dispute: stand up at the bar and let others judge whether all your shot and ordinance have been able to batter down our temples: and whether your schism rather be not near unto ruin, which for such pretexts of Idol-temples do separate from all true Christians.    

CHAP. XIV. Touching the jews Synagogue.  


Hen. Ains.  HEre again you come, with reasons from our own practice: which were it such as you suppose, and that we walked not aright, yet helpeth it you nothing. For the truth shall stand, though all men fall: and it is God's word, not men's ways, that must be our rule in Religion.  
For your 1. and 2. objections from the houses, wherein we meet: I have 
* In the defence of our 6. reason.  before proved, they are not, neither ever were Idolies, nor by any law of God to be destroyed, though jews or any, have worshipped in them.   

Answer.  


Io. Pa.  HEre, before you come unto the particular answer you say something in general by way of complaint, that I should reason against you from your own practice: of this you affirm, that were it such as I suppose, etc. yet it helpeth us nothing, etc. Hereunto I reply, 1. It helpeth much to set forth the glory of God, to confirm the comfort of the faithful, & to stop the mouth of iniquity, when we do observe the contradictory practise and doctrine of such as are enemies to the Church of God. And God himself hath taught us to urge such things against them that are maintainers of error, to show how he will condemn the evil servants 
a Luk. 19.22  out of their own mouths, by their own words and deeds: how he will 
b Ezek. 16.43.  bring their own ways, upon their heads: how they 
c Ps. 7.15.  fall into the pits which they dig for others; how he will make them 
d Rom. 2.1  inexcusable, when they do the same things which they condemn in others: how he 
e 1. Cor. 3.19.  catcheth the wise in their own craftiness. In these judgements of God, his glory shineth brightly, & they take his name in vain that do not duly consider of these his works in & upon you, as well as upon others. 2. How do you forget yourself, who else where do confess that 
f preface to Annot. on Gen. pag. 6  the testimony of the adversary against himself, doth help our faith? Your use of the jews Idol temple is a testimony against yourself, & yet here you say, were your practice such as we suppose that you walked not right, yet it would help us nothing. We suppose you have no great conscience of your own profession, and therefore can not so easily be drawn to receive your doctrines without further examination of them by the word of God: Herein we are much helped and kept from joining rashly unto you. Your own endeavour in your writings is to press your adversaries with their own practice, as 
g Animadv p. 12. 59 123. etc.  Mr. johnson and Mr. Smith and others very often: And how partial therefore are you, that allow that to yourself, which you disallow in others? 3. Though the word of God & not men's ways must be our rule in Religion, yet seeing so many men prefer their own ways before the word of God, is it not therefore meet to convince such men by their own ways, and to reprove them even by their own wanderings? As truth destroys error, so doth one error destroy another sometimes, and one practice refute an other and therefore though the holy scriptures only can show the truth of religion, yet erroneous and contradictory practices are also a means to condemn falsehood & stop the mouth of those that maintain such errors. To this end and not further do we allege your practice: far be it from us, that we should make your ways a rule of religion.  
But now to come unto the objection itself, I seek your answer here in the proper place, but find it not, as I expected: In stead hereof you sand me back unto the defence of your sixth reason, and therein a corner you would hide your head from the force of this reproof, but you must be brought forth into the light again: for 1, howsoever you say of this jews synagogue, which you used to assemble in, that you have before proved, that it is not, nor ever was an Idolie: that have I already reproved and refuted again: That defence of your sixth reason being showed to be vain. 2. The objection which I made against your sixth reason, did concern private houses of idolaters, as of Papists, Moschovites and such like: but this synagogue of the jews was not a private place, but a place of public worship where many families of the jews did ordinarily meet together in a solemn congregation; & so also hath your separate company done as publicly and solemnly after the jews had left it. And therefore those private houses and this public synagogue are most unequally and unjustly matched together, neither can the answer of that place be applied unto this. 3, you made exception for the private houses mentioned in the former place that they were civil houses, but the synagogue of the jews whereof I speak, being for the public worship of God may be called a religious place as well as any other. And though some persons dwelled in some part of it, that hinders not but that it was to be esteemed a religious house or synagogue: you see the most of the temples in this city, have diverse persons dwelling in several parts of them, which yet you condemn as Idolies: If you were not partial you would consider this: for the excuse of our temples, as well as of the jews. The jews 
h Arba turim, lib. Orach chaim tractat. beth hacceneseth, signo 153.  accounting their Beth-midrasch to be an holy place and more holy than other synagogues, do yet confess it may be part of such a building where men may have a dwelling place in some other parts of it; in that they 
i Elias levita in Tischbi. in darasch.  note it to be either an house or chamber or parlour (cheder.) And if such an excuse as this which you make, might have saved Idol-temples from ruin in the time of the law: then those Idolaters which had once seen the overthrow of Baal's houses, might according to this shift have taken some old palaces or halls and converted them to the service of Baal, for his ordinary and public worship, suffering yet some persons to devil still in some other parts thereof, and by this means all danger of ruin should be turned away from them. And if they had not old houses enough convenient for their purpose, they might make new, provided that they made some rooms above or below for their Priests and other persons to devil in, and then if any jehu or josias came to pluck down those Idolies of Chemosh, Baal or Dagon, they might pled against them that those places were civil houses, and dwelling houses of men, though public worship were ordinarily performed in them, and that therefore such Kings had no authority to demolish them: and thus had they had some of your subtle shifts they might have coosened the la, deluded the godly Kings and preserved their Idol-temples from destruction.   

MOreover whereas you said in the defence of your sixth reason, touching the jews place of public worship wherein you succeeded them, that I do untruly call it the jews Idol-temple; that it may appear unto the reader whether I spoke truly or not, I desire these few things may be considered touching the estate of the jews and their Idolatry according to your own description of Idolatry. As before you led us into the Pope's warehouses, the Pontifical and others shops of his: so here you must give me leave to bring you into the jews warehouse, the Thalmud and other shops of theirs, that by comparing of them with the stuff, that is found in some of your own shops, I may thereby show unto you, that the jews Synagogue is an Idol-temple.  
First, as for the members of the jews Church, they are by your own testimony all of them heinous and horrible Idols: for you write that 
k Counterpoy. pag. 143. 144.  the bringing of Satan's seed into the Church, unto the Altar of God, may further be minded as a high degree of violating the second commandment, whereby all images, idols and similitudes whatsoever, of the Devil or men's invention or forming are severely forbidden to be brought into God's house, or used in his worship Now such images or Idols are these wicked persons. For as Children are the images of their parents, etc. So Satan's Children (as wicked worldlings be called in the scripture,) are his lively images, having lost the first image of God wherein they were created, etc. As it is a sin, and so esteemed, to have images and representations of beasts, of fowls, of fishes, etc. brought into the Church and worship of God: so would & well might it be esteemed more horrible, if in any Christian congregation, there should be brought in pictures of the Devil, or other like hellish representations. Yet men will not see the horror of this sin, that the living images and pictures of the serpent should be brought into the Church and worship of God, etc. Now it being manifest and undeniable that the jews are wicked persons, despisers of Christ, and his Gospel, and profane worldlings also, by your own confession they must be Idols, and images, and consequently the place of their public worship a receptackle of Idols, and an Idol-temple. And yet even in the same place where such pictures of the Devil and hellish representations have been brought into the worship of God, even there have you agreed to assemble together for the service of Christ: The horror of that place hath not deterred you from converting it unto your holy place.  
Secondly, as for the ministers of the jewish Church, according to your doctrine they must also be esteemed Idols: for unlawful ministers you reckon up in the catalogue or roll of Idols and say of them as of others idols; 
l Arrow against Idolatry ch. 1. sec. 18.  Nor is there less impiety in Idols of an other nature and esteem for when among men one is set up as head of the Church, an other as Patriarch, an other as primate, Archbishop, Metropolitan, etc. & these without calling & appointment from God: these be Idol-shepheards, not true pastors of the flock, etc. Now among the jews at this day, they have unlawful offices without calling & appointment from God: Their principal Doctor, to whom for honour sake they give the title of Gaon or excellence, is 
m Elias Levita in Tisebbi, in Gaon.  said to be so called, because he must be expert in the Thalmud & in the sixty treatises thereof, which by a Cabalistical reckoning are found in the word Gaon, which 
n  yieldeth the number of sixty. And according to his title, which signifieth pride as well as excellency, so doth this rabbin presume above the holy scripture, and out of the Thalmud preacheth unto the jews a huge burden and load of superstitious traditions: And thus his administration becomes Idolatrous. Thus do the inferior Rabbins and jew-doctours also. Their unlawful ministries might further be observed in the 7. yearly offices which they are 
o joan. Buxt. in Synag. jud. cap. 22.  recorded to cell for money, by an open proclamation in their Synagogue, to whomsoever will give most money for them; as the office of lighting candles, which they perform with many superstitions; the office of distributing wine on their Sabath and at other feasts: the office of Gelilah to open the roll of the la and to wrap it up again: the offices of hagbohab to carry about and elevate the book of the la, etc. the offices of Ets chaijm, to touch those pieces of wood unto which the volume of the la is fastened: in the touching of this tree of life they put great confidence for attaining of understanding, virtue and long life thereby: the office of Acheron for to propound something to be read out of the la; the office of schehia, to be a substitute, ready to supply the office of any of the rest which through negligence should omit the same. And many other ways it might be showed what Idol-shepheards they have. Now where these Thalmudique doctors have administered, there come you the only doctor on earth (in your own and your people's account) that may be lawfully communicated with all; and you that refuse to worship in the places where Christ jesus is preached, have not refused to assemble ordinarily, where Christ jesus hath been condemned and a false Messiah preached.  
Thirdly for their prayers, they do therein commit Idolatry many ways. They turn God himself into an Idol (so much as in them lies) when they call upon him, by denying the Trinity of persons and by calling upon God without Christ: and as yourself note from others, that by false worshippers God 
p Animadv. pag. 73.  is transformed into an Idol, so may it be noted of the jews, in their misconceaving of God and worshipping him so misformed in their minds. And if it be true which is taught in your writings, that in the Church of England, Christ is 
q H.B. disc. p. 161.  an Idol King & an Idol Christ, how much more evident is it, that the jews in their worship do set up their Christ for an Idol? By your doctrine all set forms of prayer are 
r Ibid. p. 64  detestable Idols. Now that the jews have public prescript and set forms of prayer, their Minhagim or books of their public liturgies do show it abundantly. And your 
* Maimon. in misneh, in Seder tephilloth col hasscha nah.  Maimony shows us at large their order for set forms of prayer for appointed seasons throughout the whole year. And so according to your profession, if there were nothing else but this, their Synagogue should be an Idol-temple.  
Besides this they have many particular and several prayers and blessings, wherein they put vain confidence and make Idols of them. Their 
s Arba turim, lib. Orachchaijm tract tephil lah. sig. 58 & 70 etc.  Krias shema, or Keriath shema (as they call it) hath a multitude of superstitious observations in the use of it, and as many vain promises annexed unto the same. Their prayer which they call 
t Ibid. sig. 55  Kaddish, may not be said of lesle than ten persons; and those all the sons of nobles and great ones which have brought forth the 2. hairs: some contend that there may be one Child or little one with the other 9, if he have the pentateuch in his hand: others deny it: and these ten must be all in one place, & sheliac tsibbur or the minister of their synagogue with them, etc. But if there be a little court broken fully into a great court; if there be 9 persons in the great court, and one in the little one, they allow this prayer to be said there; but if there be 9 persons in the little court and one in the great one, or 5 in one and 5 in an other, they allow it not, etc. An other prayer they have which they call jithgaddel according to the beginning thereof, or Kedushah and this they may not say, in the Hebrew tongue, but in the language of the Thargum, lest (as they 
u Ibid. sig. 56.  say) the Angels hearing the same should envy them for this excellent hymn, and therefore they say it in a language which they do not understand, for the Angels (as they affirm) know not the Aramites tongue. An other famous prayer they have, which they call schemone Esre consisting of 18, parts: This they 
w Thalm. Babylonic. in megillah ch. 2. fol. 17.  hold to have been made by an hundted and twenty Elders and some of them Prophets. In giving a reason of this mystical number, why it hath just 18 parts, whereupon it is denominate; jehoshua been Levi, 
x Thalmud jerusalemy in Beracoth ch. 4. f. 7. and. 8.  saith it is in reference unto the 18 first psalms, reaching unto those words, the Lord hear thee in the day trouble, etc. R. Simon saith, it is respect of the 18. little bones or joints which are in the back bone, because in the hour that a man stands and prays this prayer, it is of necessity that he bow with them all: for which reason it is said, All my bones shall say, Lord who is like unto thee. R. Levi saith it is in respect of the 18. memorials (of the word jehovah) which are found in the Psalm which gins thus, give unto the Lord ye sons of the mighty, viz. ps. 29. R. Hanina in the name of R. Phinehas saith, it is in respect of the 18. times that the fathers, Abraham, Isaak and jaakob are mentioned in the law, etc. A number of other such like prayers they have, whereunto they attribute miraculous power and virtue, as by the saying of their Kaddish before mentioned they hold that the souls of dead men are delivered out of their torment in hell or purgatory and translated into paradise: and therefore are Children bound to use that prayer for their parents deceased for the space of a year or thereabout. Unto these prayers they join their Phylacteries and make Idols of them also: They say, 
z Arba Tutim, lib. or. cha. tractat Tephillin fig. 37.  Great is the commandment of the Phylacteries: because every one that wears them shall prolong his days, as it is said, o Lord by them men live: And Rabath saith every one that puts on the Phylacteries & wears zizith or the fringes and reads Keriath shema, and prays, let him be sure that he is a Child of the world to come. And Abaii saith, I will be his surety that the fire of hell shall not have power over him. R. Papa saith, I will be his surety, that all his sins shallbe forgiven him, etc. The Thalmudique canons teach that those Phylacteries which are written 
a Thalmud Bab. in Menachoth cap. 4 f. 42 Arba Turim, orach chaiim in Thephillin sig. 39 & in Gittin. c. 4. fol. 45  by a servant, by a woman, by a child, by a gentle, or an Israelite changed from them, are unlawful for use, etc. that if they be written by an heretic, than they are to be burnt: if they be found in the hand of an heretic & it be not known whether they were written by him or not, that then they are to be buried, etc. with an hundred superstitions more about the making, using, keeping and vain confidence in them.  
Again they turn the ordinance of the priests lifting up his hands in blessing the people, into great superstition; 
b Orach chaiim in Tephillah sig. 128. comp with R. Moses Mikkots. in SMG. precep. affir. 20.  none of the priests may go up unto the stairs, pulpit or scaffold from whence the blessing is pronounced, but he must first put of his shoes. All the priests that are present are bound to go up unto the scaffold (when the Minister of the congregation comes to a certain prayer, called ratsah, etc.) & they that do not, sin against three affirmative commandments, viz. Thus shall ye bless them: say unto unto them: put my name upon them: when they are gone up they are to stand on the scaffold with their faces towards the temple and their backs towards the people, having their fingers bowed into the mids of the palm of their hands, until the Minister have finished an other prayer Modim, etc. When they turn their faces towards the people to bless, they do first bless the Lord for that blessing, for sanctifying them with his sanctification of Aharon, etc. Than they lift up their hands over against their shoulders in height, and open their fist and divide their fingers according to the midrasch, he shows himself through the grates; because that Schecinah or the divine Majesty is above upon their heads and looketh through the grates of their fingers; and they direct or set them so, that they may make windooes for the Lord, betwixt each two fingers one window; and betwixt a thumb and a finger; and betwixt thumb and thumb a window, (9 windows in all) to establish or fulfil that saying, he shows himself through the grates. (Cant. 2.9.) Than their Minister reads or prays those words: The Lord bless thee, etc. Num. 6.24.25.26. And they say after him word for word till he have finished the first verse; and then the congregation answers Amen, and so they do also after the second and again after the third verse of that blessing. And they may not bless but in the holy tongue: and standing, and with lifting up of hands, and with a high voice, etc. The Priest that is 
d Orach Cham in Tephillah sig. 128.  zebalgan, i which lets his spittle fall upon his beard, or is blind of one eye, may not lift up his hands in this blessing: but if the men of his city be used unto him and do all know that he is Zebalgan, and blind, than he may lift up his hands: If his hands be coloured with diverse colours and scarlet, he may not lift up his hands, lest they should be offended at him: but if the multitude of the men of the city do use such work, than he may lift up his hands, than they will not be offended at him, etc. If the priest 
e Maimony in misn. in Tephillah ch. 15. sec. 4.  drink a quadrant of wine at one draft, than he may not lift up his hands: but if he drink it at two draughts, or two times: or if he put a little water into the mids of it, than it is lawful for him: but if he drink more than a quadrant, although it be mixed, and although he drink it at diverse times, yet he may not lift up his hands, until he put his wine from him, etc. And many other vain observations they have about this particular. If 
f Arba Turim, lib. Orach cha in Tephillah. signo. 130.  any man have seen a dream, & knows not what he hath seen, he is to come before the Priests in the hour that they go up unto the scaffold where they lift up their hands to bless: and to say thus, oh Lord of the world, I am thine, & my dreams are thine: I have dreamt a dream and I know not what it is: whether I have dreamt for myself, or whether others have dreamt for me, if they be good confirm and ratify them, as the dreams of joseph: if they be evil, heal them, heal them, as the waters of Marah by the hands of Moses, and as the waters of jericho by the hands of Elisha, as Miriam from her leprosy, and as Naaman from his leprosy, etc. Besides these prayers and blessings, they have also their solemn curses, wherein they curse Christians and even Christ jesus himself, praying for the destruction of Christians, especially of those jews that are converted to Christianity: wishing also that the name of jesus may be blotted out, as is 
h Buxtorf. de abbrev. p. 87.  noted from their jimmach schemo, though they do it more covertly, according to their Cabalistical art. Yea, it appears that they are more careful of these curses, then of many other blessings: for their canon is, that 
i Orach a chaiim, in Tephillah, sig. 126.  if the minister of their congregation do err in any one of all the blessings by omitting or skipping over the same: if when they admonish him, he know how to return unto the place, they do not remove him: but if he skip over the curse of heretics (under which they reckon those that do embrace Christianity), they do forth with remove him lest he himself be an heretic, etc. Now while you pled against our temples that they are to be destroyed and avoided as being 
k Pag. 16●  Devilles houses: if your plea be sound, then may it justly be used against yourself: for as the Devil is denominate of slandering and accusing, so where cursing, and blasphemy are joined with superstition and Idolatry, the house where these sins are ordinarily and publicly practised, may well be called a Devilles house; and consequently that meeting house of the jews which you chose to be your house of prayer. Hereby you have condemned yourself in that wherein you would blame us.  
Fourthly, they make an Idol of the holy scriptures which they use in their synagogue: of the book of the la in special: and of the reading thereof. One superstition is, that they hold it 
l Arba Turim, lib. joreh degnah trac. Seph. thorah sig. 270.  unlawful for a man which hath the book of the la to cell the same, though he have many of them: yea that it is unlawful to cell an old one to buy a new one, even when a man hath nothing to eat: only they allow a man in this case of necessity to cell the same, viz. to pay for learning of the law, and for the taking of a wife, when he hath no other means to procure the same, etc. An other superstition is, that they 
m Ibid. sig. 271.  make it unlawful to writ the book of the law save upon the parchment which is made of the skin of a clean creature: and not upon the skin of a fish though it be clean, but upon the skin of a clean beast, fowl or living creature which is clean: also not upon the skin of those creatures which are dead and torn. They hold it not lawful to writ the same upon the parchment made of the skin of a clean beast, unless the skin be dressed purposely to that use at the first, unless it be made in that name and dedicated to such use: R. Moses bar Maimon 
n Maimony in misneh, tract. Tephillin c. 1. sec. 11  writes further, that if a gentle dress them they are unlawful, though an Israelite say unto him, dress these skins for a book of the law: but R. Baruch 
o jore deah, tract. Sepher thorah. sig. ●71  writes that if a gentle make them and an Israelite stand at his back and help him a little, than they are lawful. Also for the manner of dressing them, they 
p Ibid.  hold it unlawful to dress these skins save with galls: though R. Tamburlaine allows the lime which they have to that purpose. They make great question, upon which side of the parchment the law is to be written and thereabout do Maimony and R. Ascher differ among themselves. Also they hold it is not to be written but with ink: but R. Tamburlaine saith it is not called ink, but they make it of certain kinds of known thorns which are sodden, and of that water they make it, but if it be ink made with galls, than it is unlawful for a book of the law, etc. further they 
q jor. deah. in Seph. thor. sig. 274.  hold superstitiously, that the scribe which writes the book of the law, must of necessity when he gins to writ say thus; this book I writ that it may be a holy book of the law: and this sufficeth for every book, and if he do not thus, the book is unlawful. Also that he must have a book before him out of which he may copy it: that it is unlawful to writ even one letter which is not out of the copy: (though he knew it never so perfectly without the same) Seven letters comprehended in the words, Schagnatnaz gates they do idolize after a special manner, 
r Ibid. with Thalmud in menachoth, f. 29.  writing over them 3 crowns, so often as they are repeated in the law, one crown on the right side of the letter, an other on the left, an other above: These crowns are not to be found in any Hebrew Bible that is printed: Therefore the jews use in their synagogue not a printed, but a written book of the law. Again, although the scribe in the beginning of his writing, do say he writes the same in the name of a holy book for the consecration thereof, yet it is further 
s jor. dea. sig. 276.  required as necessary, that so often as he writes the name of God, he do every time think in himself that he writes that name for a holy use, and if he do not so, the writing is unlawful. And if a King salute him, as he is writing that name, he may not answer him. And when he hath dipped his pen into the ink to writ the name of God, it is not lawful for him immediately to begin with the name of God lest there should be too much ink in the pen, but for a praeparative he must first begin to writ the word that comes before the name of God, with that new penfull of ink. If he writ any of the names of God in gold, it is unlawful: And a number of other superstitious traditions they have about the measures of the book, the form of the letters, the sections open and shut, the distances betwixt book and book, section and section, line & line; about the correction of literal faults, and the toleration of them: about the ruling of the book, the sowing of the parchments with the sinews of clean beasts, etc. But when it is made, than they 
t jor. dea. in Seph. th'. sig. 282.  give great honour unto this book of the law: they are commanded to make a peculiar place for it, and to honour that place with great reverence: they may not spit before it, nor turn their backs toward it, nor carry it upon their heads as if it were a burden: they that see it as it passes by are bound to stand still, until it be passed by and brought unto his place, or until it be covered from their eyes. He that travels from place to place and hath the book of the law with him, may not put it in a sack, nor lay it upon the back of the ass whereon he rides, but he must put it in his bosom, over against his heart. They may not sit upon that bed, where this book is laid: They may not touch this book, but through a veil, wherewith it must first be covered: They may not bring it into many places: And that house where it is, may not be used as before it was. When it is worn out, or made unmeet for use, they must put it into an earthen vessel, and so bury it: and this, near unto one of their wise disciples or Rabbins. They distinguish betwixt this book of the law, and the pentateuch, or 5. books of Moses, in respect of this form and manner of writing, though the same words be contained in both: Though they may lay this book upon the back of an other book of the law, and the pentateuch upon the Prophets, and Psalms, etc. yet they may not lay the Prophets and psalms upon the back of the pentateuch, nor the pentateuch upon the back of this book of the law: such superstitious differences and degrees of holiness do they forge unto themselves. The superstitions which they use 
u Orach. ch. tract. keriath hattho rah. sig. 135 136. etc.  in reading this book of the law in their synagogues, are also very many: concerning the time, the persons, the order to be observed herein; and too long it would be to rehearse the same in like manner also do they Idolize the book of Ester, both in the writing and in the reading thereof, using many of the very same superstitions which they do about the book of the law, though not so precise herein: yet have they many peculiar traditions here also, as 
w thalmud jerusalemy in megillah. ch. 3. fol. 74. with Orach cha. in megil. sig. 690 691. Maimony in Megillah c. 2.  that the names of the ten sons of Haman are to be written after the manner of a song, and yet not as common songs; that the names of the men are to be written in the beginning of the leaf or line, and that the particle, veeths that goes with each of them is to be written in the end of the line: and that otherwise the writing is not lawful: that in the reading of them also, they are all to be read with one breath: with a multitude of the like devises. Now if popish superstitions have defiled our temples, and made them unfit for our use, how comes it that these absurd and manifold jewish superstitions have not defiled their synagogue and made it unfit for your use?  
Fiftly, the Sacrament of Circumcision observed among the jews, is also set up for an Idol among them. As you note of the Popish Baptism, that there are 
x Animadv p. 72.  two sorts of idols therein, some merely devised by men: as their crosses, exorcisms, greasings, etc. some perverted by men from holy signs to idols, etc. So may you see both these kinds of idols in the jewish circumcision: for (not to speak of many other superstitions) their 
y Arba turim, li. jor. dea, in Milah, sig. 264 R. Moses mikk. in SMG. praecep. affir. 28  priah, or tearing of the other skin with their nails, (after the foreskin be cut away) is merely devised by themselves, a more painful and dangerous thing unto the circumcised infant, then is the cutting of the foreskin itself. And this priah or perignah, they hold to be so necessary, that they make circumcision without it to be no circumcision: they say, he that circumciseth and useth not this priah, is as if he had not circumcised. Herein their superstition is greater than the Papists, who do not maintain such a necessity of their inventions and devises in the administration of Baptism. Again, their 
z joreh dea. tract. milah or of circumcision sig. 265.  custom is to set a chair or seat for Elias at their act of circumcising: and the original of this custom is noted by them to be this: when Elias complained, I have been very jealous for the Lord, because the house of Israel have forsaken thy coveranr (1 Kin. 19.15.) the Rabbins say that from that time the Lord made a promise unto Elias that the Israelites should never perform that covenant or work of circumcision, until Elias did see it with his eyes: and that from thence forward their wise men ordained to set a chair for Elias, because he is called the Angel of the covenant. Herein they commit heinous Idolatry, by ascribing unto Elias a divine power and property as though he could be present in many places at once wheresoever circumcision is administered: As the Papists offend by maintaining the body of Christ to be present in their mass wheresoever it is celebrated; so do the jews by maintaining the body of Elias to be present in their Idol circumcision wheresoever it is administered by them, honouring his presence also by setting a chair or throne for him, etc. Again they turn the ordinance of God into an Idol, by maintaining an use of it, when as it is now abolished: and especially by putting so great confidence therein, as that they do thereby 
a Gal. 5.2.3.4.  abolish themselves from Christ and the salvation purchased by him. They hold the commandment of circumcision to be greater than the rest of the commandments that are to be performed: they say 
b Thalmud in Nedarim ch. 3. fol. 31  that there are thirteen covenants made concerning circumcision; because the word covenant is found to be 13. times repeated in Gen. 17. where circumcision was instituted: They 
c Arba turim, l. jor. dea. in milah, sig. 260  allege out of their Bereshith rabbah that Abraham our father sits at the gate of Hell and suffers not any that are circumcised to be gathered in thither. They affirm that by it men are delivered from the judgement of hell. The Chalde● paraphrast expounding those words of Solomon, every one hath his sword upon his thigh for the fear by night, 
d Thargum on cant. 3.8  notes this sword upon the thigh to be the seal of circumcision in the flesh, whereby they prevail and do not fear the divelles or the toads that walk abroad in the night. Yea such confidence they have in this ceremony, that they use to 
e Arba Turim, l. jor. dea. treat. of burial, sig. 353. & of circumcis. sig. 263.  circumcise dead infants to obtain and procure the more mercy for them at the resurrection, though after an other manner, than other infants be commonly circumcised Now you that condemn our use of temples, which have been abused heretofore unto the worship of Saints: why were you not afraid to worship in that Synagogue where Elias hath been deified by the jews, and divine honour given unto him being but one of the Saints? you that refuse to hear all the ministers of Christ sitting in Moses chair, what mean you to go and sit in Elias his chair, to teach and preach unto your people in that very place where the jews have set that Idolatrous chair for Elias?  
Sixthly, the feasts of the jews which they keep at this day cannot be denied of you to be Idols, whiles you 
f H.B. disc. p. 181.  say as much of the Idol-feasts in the Church of England. A whole volume would not suffice to express the innumerable superstitions of the jews which they observe herein: They have a whole book in folio containing their preparation unto one of their feasts, showing only what is to be done in the evening of their . I will only note one or two of their impious pactises. At their feast of reconciliation, their manner in some places is to kill a cock for reconciliation. 
h Arba turim lib. Orach cha. tract. jom haccippurim, sig. 605.  The minister of the congregation useth to take a cock, and lays his hand upon his head, and lifts him up, and lays him upon the head of him that is to be reconciled and saith; This for this: This is changed for this: This is wounded for this. Than he turns unto him the second time and saith, They sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in misery and iron: He bringeth them out of darkness & the shadow of death, and breaks their bands asunder: fools by reason of their transgression and because of their iniquities are afflicted: Than they cry unto the Lord in their trouble and he delivereth them out of their distress he sends his word and healeth them, and delivereth them from their graves: Let them confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonders unto the Sons of men. Life for life. And he doth according to this order three times. After this he lays his hand upon the head of the cock after the manner of laying on of hands, and leaning upon him killeth him presently: strait way after the imposition of hands is the slaughter of him. And they use to give him unto the poor that this may be a reconciliation for his life, etc. At their feast of Purim, their manner is in reading the book of Ester to say, 
i Ibid. tract. megillah, sig. 690.  Cursed be Haman: Blessed be Mordecai: Cursed be Zeresh, Blessed be Ester: Cursed be all that serve Idols (under these they comprehend all Christians:) Blessed be all Israel, etc. Yea in the 
k sig. 695. & Talmud Bab. in Megill. c. 1. fol. 7.  same place they say that they are commanded to make great cheer, and that it is necessary to be drunken, till they cannot discern betwixt Arur Haman, and Baruch Mordecai, etc. till they know not Haman from Mordecai: blessing from cursing, etc. Of all the Idolatrous feasts that are kept either at Room of the Papists or at Constantinople among the Turks, I think you cannot name any more detestable than these, where Christ is so dishonoured and Christianity so directly blasphemed and cursed, and drunkenness so extolled for a virtue: yet are you become so partial in yourself and a judge of such evil thoughts, that you blush not to condemn our use of temples for the superstition of the former times, while yourselves dare venture into this jewish synagogue, a nest of superstition nothing inferior unto the Papists.  
Seventhly, as for the discipline and censures used among the jews you can not deny them to be Idols, whiles you 
l H. B. disc. p. 234 & 236.  make the suspension used in true Churches of Christ to be Idolatrous and an Idol-suspension; though nothing so absurd and vile as is that suspension of the jews. The censures of the jews are many first they have a kind of rebuke which they call neziphah, this they 
m Elias Levita in Tischbi in nazaph.  refer to the initial letters of nezem zahab be— aph, etc. a jewel of gold in a swine's snout: Prov. 11.22. This they describe to be the 
n Arba Turim in joreh dea. tract. Niddui. sig. 334.  rebuke of a great man upon an other: And the manner is, that he which hath it upon him must hide himself & sit in his house, and be ashamed and not see the face of him that hath rebuked him, nor stand before him with his head uncovered, and must diminish his mirth his talk his exercises, etc. But others need not to avoid him, neither is he required to seek reconciliation with him that is offended, neither is any absolution required after this rebuke hath been borne a certain time. Again, they have three sorts of excommunication, niddui, cherem and shamatha, all which as they are now used by the jews, are Idolatrous and superstitious. For the first, which is a kind of suspension, they 
o May money in misneh, in Thalmud thorah, ch. 6.  assign four and twenty causes for which it is to be inflicted: Among the rest, one cause is, for despising even one word of the scribes, etc. which are most absurd and impious many times and aught to be despised: An other unreasonable cause is, if a jew cell any ground unto a gentle that is an Idolater (such they accounted all to be that call upon the name of Christ) they suspend him, until he will take upon himself all the hurt which may come thereby from the gentle unto an Israelite, etc. Him that is suspended they avoid in eating and drinking with him and must sit 4. cubits from him: during the time of this rejection he may not shave himself, nor wash himself, etc. 
p Thalmud jerusalemy in moed katon ch. 3 f. 81. col. 4.  He that is thus suspended or rejected by a rabbin, is rejected of his scholar, but he that is rejected of the scholar is not rejected of the rabbin. He that is rejected of the Father of the judgement house, is rejected of the wise man but he that is rejected of the wise, is not rejected of the Father of the judgement-house. 
q jor. dea. ubi supra.  He that is rejected of the prince, is rejected of all Israel: but he that is rejected of all Israel is not rejected of the prince, etc. As for the absolution and losing this band, the form of words used is, scherui lach, machol lach: Thou art loosed: thou art forgiven: and if the man to be absolved be absent, they say, scherui lo: He is loosed: Touching the persons that may absolve, 
r Misneh in Thalmud thor. 2. 7.  Maimony saith, that three Idiots or private men, or one alone that is approved may absolve the suspended person, and that a Thalmid or disciple of the Rabbins may lose either the anathema or the suspension even in the place of the rabbi; If three have suspended a man and be gone away; if the suspended person repent, three others may absolve him, but 
s Ex Arba Turim ubi supra.  R. Abraham been Dior writes that three other can not absolve him except they be as great as the three former: & that a third man may give authority unto two to absolve, etc. That if a man be rejected by this censure of niddui and he know not who it is that hath rejected him, there is no other may absolve him but the Prince: but if he know who hath rejected him, than he that rejected, may absolve, though he be one of the people of the Land, or an other like him. They give special warning that whosoever will absolve or lose that which his neighbour hath bound must consider diligently whether he be equal unto him whether he may be compared with him in wisdom, and that if he be not like unto him in the fear of God and in greatness that then the absolution be performed by two, etc. Many other are the superstitious devises about this matter, as touching those that are 
t Ibidem, & Maimony in Thal. thor. ubi supra.  rejected by an oath, touching those that are rejected by dream, not to be absolved but by 10. persons, of such and such quality: touching the number of days both for neziphah and niddui; touching the stone to be left upon the chest of him that dies without absolution: touching cherem or anathema the second kind of excommunication: to be 
u joa Buxt. Epist. Heb. institut. c. 6  executed with candles lighted in the synagogue, and extinguished upon the curse pronounced, to signify that the person so rejected is deprived of the light of heaven: touching their shamatha also, etc. In these censures of the jews there is as much superstition and impiety practised, as is by the Papists in their curses: and in this regard you had as much cause to have avoided the jews synagogue used by you, as we have to avoid any place abused by the Papists for their superstitious discipline.  
Lastly, the very place itself, the house of prayer or the synagogue where the jews do assemble for their worship, is unto them a holy place, and consequently according to your reasoning 
w pag. 178.  before, is unlawful to be used, and to be avoided as a very Idol, for the holiness that is put in the same. Their Thalmudicall canons require and enjoin them, 
x Arba Turim, lib. Orachchaijm tract. beth hacceneseth. sig. 151 R. Alphes in megillah c. 3. f. 356.  not to laugh, jest, or talk therein: not to cat or drink there; not to dress themselves there: not to walk up and down there: not to go thither in the heat to avoid the heat of the sun: nor in time of rain to avoid a shower: yet they hold it lawful for the disciples of their Chacamim, their wise rabbins to eat and drink in that place: They hold it unlawful for a man to invent or device any matter there except it be some work of alms, the redeeming of captives or the like. They allow not a man to mourn in that place, except it be for some great man of the city, when as all the inhabitants of the city be gathered together to lament him: They forbidden men to meet one an other there for any necessary business: but if they do meet there, they are required first to read a verse (of the Bible,) or to speak a word out of the Thalmud: but if they can neither read nor repeat any thing out of their traditional books, than they are required to say unto some child, read me a verse, etc. that they may not seem to have met there for any other necessary business. Their custom is to light candles there for honour, and to bring sweet herbs or flowers, etc. They esteem their synagogue so holy, that they make it a dangerous matter to spit there: 
y Thalmud jerusalemy in Beracoth c. 3. fol. 6. col. 4.  R Chalaphta been Saul saith if a man sneeze in prayer it is an evil sign to him. (R. Moses mikkotsi, saith if the spit be ready to arise it is to be swallowed, SMG. precepr. affir. 19) R. Hanina tells how he saw a rabbin coughing or neezing & laying his hand on his mouth but did not spit. R. jochanan saith, he that spits in the synagogue, let him see that his 
// coso.  cup be clean: or as R. Moses mikkotsi relates it, that his 
“ ciso.  bag or Chest be clean: & this he expounds of his body: How this may be done is showed in the Thalmud by this rule that is there given: to spit before him is unlawful: to spit after him is lawful: to spit on the right hand is unlawful: but on the left hand it is lawful: R. jehoshuah been Levi saith, he that spits in the house of the congregation, is as if he did spit in the apple of his eye. R. jonah saith, he that spits let him rubit out. R. jeremy and R. Samuel say, he that prays let him not spit till he go 4 cubits from the place. R. Iose saith, he that spits let him not pray till he go 4. cubits from the place. These are the learned jew doctors, and ancient Rabbins without whose help (as you say) we cannot well understand the scriptures. To confirm and countenance the rule before mentioned, showing at what side a man must spit in case of necessity; it is alleged in the same place of the Thalmud, this is that which is written, a thousand shall fall at thy side. (ps. 90.) to wit, if this rule of spitting in right manner be duly observed. 
z Thalmud Babylonic. in Schabbath. c. 2. fo. 32.  R. Ishmael the son of Eleazar saith, that for the wickedness of two things or of two words the people of the earth do die, because they call the holyark (aron) arna; and because they call the house of the congregation, the house of the folk or people; beth gnam: viz. because they do not in their speech honour the synagogue, with a holy title. Now these and many other the like superstitious observations do show that the jews put as much and more holiness in their synagogue, than the papists do in their temples: for the Papists do not forbidden men to walk up and down therein: they do not forbidden men to fly thither to avoid a shower of rain: they are not so scrupulous about spitting there, etc. And therefore the blame that you would lay upon us for retaining of such temples wherein superstitious persons have put holiness, doth redound unto your own reproof and comes more heavily upon your own head for using the jews synagogue.     

CHAP. XV. Touching the present meetinghouse still retained by Mr. Ainsworth.  


Hen. Ains.  FOr your 1. and 2. objections from the houses wherein we meet: I have 
a In the defence of our 6t. reason.  before proved, they are not, neither ever were Idolies, nor by any law of God to be destroyed, though jews or any, have worshipped in them.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  AS you did formerly use a jews synagogue for the place of your worship: so do you now presently use the synagogue or meetinghouse, where Mr. johnson and his people after your division and separation from them, did still use to meet together for the public service of God: And this meeting house according to your doctrine is an Idolie, or place of Idols, which by you aught to be avoided as well as our temples.  
First, for the constitution of Mr. johnsons Church assembling in that place: by your testimony and dealing therewith it must needs be false in as much as they did degenerate and prove obstinate sinners, in your account: while you witness of them, that 
// Animad. p. 48.  their error did eat out the very constitution of the church: that they 
a Animadv. p. 129.  departed from and spoke evil of, and persecuted the truth and way of God, wherein they had once walked with you. You say that 
b Ibidem. p. 132.  daily in their public doctrines and prayers they inveighed against the truth they formerly professed, wounded the consciences of the brethren & sought all occasions to draw men from the right way and practise of the Gospel. What should we do, but shake of the dust of our feet against such authors of errors and peace breakers? Now such obstinate & degenerate apostates, against whom men may shake of the dust of their feet, cannot by your own confession be the true matter of a Church, nor yield a true constitution thereof: and being a false constitution set up in stead of a true, you also therein acknowledge it 
c Counterp. p. 172.  a very Idol. And as you thus make the body of their constitution in general to be an Idol; so the several members in particular being according th' your judgement of them, wicked apostates, persisting in sin, they also by your writing are to be deemed 
d Ibid. p. 144.  Satan's images, pictures of the devil and hellish representations, and consequently their meeting house an Idol-temple.  
Secondly, for the worship of that Church: you must needs confess it to be Idolatrous also, upon the former ground. For whereas you writ that 
e Counterp. p. 142. 143. 144. 145.  the bodies and souls of men are spiritual and living sacrifices, and the persons offered in the Church by the ministry of the Gospel, should be as the holy flock, as the flock of jerusalem in the solemn feast, etc. The people of Mr. johnsons company being as you have accused them obstinate and degenerate apostates, persisting in wickedness, hereupon all that blame which you impute unto the worship in the Church of England falls upon their heads upon your own grant; namely that they neither deserve to be laid on God's Altar nor to be touched of any true Israelite in such respect, etc. that the precious body and blood of Christ represented by bread and wine at his supper, is prostituted unto the wicked and unworthy receyvers in that church, etc. that baptism is there given unto the seed of the most ungodly, blasphemers & enemies of Christ, unto whom by no right it doth appertain: That there is a sacrilegious profanation of the holy mysteries, etc. That the bringing of Satan's seed into the Church, unto the aliar of God may further be minded as a high degree of violating the second commandment, whereby all images, idols or similitudes whatsoever, of the devils or men's invention or forming, are severely forbidden to be brought into God's house, or used in his worship, etc. That they remaining in impenitency, etc. have no word or promise in scripture that Christ is the Priest or sacrificer of such worship or worshippers. And must not that place where all this false and Idolatrous worship hath been performed, be acknowledged to be an Idol-temple? yet is it now your temple.  
Thirdly, for the ministers of M r. johnsons company. I 
f Pag. 26.  showed them before out of your own writings to be Idols: and you deny it not. And it may further appear by that which you write against their 
g Animadv p. 59— 67.  ministery executed by such as have not rightly been called by the Church whereof they stand ministers, etc.  
Fourthly for their government; you call it a 
h Ibid. p. 36 38. 42.  prelacy: a new established hierarchy: a spiritual tyranny: and such governors, you hold to be 
i Arrow against Idol. p. 19  Idols. Besides M r. johnson using the censure of suspension which heretofore you held to be an 
k H.B. disc. p. 234. & 236.  Idol, his government in that respect is idolatrous according to your profession. Now there being so many Idols in the constitution, ministry, worship and government of that Church, the 4. main heads of transgression imputed by you unto the Church of England, how can you blame us for our use of temples, when as yourselves even to this hour do still retain that meeting house, where all these Idols have been discovered by you?  
If you will distinguish betwixt Idols, whereof some cause ruin to the temples, and others not: show us a clear warrant from the scriptures for such distinction, & you shall then find how many ways it will return upon your own heads. And besides you cannot help yourself with any such distinction, because you do already here affirm in express words, that these houses are not to be destroyed though jews or any have worshipped in them. So that though Indians had worshipped the devil in his own person in your synagogue neither that nor any other of the grossest Idolatry should have hurt your privileged place, though far less Idolatries might tumble down our Churches.  
If you will sand us still unto the defence of your 6t. reason; you may see it before refuted and beside, that which you there said of private dwelling houses, will not serve to excuse your plate of ordinary and public assembly for the worship of God.  
If you or any of yours should except, that this your synagogue was not built by Antichrist, nor dedicated to Antichristian Idolatry: that will not help you: you cut of yourself from having any excuse thereby, while in your reply unto Mr. Ber. making such a like answer unto you, you say in effect, that 
l Counterp. p. 199.  the law of God makes no inquiry, by whom such places have been built, but whether Idolaters have set up their Idolatry there and worshipped in such places. Yea if your arguing be sound, if the Church of God should build a new temple for his lawful service & worship, and if the Papists or other Idolaters should by violence take the same from them and use it but one year or one month for their Idolatrous service: by your doctrine it could never be lawfully employed again unto the service of Christ by any true Christians. And therefore by the same reason is your meeting house to be abolished and destroyed, having been defiled with so many Idols.    

CHAP. XVI. Touching alms received publicly in an Idol-Temple.  


Hen. Ains.  FOr your 3. it is an objection of a former adversrie, and heretofore publicly answered. But the answers, you say, are in sufficient. For, the difference between the ordinary public worship in such places, & the occasional receiving of alms therein by the poor, cannot (you say) without manifest untruth be affirmed or applied to the matter in hand. Your reason is, the distribution of this alms, is not occasional, but an ordinary public work of mercy, etc. I answer; The public worship of the Church is Ecclesiastical, the alms here spoken of, is political and civil: to put no difference between these, is manifest error and ignorance; and let all men of knowledge, be judges. Again, peoples of all Religions or of no Religion, which never go thither for religious exercise, yet upon occasion of the alms there given, go thither to receive it in the winter, one working day in the week, from the hands of the Magistrates deputies: to say there is no difference between these things, argueth want of judgement.  
To the 2. difference which we put, between the benevolence of a Church to the saints, (the sacrifice spoken of Phil. 4.18.) and the relief of a city, given to all poor people without respect of their religion: you answer, the benevolence given to the poor of any Religion, is 
// Heb. 13.16. Gal. 6.10. 2. Cor. 9.13  a sacrifice, etc. And this alms is not the relief of a city, but chiefly of a Church, collected publicly every Lord's day, in the congregation of the Saints, etc.  
Repl. First, for the scriptures which you cite, they imply private benevolence also, and not public only: so upon this your doctrine, it seemeth that if any of your people should for their necessity receive private alms of papists or other heretics, they should not receive a civil benevolence but an Ecclesiastical, and so have a Religious communion with their sacrifices. If thus you think, I pray you tell me in your next. Secondly, you say not well nor rightly, that this is not the relief of a city, (as we oppose City or political estate, to Church or Ecclesiastical estate) For 1. the Magistrates of the city, are not necessarily of the Church, but only such as william. 2. This collection is not by the appointment of the Church (who have an ecclesiastical collection by their Deacons,) but by the appointment of the Magistrate. 3. They collect it not from the Church only in their congregation, but from all the city also, by every street and house, of all the inhabitants that will give: of which not one among many, are members of the Church. 4. They collect it not for the Church, but for the city: and so for the poor of the Church, not considered as members of the Church, but as members of the common wealth. 5. The distributors appointed by the Magistrates, are not necessarily members, much less Deacons of the Church. 6. And they to whom it is distributed, are the poor of all sorts, not in respect as they are members of any Church: but as they are poor and dwelled for a time in the city. These things some of them myself know, the rest I have heard of such as are better acquainted with the State, to be certainly true. Now let all that know what political and ecclesiastical meaneth, judge between you and us, of what nature this benevolence is.  
To our 3. difference, between the solemn appointed worship of God by the Church, & the private duties of thankfulness, salutation, etc. you say, the duties of godly thankfulness and blessing in the name of the Lord are and aught to be here performed: and that they are not private duties but public, as is this alms, etc. I answer: By this your plea, you would seem to prove an ecclesiastical communion in public prayer, which the dutch Church of this city should have with all the poor in the town; even the most irreligious, profane and heretical. And would you thus grace their communion to disgrace our poor? But indeed, you manifestly turn away from the matter in hand. For you deny not the difference which we put, neither in truth can you. And as for any public blessing, it is known that the Magistrates deputies perform this business without any public prayer or blessing, either before or after. Neither do they require of all or any of the people any prayer or blessing public or private: neither do the people perform it otherwise then by thankful obeisance of each one that receiveth it: as is usually done at other times, and in other places of the city, for like favours.  
Unto the question made in that book, about the lawfulness to walk up and down in idol-temples, as they use in Paul's, etc. You answer: that in idol-temples where idolservice is still ordinarily performed, we cannot lawfully walk up and down, as men use to do in Paul's: for woe is denounced to men by whom 
b Mat. 18.7  scandals do come. Repl. Behold how you who keep Idolies to worship God in (as Antichrist consecrated them to that end,) and have so pleaded before for those nurseries of idolatry: can now against others, denounce woe, as causing scandals, even for walking up and down in them. But by this your answer it seemeth that either the temples in Rome and Spain, where ordinarily Mass is sung, are in your judgement no idol-temples, nor their service idolatry: or else, you think it unlawful to walk in those temples. If thus you hold, when you shall so signify, you shall hear what I will further say unto it: and to your question about Baal's temple also.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  TO convince you of partiality in condemning our use of temples, I alleged your own use of the same, while your poor do also publicly worship God in the same temples, if they do but publicly bless them in the name of God, of whom they do publicly receive those alms in such places. And here I 
a See before pag. 27.  refuted three distinctions which you use to excuse yourselves in this matter. I showed the error of your first distinction, in that you made the receyving of the alms in this place to be occasional, and the worship of the Church to be ordinary, etc. Now you answer, that the public worship of the Church is ecclesiastical, the alms here spoken of, is political & civil, etc. And hereunto I reply. 1. I do not herein so much blame your manifest error & ignorance, your want of judgement in the distinction as you made it at first, as I do now blame your want of upright and honest dealing in changing and altering the distinction, in putting political and civil in stead of occasional: As there is a plain difference betwixt betwixt Ecclesiastical and political, so is there also betwixt political & occasional: for many things are political which are not occasional, but ordinary: let all men of knowledge, be judges. 2, whereas you say that people of all religion or of no religion do receive this alms, this doth not excuse the false hood of your first distinction in making the alms to be occasional: for even atheists or heretics or schismatics that never go thither to hear the word of God, may yet observe an ordinary & set time of the alms, and be willing to receive the same in a public & solemn manner & not only occasionally. 3. Though it were very gross, if you should plainly affirm that this alms here spoken of was occasional; yet to colour the matter a little you use an absurd phrase which might insinuate as much unto the simple, in saying of the poor that upon occasion of the alms there given, they go thither to receive it, etc. for you might as well say touching the public ordinary worship of the Church, that upon occasion of the word preached the godly go to hear, etc. And where then is your difference betwixt occasional and ordinary? 4, I will make even yourself judge of the matter: for when you speak without prejudice & contention, than you do rightly interpret this word occasional, and do expound 
b Annot. on Exo. 21.13.  occasionally delivered to be offered by chance: an example whereof is set down in Deut. 19.5. And so according to your own exposition of the word this alms cannot be occasional, seeing it is not an unexpected thing that is by accident or chance received, but an ordinary, solemn thing purposely given and sought for at an appointed time & place.  
In the refutation of your second distinction, the first thing which I 
c See before pag. 27.  noted in opposition thereunto was, that not only the benevolence given to the ministers or Saints of Christ, but that also which is given to the poor of any religion whatsoever, one or other, is a service and 
d Heb. 13.16 Gal. 6 10. 2. Cor. 9.13  sacrifice of sweet odour, etc. And what have you said hereunto? 1, in repeating my reply, you leave out those words not only, which showed the very point wherein I opposed your answer, and say nothing at all unto it: but smoothly pass it over without any defence: I desire the reader to observe your cunning therein. 2, In stead of answering that which was plainly set down, you make inquiry about a devised thing seeming so unto you which is not set down nor meant at all: you ask me whether I think that if any of our people for their necessity should receive private alms of Papists or other heretics they should not receive a civil benevolence but an ecclesiastical, etc. Whereunto I answer that I do not think they should receive an ecclesiastical benevolence: yea further if our people should privately join with such in prayer unto God, yet would I not accounted this an ecclesiastical communion or action. And though the scriptures I cited may be applied to private benevolence also and not public only: yet doth not the citing of them imply that I think private benevolence to be an ecclesiastical matter. what mean you to run away from question by such vain shifts?  
The other thing which I noted in opposition to your second distinction, was: that this alms we speak of is not the relief of a city, but chiefly the benevolence of a Church, etc. Hereunto you reply that I say not well nor rightly, etc. Your reasons are diverse.  
First you say, the Magistrates of the city are not necessarily of the Church, but only such as william. I answer, 1. This hinders not but the alms spoken of may be chiefly the benevolence of a Church: even as other actions may be actions of the church, though the Magistrates be not of the Church. Show I pray you, how this your proposition may be applied against my assertion 〈◊〉 what if the Magistrates here were all necessarily of the Church should this make the alms to be then the benevolence of the Church? should this either further or hinder the thing in question? your lose allegation can no way be applied unto this matter, either one way or other.  
Secondly you say, this collection is not by the appointment of the Church (who have an other ecclesiastical collection by their deacons) but by the appointment of the Magistrate. I answer, that there be many ecclesiastical actions, which are done by the appointment of the Magistrate, as the holding of an ecclesiastical Synod: the observation of solemn and religious fasts not by the appointment of the Church but of the Magistrate: yea the ordinary worship of God in preaching the word and other services here are and 
e 2. Chro. 8.14. & 14.4.  aught to be commanded by the Magistrates: And now according to your unsound reasoning these and such like actions should not be ecclesiastical. You aught to have considered that as in these so in the alms spoken of, because they are administered publicly of the Church and at the exhortation of the ministers going with the same, they may therefore be called the benevolence of a Church, though appointed by the Magistrates.  
Thirdly you pled that they collect it not from the Church only in their congregation, but from all the city also, by every street and house, etc. I answer, 1. In that this alms is ordinarily and publicly gathered every Lord's day in the congregation, and that the greatest part thereof is collected in this solemn manner in the Church, the other collection in the streets being but seldom in comparison of this; this is enough to confirm as much as I affirm, namely that this alms is not the relief of a city but chiefly the benevolence of a Church, etc. All reason requires that each thing should receive denomination of that which is principal and chief therein. 2, even that which the deacons distribute is by them collected for a great part thereof, of such as are no members of the Church: and this not only in respect of the strangers which come into their congregations, but also privately collected from such as daily get some thing into the poor man's box upon occasion of bargianes with whosoever. And thus according to your reasoning that which the deacons distribute should be the relief of a city, & not chiefly the benevolence of a Church, because they do not collect it from the church only in their congregation, etc. 3, even that alms which is collected in your own Church, is not from the members of your Church only: but though an 100, strangers, infidels in your account, come into your congregation and should publicly contribute with the rest into your Church treasure, though it was heretofore 
f Refut of Giff. p 147.  condemned by H. Barow) yet do you now accept and allow the same. If this alms thus received among you be ecclesiastical, then have you no reason to deny this other alms we speak of, to be the benevolence of a Church, in respect of the persons from whom it is collected.  
Fourthly, you argue, that they collect it not for the Church, but for the city: and so for the poor, etc. I answer, that it may be an Ecclesiastical alms if it be collected of the Church, though not for the Church. As those prayers which are publicly made by the Church 
g Ezr. 6.10. jer. 29.7. Mat. 5.44. 1. Tim. 2.1.2.  for strangers, and for such as are no members of the Church, are to be accounted an Ecclesiastical service, and a worship of the Church, though they be made not for the Church, but for the city, for friends or enemies without: even so the alms collected of the Church in a solemn assembly on the Lord's day, and given as a part of their public service unto God, are to be esteemed a benevolence of the Church or a Church-service, though they be collected for such as are in misery, though not of the Church; seeing the Churches (as well as private persons) are 
h Esa. 58.7. Neh. 5.5. Heb. 13.2.3 1 Thes. 4.12.  bound to show mercy unto them without.  
Fiftly, you argue that the distributors appointed by the Magistrates, are not necessarily members, much less deacons of the Church. But where is the proof of this consequence, that therefore this alms is not an Ecclesiastical benevolence? If your Church should agreed together publicly to collect in your congregation and then to sand the same alms unto any in affliction, and not by any deacons or members of your Church but by some other honest and trusty persons without; should this alms now cease to be a Church service, or an Ecclesiastical bevevolence? What colour of reason can you bring for this?  
Sixtly, you say, they to whom it is distributed, are the poor of all sorts, not in respect as they are members of any Church, but as they are poor and have dwelled for a time in the city. Ans. This reason is the same in effect with the 4th that went before, and an idle repetition of the same, and is before answered. And now I do willingly agreed with you in this that all who know what political and ecclesiastical meaneth, judge between you and us of what nature this benevolence is, and whether it be not as I said chiefly the benevolence of a Church, etc.  
But suppose I should grant you, that this alms were merely civil, and not the benevolence of a Church, yet this doth nothing weaken our main objection against you: for 1. Whether it be ecclesiastical or civil, if your people do publicly in the name of God bless those that so mercifully distribute unto them in an Idol-temple as you accounted it; then must you needs acknowledge, that there is a lawful worshipping of God in an Idol-temple, which yet you condemn in all other churches of God. 2, you cannot deny but that this distribution of alms which your people do receive in this temple, is a solemn public action performed for the glory and service of God by them that administer: And do you then hold it more lawful to communicate with such almoners as yourself note to be sometimes no members of the Church, then to join in the service of God with a true Church in the same place? If it were an ecclesiastical action of the deacons of the reformed dutch Church, distributing out of their Church treasury as they do unto the members of their own Church, would you then condemn the members of your Church for receiving the same of them? 3. By your doctrine this temple where your poor receive this alms, aught to be ruinated, either burnt or otherwise broken down, and so in your judgement is unlawfully retained even for this use of distributing to the poor therein: Now if notwithstanding this unlawful retaining hereof you can yet join with others in using this place to such purpose of distributing alms therein as it aught not to be employed unto: why can you not as well join with others in the other use of hearing God's word therein? The 
i Deut. 12.23.  legal commandment of destroying Idol-temples, doth as well abolish them from being alms houses as from being houses of prayer. And where then is your dispensation to use them for receiving of alms, rather than for receyving of spiritual instructions therein? If you pled that your use of them is only a civil use, so as meats sacrificed to Idols were to be retained: This cannot help you, because 
k 1. Cor. 10.25.  things sacrificed to Idols need not to be burnt and abolished, but by your doctrine our temples should be abolished, and destroyed, and so consequently made unfit to meet or assemble in even for civil uses. A waken your conscience Mr. Ainsworth, and examine yourself, whether you be not guilty of partiality, in these your contrary doctrines and practices, which cannot agreed one with an other. And think that God knocks at the door of your conscience by these admonitions: and despise not the counsel that is given unto you in his name.  
As for your third distinction, between the solemn appointed worship of God by the Church, and the private duties of thankfulness salutation, etc. I showed that this distinction also could not truly be applied unto the matter in hand for the duties of godly thankfulness and blessing which are and aught to be here performed, are not private duties but public even as is this alms that is always publicly administered in the presence of a great multitude assembled together. Hereunto you answer again that by this plea, I would seem to prove an Ecclesiastical communion in public prayer, which the dutch Church of this city should have with all the poor in the town, even the most irreligious, profane and heretical, etc. But for reply unto this. 1. I observe how you again leaving that which is plainly set down, do feign matter for yourself to answer, and imagine a semblance, a seeming unto you, which can by no means be justly collected from my words. For though I said, the poor do bless publicly in the name of the Lord those that distribute unto them, yet doth not this prove a communion in public prayer which the dutch church should have with all such. 2, though I had said much more: if I had said that the dutch Church had been all present: that this alms had been given by their deacons in their name: that there had been solemn prayer conceived by the deacons at the delivery thereof: that all the poor had said Amen unto it and again blessed them publicly in the name of the Lord, yet would not this infer such an ecclesiastical communion of the dutch Church with the profane & heretical poor, as you accuse me for going about to prove. Are not many irreligious, idolatrous and profane people oftentimes present at your ecclesiastical assemblies hearing your sermons, and saying Amen unto your prayers: & doth this prove an ecclesiastical communion of your Church withal those profane persons that receive instruction from you? where then is your separation? But if all this do not prove that you hold communion with such persons: then much less doth that which I said prove such a communion of the Dutch Church with the profane, as you would draw from my words. 3, neither do I mention this receyving of alms to disgrace your poor, as you mention it, but to reprove your partiality, who seeking to disgrace and condemn all the Churches of Christ for the use of their temples, do yet for your profit allow your poor to use the very same temples in receyving of alms.  
You say further, that I manifestly turn from the matter in hand: for I deny not the difference which you put, neither in truth can. But I pray you, is that to turn from the question, when I showed that the difference or distinction which you brought could not be truly applied to this matter in hand? And what though your difference alleged by you be true in itself: is it not reproof & shame enough unto you that it cannot be truly applied unto the present controversy? Is not the misapplication of a true distinction unsound dealing, and an abusing of the reader? Though I deny not a difference betwixt solemn appointed worship, and the private duties of thankfulness, salutation, etc. yet I deny that the blessing in the name of God whereof I spoke is any private thankfulness or salutation: and what profit can you then here make of this your distinction?  
But you proceed and say, As for any public blessing, it is known that the Magistrates deputies perform this business, without any public prayer or blessing, either before or after. I answer, 1, it is enough, for proof of that I said, if the people receyving the alms do pray or bless in the name of God, those that distribute unto them: if your poor do so much at the receipt thereof then do they openly and publicly worship God in the place, which you accounted an Idol-temple. 2, as for the distributours of this alms, there is the less need for them to make any public prayer, because they begin there distribution instantly and immediately after the sermon is ended, and after the public prayers of the minister and the Church: which prayers being in the same place may also serve for the sanctification of the alms then distributed. And may not the consciences of your people be touched and smitten in themselves to consider how they stay out of the Church till all the spiritual alms of instruction for the soul be distributed and ended, and then to come into the same place immediately, just when the corporal alms is to be reached forth unto them? 3. The public collection and giving of alms even in your own Church after your sermon, is performed without any public prayer or blessing made by your deacons, as is testified unto me: doth it therefore ceass to be an ecclesiastical and solemn part of God's worship?  
You say moreover, that neither do they require of all or any of the people any prayer or blessing public or private. And what though the almoners require it not? yet as I showed you 
l Pag. 26.  before from diverse 
m Phil. 4.19.20. 2. Tim. 1.16. 2. Cor. 9.12.13.  scriptures, God requireth this duty of public thanksgiving and blessing in his name upon such occasion. But those testimonies you pass by and say nothing at all unto them.  
Again you add: Neither do the people perform it otherwise then by thankful obeisance of each one that receyveth it, etc. But this you say, is not true for all that receyve it: for there are some which upon the receipt do straightway open their mouths and pray for a blessing and reward unto those that give this alms unto them: And so aught your people to do according to those short forms of prayer used in the scripture, 
n ps. 129.8. Ruth. 2.4.  The blessing of the Lord be upon you: or we bless you in the name of the Lord: And beside, I propounded this objection at first by way of supposition saying, if you will allow your people to bless them in the name of the Lord, etc. And to this you answer nothing: Tell us therefore at last: if your people should thus briefly call upon the name of God for a blessing upon those that minister publicly unto their wants at the same time, would you then be content?  
Touching your reply made unto the answer which I gave unto your question about walking up and down in Idol-temples I do observe further.  
1. You say nothing at all in refutation of it: but only wish me to behold how I who keep Idolies to worship God in, etc. can now against others, denounce woe, as causing scandals, even for walking up and down in them: well, this I behold and hold to be most equal: considering that the temples I pleaded for, were such as are purged from Idolatry, and are not retained for that false worship whereunto they were consecrated by Antichrist, but are become nurseries of true godliness: whereas the temples wherein the Idols and Idolatrous service are still retained and daily practised, cannot lawfully be frequented nor walked in as men unnecessarily use to do in Pawles, etc. For those that should see you enter into such an Idol-temple, might easily conceive that you went to hear a mass therein, and so they be confirmed in error, & you thereby incurie the 
o Mat. 18.7  woe denounced by Christ against scandals.  
2. I may here justly admonish you to behold how you that condenne our use of temples purged from Idolatry, do yet in a contrary extreme allow your people a use of temples, which by your profession are still polluted with the practice of daily Idolatry: even the temples of this city are in your account Idol-temples, & the read prayer used therein, is in your eyes a detestable Idol, a golden calf, etc. yea in your writings you incline to allow your people the use of the temples where popish Idolatry is in heinous degree exercised  
3. Whereas you seem to doubt whether I think that it is unlawful to walk in the temples in Rome and Spain, where ordinarily mass is sung: telling me also that I shall hear what you will further say unto it when I have signified unto you, if thus I hold, etc. All this is very vain and idle, for when I told you plainly before, as yourself also repeat, that in idol-temples where idolservice is still ordinarily performed we cannot lawfully walk up and down as men use to do in Paul's: was not this enough to signify that I held the temples of Rome and Spain to be unlawful for such use? or what colour of reason had you to imagine that I should not think the Romish and Spanish temples to be Idol temples and their service, idolatry? This vain demur seems to be nothing else but an excuse or shifted to avoid the writing of that which you were ashamed to utter concerning this point.  
4. Whereas I demanded the like thing of you, whether you held it lawful for men so to have walked up and down in the house of Baal, and there to have received alms as your people do in these temples whereof we speak. To this likewise you give no answer but take time to consider of it. Well, in the mean time until you have taken better advice, see what an unworthy practice you already stain yourself withal. You that condemn our temples to be 
p See before, p. 165.  merely and properly idolies, yea very Idols: you that condemn our retaining of them for necessary use, do yet for your profit use them to walk in, to receive alms in, etc. Though H. Barow write that 
q Discov. p. 134.  God allows no use at all either civil or ecclesiastical of such Idolatrous places: yet contrary to your profession you suffer your people to transgress for a morsel of bread, by retaining at lest a civil use of these places: In the mids of your invectives and dispute against them you allow your disciples to go into these abominable sties, as Barow 
r Discov. p. 141.  calls them: together up the crumbs under the table in Devilles houses, as yourself do 
s Before. pag. 218.  call them. Is it not strange that Christian men, and such as separate from other best Christians in the world wheresoever, should yet be so familiar with devilles, as to creep into the bodies of very Idols or Devilles, to fetch their meat out of their unclean stomachs and bellies? yea the jewish Rabbins whom I mention, because you honour them so much, 
t Arba turim, halac. Tsedakah, or treat. of alms, sig. 254. Thalmud in Babha bathra c. 1. Fol. 10.  teach that it is not lawful for an Israelite to receive any alms of an Idolater openly, unless it be in case of necessity, (which respect in our use of temples you judge to be a carnal consideration.) And though a Prince or King of the gentiles should sand any money unto them for an alms, though they would not turn it back for peace sake, but receive it to avoid offence, yet are they to give the same again unto some poor of the gentiles, in secret so that the King may not hear of it. How much more ashamed would they be to receive such an alms not only from Idolaters openly, but from out of the public Idolie, yea Idol itself, as you profess to do?    

CHAP. XVII. Touching the waver of such as impugn our Temples.  


Hen. Ains.  TO your last observations, of such as heretofore have written against these idol temples, and after that wavered, or changed their minds: First, Mr. Barrow (whose writings you mention) wavered not nor changed his mind, but was constant in this, that Idol temples were to be destroyed: and not to be used for places of God's worship: let his writings be viewed.  
As for others whom you speak of: if they have changed their minds, I leave you if you please, to demand the reasons of themselves. I am to answer for myself, according to the grounds which I maintain by the scriptures: which if you cannot take away by the word of God; the weakness of men will little avail you. And for such amongst ourselves as walk not aright, we shall look unto them as there is cause. If I should take this course with you, to gather the variety of things written about religion by men of your side, and the change of their judgements afterward, & their weak walkings, etc. and put them upon you to answer: you should have work more then enough. And how justly you retort my words used to you about read prayer: and apply them to this of the Temples: let any indifferent persons judge. For I maintain our reasons set down in our Apology & refute your answers given unto them: but with that question of read prayer, you meddle not: though it came in among the synns showed in my argument unto you, about the causes of our separation.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  Four examples of your waver were observed by me. The first instance of H. Barow his wavering, you deny not, but do in part explain it: The piece of paper affixed to the 
u Discov. p. 133.  margin of his book shows it more plainly; that his mind became doubtful if not changed in this point, namely, though he held our temples aught to be plucked down, yet not with such detestation to be utterly destroyed, as these Idols which had worship given unto them, but that the idolatrous shapes being utterly abolished, the stuff of these synagogues, as the stone, timber, lead, iron, etc. might be converted to civil and honest uses, etc. Now those that saw him wavering in this part and doubting whether he had detested where God hath not detested, had just cause to take warning hereby, that they should not rashly harken to such a person who in all his writings powers forth a flood of detestation against the lawful communion of the Churches of Christ.  
The second and third instance of Mr johnsons wavering, & Mr. Robbinsons' recantation, you deny not. You leave me to demand the reasons of themselves: you say you are to answer for yourself, etc. But is not the case strangely altered? Have not both these laboured to answer for you; Mr. johnson in his answer to Mr. White, seeking to excuse & diminish the fault of your apostasy objected to you; M r. Robinson also in many points seeking to defend your cause in his book against Mr. Bernard? And have you now never a word to answer for them? Is not this ingrateful dealing with your friends? Nay rather take heed that you become not ingrateful unto God, by neglecting his mercy which he shows unto you, in setting these examples of your old friends before you; that in them you might learn to turn from your error unto the Lord and to the communion of his people.  
The fourth example of wavering which is observed was in the people of your own congregation, together with your toleration of the same. Of this you say, And for such amongst ourselves as walk not right, we shall look unto them as there is cause. But who sees not what a faint answer this is? for 1, when as I had showed that diverse of your people did not walk according to your profession: they frequenting the places which you call Idol-temples and teach men to avoid them as execrable, as devilles houses: was there not a cause for you to look unto such, whom so long you had let alone? yea or have you to this hour brought them to public repentance after so many years, when as they have publicly and openly used such places? suppose they did now abstain from those temples, yet according to your 
w See before. p. 36. & 121.  own writing against me you are holden in the cords of your transgression, and this sin remains upon you till it be purged and broken of by repentance: your own 
x Luk. 13.3.5. Mark. 1.15. Act. 20.21. & 26.18.  allegations of scripture do serve to condemn yourself herein. As Cains murder cleaved unto him so long as he repent not, suppose he slew no more men after Abel: so the guilt of this sin in frequenting devilles houses according to your profession, doth still cleave unto you so long as there is no repentance for it, suppose the practice should cease. 2, But doth this practice cease among you? Not not that also: W. S. in special whom I before noted unto you, is seen of many still openly and publicly frequenting these temples which you so pled against: yea & professeth before diverse that he will continued so to practise. I did before in my former writing manifest your notorious partiality herein, and you cannot either deny or defend it: and yet after a years warning you continued in the same halting course, tolerating that among yourselves for which you separate from us, and thus have doubled the guilt of your partiality: let all men of conscience judge what sincerity there is in your course. 3, what doth it help you by vain arguments and pretences to seek the ruin and rasing of our temples, whiles other of your own society do do help to repair our temples, as I showed you 
y Pag. 29.  before? The stroke of your hammer makes a great sound, yet it breaks nothing in our temples: but the stroke of some of your people's hammers and axes have done good service unto us in making our temple fit for our use. 4, as for your own person in particular, do you not remember that you and M r. Th. your elder have been content to come unto our temple, to present yourselves before our Eldership, & to be examined and heard what you could say in an ecclesiastical controversy in the case of C. B. to give evidence or light in the trial of that matter? And therefore seeing you confess the trial and examination of such causes to be 
z Animad. vers. p. 49. 50.  works of the Sabath day, holy and religious actions, as well as the prophetical and priestly office of Christ, it may hereby appear that you also by your own example do build that which you seek to break down, in that you have voluntarily come into an Idol-temple as you call it and this not for a civil but a holy and religious action. Thus also have sundry others of your people done, in coming to bear witness in such cases.  
But you object, that if you should take this course with us, together the variety of things written about religion by men of our side & the change of their judgements afterward, and their weak walkings, etc. put them upon us to answer: I should have work more then enough. Answer. 1, whatsoever pretences you make to the contrary, yet is this thing done by yourself: and few or none have done it so much as you: Throughout your Counterpoison, there be abundant examples hereof. When you so bitterly inveigh against the hellish errors taught by the transformed ministers, to make men keep communion with Belial, as you speak: you say, 
a Fore-speech to the Counterpoys.  worthy it is to be observed how the ministers of England are come to contradict and departed from their own grounds for to maintain their corrupt estate. And is it not also as lawful & as worthy a thing for us to observe how the ministers of the separation are come to contradict themselves, to departed from their own grounds, etc. you allege, that 
b Ibidem.  men will hardly be a known of the manifold evils & gross corruptions, that prevayl in their assemblies: That therefore you are forced to produce their own writers to witness with you: to complain of the sins that reign among them. Even so because you will hardly be a known of the manifold evils and gross corruptions that prevayl in your assembly, therefore are we forced to produce your own writers as Mr. johnson & Mr. Robinson that complain of the sins that reign among you, etc. And this we do, to this end, (to use your own words in the same place) that if you will yet resist, the world may see, that you are condemned by yourselves. Again in the next leaf unto your preface, in the Table or Direction to some principal things contained in your counterpoison, you note the Testimonies of the ministers of England against the estate of that Church, and refer us unto more places and pages of your book for those testimonies, then unto any other matter in your table: hereby you acknowledge such testimonies to be among the principal things of your writings, & to be looked after & sought for oftener and in more places of your book, than any other principal matter contained therein. In your answer to M r. B. you 
c Counterpo. pag. 153. 155.  note his changing and weak walking, etc. Shall these observations in you be principal matters; and shall they be of no regard, of no worth, nor yet to be endured, when we observe the like matters against you? 2, there is not the like reason that I should be required to answer for all the differences and contradictions that have been or are betwixt the ministers that are of the same religion with me: they being so many thousands, and such as for the most of them I never saw their faces nor so much as heard of their names; whereas these whom I object unto you are but three or four in all: and not only so but some of them such as have already answered for you: so that both for number and bond of thankfulness, you both better may and aught to answer for them. 3, the thing which I object here unto you is not so much your disagreement and differences, as your inexcusable and blind partiality in the same, whiles you suffer such things among yourselves for which you do condemn, disclaim and renounce the communion of other churches: This unchristian dealing I showed to be contrary to 
d prov. 16.17.  the High way of the upright man, which you had pointed at with your finger. Mr. Ainsworth, if you can find the like unconscionable partiality in me, then press me with it, and call for answer: If I teach men to separate from the Churches of Christ, for those very things which I practise myself and wink at in others, then let me bear the shame of such evil dealing. In the mean time consider that this cloak of partiality is the rob of confusion wherewith you array and bewray yourself & your profession.  
Moreover, as for Mr. H. his sermon, and how justly I retort your words to me used about read prayer, & apply them to the practice of Mr. johnson and Robinson contrary to you in the question of temples, I desire also with you, that any indifferent persons judge. For I urge you with their practice which yourself cannot deny: you tell me of a matter which I have showed to be otherwise. You tell me of read prayer which is not the question betwixt us at this time; whereas I urged you with your differences about the temples, which you cannot deny to be the present question betwixt us. As for your reasons in your Apology & my answers, and your disorderly bringing in of read prayer in your main argument sent unto me, there is enough said 
e Chap. 2.  before, whereunto I refer the reader.    

CHAP. XVIII. Of some other differences.  


Hen. Ains.  TO the other things which I signified we misliked in you: you answer in general: that the question betwixt us is not about all things wherein we differ, but only about those things which we hold to be just causes of renouncing your communion. You say, Our separation or schism is a double iniquity and an error of errors, etc. and you would have the axe of our separation laid unto the root of your religion, etc. and you accounted all other differences, to be a wandering from the question.  
Hereupon I answer, that I am willing to hold only unto the main causes of our separation, and to let other particulars rest, till this question be ended. For as you began to writ, so I gave you to choose, & still give you, what things to reason of: & I mislike not your choice. For as I would not willingly abide in any error, so much less in an error of errors: though I am yet persuaded: it is your great sin so to call it: but let the word of God be judge between us. Now for our separation, I set you down an argument fortified with many scriptures & reasons: against which, you have not alleged anyone word of God: let your former answer be viewed. So mine error of errors if such it be, must remain with me still, for my conscience cannot be convinced but by the word of God. You allege our renouncing of your communion: and that either is not (as before I showed you) or it is as you stood one with the Church of England in the synns thereof, wherein we with you were all once entangled. But God of his grace hath given us repentance unto life, and we have manifested the particulars: you have not so done, therefore (for aught that we know) your synns remain upon you. Yea you disclaim our separation as a schism, in your pulpit, in private, and in printed works: how can we now give you the right hand of fellowship, seeing repentance from dead works, is one of the 
a Heb. 6.1.  principles of the doctrine of Christ? And for this your particular congregation, here gathered, you cannot say we renounce it or separate from it, who were never of it: but if any separation be, I have before showed it is first upon yourselves. I shall not need therefore at this time to make any reply unto your particular answers unto the differences propounded. Only for the present, I put you in mind that you have not as yet alleged any one word of God for your festival days, marriage by the minister consistory, or communion of your members with an other Church, worship, ministery, etc. so far differing from yours in appearance. But when these things shall come to discussing, I hope you will not be so barren. So for the differences that you allege from us, touching marriage with the members of the Dutch church, marriages and divorces without authority of the Magistrate, judging of ecclesiastical causes on the Lord's day, omitting and thrusting out in part sometimes the administration of the word & Sacraments, and for the ministers set maintenance: in the trial of them, I shall by God's grace manifest, that in the most we are wronged: and for that which we do h●ld in any of them, we will confirm it by the word of God, and reasons from the same, otherwise, we will reform it.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  TOuching 3 other differences betwixt us: I noted diverse things distinctly: unto which you make a confused and defective reply: unto my first answer, you say something unto the two last, nothing at all. For the first, you seem to allow my choice, that we hold only unto the main causes of your separation, etc. but I spoke not of the main causes, but of the just causes of your separation, whether great or small; so that you leave the matter in some uncertainty still, not showing me which and how many you hold for just causes, when I had nominated sundry differences betwixt us. You say, you set down an argument for your separation fortified with many scriptures, etc. And I have showed the contents of your main argument, to be beside the question of our Church: and there is no place of scripture which I can discern to be alleged against our estate in particular, but I have given answer thereunto. And for our particular congregation, though you were never of it, yet may we justly say that you have renounced the communion thereof, and not only as we agreed with England but as we agreed with these Churches: for you that had separated yourself from all the true Churches long before this our particular Church was gathered; and you that do still renounce and refuse the worship of God in such temples as we use, (if there were nothing else) do thereby renounce communion with us in our ordinary worship of God. That we have just cause to disclaim your separation as a schism, I have laboured to show in some part in this treatise, and will endeavour make it yet more plain, as the Lord shall give strength and opportunity. And if there were nothing else, your allegation of this scripture Heb. 6.1. might show us your schism: when having spoken of our standing one with England; of your own repentance for it; of our sins remaining upon us, etc. you say, how can we give you the right hand of fellowship, seeing repentance from dead works, is one of the principles of the doctrine of Christ? The substance of this objection hath been twice largely 
f Chap. 4. & 6.  answered before: yet since you repeat it again, I do again tell you, 1. If it were granted that our communion with England were a sin, yet might we have true repentance though we could not see the same to acknowledge it. Your contrary plea savours of the error of the perfectionists and inclines to familisme: for if true repentance cannot be without the knowledge of every particular sin, then do you teach a perfection of knowledge contrary to the 
g 1 Cor 8.2 & 13.9.  scriptures: If true repentance may be had without the knowledge of of each particular sin, then why not without the knowledge of this sin as well as of others? The Apostle shows that repentance from dead works 
h Heb. 6.1.  is necessary to salvation, but he doth not deny that to be true repentance, where there is ignorance of some particular dead works that are in us: this holy scripture is therefore abused by you. 2, suppose that we were without true repentance, yet where is the scripture, that shows our Church aught therefore to be separated from? The sin of some doth not pollute the rest which approve not thereof. 3, whereas in my second answer 
i Pag. 31.  before I noted as great differences among yourselves, as these 3. last be wherein you differ from us; notwithstanding your unconscionable course might thereby appear unto all, in holding such communion among yourselves as you deny in others: yet as if either partiality were no blot, but a beautiful wart in the face of your Church: or else as if you despaired of washing away this blot, even so do you pass by this matter in silence without any reply unto it.  
Whereas you put me in mind that I have not as yet alleged any one word of God for our festival days, marriage by the minister, consistory, and communion of our members with an other Church, etc. I answer, that seeing you are the accuser, that maintain a separation from us in these respects, the fault is yours that have not brought any word of God to conclude a separation from us upon these grounds: Though in your Apology you have pretended scripture to show some of these things unlawful, yet have you not directed any reasons against our communion for these things: even as in your Apology you have pretended scripture against our use of the Lords prayer, & yet confess that you would not separate for this. As for our communion with England I have said enough before Chap 4. & 6. so far as concerns separation from us upon such a pretence. As for our consistory or Eldership, I showed in my former writing how you have allowed it yourself in communicating therewith, and you have answered not a word unto it. Now those that refute themselves on this manner, have no reason to call for further refutation, unless they acknowledge their errors in such practices. Besides seeing you have not yet answered, neither the 
k Expos. of Mat. 18.  first nor the 
l Christian plea.  last book of Mr. johnson wherein he hath written against your popular government, what mean you to call for more? If more be requisite, you may see that I 
* Pag. 33.  promised you in my former writing that when I should receive any arguments from you to prove your refusal of communion upon these grounds, that I would then give further answer unto you. The errors which you have published in your Animadversion for the maintenance of your popular order, and the enormities which in that order are committed by you in your unlawful excommunications and censures are so many that they require a distinct treatise for the refutation thereof: of which I purpose to say more hereafter as occasion is given. As for the state of the question and what we hold in these matters, I have set it down in my former writing, and to this point also you say nothing. Touching the other differences betwixt us, which are here ambiguously repeated by you and not so that the reader might well understand the meaning thereof, I am ready to manifest that I have not done you any wrong in the relation thereof; and that you cannot confirm any of them by the word of God: if you will bring any reasons to conclude a separation from thence.    

CHAP. XIX. The Conclusion.  


Hen. Ains.  Unto your Conclusion I willingly assent, and by God's grace shall endeavour so to do: wishing the like in you. And upon this occasion I shall put you in mind of that which in part appeareth in this your writing, and more fully in the disguised pamphlets that come out of your congregation: how you take a special delight and think it for your vantage, to upbraid m●ns differences, to rake into particular men's synns and infirmities, yea though they be repent of, and to blazon them abroad to the world, for the discredit of the cause which they profess, or have professed. If the arrows of the Almighty did stick fast in you, & you felt your own misery: you would no: writ after this manner. If a jew or julian apostata should gather and publish all the open professed differences in Christendom, yea among them that ere from the truth: what would this tend unto, but to the disgrace of Christ; and yet help judaisme nothing. But if the contentions and particular synns, I say not of all Christendom, but of England or the Churches in Netherlands, or the like, which you acknowledge true Churches, were thus blazoned: what a sink of ill savour would be smelled. And are there no personal synns amongst yourselves may we think: that you take such a course. If God herein should reward you according to your works, where should you appear? I counsel you therefore to take a better course. Error may be refuted by the word of God, without any such leaven of maliciousness: and the truth needeth no such fleshly means to maintain it. If you like not of this counsel: you may walk on in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that you have kindled: but my soul shall not come into your secret: though I shall not cease to wish your welfare, so long and so far as I may.  
November 9 1617. Henry Ainsworth.   

Answer.  

Io. Pa.  WHereas you take occasion from the Conclusion of my former writing, to complain against me that I think it for our vantage, to upbraid men's differences, etc. I cannot but marvel at your strange partiality, wherewith you begin, continued and end this your writing: for have not you yourself first endeavoured to seek advantage by 
m Fol. 4. B.  upbraiding me with the difference of Mr. Hu. from me, which I showed to be otherwise? Have you not upbraided me with the difference of the courts of England whereunto when as I had given you divets 
n Pag. 33.  answers, you reply not a word? And besides many other differences of men which you urge me with all in this writing, your other books do much more abound with the same, as I have showed before. Remember what Barow faith of the ministers of England of the 
o Discov. p. 183. & 162. refut. of Giff. p. 138. 139.  particular personal errors, which they in their public doctrine and daily ministery sparse abroad, even as that flood of bitter waters, etc. that there arise such an innumerable heap of errors, so many diverse, variable, inconstant & contrary opinions amongst them, that (as the ignorant Papists say) it is impossible to find two of them in one mind and judgement, yea in any two Churches of the land to hear the same doctrines because indeed they preach either their own dreams and fantasies, or else their lucuorations out of human writings, etc. Thus hath God in his just judgement divided the tongues and confounded the language of these Babylonish builders, that they almost agreed not in or upon any thing; one preaching one thing, another the quite contrary; one building after this sort, an other after that: one calling or this law, this thing, an other for that. Thus is their Kingdom divided, their estate confused, and their house shall shortly be left unto them desolate. Now when thus you write and print yourselves, touching men's differences, and prophecy of desolation to ensue thereupon; with what forehead can you condemn in others, this very thing which you commend in your own practice? yea the differences as you record them are slanderously & untruly set down, but the differences which I note are such as you cannot deny any one of them; and shall you have more liberty to publish falsehood, than we to speak truth?  
As for the publishing of the notorious scandals of such as continued in schism, and labour daily to seduce men from the Church of God: (which you call a raking into particular men's sins and infirmities) you have not brought any one word of God to refute this course: Had you done it, I doubt not but I should then have showed how you had perverted the same. How can men beware of schisms, and divisions; of offences & scandals committed in the same, as the Apostle 
p Rom. 16.17.18. jude. 17.18.19.  requires, unless they have warning and intelligence thereof? Are we not taught to look upon the lives and 
q Phil. 3.2.17.18.19. 2 Tim. 4.14.15. & 3. 1-11.  walking of men, that profess to be our guides? If need were I might produce unto you a multitude of examples from all stories divine and human, of the ages past and of the time present, and even your own examples both against others and against yourselves, for your conviction herein. But this would require a whole volume: and more needs not, while so little is alleged against it. Your main sins and scandals, are not repent of, as you would insinuate: the unlawful excommunications, and the notorious slanders published by you are not recalled: if some other faults be acknowledged by some, yet while you stand in open defiance against all the Churches of Christ, and proclaim a separation from them all, is there not a cause to proclaim and blazon the iniquities of such deceivers, that the simple may take the more heed? you speak of disguised pamphlets that are come out of our congregation: but the books which you seem to aim at, are such as for the matter of them are taken out of your offensive company, and do in part show the disguised practices of your separation: for the persons that published them, they also were such as came out of your company, who leaving their schism, which they once professed with you, were more fit to witness such things as they had heard and seen among you: for the helpers, which they had herein, they had (besides others) Mr. Th. now an Elder of your congregation also (but then a deacon) out of whose 
r The Hunting of the fox. part. 1.  writing which he communicated with them, they received sundry things which they published, and many more which should have been published, had not their book been misprinted contrary to their minds: for the manner of printing and publishing one of those books, great injury hath been done unto them, as hath been noted before.  
You say, If the arrows of the Almighty did stick fast in me, & I felt mine own misery: I would not writ after this manner. But on the contrary, the more I feel mine own misery, the more careful aught I to be to deliver others from their misery also: and the declaration of the manifold evils committed in your separation, being a means and help to pluck some out of the fire and to save them from your miserable schism, therefore should this means be the more diligently used in such case. If you on the other side did feel your own misery as you aught, you would not exalt yourself with the 
s judg. 9.15.  bramble above all the trees of the forest, against all the Churches of God on earth as though none were worthy of your fellowship: if you had true sense and feeling of your own scandals, you would be more humble & not maintain such a vain separation. Haughty Edom had his nest among the stars: but a nest among the stars will not content you. There is no communion with the worthiest ministers, the 
t Rev. 1. & 2.  lights and stars of the Churches, that you can away with: Therefore have you got a higher sphere of separation above them all. But remember that the wandering stars are 
u Rev. 12.4  drawn from the heaven, remember that you among the rest have often fallen from your orb by Apostasy: know yourself at length, that you fall not further.  
You object, that if a jew or julian apostata should gather and publish all the open professed differences in Christendom, yea among them that err from the truth: what would this tend unto, but to the disgrace of Christ: and yet help judaism nothing, etc. I answer, 1. Suppose this would help judaism nothing, but be a further occasion of offence unto Infidels, yet might it be a great help unto the weak Christians that were already members of a true Church to preserve them from the ways of false Christians, when they saw their differences and contradictions. 2. This might also tend unto the honour of Christ, to have false Christ's and false Christians discovered, and might help the elect jews to bring them unto true Christians, and keep them from Antichrist. Yea when the time of their visitation is come, that the jews shallbe called and grafted in again, this knowledge of the differences among Christians, may be a great means to direct them unto the truth: for the godly shall rise by that thing whereat others stumble. 3, if it be an unlawful thing to publish the open and professed differences of Christendom, then is your sin great in this behalf, as I have showed already, and might easily bring an 100 more examples & instances to prove the same: as for julian the apostata, though his apostasy was the deeper, yet is he the glass of your evil, & you may name him and think of him with fear and trembling: for the number of apostasyes, I think you cannot show that he hath apostate and fallen from his profession so often as you have done: and as for contempt of the Church of God and true Christians, for which he is most infamous, I dare undertake to manifest that your separation hath published more reproaches and slanders of them, than you can show that he hath done. 4. As for the contentions and particular sins of true Churches, whether would a jew or Turk be more offended to hear of some wicked and unchaste persons in your company: or to hear you say of the Church of England, that 
w H. Bar. discov. p. 182.  there is not almost one among them that hath his wife chaste, or their bed private: whether would be a greater stumbling block unto them to hear the scandals of your company reproved: or to hear you affirm that 
x Inquir. of T. Wh. p. 26.  you could not without apostasy so much as hear the word of God preached in any of the Reformed dutch and French Churches, if they be like unto those in this city? Whether would a julian more triumph and be hardened against Christianity to hear of your apostasy: or to hear you affirm (if he did with all believe it,) that 
y Counterp. 168.  the reforming preachers were the greatest deceyvers of the people, under show of holiness: and that it is a blessed work of God that the most dangerous seducers should thus first be discovered. Had you conscience of the things that tend to the disgrace of Christ and Christianity, then would you be humbled for these your writings, and revoke them with speed.  
Again you ask, And are there no personal sins amongst yourselves may we think, that you take such a course? If God herein should reward you according to your works, where should you appear? etc. Answ. We acknowledge our sins to be innumerable, & all our own righteousness to be as a defiled garment, and have no where to appear save under the righteousness of Christ: but if according to your example, in the mids of our sins we should lift up our heads so high, as to disclaim the fellowship of such as are far better than ourselves, yea of all the faithful congregations in the world: where should we then appear? If in the mids of my corruption, I should exalt my ministery as only lawful to be communicated with, and teach the godly to abandon and separate from all other ministers wheresoever, as you do: where should I then appear? Than might I fear as Mr. Robinson notes concerning you in the refutation of your private schism, that 
z Relig. comm. p. 5.  God would be provoked to suffer us to fall into such personal sins and evils from which thousands of others have been preserved, etc. Than were it most just that these personal sins and scandals should be published for a warning to others, to keep them from the like presumption. This is the point, which you cover and hide in your reasonings. This I desire that every Modest Christian would consider and judge of. And as for you, where think you to appear in the day of Christ? among the goats on the left hand you think not: among the sheep on the right hand with us, it is contrary to your present separation from us. If you expect a place in the Church triumphant, according to the place which you take unto yourself on earth, separated from all the Churches militant here: then must you also look for some solitary place in heaven, separated from the common Saints, and exalted above the rest.  
As for your counsel to me; it is such as Christ jesus hath taught me not to embrace: for he hath taught us to beware of error, & to know false teachers the better, by their scandalous and wicked practices, which he 
a Mat. 23.13.14, etc. 2 Pet. 2.3.10, etc. Rev. 9.7.8, etc.  publisheth unto men; This his practice in your language, is the leaven of maliciousness and a fleshly means. My purpose and endeavour is to follow him that is light itself walking in the mids of his golden candlesticks, whither you refuse to follow him. Into the secret of your separation let not my soul enter: yea let every soul beware of that mystery of iniquity, which as a wild fire consumes the communion of Saints and their loving society. By this schism you have shut out yourself from the secret of the righteous, and from their assembly. The Lord show mercy unto you in raising you out of this pit, and keep the feet of his Saints from falling into this or the like snare. Farewell in the Lord.  
Decemb. 6. 1618. John Paget.     

AN ADMONITION Touching TALMUDIQVE and RABBINICAL ALLEGATIONS.  

Mr. Ainsworth, it was much beyond my expectation, when as I met with your allegations of Rabbins against me in this controversy: Hereupon I inquired after your annotations on Genesis and Exodus, which before this time, I had not seen; & there I saw them so frequently alleged, with such pomp of glorious titles, and underserved honour given unto them that I supposed both the purity and sufficiency of the holy scriptures to be much eclipsed and impaired thereby. For this cause I have thought it expedient to note some things concerning these authors, for help of the Christian readers that they may be the better able to discern and judge of them.  
All use of the Talmud I do not condemn: There is some use of the Rabbins for understanding and learning of the holy tongue: And a principal use of them is, thereby to refute the Jews themselves from their own writings; and not them only, but all such also as dote upon their writings in such manner as you do. And to this end have I alleged them against you, which otherwise I would not have done: It was far from my thoughts, when I first undertook this controversy with you. Your manner of quoting them, I cannot approve of: many scandals and errors I do observe in your use of them.   

CHAP. I  

FIrst of all, it is an offensive thing so abundantly to allege such authors for our guides unto the mysteries of religion, as do abound with innumerable dotages, presumptuous & vain traditions, lying visions, feigned miracles, prodigious & monstrous fables. And such are the Thalmudists & Cabalists, whom you (Mr. Ainsw.) do so often bring upon the stage. There is almost no work or word of God recorded in the scriptures, which they do not defile with their gloss. For example.   

TOuching the Angels: As the Rabbins of the Sadducees faction, were very gross, saying there is 
a Act. 23.8.  neither Angel nor spirit: so the Rabbins of the Pharisaical sect were as bold in a contrary extremity to feign any thing of them: And to give instance first of all in your Doctor Maimony, he saith that the vision of Angels is nothing but the vision of prophecy and according to the apprehension of the beholder: that therefore 
b Maimony Morch Nebuchim, Cherek. 2. pelek. 7.  Abraham whose virtue was great or strong saw them as men: but unto Lot whose strength was evil they appeared as Angels. The Chaldee paraphrast expounding those words, the soul of the heaven shall carry the voice, etc. saith that 
c Targu n on Eccles. 10.20.  the Angel Raziel shall proclaim it every day from heaven upon the mount of Horch, etc. They presume to tell us what peculiar Angels were allotted unto several persons to be their guides and masters: as unto 
d joa. Reuchlin. Cabal. lib. 1.  Adam they assign Raziel; to Shem jophiel: to Abraham Zadkiel: to Isaak Gabriel; to jaakob Peliel: to Moses Metatron, etc. So for particular actions and words recorded in the scriptures, the Rabbins tell us how many and which angels were employed therein: In expounding psal. 137. the Chaldee paraphrast feigns Micael whom he calls the Prince of jerusalem to make the the prayer against Edom, vers. 7, 
e Targum on psal. 137.  & Gabriel whom he calls the Prince of Zion, to pronounce the blessing on them that should destroy Babel, vers. 8.9. when Ester had sent Hatach to certify Mordecai of the King's decree, Ester 4.10.12.13. the paraphrast saith, that 
f Targum on Ester, 4.  Haman in his rage slew Hatach, and that then the Angels Micael & Gabriel came and supplied the place of Hatach, delivering Esters message to Mordecai, and again Mordecai his answer unto Ester. And further he tells us of King Ahasuerus his vision how he being at Esters banquet, he 
g Ibid. on Chap. 7.  lift up his eyes, and saw and behold 10 Angels like unto Hamans' 10 Sons cutting down the trees in the royal garden, etc. That when Haman fell down before Ester, the Angel Gabriel had thrust him down, etc. R. Simai 
h Isaak Ben Arama in Akedath Isaak. Por- 44. par. 2.  saith, when Israel had set we will do, before we will hear, (resolving and promising to do the law before they had heard it, Exod. 19.8. with 20.19.) then forth with there came 60, millions of Angels, and bound two crowns upon every one of the Israelites, one in respect of we will do, another in respect of we will hear: but when they sinned in the Calf, there came down an 120 millions of destroying Angels, and broke them off, as it is said, The Children of Israel plucked of their ornaments (Exod. 33.6.) Touching the Angels ascending and and descending on the ladder in the vision, Gen. 28,12. they say, the 
i R. Solomon jarchi in Gen. 28.12.  Angels of the land of Israel went up, and the outlandish Angels came down. And so accordingly of the Angels that met jaakob at Mahanaim, which signifieth two hosts: they 
k on Gen. 32.  say, they were one host of outlandish Angels that had convoyed him to the border of Israel; and that the Angels of the land of Israel, were the other host, that came to receive him there. Other of the Rabbins 
l joa. Merc. in Gen. 19.13.  say that the Angels which said of Sodom, we will destroy this place, were deposed from their ministry for an 138. years, because they had ascribed unto themselves that which was proper unto God; and were not restored until jacobs' time, when they ascended again to heaven by the ladder which he saw in the vision, etc.   

TOuching wicked spirits or devilles: Some of the Rabbins 
m Sebast. Munster, Annot. on Levit. 17.  hold that as other creatures are compounded of 4. elements, so these of 2, to wit, of the fire and air: And that they have 3 properties of the ministering Angels, viz. wings; swift motion; and foreknowledge of things to come: and 3. properties of the sons of men, viz. to eat and drink as men: to procreate others and multiply by generation as men: to dye & to have their bodies dissolved as men. For their meat, they say they lick the moistness of the air, and are affected with perfumes and smell of the fire (according to that Rabbinical conceit noted in the Apocryphal story, where it is said, that the 
n Tobit, ch. 6.8.9. with 8.3.  perfume made with the liver and heart of a certain fish, would drive away the devil.) Others of these Rabbins say upon Gen. 2.2. That they were created imperfect in the evening of the Sabath: and that God having made their spirits, being prevented with the Sabath that came upon him, was feign to leave his work half made: & that therefore their spirits want their bodies which otherwise should have been made for them, etc. They writ 
o Elias Levita in Tishbi in lilith.  that there are 4 mothers of the devils, viz. Lilith, Naamah, Ogereth & Machalath: The 
p Targum on Eccles. 1.12.  Chaldee paraphrast shows the Prince of the spirits by name, when he saith that Aschmedai the King of the Devilles was sent unto Solomon to cast him out of his throne & to take his signet from him. The same 
q Targ. and Rasion Psal. 91.6.  paraphrast also with R. Solomon jarchi do tell us of night spirits and noon spirits; that Deber is the name of a spirit destroying in the night and Keteb a spirit destroying at noon day: In so much that both the vulgar Latin and Greek translations following these Rabbins in ps. 91. do there make mention of a noone-devil. With the like presumption is Samael noted by 
r Maimony in Morch Nebu. chel. 2. per. 31.  them to be the name of an other, that road upon the serpent, and deceyved Evah. That these spirits are male and female, and have difference of sex, is often 
s R. Solomon jar. n Esa. 34 14.  affirmed by them, so that when God commanded Noah to take male and female of every living thing to keep them alive in the Ark with him, they say that 
t On Gen. 6.19.  the devils also were to be received with the rest, as though God had given charge to preserve them from drowning: that their generations might be continued in the world. They say 
u R. David Kimchion 1 Sam. 28.12.  that when wicked spirits are raised up, and called for by witches, or such like; that their manner is to ascend with their feet upward and their head downward; and that the spirit raised by the witch of Endor came up with his head first contrary to the custom in reverence & honour of King Saul; and that thereby the witch knew him to be King. Others go further and 
x Elias Levita ubi supra.  teach men how to defend themselves against them by charms and circles, etc.   

TOuching the Spheres and stars: The Rabbins hold that 
y Maimony in mor. Nebu. chel. 2. per. 5. & 6. & 8.  they are living bodies, having an understanding soul; that they have imagination, election, will, an understanding of their operations, etc. And besides philosophical reasons alleged for proof hereof, they do also pervert many scriptures to establish this opinion, as ps. 19.1. The heavens declare the glory of God: They say, that man is far wide from the truth, that thinks this to be spoken in respect of that which appears in them: seeing that in the Hebrew tongue, that word of counting or declaring is not attributed but unto the thing that hath understanding, etc. They say, No man but a fool or an adversary of the truth will contradict this proof which is taken from the words of the Prophets. To this purpose also they allege, The stars of the morning praised me together, job. 38.7. Again Maimony there argueth from. Gen. 1.16. Deut. 4.19. that they must needs apprehended and know all things which they govern, etc. Besides this, he embraceth the opinion of Pythagoras which Aristotle rejected: namely, that 
z Ibidem Perek 9  the heavens by their motions do make sweet and pleasant sounds, though there be many things that hinder us from hearing those strong and sweet sounds, etc. If the stars have such knowledge, it is the less wonder, that the Sun should found out and make known those heads of the people which sinned in Baalpeor: which were hanged up unto the Lord before the Sun, Numb. 25.4. where (as R. Solomon 
* Comment. on Numb. 25.4.  records) the Sun did manifest & discover the sinner and the guilty persons by piercing through the cloud and shining upon them. And still they hold a prognostication of things to come, by these stars. As the sun before is said to have discovered the sinners: so the moon hath like virtue ascribed unto her by them. It is 
“ joa. Buxt Synag. jud. Cap. 16.  observed out of Rambam, R. Menachem Rakanat, R. Bechai and others, that on the seventh day of the seventh month at night, God shows whatsoever shall fall out unto them the year following by the shadow of their bodies in the moon light, as if their shadow want a head, or if they have no shadow, that then they shall certainly die that year, etc. The ground of this magical observation they draw from the 
“ Numb. 14.9.  words of joshua and Caleb, unto the people touching the Canaanites, saying their shadow is departed from them: for so they read the word of shadow in stead of shield. They say, that 
a R. Solo. in Gen. 1.14.  when the lights are eclipsed it is an evil sign for ever: And whereas it is said, be not afraid of the signs of heaven, they interpret it thus, when you do the will of God, ye have no need to care for the vengeance. When they apply the number of the spheres unto the commandments, they say 
b R. Abraham Aben Ezra comment. on Exo. 20.  that the fift commandment, honour thy father, etc. hath reference unto the sphere of Tsedek or jupiter, because it teacheth concerning peace and righteousness and mercy, etc. That the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill, hath reference unto Mars because it teacheth us concerning the shedding of blood and wounds, etc. That the seventh commandment hath reference to Venus, that teacheth concerning the Bed, etc. And so for the rest. Upon those words of Pharaoh, Ragnah or evil is before you, they say, 
c R. Solom. on Exo. 10 10. & Aben Ezra on Exo. 32.12  that Pharaoh did understand by his astrological instrument, that there was a star called Ragnah which did arise to meet the Israelites in the wilderness and that it was a sign of blood and slaughtur unto them and that thereupon when Israel sinned in the Calf, & God fought to destroy them, Moses said in his prayer, why should the Egyptians say, he hath brought them forth unto Ragnah, of which Pharaoh said, Ragnah is before you: That then forthwith God repent concerning Ragnah (that evil star) and turned the blood into the blood of Circumcision when joshua circumcised them, and so took away the shame of Egypt. Again, they writ 
d R. Sol. on Gen. 15.5.  that when God brought Abram forth, Gen. 15.5. it was from his Astrological instrument, by which he saw that Abram should have no children; and that God showed him, though Abram should have no Children, yet Abraham should have Children, when his name was changed, etc. They tell us 
e Seb. Munst. Annot. on Gen. 12.1.  also in Maasch thorah in the story of Abram that when he was but 3. years old, he was cast into the furnace by Nimrod, for destroying his father's Idols; when the Astrologians told Nimrod that the star of Abram at his birth had devoured 4 other stars, etc. Moreover they teach not only a prediction of future things by the stars, but other strange operations also: upon the defect of the letter Vau in the word Meoroth which signifieth the lights which God created the fourth day, they 
f Rasi or R. Solom jarchi on Gen. 1.14.  tell how dangerous a day that is, in respect of the squinancy whereunto the Children are then most subject: and of the fast ordained that day of the week to prevent that evil. They 
g joan. Isaak Levita prefat. ad Ruach hachen.  writ that the Sun to celebrated the day of his nativity, doth evermore throughout the whole year even in time of greatest tempests, yet always shine upon the fourth day of the week on which it was created. Of the Sons of God mentioned Gen. 6.2. they 
h Aben Ezra on Gen. 6.2.  say that they were wise men exercised in astrology, which took unto themselves wives which were borne under the same disposition of the heavens that they themselves were, and that so being of the same constellation they brought forth mighty men, etc. Others of them do not only record that the stars teach, but 
i Ben Arama, in Akedath Isaak, Portâ. 45.  also stir us up unto several actions and virtues, as that Tsedek or jupiter megnorer el hatsedek stirreth up unto righteousness and the fear of the Lord; That Nogah or Venus stirreth up love, etc.   

TOuching the Clouds and other meteores in the lowest heavens: R. Samuel bar Isaak saith, 
k Talmud in Beracoth cap. 9 Fol. 59 A  Behold, the Clouds of the morning there is no joy in them, as it is written, your goodness is as a morning Cloud, Hos. 6. And the like prognostications they do observe in the same place touching the lightnings and other Clouds. Touching the Rainbow though God appointed it to be the sign of his covenant unto perpetual generations, yet 
l Rasion Gen. 9 12.  because of the defect of Vaughan in the word Doroth which signifieth generations, they observe and teach that there were some generations of just and perfect men wherein they needed not this sign of the Rainbow: as namely in the generation of Hezekiah King of judah, and in the generation of R. Shimeon been jochai. From the wind that blows upon a certain day they prognosticate what weather they shall have for the whole year following: R. Isaak bar Abidemi 
* Thalmud in joma, C. 1. Fol. 21.  saith, that upon the latter good day of the feast, every man looks after the smoke of the camp: If the smoke incline to the North, than the poor are glad, and the rich householders are sad: viz. because the South wind blowing at that time, and driving the smoke into the North is a sign of great rain that year, which shall rot the fruits, and so force the rich to bring them forth and cell them for small price unto the poor: If the smoke incline to the South than the rich are glad, and the poor are sad, that north-wind driving the smoke Southward being a sign of such a dry season, that the rich may store up their fruits and not bring them forth to the poor: If the smoke incline to the west than all are sad: because the hurtful East wind driving the smoke into the west is a sign of dearth and famine: If the smoke incline to the East, them all are glad, because the west wind driving the smoke into the East is a sign of such a temperate season as shall bring abundance for benefit both of rich and poor. So they 
m R. David Kimchion Josh. 5.2.  say of the North wind that it did not blow for the space of 40. years together whiles Israel was in the wilderness, lest it should have blown away the cloud of glory from the Tabernacle: the nature of the North wind being to scatter the clouds (job. 37.22.) And that for this cause also they did not circumcise their Children for 40 years, because they wanted the North wind whose property is to heal; and that therefore the sore made by cutting the flesh in circumcision would have been dangerous to the Children. They presume also to tell us what particular Angels are set over several winds of which afterward.   

TOuching man: R. jeremiah been Eleazar saith that 
n Talmud in Beracoth cap. 9 Fol. 61.  God created the first man do partsuphin, with two faces or persons, as it is said Ps. 139.5, thou hast fashioned me behind and before. This they also 
o Rasi on Gen. 1.27.  collect from that which Moses saith, that God created them male & female: Hence they gather that the first man was created with a double person at the first, that he was both man and woman, both male and female, an Hermaphrodite: and that these 2. persons were parted asunder then when God took the rib out of the side of Adam, etc. As for the souls of men, they hold that they were created before the bodies: that all the 
p Rasi on Esa. 48.16. & on Mal. 1.1.  Prophets were in their souls present at the delivery of the law on mount Sinai, many generations before they were borne, & that their prophecies were there delivered unto them. Some of them teach that God created man with original sin: R. Nachman bar Chasda 
q Talmud in Beracoth. c. 9 Fol. 81.  ask the question why vajitser in Gen. 2.7, is written with two iods, makes this answer, that the holy blessed God created man with two inclinations or dispositions, with ietser tob, & ietser ragh, with a good dispositiou & an evil disposition. And in the same place it is said of the two reins that the one at the right side counseleth unto good, and the other at the left side counseleth unto evil, etc. When a man dies and is buried, they writ that the 
r Elias Levita in Tishbi in Chibbut hakkeber.  Angel of death comes and sits upon the sepulchre & then the soul entering into the body again, causeth the man to stand upon his feet: Than the Angel of death with a chain in his hand half of iron, and half of fire striketh the man, so that at the first struck his members are dissolved: at the second his bones are scattered, which the Angels come and gather: at the third he is turned to dust and ashes and so the body returns into the sepulchre, etc. As for the soul, as the same Elias 
s Tishbi in Gilgul.  shows, they say it is three times created: This they understand of the revolution of souls through the bodies of three men: And for proof hereof they allege that saying in job, 
t job. 33.29.  All these things will God work thrice with a man. Hence also they say the soul of the first man was translated into the body of David, & from thence is to return into the body of Messiah: This the Cabalists note by the three letters of Adam's name, A, D, M, whereof the first stands for Adam, the second for David, the third for Messiah. But they teach that the souls of great sinners do pass into the bodies of beasts: as the soul of a Sodomite into the body of a hare: and the soul of an adulterer into the body of a Camel and that therefore David in the 
u Psal. 13.5  psalm praiseth God, with these word, ki gamal li, which they interpret thus, because he hath delivered my soul from the Camel: he for his adultery having deserved to be translated into the body of an unclean Camel, etc.   

TOuching the stories of particular men: Of Adam they 
x Rasi in Gen. 5.3.  say that for those hundred and thirty years until Sheth, he lived separate from his wife, viz. after his banishment out of Eden. Of Cain, & the mark set upon him; R. Solomon 
y On Gen. 4.15.  saith it was a letter of God's name imprinted in the forehead of Cain: R. jehudah saith it was the sphere of the Sun which was made to rise upon him: R. Nehemiah 
z Akedath Isaak, Portâ 11.  saith it was the leprosy arising on him: R. Aba saith it was a dog given unto him: viz. to go before him and defend him from wild beasts or those that would kill him: R.A. joseph saith it was a horn that grew out of him, etc. Of Lamech, they 
a R. Sol. on Gen. 4.23.  writ that he being blind slew Cain: that being led by his son Tubal cain, to whom Cain appeared as a wild beast, he spoke unto his father to shoot, who shot and killed Kain: that when he knew what he had done, to wit, that it was Kain his ancestor whom he had slain, than he smote one hand upon another, and clapped his son Tubalkain betwixt them and so slay him also: That hereupon when his wives separated from him, he excused himself by his error: that if Kain who slay his brother presumptuously had his punishment deferred for seven generations, than he offending through error and mistaking should be forborn for many more sevens, etc. Of Noah they 
b R. Solomon Gen. 5.29.  writ that until his time they had no instruments of ploughing: that he prepared them: that the earth brought forth thorns and thistles when they sowed wheat, for the curse of the first man: that in the days of Noah, this curse ceased: that this is it which is written of him, he shall comfort us, etc. Whereas there is mention, of his drunkenness and nakedness in the mids of his tent: because Ahotoh signifying his tent is there written with the letter he, they 
c Idem on Gen. 9.21.22.23, etc.  collect thence that by way of a mystery thereby is noted how the 10 tribes which are called Aholah (Ezek. 23.) should go into captivity for drinking wine in bowls. And whereas it is said, that Cham saw the nakedness of his father: some of the Rabbins expound it, that I'm gelded Noah, and that he said unto his brethren: The first man had but two sons and one slew the other for the possession of the world, but our father hath three sons and yet he seek to have a fourth. Therefore they say that Canaan the fourth son of Cham was cursed, because he would not that his father Noah should beget a fourth son, etc. And that Shem & japheth for covering their father obtained this blessing, viz. that the posterity of Shem should wear zizith or fringes on their garments: that the posterity of japheth should obtained a burial, as it is said, I will give unto Gog a place there for burial, etc. (Ezek. 39.11.) Of Abram & Noah they 
d R. Isaak Ben. Arama in Akedath Isaak, Portâ 16.  observe, because it is said of Noah that he walked with God (Gen. 6.9.) and to Abram, walk before me (Gen. 17.1) that therefore Noah was in feriour to Abram: like to little Children whereof the lesle is led by the hand and goes with the father, and the other that is stronger is appointed to go before him, etc. When they tell how Terach brought Abram his son before Nimrod for breaking his Idols, and how he was cast into the fiery furnace, they record further concerning Haran his brother, that he thought within himself, if Abram overcome I will be like unto him: if 
e R. Solomon 〈◊〉 Gen. ●… 28.  Nimrod overcome I will be like unto him: And when Abraham was delivered, Haran being demanded to whom he would be like, he answered to Abram: whereupon they cast him into the fiery furnace, wherein he was burned. This they will have to be noted when it is said, 
f Gen. 11.28  Than Haron died before the face of Terah his Father, in ur of the Chaldees: because ur signifieth fire. Where it is said that Abram brought forth three hundred & eighteen persons to pursue the Kings: the 
g R. Sol. on Gen. 14 14.  Rabbins will have this to be understood of Eliezer alone, who was Abraham's steward: that he alone went with Abram to the battle, because according to their Gematria, the 
h  numeral letters of Eliezer his name in the Hebrew do stand for three hundred and eighteen. Of Og the giant, they 
* R. Solom. on Gen. 14.13.  writ that it was he which escaped from the slaughter of the Sodomites made by Amraphel & his companions: that he came & told Abram of the battle, thinking that Abram also would be slain, and that he then would get Sarai to be his wife: And that this Og also escaped from the flood being one of those Nephilims, the giants that lived before the flood. Indeed if this Og was of such a stature as the Thalmudists, do 
“ Thalmud in Beracoth c. 9 fo. 54.  writ, viz. that Moses being 10 cubits high, & having an axe in his hand 10 cubits long, and leaping also 10 cubits from the ground could yet reach but unto the ankles of Og, when he killed him: then might this giant have rested upon some mountain, over which the waters prevailed 15. cubits: And so as 8. persons were saved in the ark, he should be the ninth, that escaped drowning being out of the ark. They 
i R. Sol. on Gen. 4.22.  say of Naamah that she was the wife of Noah: of 
k Idem on Gen. 16.1.  Hagar that she was the daughter of Pharaoh, who when he saw the wonders done for Sarah, said it is better that my daughter be a servant in this house, than a Queen in an other house. Of 
l Idem on Gen. 19.26  Lot's wife, that she was turned into a pillar of salt because she refused to give a little salt unto the travelers or strangers that came into her house. Of Thamar defiled by judah, they 
m On Gen. 38.24.  say that she was the daughter of Melchizedek or Shem, and was therefore to be burned because being the Priest's daughter she played the harlot. Of Rebekah they tell great wonders: how 
n On Gen. 24.17.  when she came to draw water, the water of itself came up out of the well to meet her: how the 
o Ibid. on vers. 42.  earth leapt and removed under Abraham's servant to bring him in one day to his journeys end, unto Mesopotamia: how an 
p Ibid. on vers. 55.  angel came & killed Bethuel for seeking to delay the journey of Rebekah unto Isaak. Of Leah they 
q On Gen. 29.17.  say that her eyes were become tender with weeping for fear that she should have been given for a wife unto Esaw the elder brother, as Rachel her younger sister was given to jaakob the younger brother. Of Dinah they 
r On Gen. 30.21.  say that she being first conceyved a male in the womb of Leah, was by her prayer turned into a female, lest her sister Rachel should be inferior to the handmaids in Children, etc. And further they say of Dinah, not being reckoned with his eleven Children, when jaakob was to meet Esaw, that 
s On Gen. 32.22.  she was put into a chest and locked up, lest Esaw should set his eyes upon her: and that therefore jaakob was punished, because she being given to Esaw might have been a means to have converted him to goodness: that therefore she fell into the hand of Schechem. The like thing do they record of Sarah also, viz. that Abram going down into Egypt because of the famine, 
t On Gen. 12.14.  did shut up Sarah into a chest, and that she was found by the receyvers of the tribute, who opened the chest and saw her. Of Levi they 
u On Gen. 29.34.  say, that when he was borne, God sent the Angel Gabriel to bring the Child before him: and that so he gave him this name: and gave him the four & twenty gifts of the Priesthood: that in this respect he was called Levi. Of joshua his burial in Timnath-serah, or Timnath-heres, judg. 2.9. they 
x R. David Kimchi, &. R. Sol. on, Josh. 24.30.  say, that the place was so called, because of temunath Heres or the image of the Sun that was set upon his sepulchre, with this saying, This is he that made the Sun to stand still, etc. And that the mountain was called Gaash which signifieth shaking and moving: because when the Israelites at the burial of joshua did not mourn and lament for him as was meet; the earth did then quake and the mountain was moved against them. When joshua said oh sun, (dom) stay thou in Gibeon, etc. they 
y R. Sol. on Josh. 10.12.  say that by virtue of a song called Dom, Dom, he stayed the Sun: and that all the while so long as he did sing Dom, it stood still, and went not forward. Of the two spies sent by joshua, they 
z R. David Kimchi on Josh. 2.4.  say that they were Caleb and Phinchas: and that Phinchas being an Angel he stood before the people and they neither knew him nor saw him: and that therefore it is said of Caleb only, that Rahab the harlot did hide him, etc. Of Samson they 
a Idem on jud. 16.28  write, that when he desired to be avenged of the Philistines for his eyes, that he prayed for the vengeance upon them but only in respect of one of his eyes, & that he desired of God that the reward for his other eye & the loss of it might be reserved unto him in the world to come. Of Iphtah though some 
b Ralbag or R. Levi been. Gerson on judg. 12 7.  writ that he was buried in diverse cities for his honour; that having neither son nor daughter his bones were buried part of them in one city & part of them in an other, for a memorial how he had delivered them from the Ammonites: yet others 
c R. David Kimchi ibid.  say the contrary, that he was stricken with a grievous boil: that the members of his body fell of, some in one city & some in an other: that so they were buried in diverse cities: & this for a punishment unto him because he slew his daughter, and did not further inquire concerning his vow: Of Samuel they 
d R. Solo. on 1. Sam. 28.13.15. & Kimchi ibidem.  writ that he was raised up by the witch of Endor: & that Samuel thereby was much disquieted and fore afraid thinking that it had been the day of judgement, and that he had been called to judgement: and that therefore he brought Moses with him for his help and safe conduct, etc. Of Paltiel they 
e R. David Kim. on 2. Sam. 3.15. & R. Sol. ibid.  writ that he was so called because God delivered him from from sinning against Mical the wife of David, and that he had laid a sword betwixt him & her in the bed for a token thereof, etc. Of Obededom they 
f R. Solom. on 2. Sam. 6.11.  writ that the blessing of his house consisted in this that his wife & his eight daughters in law brought forth each of them six sons at once, and that hence are those 62. mentioned 1. Chro. 26.8. Of Naboth, they 
g Kimchi & Rasi on 1. Kin. 22.20.21.  writ that the spirit which came forth to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahabs' Prophets, was the spirit of Naboth, etc. Of Elias & Elisha they 
h R. Sol. on 1. Kin. 18.34 & on 2. Kin. 3.11.  writ that Elisha pouring water on the hands of Elias, his fingers did miraculously become like to fountains of water to fill the ditch made about the altar in mount Carmel, etc. Of Ahaz they 
i R. David Kimchi & R. Solo. on 2. Kin. 20.11.  feign this miracle that when he died the day was shortened 10. degrees, and that the Sun went down ten hours before the time, to the end that the mourning of the people for him might quickly be at an end, because he was wicked: and that in recompense hereof, in the days of Hezekias the Sun came back and returned those 10. degrees which it hasted to go down in Ahaz his time. And with such fictions and additions unto the holy story, they abound in every place.   

TOuching the sensitive creatures, as birds, beasts and fishes they presume in like manner: Of the Raven that Noah sent out of the ark, they 
“ R. Sol. on Gen. 8 7.  say that he flew about the ark & went not as he was sent for the jealousy that he had of his make or fellow against Noah: and that this same Raven also was reserved unto Elias his time to bring him bread and flesh morning and evening. And some of the Rabbins presume and 
“ R. David Kimchi on 1. Kin. 17.4  say that this bread and flesh was brought by the Ravens from the table of Ahab: others say it was brought from the table of Ichoshaphat. Of a certain Bird, which they call Bar-juchne, it is written in the 
“ Tractat. Becoroth Cap. 9 f. 57  Thalmud, that when this fearful bird, cast but one egg out of her nest, it drowned 60 towns, and broke down 300. Cedar trees. And as Elias Levita 
“ Tishbi in vocabulo juchna.  records, with this bird also is the banquet for the righteous prepared, together with the Leviathan, and the wild Ox. Again Rabath bar Channah saith he 
// Thalmud in Babha bathra Cap. 5. Fol. 73.  saw on a certain time a frog as big as Akra a town in Hagronia containing 60. houses: that a serpent or Dragon came and devoured that frog: that straightway a great Raven or Poshkanisa came and devoured both the Frog & the Dragon, and flying away light upon a tree, etc. These and a huge number more of such fables are recorded by your ancient Rabbins & Hebrew doctors, by so much worse than Aesop's fables: in that these are 
* R. Otto in Gali. razia lib. 3. c. 11.  told for truth, but his not so: these are confirmed with pretence of holy scripture, to the great abuse of the name of God: but so are not his: these are set down without any good use of them, but his fables had their morals annexed for use and instruction of men. What good moral use can we make of this Parable of the great frog, unless happily it may serve to represent unto us the estate of your separation▪ you yourself 
% Defenc. against Mr. Smith. Pag. 106.  compare Mr. Smith unto Behemoth in bigness, & some reason there was, for by the profession of separation which he then made he devoured all the Churches of Christ, and so was comparable in greatness to this Rabbins frog: but presently Mr. johnson like the great Dragon comes and devours Mr. Smith: and straightway come you like the great Raven of the separation and devour both the frog & the Dragon, both Mr. Smith & Mr. johnson so that you Mr. Ainsworth, remain the huge Poshkantsa that devour and swallow up all: All the churches of God, all Christians, yea all the separate companies beside are in your belly: according to your doctrine no religious communion may be retained with any of them. And therefore as the Lord once theatned the devouring city; 
* Zephan. 3.1.  woe unto the craw; as the word in the Hebrew signifies: so may it still be said, woe unto this craw of the separation that devours all Christian communion.  
Touching Behemoth; both the 
a Targum on psal. 50.10. & Rasi ibid. etc.  Chaldee paraphrast & other of the Rabbins expounding those words of the Psalm: The beasts on a thousand mountains, interpret them of one beast, of Behemoth, that great creature which is mentioned job. 40.10 This Behemoth is said in one day to eat up and devour the grass of those thousand mountains, which they will also have to spring again and to be renewed every day. And this beast as they say is reserved for the banquet of the righteous in the garden of Eden in the world to come, viz. when their messias shall come. They 
b Talmud, in cholin. c. 3. fol. 60  tell us also of a strange Ox with one horn in his forehead, which the first man should offer for a sacrifice the first day that he was created: They 
c Targum on ps. 69.31 & Rasi, ibid.  say that this is that young Bullock mentioned in psal. 69.31. from whence they also do collect that this Ox had the horn created before the hooves, because the order in the words in the psalm is thus, which hath horns & hooves, the horn being first mentioned. Of the Ram which Abraham offered in stead of his son Isaak, they 
d Rasi on Gen. 22.13.  say it was created in the beginning of the world, and prepared hereunto from the sixth day of the creation: This Ram they hold to be one of those 10. things created in the evening of the first Sabath. And they note further, that when this Ram came running unto Abraham; Satan seeing the same thrust the Ram into the bush, etc. Of a Roe in the forest of Elai, they 
f Thorah Or, 1. Glos in Thalmud, chol. c. 3. fol. 59  writ that in the time of sleep one eye is still open, when the other is shut: And the 
g Thargum on Cant. 3.14.  Chaldee paraphrast noting this same thing, will have this to be that Roe whereunto the Messiah is compared. The Thalmud 
// Tractat. Cholin, c. 3. f. 59  records, that on a certain time when the Roman Emperor inquired of Rabbi jehoshua the son of Hananias, why their God compared himself unto a Lion: and whether he was so strong that he could kill a Lyon. The rabbin answers, that their God did not compare himself into a common Lion but unto the Lion that was in the forest of Elai. Hereupon the Emperor desires that this Lion may be showed unto him: and the rabbin making supplication unto God, the said Lion comes running out of the forest, and being 400. miles from the Emperor, he roared so strongly, that the women with Child in Rome fell in travel before their time, and the walls of the city fell down. When as he had come an 100 miles nearer, than he roared again so terribly, that all the Romans teeth fell our of their heads, and the Emperor himself half dead fell down from his throne unto the ground: entreating the rabbin that this Lion might return unto the forest, from whence he came: which also was done according to his desire. By the view of these fables, the reader may learn in some part, what to judge and how to esteem of your Thalmudicall allegations. What goodness or fruit is there in these fables? will you have your separation represented by this Lion in the forest of Ela? If it were true that you profess and pretend, the terror of your roaring should not only make the walls of Rome to fall down, but the walls of all reformed Churches: both their material buildings & temples as you pled in this writing, and also all their spiritual society and communion should be dissolved: but as the Lion of Elai when he drew near to Rome, was yet turned back by the rabbin: so when you drew near to Rome, through the title of your book that roared in the Frankford catalogue as I noted 
“ Pag.  before, yet have you also been persuaded to stay that roaring a while, and to spare them that were ready to perish at the sound thereof.  
Of the Leviathan, R. jehuda 
* Thalmud in Babha Bathra. c. 5 f. 74. & 75.  saith, whatsoever God hath created, he hath created male and female, and so without doubt the Leviathan: And lest they being so great should destroy the world if they did multiply, therefore God hath gelded the male killed the female & powdered her with salt for the righteous in the world to come. For proof of this he allegeth Esa. 27.1. And in the same place, R. jonathan saith, that when the angel Gabriel shall hunt this Leviathan, he could nor prevail except God did help him. This hunting they collect from that place in job. 40.20. Wilt thou draw out Leviathan with a hook? Of the Whale that swallowed jonas, they 
“ R. Solom. on jon. 2.5  say that the two eyes of the fish were in stead of two windooes unto the prophet, through which he saw all that was in the Sea: that God showed him the read Sea, & how Israel passed through the mids thereof, etc. Because it is said, that Suph or the weeds were wrapped about his head, they do vainly collect from thence that jam suph or the read Sea was before him: there being the continent betwixt the read Sea and that Sea whereinto jonas was cast. And here they 
* R. Solom. on jon. 1.17.  writ further, that the great whale which first swallowed jonas, was a male, where jonas had such a large room in his belly, that he did not give his mind unto prayer: whereupon God spoke unto this Whale to cast him out of his belly into the mouth of the female who being full of young ones, jonas had not there such room, and so being in a strait, that then he prayed, as it is said, out of the bowels of the Fish. jon. 1.17.   

TOuching the vegetative creatures as plants, trees, etc. They 
// Thalmud in Cholin. Cap. 3. f. 60 & Rasi on Gen. 2.5.  say of them in general, that though they were created the third day, yet they did not then appear, but the earth brought them forth only to the door of the earth, where men tread, until the sixth day: that then at the prayer of Adam there came showers of rain, that then they budded forth and were seen. Of the trees in the orchyards of Eliphaz, Bildad & Zophar, there is this miracle recorded by the 
“ Targum on job. 2.11.  Chaldee paraphrast, that when these three friends of job saw the trees in their orchards withered away: that the bread for their food was turned into living flesh that the wine of their feasts was turned into blood, than they came every man from his place to visit job: and that for this meritotious work they were delivered from the place appointed unto them in hell. Of the tree of life, they have this paradox, that 
* Maimony in Moreh Neb. chel. 2. per. 31.  it was a journey of fifty years: & that this measure was the height of it, besides the head of it, & the breadth of the branches. Of the cedars growing in the garden of Eden, the Chaldee paraphrast writes 
“ Targum on Cant. 1.16.  how they shallbe brought from thence for the building of a new temple at the coming of Messiah. Of the tree planted by the rivers of waters, whereunto the godly man is compared, in Psal. 1.3. they 
“ Ben Arama in Akedath Isaak. Portâ. 12.  say, that it was a tree, which God planted in the ark upon the face of the waters. And hundreds of such like vanities do fill their writings every where.   

But you say that for 
“ Preface to Annotations on Genesis.  jewish forbidden fables of which there are too many you pass them over as unprofitable. Answ. 1. The writers of notorious fables and lies do therefore lose their credit in other assertions, and deserve to have their writings wholly passed over, as being guided therein by the 
a joh. 8.44  father of lies, and so being the instruments of Satan to lead men into error are to be had in suspicion in all that they say, unless there be sufficient proof of the same by some other means. 2. How true it is that you pass over their fabulous writings in expounding the scriptures let the reader consider by these few instances that follow: you 
// Annot. on Gen. 4.22.  record how the Hebrew Doctors say of Naamah, that all the world wandered (in love) after her, yea even the sons of God, (as in Gen. 6.2.) and that of her there were borne evil spirits into the world. You 
“ Annot. on Gen. 18.2.  relate from the fabulous Thargum jerusalemy that the three Angels sent unto Abraham were sent for three things, because it cannot be, that more things than one should be sent by the hand of one of the high angels: that the first Angel was sent to show glad tidings to Abraham, etc. The second to deliver Lot: the third to overthrow Sodom, etc. This fable is not only repugnant to the scriptures but to other of the Rabbins also relating it after an other manner: R. Solomon jarchi 
% Common Gen. 18 2, etc.  saith, that one of these three Angels was sent to bring the good tidings to Sarah one to overthrow Sodom and one to heal Abraham (meaning for his sore after circumcision) etc. & that he which healed Abraham was Raphael. Other of them tell this tale yet an other way. Some thing like unto this unprofitable jewish fable, is that which you 
// Annot. on Exo. 28 30.  record from Maimony touching the inquiry by urim: that they made not inquiry of two things at once: & if they so inquired, yet the answer was but unto the first only. You 
“ Annot. on Gen. 46 27.  record from R. Menachem, touching the 70. persons that went down into Egypt, that things beneath do mystically signify things above: and that these 70. souls signified the 70. Angels that are about God's glorious throne, the precedents over the (seventy) nations. Why might you not as well sand us to the fables of S. Denys touching the diverse orders and offices of Angels for the exposition and illustration of the scriptures as unto these dotards? In your exposition of Moses his sight of the back parts of the Lord, you 
% Annot. on Exo. 33 23.  record this jewish tradition from Maimony & R. Menachem, that God then appeared like sheliach tsibbur, clad with a rob like a minister of the congregation. You 
// On Exo. 32.16.  report from the Thargum that the first tables of the law were hewn out of the saphir of the throne of God's glory mentioned in Exo. 24,10. These jewish traditions are presumptuous 
a Col. 2.18 1 Cor. 4.6 Deut. 4.2. & 12.32. & 29.29.  forbidden additions to the holy story more unlawful than many of their grossest fables, like unto those forged mirackles which the popish legends do add unto the story of the new testament touching the acts of the Apostles and other saints. Though Moses was 
b Numb. 12 7. Heb. 3.2.  faithful in all the house of God, yet as if his story had been defective, and his writings imperfect, you help to make it up with the superstitious traditions of the Rabbins. You 
% Annot. Exo. 26.1.  tell us from their canons, that wheresoever fine linen twisted, is spoken of in the law, it must be six double thread: 
“ On Exo. 28.33.  That wheresoever this word twisted is used alone (as it is in Exo. 39 24) it must be eight double thread: That the rob was all of blue, and the threads thereof were 
“ Ibid. on vers. 32.  twelve times double: That the breast plate & Ephod were 
% On Exo. 28.6.  woven with 28 threads, etc. Moses 
c Gen. 14.22.23.  telleth us that Abraham would not have so much as a thread from the King of Sodom, to avoid offence, lest he should say he had made Abraham rich: and by his example you also had done better if in the exposition of the law you had not taken the description of one thread from the infidel Moses Bar Meimon, otherwise than the faithful Moses hath described the same: The Rabbins may say they have made you rich: that your Annotations are enriched with their traditions: so are you an offence to the jews. Again to give light unto the scriptures you 
// Annot. on Exod. 27.21.  sand us unto the Thalmud, and allege from thence the superstitious order in trimming and lighting the lamps of the golden candlestick: The Children of light need not to learn such things from the Prince of darkness. Though Moses in his story was guided by the spirit of him that is the 
d Dan 8.13  wonderful Numbrer, yet as if the numbers and measures of the sanctuary had been insufficiently described by him, you for our further instruction will needs 
* Annot. on Exo. 25.30.  record unto us a more full reckoning from the Thalmudiques: as for example, that they say touching the show bread, that the length of every cake was 10. handbredths, & the breadth, 5. handtbreaths, and the height 7, fingers. That the 
“ On Exo. 28.33.  bells on Aaron's rob were in number 72, that they hanged 36. on the one skirt, and 36 on the other: that in these 72 bells were 72, clappers, all of gold, etc. That the plate of the holy crown was 
“ Ibid. on vers. 36.  a long plate of gold, two fingers broad and reached from one ear to an other: That the 
% Ibid. on vers. 39  girdle was about 3. fingers broad and 32. cubits long, etc. These and many more such like novelties have you recorded from the presumptuous Rabbins, who being rashly puffed up of their fleshly minds have added these things unto the word of God. Though the spirit of God hath thought it meet to pass over these things, and to mention none of them in his word, yet you on the contrary have thought it meet not to pass them over, but to join them with your notes for illustration of the scripture.  
But touching the jewish forbidden fables, you say further; 
// Preface to annot.  some things also you note from them, not as approving them yourself absolutely, but leaving them to further consideration of the prudent. Ans. 1. If you did absolutely approve them, you should be more absurd than I can yet imagine that you are. It is too much that you approve them in so great a measure, as to allege such a multitude of them without any note of dislike or censure upon the allegation of them even in such manner as good writers do use ordinarily to allege the testimonies of those whom they do approve. 2. For more particular approbation, let the reader consider how you approve that false and frivolous saying of R. Menachem, namely, that 
* Annot. on Gen. 12 9  Abraham cleaved unto the condition of mercy, for that is the south of the world: and therefore all Abraham's journeys were towards the South: to confirm this you do vainly allege the scriptures Ezek. 40.2. jer. 1.13.14. For many of Abraham's journeys were not toward the south: And the scriptures do often show mercy and judgements by & from the North and South indifferently. When you 
“ Annot. on Gen. 15 12.  allege the false assertion of Maimony concerning Prophets: that they saw no prophetical vision, but by dream or by night vision, (Numb. 12.6. & 22.19,20.) or by day, after that a dead sleep was fallen upon them: (Dan. 10.9.) And all that Prophesied, their joints trembled, there remained no strength in them, etc. you add then for confirmation, But they except Moses, as the scripture also doth, Numb. 12.7.8. But how doth the scripture make an exception from that which it never affirmed? Though Moses be exalted above other prophets in the place alleged: yet neither doth the scripture determine visions to be either night visions, or in the day after a dead sleep: neither doth it affirm that trembling of all that prophesied: neither is Moses excepted from that trembling. And Maimony himself when he else where 
“ Morch Nebuchim Chel. 2. per. 45.  describes eleven degrees of prophesy doth therein refute his own distinction, whiles there in the tenth and eleventh degree he gives instances of the visions of joshua by jericho and of Abraham in the mount Morijah, which yet were neither by dream, nor by night vision, nor by day after a dead sleep. 3. Though you thus approve their vain expositions, yet do you at other times refuse their more sound interpretations: as when 
% Comment. on Hos. 12.4.  R. Abraham aben Ezra, R. David Kimchi, and R. Sol. jarchi do expound the action of jaakob holding Esaw by the heel (which is expressed in the name jaakob,) to be a sign and note of his power, dignity and victory over Esaw, yet you writ that 
// Annot. on ps. 14.7.  jaakob is a name that noteth infirmity, etc. and do observe that 
* Annot. on Gen. 32 28.  the Church, when speech is of her infirmity, is often called jaakob: & when her glory and valour is signified, she is called Israel: as throughout the scriptures may be observed: as though we might not as well and truly observe, that the Church, when 
c Esa. 9.12. jer. 50.17. Rom. 9. 3● Mat. 10.6.  speech is of her infirmity, is often called Israel: yea when the miserable apostate Church for defection is cast of and divorced from the Lord, the scripture still gives the name of Israel unto her, rather than the name of jaakob: and on the other side, when her 
f Mal. 1.2. Ps. 24.6. & 47.4. Esa. 44.5.  glory, valour and dignity is signified, she is also called jaakob. 4. Whereas you say of those vain traditions, which you do not absolutely approve, that you leave them to further consideration of the prudent. I ask you what the imprudent and simple shall do, of whom there is the greatest number, and into whose hands especially these your annotations are like to come: be like it is enough that they stand amazed admiring these rare Rabbinical conceits, though they know not what to say or think of them. How do you forget the rule of the Apostle, which requireth that 
g 1 Cor. 14 25.  all things be done unto edifying? why do you not go before them by telling them your judgement plainly, what you approve, and what you do condemn? 5. Nay, herein you show less zeal and care for the instruction and guiding of the simple and ignorant people, than many of the infidel Rabbins themselves have done: for in their Commentaries upon the Thalmud, when they meet with diverse opinions of their doctors, their manner is to tell whose judgement they do follow and approve; as for example in the place which you objected unto me to show that any wise man might advice the Priest, etc. diverse opinions of R. Ishmael, R. Akiba, R. jehuda & others being there set down in the text of the Thalmud, R. Schimean in his gloss thereon 
“ Comment. on Thal. Tractat. negaguim, c. 2.  saith in one section, vehaijnu R. Akiba, that is, we are of R. Akiba his mind: on an other section, abal roeh ani, etc. i but I respect that which is said of R. jehuda: so your Rambam or Maimony also in his gloss upon the same Chapter, saith in one section, vehalacah cachachamim, that is, the law or tradition is according to their Chacamim: upon an other section, vehalacah cerabbi jehuda, that is the tradition or right law is according to R. juda. And thus also they use to declare their judgements in other place: had you but showed the like care in your allegation of their traditions, your people should have had less cause to complain of your ambiguous expositions.    

CHAP. II.  

A Second scandal and a more unworthy thing is this; to allege the testimonies of such as are not only fabulous but also blasphemous writers, unless it were against themselves and such as rely upon them. 
h jam. 3.11.12.  Doth a fountain sand forth at one place both sweet water and bitter? Can a fig tree bring forth olives or a vine figs? Can those impious Rabbins that with a blasphemous mouth do curse the son of God, and pray daily against the Christians that are renewed after his similitude: Can these I say with the same mouth sand forth sweet & wholesome waters of instruction for the flock of Christ to drink at? why do you then lead Christians for spiritual information in the law of God, unto that swine-trough of the Thalmud? Even those infidels themselves do confess and yield that there are many things that disable diverse persons to bear witness & make them pesulim lehagned, unmeet and unworthy to be allowed for witnesses: R. jaakob that compiled Arba Turim, the 4. Tomes of Thalmudicall canons, sets down many of these causes, as namely 
“ Choshen hammisch pat, tractat. Eduth, signo. 33, 34. 35.  wickedness, enmity, blindness, deafness, etc. so that they being wicked enemies of the gospel and of true religion, blind and deaf that have shut their eyes & stopped their ears from hearing the word of the Lord by his prophets are therefore by their own sentence to be rejected from bearing any testimony in matters of religion.  
Now their blasphemies are many: To begin with Maimony, he saith of God and repeats it, that he is 
a Maim. in Misn. in jesudei hatthorah Cap. 2.  one of every side, & on every corner, and every way one. This he saith by way of opposition unto Christianisme, and so denies the holy trinity, and the godhead of Christ, teaching an unity of person as well as of essence: Thus where he professeth to describe the foundations of the law, he overthrows the foundation of our religion. The holy gospel containing the story of Christ, and called Evangelion of the good tidings which it declares, they do blasphemously slander, and 
b R. Nathan in Aruch in Aven gillaion & Elias Leu. in Tischbi, in gillaion.  call it Aven-gillaion, a vision of vanity or a volume of iniquity. There is no part of that sacred story concerning the birth, the life, the death, the doctrine and miracles of our blessed Lord jesus, but they have a multitude of blasphemies touching each of them, and so vile that I abhor to mention them. One impious rabbin in special in a certain treatise which he entitles Nizzachon, which he intends as a triumph over the gospel, hath been bolder than the rest to publish the the same, as is 
c Seb. M●…st. Annor. in Mat. 1.1. etc.  showed at large in the annotations upon the Hebrew edition of the gospel of Matthew: where they are in part refuted. All men know in general that they deny jesus the son of Mary, to be the Messiah and saviour of the world; and that herein the blaspheme they son of God as a deceiver and as a false Christ. And yet this they do with such vanity and contradiction among themselves, that all may see their madness therein: Some of them say that their Messiah is not yet borne, and others say he is borne but not revealed yet, because of their iniquities. Of them that say he is borne and come into the world, some say he is among the Lepers at Roomegates: and that 
d Talmud in Sanhedrin. c. 11. Fol. 98.  R. jehoschua been levi finding Elias at the gates of Paradise & inquiring for the Messiah, did by his direction find him among those Lepers, and asked him of the time when he would reveal himself. Others of them say, 
e Emunath Ichud. p. 44  that he is in Paradise (to wit, on earth,) being borne the same day that the second temple was destroyed, and that Elias must first anoint him for King, and that then he shall come, etc. Some of them say that there be two Christ's or Messiasses, one the son of joseph, an other the son of David, one poor, th'other more mighty: These two Messiasses the 
f Targum on Cant. 4.5.  Chalde paraphrast will have to be signified by the two young roes that feed among the lilies. And diverse of the Rabbins do in other places 
g Aben Ezra & R. Solomon comment. on Zach. 12.10.  note the same thing. Some 
h Thalmud Sanhedrin. c. 11. fol. 99  others of them say that King Hezekias was the Messiah, and that now there is no Messiah for Israel. And 
i Ibid. f. 94  R. Thanchom inquiring why Man is shut in the word Lemarbeh in the prophecy concerning Christ Esa. 9 whereas in other places it is open in the mids of words: he shows this to be the occasion: when as God sought to make Hezekias to be the Messiah, he saith that Sennacherib, Gog and Magog yea and the whole consistory or council of God came unto him and said, oh Lord of the world, seeing King David hath praised thee with so many songs why will't thou not make him Messiah rather than Hezekias for whom thou hast done wonders & yet he hath not sung one song unto thee: Hereupon he saith that immediately the Man in Lemarbe was shut up, viz. as a token that Hezekias should not be Christ: but then after this comes the earth itself and opens her mouth and saith O Lord of the world I will sing a hymn unto thee in stead of this righteous Hezekias, & so hereupon it was concluded that Hezekias should be the Messiah: Now the proof which the Thalmud brings to show that the earth did sing for Hezekias, is taken from Esa. 24.16. from the uttermost part of the earth we have heard praises, glory to the just, etc. Some of the Rabbins do reckon the years & make a computation of times when their Messiah shall come: & this with many and great absurdities & contradictions among themselves: Others of them seeing how often they have been deceyved do say the times are not to be reckoned: R. Samuel bar Nachman & R. jonathan do lay the curse upon such as presume to reckon the time of his coming, saying, 
k Thal. in Sanhedrin C. 11. f. 97.  Let their bones be broken that count the times.  
Whereas they 
l Seb. Mun. annot. in Mat.  blaspheme Christ jesus in respect of his age, living but three or four and thirty years, as though he was accursed like the wicked, of whom it is said he shall not live out half his days: see with what warrant & agreement among themselves they do this: R. Eliezer 
m Talmud in Sanhedrin c. 11. Fol. 99  saith that the days of Messiah shallbe 40. years, according to the years that they had seen evil, namely, according to the 40. years that they wandered in the wilderness, ps. 90.15. with ps. 95.10. & Deut. 8.2 R. Eleazar been Azaria saith that the years of Messiah must be 70. years according to the years of one King, Esa. 23.15. That one King they say is their Messiah. One Rab saith, he must live 3. generations, noted in Dor Dorim, signifying a generation and generations, which they reckon for three, ps. 71.5. R. Dosa saith that the days of Messiah must be 400. years, according to the years that they have seen evil, viz. according to the 400. years that Israel sojourned in Egypt, ps 90.15. with Gen. 15.13 An other Rabbi saith, that the years of the Messiah must be 365. according to the number of the days of the sun finishing his course in a year: this they gather from the year of the Lord mentioned in Esa. 61.2. R. Nachman bar Isaak saith that his years must be according to the days of Noah until this time Esa. 54.9. R, Ichudah and R. Samuel say that his days shallbe as long as from the creation of the world unto the time present from Deut. 11.21. Others of them say, that their Messiah must live seven thousand years: This they gather from the words of the Prophet, As a bridegroom is glad over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee, Esa. 62.5. Now the 
n En mishpat gloss. in Tal. ubi supra.  gloss upon the Talmud in that place shows us how to count 7000. out of that verse, by reckoning the 7. days of the bridegrooms marriage feast, and making each day to stand for a year, because a 1000 years with God is but as one day: and so those 7 days do note 7000. years, judg. 14.12.17. with Psal. 90.4. Whereas they blaspheme the name jesus given by the Angel unto our Lord, & turn it into a curse, by certain words according to the initial letters thereof: see what vain conjectures & collections they make for other names to be given unto him: 
o Talm. in Sanhedrin, Cap. 11. Fol. 98.  The Scholars of R. Shiloh say that the name of Messiah shallbe Shiloh from Gen. 49.10. & the scholars of R. jannai say his name shallbe jinnon from Ps. 72.17. The scholars of R. Chanina say his name shallbe Chanina which signifies grace from jer. 16.13. Others say his name shallbe Menachen or comforter from Lan. 1.16. But the name jesus they hold in execration: so that their blasphemies of his majesty may justly 'cause their testimony & judgement in expounding the mysteries of holy scriptures to be refused & not alleged by us.   

But you do not only allege them, but even their blasphemous sayings and testimonies also without any note of dislike: as for example, you 
% Annot. on Exo. 28.30.  tell us how the Bab. Thalmud in joma Cap. 1. Fol. 21. speaking of Hag. 1.8. where the Hebrew word Eccabda (I willbe glorified) wanteth the letter H, which in numbering signifieth five, saith, The want of H, showeth the want of five things in the second temple, which had been in the first, namely, 1. The ark, with the mercy-seat and Cherubims: 2. The fire (from heaven) 3. The majesty or divine presence:) 4. The holy Ghost: 5. And the urim & Thummim. This rabbinical observation is most impious, false and blasphemous: first, it serves to overthrew the whole new Testament, to deny Christ jesus, and to condemn all his holy Apostles, Evangelists, john Baptist and other excellent Saints and servants of God who lived under the second temple and worshipped God therein, as though they all had been deceyvers & none of them endued with the holy Ghost, which this Thalmud saith was wanting in the second temple. Secondly, this observation is directly contrary to the scope of that Prophet in his whole prophecy, and even to the meaning of the word Eccabda I will be glorified: The spirit intending to promise' 
i Hag. 1.8. with ch. 2. 4-10.  more full and excellent revelation of the glory and grace of God in this second temple rather than in the first, how abis it so to pervert the word of the Lord quite contrary to his meaning?  
But it is the less marvel that you should thus produce this testimony of the Talmud, when as so many learned men have alleged it before you: and especially that 
“ joan. Rainold. censura libror. apocryph. Tun. 2. praelect. 134.  worthy light of our Church, whose memorial is blessed, who disputing against the Papists touching the fire come down from heaven which in the second book of the Maccabees is said to have been reserved in a pit during the time of the captivity until the second temple was built, doth for their conviction allege this testimony, to show that that fire was wanting in the second temple, and therefore in a whole lecture throughout the same doth labour to procure credit unto this testimony. His main reason is, that howsoever the jewish writers do abound with many monstrous lies and fables, yet when they speak against themselves & the honour of their own nation, they are rather to be credited, & their testimony received. But touching this point we are to consider: 1. When adversaries of the truth bearing witness against themselves do not agreed in that testimony with themselves, then can we not safely receive their testimony, howsoever they may bring great shame upon themselves and may have their mouths stopped thereby. Now in this Thalmudicall testimony touching the want of the five things in the second temple, the Thalmudists do not agreed among themselves: for the Thalmud jerusalemy alleged by D. Rai. reckoned these 5 things to be wanting: 
// Tract. Maccoth, Cap. 2. Fol. 32. col. 1.  the fire: the ark: urim and Thummim: the anointing oil: the holy ghost: The Talmud Babylonique of which D. Rai. confesseth he could not come to the sight of it) leaves out the anointing oil and 
* In joma. c. 1. f. 21.  reckons up five or rather 7. other things: the ark, the mercy seat, the Cherubims, the fire, the divine presence, and urim & Thummim: R. David Kimchi 
“ Comment. in Hag. 1.8  speaking of the five things that should be wanting, doth neither reckon the anointing oil, nor the mercy-seat, nor the Cherubims: R. Solomon jarchi in his 
“ Comment. Ibid.  reckoning omits the anointing oil, the mercy seat, the Cherubims and the ark also: so that unless he count urim and Thummim for two, which none of the former did, he must come short of the number of five, Aben Ezra in his commentaries on the same place omits this mystery, & thinks it not meet to make any mention at all thereof. Again the Thalmud jerusalemy relates this matter from R. Samuel in the name of R: Acha (not Achar as is printed in the lecture above mentioned:) but the Babylonian Thalmud relates it from R. Samuel in the name of R. Aini. and therein disagrees also. And other differences there are betwixt them also, so that for this cause their credit is like the credit of those 
// Mark. 14 56.  disagreeing witnesses that rose up against Christ. 2. Those witnesses which so speak against themselves, that they do withal speak against the honour of Christ therein, are not to be credited: but the Rabbins in this place affirming the holy Ghost to be wanting in the second temple, do herein speak against Christ, and make him (that 
a Mat 3.16 joh. 3.34.  received the holy Ghost & 
b joh. 16.13.14. Act. 2.4.  communicated the same unto others more than ever before) to be inferior unto all the Prophets that went before. If this Thalmudicall testimony touching the want of these 5. things in the second temple were true, according to the meaning of the Rabbins, than could not jesus be the true Messiah. 3, It might easily be showed by an 100 instances, that these Rabbins do often speak falsely against the honour of their own nation, and against the worthiest men of God in their nation, to honour themselves with the invention of some Cabalistical conceit: though to the dishonour of Abraham, of jaakob, of Samuel, of David, Hezekias, Elisha, etc. Yet to magnify their own fictions, they tell many fabulous things touching the faults of these persons. And so to broach their curious & absurd conceit from Eccabda under show of a great mystery, it is no marvel, nor unusual thing if the devisers thereof should utter some things against the honour of their public estate, especially when those privileges which they take from the second temple, are given in the same place to the first temple, for the honour of their nation at that time. As for the antiquity of these Talmuds, and Rabboth that relate this testimony, it gives no more credit hereunto then unto the rest of their fables and impious traditions: And therefore is of no worth further than it receives confirmation from else where: or serves by way of supposition to convince such as rely upon the same.    

CHAP. III.  
THe third Scandal in the allegation of these Thalmudicall traditions, is in respect of the divine honour which the jews give unto them, holding that they are the very word of God, immediately delivered of God unto Moses in mount Sinai, when as he was 40. days and 40 nights in the mount with God. It is not enough for them to profess, teach and practise such fabulous, superstitious and blasphemous things, unless they obtrude them upon God, equalling them with the holy scriptures and preferring them before the writings of the Prophets. They tell us that there is a double la, thorah abschebicthab, a written law: thorah schebeal peh, a law in the mouth: which Moses did receive but not writ, only delivering it from mouth to mouth unto posterity: And this is their Thalmud. R. Aben Ezra in his preface to the commentaries which he written on the la calleth it the joy of their heart and the health of their bones, & saith there is no difference betwixt these two laws. R. Solomon jarchi 
“ Comment. on Deut. 4.14.  teacheth, that the ordinances and laws which the Lord commanded Moses to teach Israel Deut. 4.14. were this traditional law, thorah schebealpeh, the law delivered by mouth and not written: though now at last the jews have written the same. Maimony to show the dignity and excellency of these traditions, 
% In misneh, in tephil. col hasshanah.  allegeth that saying from Hab. 3.6, his ways are everlasting; but (saith he) read not, halicoth, ways: but halacoth traditions. And saith, whosoever teacheth those traditions let him be assured that he is a child of the world to come. That Targum or Chaldee paraphrast which you often allege, doth interpret those kisses of the mouth, Cant 1.1. to be the six parts of the Thalmud: and afterwards again most absurdly 
“ Thargum on Cant. 5.10.  speaks of the same, desiring to serve that God, which in the day being clothed with a rob white as snow studieth the 24. books of the Bible, and in the night season studieth the six parts of the Thalmud. And the Thargum jerusalemy expounds those words of jaakob in his blessing of juda, that his 
% on Gen. 49.12.  teeth should be white with milk, of such as are bakian bahalacah exercised in the tradition of the Thalmud. And further that they prefer their Thalmud before the holy scriptures, it appears by such sayings as are 
// Buxtorf. recens. operis Tal. p. 197.202.  noted to be ordinary among the Rabbins: namely, that the words of their wise men were more amiable and excellent than the words of the Prophets that the scripture or text of the Bible is to be compared unto water: the mischna, (which is one part of the Talmud) unto wine: & the Thalmud (or Gemara) unto Condite: that the law is like unto salt, the mischna like unto Pepper & the Thalmud like unto sweet spices. If this be so, it is no marvel that you do so sugar and spice your annotations with the traditions of these wise men. It is affirmed in the 
% In Babha metsia c. 2. Fol. 33  Thalmud, that to be exercised in the scriptures it is a virtue & no virtue, that is very small in comparison: to be exercised in the mischna, that is a virtue for which they receyve a reward: to be exercised in the Gemara, (which is an other part of the Thalmud) is a virtue, than which none is more excellent, R. Solomon expounding those words of Moses touching the submission unto the) judgement of the Priests and judges in Israel, that it was not to be declined from neither to the right hand nor to the left, doth hereupon reach that they are to be obeyed and followed, 
“ Comment. on Deut. 17.11.  when they say that the right hand is the left, or that the left hand is the right hand: and how much more when they say that the right hand is the right hand, and that the left hand is the left hand? Thus do they set men in the seat of God, and make vile flesh like unto the most high, yea and exalt them into a throne of dignity above him. In this regard it is more offensive to allege such counterfeit stuff as doth falsely bear the name of God, as if it were suggested by his divine and extraordinary inspiration. In the popish legends there are many feigned visions and mirackles recorded, and some of them devised only to persuade unto mercy and works of charity: yet do we justly abhor them and the use of them to any such end, because they are forged with the great abuse of God's name: for the Kingdom of God needs not to be upholden with any props or pillars borrowed from the Kingdom of Satan. He that being to bear witness of any matter, shall first be convicted of a lie touching the means of his knowledge, and touching the person from whom he pretends he heard that which he is to witness, even for this cause deserves to be condemned and to have his testimony rejected: And even so the Thalmudists being herein manifestly guilty of a notorious & blasphemously touching the means of their knowledge, while they pretend a divine revelation from God for all that they say, though he never delivered the same unto any: for this cause is their testimony also to be refused exceptit be against themselves. And for this cause also your boldness and your fault in frequent alleging of them, is the more inexcusable.   

CHAP. IU.  

A Fourth Scandal, is your forgery in the allegation of these Rabbins, and this in diverse kinds.  
First, in that you join with the jews in making diverse of their traditions to be part of the authentic word of God: and namely, in canonizing the diverse readings that are in the line and in the magine of the Masorites Bible: for example, in ●… not, ●… to himself: not betrothed her, and yet betrothed her to himself: of these you say, 
“ Annot. on Exo. 21 8.  Moses hearing it of God, did by his spirit, writ both. Before this time, I never heard of any Christian, that durst avouch so peremptorily, this presumptuous or rather blasphemous assertion, by which you make God like unto janus Bifrons the Idol with two faces, to look two diverse ways at once, in these diverse and contrary readings of the same text. Do you not remember what a fearful 
k Prov. 30.6. Rev. 22.18  curse is pronounced against those that add unto the book of God? why then do you bring these additions and maintain them, as the work of God's spirit? It is great sin to add unto the writings of men, and to put forth things in their name, whereof they are not authors: but much more to deal so with God. It is a point of treason against the King to counterfeit his hand, his seal, his coin: how much more to counterfeit the hand and writing of God, to coin new scripture, and to set the stamp of the Rabbins upon the coin of the Lord, by adding their traditions unto his word, and giving divine authority unto them? But it is the less marvel that you who err so strangely in discerning the Church of God, should also err in discerning the scriptures of God.  
You 
% Annot. Ibid.  pled, that the Hebrew hath both readings, the first in the line, the later in the margin: I answer. 1. There be many Hebrew Bibles: which do want these readings that you speak of: That ancient edition of the Hebrew Bible by Sebastian Munster hath them not: That great edition of the Hebrew by Plantine hath not these additions in the margin: The most excellent and diverse editions hereof by Rob. Stephanus both in 4ᵒ and in 16º, have them not. A new edition of Raphelengius hath them not. The late edition by R. Isaak Bar Shimeon hath them not: so that we may say with as good reason as you, that the Hebrew hath them not. 2. That masoretical Bible of Bomberg, that hath these diverse readings, hath also so many other traditional observations, in the margin thereof round about, that I think you willbe loath to afme them to be received from God & written by his spirit: & yet that masoretical bible which maintaineth these diverse readings delivers one sort of traditions as well as the other, and puts no difference betwixt them. 3. There are also sundry editions of the new Testament, which have diverse readings, one in the line, an other in the margin, yet can we not hence conclude that both these readings are received from God: and yet may we say of these as well as you do of the other, that the Greek hath both readings, etc. though only one of them were delivered by the spirit extraordinarily from God. And even so, Arias Montanus in his edition of the Hebrew Bible, though he have noted the diverse readings in the margin, yet not as if they were delivered by the spirit of God; but as 
“ In apparatu Bibl. praefat. ad lect. var.  faults grown by the calamity of times, the negligence and ignorance of scribes, or otherwise, etc.  
You allege further, that the writing differeth in the eye, (
* ●…  lo, not; and 
“ ●…  lo, to himself) but hath no difference in the ear: so Moses hearing it of God, did by his spirit, writ both. Answ. 1, how know you that there was no difference of sound in Moses his ear, when he heard those words whose letters do differ? want of a distinct sound, in words that signify distinct and several things is an imperfection of speech, and a defect in the language: but now the language spoken unto Moses being Hebrew which is the perfectest language: the Lord that spoke, speaking after a most perfect manner: and Moses that heard being prepared thereunto of God, after the most perfect manner that was needful for the receyving of that law; who is it now, that can justly affirm, that at this time distinct words had an indistinct & confused sound without any difference in the ear?  
2. Though the common rule of grammar at this day teach that those two 
“ Aleph, vau.  letters are quiescent or silent and not pronounced in the end of words, yet are there still some exceptions made by some, and the other 
“ He, jod.  two being of like nature for the pronunciation are by many learned men pronounced in like case in the end of words.  
Some writ that these quiescent letters as they are called, do cause a different pronunciation, in making the vowelles unto which they are joined to be drawn out with a longer sound and therefore are by them called 
a Val. Schind. Institut. Hebr. lib. 1. p. 12.  literaeflatus & protractionis. Others tell us that 
b joa. Drusius de recta lectione ling. Sanct. cap. 8.  Cholem hath six or seven different kinds of sounds according to the diversity of letters with which it is joined, and in particular what distinct and peculiar kind of sound it hath in lo, not: and how it differs from Cholem in other places. And if this be so, how can any man affirm that there was no difference in the ear betwixt lo, not, & lo, to himself, when Moses heard them of God?  
3. This your distinction of difference in the eye, and no difference in the ear seems to be very idle, and of no use to give any light unto the matter that you are speaking of: you can not pretend the like distinction to bring in some other of the diverse readings noted by the Masorites, seeing many of them do manifestly differ in the ear, as much or more than in the eye. To what purpose then serveth this distinction?  
4. If there be little or no difference of sound betwixt these words, this is the more against you: and helps to make it more apparent that these and the like diverse readings did arise from the error of the scribes that wrote out the copies of the Bible, which might easily be deceyved in those words, which by their sound were not distinguished from one an other. And thus also from the likeness of the figure in diverse letters, as in van & Iod, it is observed that 
c Io. Buxtorf. Thesaur. gram. lib. 1. c. 28  in writing of them one hath degenerated into the other. And if we look upon those seven classes or ranks, whereunto 
d Masoreth hammasoreth in Tabulis secundis, Orat. 1.  Elias Levita hath reduced these diverse readings, we may thereby plainly observe that they are all such, as through some similitude either in sound, in figure, or in signification or through transposition, conjunction, or division of the letters, or the like occasion the pen of the scribe might quickly slip and miss therein: for example to give instance in two like letters: he tells us that in 52 places of these diverse readings, jod is written in the beginning of a word, and the Masorites will have it be read vau: And on the contra in 56. places vau is written in the beginning of a word and they read it jod: Again in 70. places jod is written in the mids of a word and they read it & pronounce it as vau, etc. And hence as it seemeth, rabbinical superstition and curiosity meeting with these diverse readings have turned human slips and errors into sacred mysteries, & given divine authority unto the faults of men. As the Pope in his Calendar many times canonizeth them for Saints, who are the Children of Hell: so have the jews in their Masorah turned the errors of men into Canonical scriptute. Why do you follow them herein?   

FOr confirmation of your opinion, you produce witnesses, & say, The Hebrew Doctors (in Thalmud Bab. in Nedarim, Chap. 4 Fol. 37. B) say, The words read and not written, and written and not read, were the tradition of Moses from (mount) Sinai: that is, as the Hebrew Scholion on that place noteth, so Moses received in Sinai, & delivered to Israel. I answer,  
1. These witnesses being already convicted of falsehood, dotages and blasphemies are not to be admitted to speak in this controversy, their testimony is not to be received. This Thalmud which you allege, is that bed of slumber into which the Lord had 
l Esa. 29.10 Rom. 11.8  threatened to cast the jews: in this bed of error do your Hebrew Doctors lie snorting in the spirit of slumber: what mean you to waken them and call them up to come and tell us their dreams? You may as well allege their testimony, to make us believe that their Thalmudicall canons and constitutions, are from God as well as the holy scriptures, and that we are bound to exercise ourselves in them, rather than in the scriptures: for this they affirm as I showed before. And there is no tradition so impious or absurd, but the Thalmudists commend the same unto us, even with the same phrase, that is here used in this your allegation. At every turn they say, 
f Thalmud in Menachoth. c. 1. Fol. 29. Maimony in Tephillim, cap. 1. Sec. 3. R. Alphes in Tephillim, fol. 78. a. b, & 79. a. b, etc.  Halacah lemoshe missinai. i. a tradition of Moses from (mount) Sinai. With this cloak they array their superstitions, and with this false boasting they cell their rabbinical wares. How great is the scandal which you give unto the jews by this your dealing? how may they be encouraged to drink more deeply of that spiced cup of their Thalmud, when as they see the wine thereof to go down so pleasantly with you, by receiving their testimony and their traditions in so great a measure?  
2. If there were nothing else but the foolish traditions contained in this very Chapter unto which you sand us, touching Ben Modar with other vain observations; we might thereby be sufficiently warned not to receive the testimony of this Thalmud. R. josei bar Chanina 
g Thalm. in Nedarim, c. 4. F. 38. a  saith, The law was not given but unto Moses & to his seed, because it was said, writ thee & engrave for thee two tables of stone, but Moses having a good ey: of his liberality gave it to Israel. etc. R. jochanan srith in the same place, The holy blessed God doth not 'cause his schecinah or habitation to abide but upon a strong man, a rich man, a wise man & an humble man, & that all these were in Moses: that he was a strong man, because it is said, he spread the covering over the tabernacle, etc. Exo. 40.19. This same thing is also noted by 
h Comment. on Exo. 39 33.  R. Solomon from R. Tanchuma, that no man had the strength to do this thing but Moses alone, etc. That he was strong also, in that he could bear the two tables of stone in his hand, that he could break them, the length of them being six, the breadth six, and the thickness thirteen cubits, etc. That he was wise; that all the 50 gates of understanding were given unto Moses, one excepted; that they prove from ps. 8.5. That he was meek from Numb. 12.3. That he was rich from Numb. 16.15. So they writ of diverse others: as of jonah whom they prove to be rich, because he paid the fare of the ship: jon. 1.3. R. johanan saith it was the hire of the whole ship: R. Romanus saith it came to four thousand pieces of gold, etc. with a number of such like presumptions.  
3. There be also of the Rabbins themselves that reject this superstitious conceit of these diverse readings delivered unto Moses from mount Sinai. R. David Kimchi one of the learnedest and most judicious among them all, though he ascribe too much unto their Kabalah and tradition, yet 
i Kimchi Preface unto joshua.  he judgeth that these diverse writings and readings came from the dispersion of the jews, from the difference of copies written by diverse scribes: and that Ezra and the men of the great congregation (as they are called) in correcting the copies when they found difference, went according to their knowledge after the greatest number, and when they did not clearly understand some words, sometimes they wrote them and did not point them: sometimes they wrote one way in the margin, and did not writ so in the text, etc. And this is the judgement of other Rabbins also as of Ephodaeus, and Don Isaak Abarbinel or Abrabinael, that this diversity of writing and reading arose from hephsed, balbul & Saphek, that is, from corruption, confusion, doubting and uncertainty of scribes, etc. This is acknowledged by 
k Preface to Masorites Bible.  R. jacob been Chajim, who in vain labours to refute them. Had you but cleaved unto the sounder sort of Rabbins you should not have gone so far astray.  
4. It is worthy to be observed also, that the very same testimony alleged by you from the Thalmud, Nedar. c. 4 f. 37. is that main stone of offence, whereat the later Rabbins have stumbled and fallen into the pit of superstition, and therefore is it so often cited by them, viz. by 
l Preface ad Sepher mitsvoth gadol.  R. Moses mikkotsi: by 
m Preface ad Bibl. masorit.  R. jacob been Chajim: by 
n Masor hammasor. prefat. tertia.  Elias Levita, etc. Had you duly considered in what superstitious manner they use the same, and how it serves their turn, you would not so lightly have produced such witness.  
5. To come nearer unto this your testimony itself: if we consider the instances and examples of the words written and not read: and read and not written, which the 
o In Nedarim. c. 4. f. 37.  Thalmud propounds unto us as a tradition of Moses from mount Sinai: we may perceive that there is never a one of them taken from the law, from the five books of Moses, but all of them from later Prophets, from the books of Ruth, of Samuel, Kings, of jeremy and Ezekiel. If your witness had said that Moses had delivered the diverse writings and readings of his own books, there had been some more colour for it, but that Moses in mount Sinai should deliver the diverse writings and readings of Ezekiel and jeremy that prophesied so many generations after him: this is most senseless and absurd to imagine. Had not jeremy and Ezekiel the spirit of God to direct them in the writing of those particular words, as well as to set down the main matters of their prophecy which they foretold? And what need was there then of a tradition from Moses, for the writing or reading of them? And who can say that Moses foreknew these things? Though the Masorites have numbered unto us many diverse writings and readings out of the books of Moses, yet the Thalmud in your allegation mentions none of them, but such as are in the Prophets.  
6. Suppose all were true that the Thalmud and the gloss thereupon doth testify in this place: namely that these diverse readings were the tradition of Moses from mount Sinai, etc. yet would not this make good your assertion nor prove the same, when as you say that Moses by the spirit of God did writ both; The Thalmud here saith nothing of writing one word in the text, and an other in the margin. The Rabbins here speak only of receyving and delivering, but not of writing both. They 
p Elias Levita Masoreth hammasoreth, praefat. 3.  hold that their traditions were nor written by Moses, but delivered from mouth to mouth and afterwards written by Ezra and others, etc. Herein therefore you go further than your Thalmudicall testimony will extend, & pass the bounds of sobriety in this your assertion, more than many of the presumptuous Rabbins themselves.  
7. If it were true, as you pled, that Keri and Chethib, the diverse readings (as you call them) as not betrothed her and betrothed her to himself, were both written by Moses, by the spirit of God: then are they both holy and divine scripture: then do you herein declare yourself to be guilty of great sin, treachery and unfaithful dealing with the scriptures, in that you do leave out diverse parts of the same at your pleasure in your translation both of the psalms and of these two first books of Moses which you have already published: for though some of these diverse readings be noted by you in your annotations on Genesis, yet are many of them quite left out: as namely, in Gen. 8.17. and Gen. 10.19, and Gen. 25.23, and Gen. 27.3, and Gen. 33.4, and Gen. 36.5, etc. Again in your translation of Exodus you leave out very many also, as in Exo. 13.11 and Exo. 16.2. and Ibid. vers. 8, etc. And in your translation of the Psalms, though diverse be noted by you, yet are a great number left out, and passed by, as in Ps. 5.9, and Ps. 6 4, and Ps. 10.10. and Ps. 123.4, and Ps. 139.16. with a multitude more as may be seen in the Masorites Bible, only one of these readings are mentioned by you, and yet there is as much & the same warrant for both in each of these places, as there is for both those in Exo. 21,8, which you say were written by Moses. This being so, how great is your sacrilege that devour holy things, and steal away the word of God (so acknowledged by yourself) from the people of God. There is 
n Prov. 20.15.  gold and a multitude of precious stones, but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel: each jod and title of holy scripture written by the spirit of God, are in worth above all pearls, what mean you then with Achan to dig in the earth, to hide these wedges of gold in the ground and to bury them in your tent? Consider your estate: either you are under the curse for adding some of the readings unto the word of God, or else it hangs over your head for diminishing from the word of God, in taking away and concealing the rest, that are of like authority with the former. The Rabbins 
* R. Solomon jarchi on Gen. 17.5.  write that jod being taken away from the name Sarai contended with Schecinah, with God until satisfaction was made unto this Iod by adding it again unto the name of Hosea making it to be jehoshua: How much rather might many jods contend with you for taking them away from the holy scripture, if they be divine traditions as you say? The jews do also 
“ R. Sol on Gen. 2.7.  writ, the word jitser used to describe the forming of man, being written with two jods, Gen. 2.7. doth show unto us how man was form both for this world and for the world to come at the resurrection of the dead: but the word jitser used to describe the forming of beasts, Gen. 2.17. being in the Hebrew written with one Iod only, shows that the beasts are not form to stand up unto judgement in the world to come. If this be so, what a world of injury and wrong have you done, by omitting it so often? Yea seeing Christ himself telleth us, 
a Mat. 5.18.  that heaven and earth shall perish, rather than one jod or title of his law escape, etc. shall not heaven & earth be witness against you that do let so many of those jods and titles to escape and pass away in your translation, when as yet you confess that they were written by the spirit of God? why have you not translated the reading of the margin, & set it in the margin of your translation, as well as the reading of the text, if both be from the spirit of God? why have you not done it in other places, as well as in this place Exo. 21.8? But it may be that as in many things you honour the jewish expositions and opinions too much, that so you judaize in this also: that as they, so you think it not meet to reveal in writing many of your special mysteries and secrets unto them that are without, but deliver them from mouth to mouth unto your own people. Seeing the communion of all Churches in Christendom is according to your profession an unlawful and an unclean thing, it is the less marvel that you refuse to cast your pearls before such polluted persons whom you dare not touch nor join yourself unto them in the worship of God. Always these two things are evident and apparent in you, that as you make little conscience of the rules of your separation among yourselves, for then there would be yet more divisions among you then there are: so also you make little conscience of these diverse readings, which you say were written by Moses: for if you did reverence them according your own plea, you would not pass by so many of them in such manner as you do.  
8. Suppose that you would go about to set down all the diverse readings, how could you come to any certainty, to know which be they? In the place of the Thalmud quoted by you, there be not above twelve or thirteen mentioned: and this of lo, not: and lo, to himself is none of them▪ Where will you found those other hundreds of them? If you betake yourself unto the Masorites Bible, from whence many have taken them you may as well take a thousand superstitions more which by like warrant are there recorded unto us as divine traditions. Whereas you tell us here of the Hebrew scholion confirming the testimony of the Thalmud: had you looked well upon the same, you might further have seen this also, that the very same hebrew 
b R. Nissim gloss. in Talm. in Nedarim. c. 4. f. 37.  gloss doth there descent from the Thalmud, touching some of these diverse readings: Touching eth dehuggad (as they call it) in Ruth; though the Thalmud note it to be read and not written, yet the Hebrew scholion saith, In the books or copies which we have it is both written & read: neither is it mentioned in the Masorah among the words that are read and not written. Again, touching eth dehammitsvah (as they call it) though the Thalmud notes it among the words written and not read, yet R. Nissim in his 
c Ibidem. f. 38.  gloss hereupon doth show, that how soever some say this is found in the section of the law which they name ethchannan, yet it is not found there in any copies which they have, nor yet in the Masora, etc. R. jacob been Chajim 
d Praefat. ad Bibl. Masorit.  relates the same thing, and adds further a different opinion of R. Solomon jarchi about the same. And Elias Levita in the warning which he 
f Masor. hammas. praefat. 3.  gives concerning the Bible's printed at Venice both in greater and lesser volumes, anno 278 (according to the jews lesser computation,) saith that the masoretical traditions about the diverse readings there specified are full of error, that he which added them was unlearned, had no judgement touching diverse copies, that he put that in the text which should have been in the margin, and contra, etc. From whence then will you get a just and sufficient warrant of all these diverse readings, which you hold to be divine traditions written by the spirit of God?  
9 When you think that you have found out these diverse readings, & are resolved of the number of them: what will you do to find out the meaning of them? every word of God is for the edification of his Church: and 
g Prov. 8.9  they are all plain to them that will understand & strait to them that would find knowledge: God hath taught us how to 
h Neh. 8.8  expound the scripture by the scripture itself, by comparing one part thereof with an other. But where is the rule of interpretation, by which we may find out the mysteries of these diverse readings? for example, when Zeboim Gen. 10.19. go●im, Gen. 25.23. and joush, Gen. 36.5. are written in the text without vau and in the margin with vau: when the vowelles for the word Perath are written and not the letters, 2. Sam. 8.3. When the letters of the word jidroch are written and not the vowels, jerem. 51.3. by what found kind of interpretation can both these writings be so expounded that the consciences of God's people may rest therein, and be edified unto the Kingdom of God? If we go unto the jews Cabala, they will give us new and strange kind of expositions upon the want or change of a letter; because 
i R. Solomon jar. on Gen. 25 24. & on Gen. 38.27.  theomim the word that signifieth twins Gen. 25.24. is written in the text with defect of the letter which is in the margin, that is a sign that one of Rebekahs Children was just and the other wicked: but because the word theomim for twins is written full in the story of Thamar, Gen. 38.27. that was a sign that both her Children should be righteous. They expound 
k joan. Rainol. censur. lib. apocr. tom. 1. praelec. 27.  the want of Iod in the last syllable of Tanninim signifying the whales Gen. 1.21. to be a sign unto us how God gelded the male Leviathan to hinder the procreation of them lest they should devour all, etc. From the defect of vas in doroth Gen. 9.12. they teach that the Rainbow should not be seen in some generations, as I noted 
l Pag.  before: But what wise man is there that will not reject these vanities? And yet whether you or any other can draw any sounder observations from these changes of jod and van and such like diverse readings, it is much to be feared. If these were written by the spirit of God as you will have it, then must they be for our 
m Rom. 15.4  learning and instruction, for increase of our comfort and hope: but if you cannot show that there is a certain and sure way to gather necessary doctrine from them for our edification, then have we no reason to think with you that they are any part of the scriptures of God, or written by the spirit of God.  
10. In the last place, that all may see how dangerous a thing it is to regard the testimony of these Thalmudists, touching these diverse readings, I will propound unto the reader one other vile practice of them, viz. their all tikri in changing and altering the reading of the scripture according to their lust, which is done on this manner: They 
n Thalmud in Menachoth, c. 1. Fol. 29.  teach from those words in Esay, 26.4. bejah jehovah tsur ghnolamim, that God created two world's with the two letters of the word jah; with jod and hè: but being in doubt whether the world to come was created with jod and the world present with hè; or on the contrary: for help in this doubt they go to an other place of scripture Gen. 2.4. which they do thus corrupt: whereas it is there said in the text touching heaven and earth, behibbaream, when they were created: they say all tikri, read not, behibbaream, but behèbaream: that is, he created them with hè: and then also they give other reasons why the world to come should be created with jod, & this world with he; viz. because the righteous which belong to the world to come are little in their own eyes, and also bowed down, as the letter Iod in this form (●) is little & bowed also, etc. These collections, (beside the corruption of the text) are like unto the 
o De●…●inghe. Fol. 20. B.  collections of Thomas Lea●…ar once one of your separation, but now an Arian, who by his cabala from the letters & characters of the Hebrew Alphabet professeth to show us the course of the sun, the way to the Indieses, with other secrets of Astronomy. Again, they 
p Thalmud in Beracoth c. 9 Fol. 54.  writ that the stone which Og the King of Bashan sought to cast at the Israelites, was three miles long according to the length of their camp: that when he had lift this stone upon his head, God sent a pismire which made a hole in this stone, so that it fell down about his neck: and that while Og strove to get it from about his neck, his teeth presently grew out into such a length, that he could not lift up the stone nor deliver himself from it: for proof of this miracle, they allege the 
q Psal. 3.7  words of the psalmist, thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked: but withal they bring their all tikri, and say, read not schibbarta, thou hast broken: but scherababta, which signifies the quite contrary, to wit, thou hast increased or augmented, namely the teeth of Og, that the stone could not be got from his neck. R. Meir 
* Thalmud in Sotah, c. 7. f. 37.  saith, when Israel stood by the Sea, (Exo. 14.) the tribes did strive one with an other, one said I will go down first into the Sea: an other said I will descend first into the Sea; but the tribe of Benjamin leapt forth & went down first into the Sea; their proof there is from the words of the Psalm, There was little Benjamin, Rodem, their ruler: But say they, al-tikri, read not, rodem, but radiam he descended into the Sea. This proof is some thing like unto your own 
“ Annot. on Psal. 68 28.  exposition of this very word, when as you also from the corrupt Greek version, which translateth this word rodem to signify in a trance, do there tell us that these things applied to Christ's times and after one very mystical; from hence you show how Paul of Benjamin was converted in a trance or ecstasy, etc. that Benjamin the lest is here put first: so in the heavenly jerusalem the first foundation was a jasper, on which Benjamins name was graven, etc. Of this your revelation, ecstasy or fantasy more is to be said 
“ Cap. 7.  hereafter. This kind of corrupting the text is ordinary with them: some examples hereof I noted before out of the 
r Pag. 370.  Thalmud and 
s Pag.  Maimony; and an 100 more might easily be alleged to show the same. Elias Levita 
t Masor. hammasor. prefa. 3.  bringing an example or two hereof Esa. 54.13. & Psal. 50.23, where they say al-tikri, read not banajic thy Children: but bonaijc thy builders: read not same deres he that disposeth his way, but scham deres, there is the way: he giveth this judgement hereupon, viz. that if the pricks or vowels had been given before from Sinai, that then this should have been a heinous practice. And therefore seeing the vowels are so ancient 〈◊〉 and seeing also that they have presumed to make this change as well in letters as in pricks, as the examples first mentioned do show, it doth therefore follow from his grant, that this all tikri or changing of the reading hath been a heinous corruption of the scripture. And therefore howsoever otherwise, they have been superstitious in keeping a reckoning of all the words and letters in the scripture: and that God also hath used their superstition unto our good in some things: yet their boldness and licentiousness in these kind of depravations makes that their testimony about the reading of the scripture is not to be rested upon.   

But you bring yet more witness for the countenancing of your assertion, and say, 
u Annot. on Exo. 21.8.  The Chaldee version in this and other the like places, translateth according to the margin: an evident proof that these diverse readings were not added by the Maforites, as some think: seeing the Masorites were not so ancient.  
I answer▪ First, this testimony is against yourself: for if the Chaldee version in this and other the like places, translate according to the margin, and that only (as it doth) or else according to the text only: then doth it afford unto us, not both the diverse readings, but one only: and so is contrary to your translation that yields two. Had the Chaldee paraphrast thought, that Moses by the spirit of God, had written both these diverse, readings, (as you say he did) than it had been sacrilege in him to have suppressed and kept back one of them from us. This we see also in the Arabic version, which though it sometimes translate according to the readings which the Masorites have set in the margin, as in 1 Sam. 2.3. and sometimes according to the reading which is set within the line of the text, as in Psal. 100. ●, etc. yet still it hath b●t one reading, and must therefore be guilty of perfidy and treachery against the holy Ghost, if it had acknowledged two readings appointed of God. The like is to be observed also in the Persian Thargum, which still follows not a double reading, but keeps to one only, as in gardan oh, Gen. 33.3, & perasaue●, Deut. 33.9, & so in other places. And this also is that which is commonly practised in other vulgar translations used in the Churches of Christ this day, who are therefore witnesses against you in this matter, unless they will condemn themselves of unfaithfulness in keeping the scriptures.  
Secondly, though the Chaldee version do sometimes follow that reading which now stands in the margin: yet who can affirm that it stood in the margin of that copy which this paraphrast then used, rather than in the text itself? The Masorites though coming after the Chaldee paraphrast might find diverse copies of the scripture, differing one from an other: from these might they gather the diverse readings, and to writ some of them in the text, and some of them in the margin: even as many Printers of late, having gathered and noted diverse readings from such as were ancienter than themselves, do now add them to the margin of the new Testament. And therefore that which you call an evident proof of the Mascrites not adding them: is no proof at all. It is one thing to invent or device diverse reading; an other, together, compile and add them to the scriptures.  
Thirdly, suppose the Chaldee versions had followed & maintained both the diverse readings, & that they had placed the partly in the text & partly in the margin: yet is not their authority so great, that we might thereupon say with you, that Moses did by the spirit of God writ both. These Chaldee paraphrasts in their versions do insert many fabulous things, & often go astray in most gross manner: so that such weighty points are not to be built upon their credit. The 
x Onkelos Targum on Gen. 4.23.  first and ancient test of them, and freer from error then the rest, translates the words of Lamech quite contrary to the text: whereas the scripture makes Lamech to say, I have killed or would kill a man, etc. this paraphrast makes him to say, I have not killed a man: This his error is 
y Annot. on Gen. Ibid.  acknowledged by yourself: and herein I do agreed with you, for how soever 
z Animadv. contra Bellar. de verbo dei, lib. 2. Cap. 3.  junius saith, that the words in the Chaldee paraphrast are to be read interrogatively, have I not killed? that is, I have: according to the meaning of the Hebrew text: yet seeing the other words of the paraphrast which follow immediately in that place do not so fitly agreed with such an interrogation: I do therefore take the paraphrast his meaning to be according to the Rabbinical exposition of that story, which I noted 
a Pag.  before; viz. that he had not killed a man, presumptuously but by error not so that I should bear sin for him, or that my seed should be consumed for him: for so the paraphrast explaineth his meaning, and so R. Solomon 
b Comment. on Gen. 4.23.  would have Lamechs' meaning to be: though the scripture seems to teach an other thing. Again this paraphrast translating the story of the well which the Princes of Israel digged, doth quite pervert the text, and turns it into a fable, and saith that this 
c Onkelos Targum on Numb. 21.18.19.20.  well being given unto them from the wilderness, went with them down into the valleys, and ascended with them up unto the hills and high places, and followed them still, etc. Whereas it is said in the blessing of Gad, that there was a portion of the law giver hid: this he turns into an other fable, and saith, that 
d Onkelos Targum on Deut. 33 21.  Moses the great scribe of Israel was buried in the inheritance of Gad, which is directly contrary unto the scripture, which shows that Moses was 
e Deut. 34,6.  buried in the land of Moab, a place which none of the tribes possessed: and the tribe of Reuben was also situate betwixt this place and the tribe of Gad. From this paraphrast do other of the 
f Rasi on Deut. 33.21.  Rabbins borrow this fiction also. And a number of other errors and false translations might be showed in him. As for the other Chaldee Paraphrast, R. jonathan been uzziel whom the jews do so highly extol, he is yet more full of errors: They say of him, that 
g Thalmud in Succa, c. 2. Fol. 28. A  in the hour that he used to fit and study the law, every bird that flew over him was presently burnt: And the gloss thereon doth give this reason, that the words of the law did then rejoice, as when they were given at Sinai, where the law was given with fire. And to make the matter the more credible, 
h En mishpat, ibidem  there are brought the like examples of R. Eliezer, and R. jehoshua compassed with flames of fire round about them. The other 
i Ibidem.  gloss upon the Thalmud, giving a reason why the birds were burnt, saith that the ministering Angels were about him, and gathered themselves unto him to hear the words of the law from his mouth. These words of the paraphrast his mouth are such, that even the fabulous Papists themselves, do justly reject many of them: & therefore some of these instances which I bring, are not to be found in the King of Spain his great Bible printed by Plantine, but in the Masorites Bible: This I thought good to advertise the reader of, lest any should be deceyved in seeking them there, where they are left out and omitted. Touching the army of Sisera, this paraphrast faith, 
k R. jonathan been uzziel Targum on judg. 5.8.  that he came up with 40000. heads or cheeftaines of his camp: 
l On vers. 5  with 50000. men armed with swords: with 60000. armed with spears: with 70000. armed with targets: with 80000. shooters of stones or bolts: beside the 900. charets of iron, etc. And there he tells us of commotion & contention betwixt the mountains, Tabor, Hermon, & Carmel each of them persuading themselves that the Majesty of God should abide upon them and be revealed unto them: and how mount Sinai being a little and weak mountain the glory of God was revealed upon it, etc. Upon the song of Hannah he saith, 
m Targum on 1. Sam. 2.1.2, etc.  that she was endued with the spirit of prophecy, and how in particular she prophesied of her Son Samuel and diverse wonders to be wrought by him: of Heman her sons son who with his 14. sons should sing praise with viols and haps in the sanctuary of the Lord: of Sennacherib, of Nabuchadnezzar: of the Kingdom of Graecia, of the sons of Haman; of Room, etc. Touching Goliath the giant of Gath he 
n Targum on 1. Sam. 17.8.  bringeth diverse fictions, how it should be he that slew the two sons of Eli, that took the ark, etc. Touching Solomon, he 
o Targ. on 1. Kin. 4.33.  feigneth, that he prophesied of the kings of the house of David, which should bear rule in this world and in the world to come, (the world) of the Messiah. Touching the army of Sennacherib, he saith, that 
p Targum on Esay, 10 32.  he brought with him forty thousand guspanin or charets or coaches of gold for the Princes clothed with robes to sit in: that he brought with him two hundred thousand armed with swords and spears: and two hundred and sixty thousand shooters of stones: and an hundred thousand valiant man to run before him: that the length of his camp was four hundred miles: that his horse-quarter was forty miles: that the number of his host was two hundred and sixty thousand millions wanting one: that so they came up against Abraham when they cast him into the mids of the fiery furnace: and that so they shall come up when Gog and Magog come, etc. Touching the vision of the 4 creatures showed unto Ezekiel, whereas the scripture mentioneth only four faces, which each of these creatures had: this Chaldee paraphrast 
q Targum on Ezek. 1.6,  adds further that each of them had sixteen faces, and that so the number of faces unto these 4. creatures were in all sixty four faces: Whereas the scripture mentions only four wings unto each creature, this paraphrast adds furthet by a strange kind of reckoning, that there were sixteen wings to every one of the faces: & that the number of the wings of the four creatures were two hundred fifty & six wings, etc. And in many other places doth this paraphrast pervert the prophecies concerning Christ, and misinterpret the scriptures quite besides the meaning of the holy spirit. When this paraphrast had thus translated the first and latter Prophets, the jews say 
r Thalmud in Megillah Cap. 1.  that there was an earthquake, and that the earth was moved for the space of 400. miles: that there came a voice, (a bathkol) saying, who is this that reveals my secret to the sons of men? And after that an other voice, Let it suffice thee: it is enough, and they give the reason why this jonathan might proceed no further in his paraphrase with the other books of the old testament, lest he should reveal the time of Messiah his coming noted in Daniel: But after him rises up a third chaldee paraphrast, R. joseph the blind, as he is commonly called, even that blind guide whom you do so often and so abundantly allege in your annotations on the psalms. And this paraphrast is full of Thalmudique fables, and wresteth and profaneth the holy scriptures to confirm those fables: as for example, the 
s R. joseph Caecus, Targum on Ps. 50.10.  fable of Behemoth before noted, which daily devours the grass of a thousand mountains: the 
t Ibid. on vers. 11.  fable of Tarnegol, the wild cock whose feet rest upon the earth, and his head toucheth the heaven, and there crows or sings before God: the 
u On Ps. 69 31.  fable of that fat Ox which Adam offered having horns before hooves: the 
w On Psal. 104.26.  fable of Leviathan reserved for the sport and play at the banquet of the righteous at the coming of Messiah: In Psal. 57.3. this paraphrast saith that God commanded a spider to make a web in the mouth of the cave for David's defence. In ps. 78.49. he adds unto the text, that God laid two hundred & fifty strokes upon them in his great anger, by the hand of wicked devilles. In Ps. 137.4. he saith that the Levites bit of their thumbs with their teeth, when those that led them captives required songs of them. And the whole psalm is turned into a dialogue: and the words of the psalm are attributed to five sorts of persons: some to the Babylonians; some to the jews, some to a voice of the holy Ghost some to the Angel Micael called the Prince of jerusalem: some to the Angel Gabriel called there the Prince of Zion. And Micael is said to pray against Edom: and Gabriel is feigned to pronounce a blessing upon them that destroy the Babylonians. Touching job he feigneth that his 
x Targum on job. 1.3.  substance was far greater than the text showeth he putteth 
y On v. 15.  Lilith queen of Zemargad for the shabeans: he 
z On job 2 9  feigneth Dinah to be the wife of job: he tells a miraculous wonder touching the three friends of job, noted before. He alludes unto the 
a On job. 3 7. & 38.36 & 39.16.  fables of the cock: and a number of other fictions he hath in that book. As for the paraphrase on Pster, it is full of vain and presumptuous fictions: as, that 
b Targum on Ester. 1.  a decree was made concerning Vashti that she should be slain naked, because of her counsel to hinder the building of the temple: that King Ahasuerus sought to sit on the throne of Solomon which was brought from jerusalem by Shesbak King of Egypt; and from thence was taken by Sennacherib and from thence returned to jerusalem in the days of Hezekias: & from thence was brought again to Egypt by Pharaoh: and from thence to Babel by Nebuchadnezar: and from thence to Elam by Cyrus: and that now Ahasucrus sought to sit upon this throne, but could not, that he sent for workmen from Alexandria to make an other like unto this, and that they could not: but made an other worse than it in two years space, and that in the third year Ahasucrus did sit upon it: that with the six hundred & fourscore brazen Chests full of gold and pearl found by Cyrus in a haven of Euphrates he made that feast for a hundred and fourscore days: that in his second feast he appointed them to drink in the golden Vessels of the sanctuary brought from jerusalem by the wicked Nabuchadnezzar, and that the other vessels of the King did change their shape before the vessels of the sanctuary: that Mordecai abstained from that feast and prayed & fasted until the seventh day; that the King sent for vashtis to come naked before the people to show her beauty that this was, because she had made the daughters of Israel naked, and so to card wool & flax upon the Sabath day: and a multitude of such like presumptions and pervertings of the holy text are there to be seen throughout that whole story from the beginning to the end thereof. In Ruth likewise the Chaldee paraphrast telleth us of ten famines: of which 
c Targum on Ruth, 1.  one was in the days of Adam, an other in the days of Lamech, etc. he saith that Ruth was the daughter Eglon King of Moab: that Boaz 
d On Ruth 2.  said unto her at the first finding of her in his field, that it was told him by prophecy that Kings & Prophets should come of her: that when Boaz measured unto her 
e On c. 3.15.  fix measures of barley, she obtaining strength from God to carry the same, did then forth with prophecy that six righteous persons should proceed from her, whereof every one should be blessed with six blessings, to wit, David, Daniel, and his companions, and the King Messiah: And 
f Isaak been Arama on Ruth, 3.15  other of the Rabbins say, that those six blessings were the gift of the spirit mentioned with six names or attributes in Esay. 11.2. But they differ about the persons, some reckoning Hezekias and josias among those six. Sundry other such things doth this paraphrast there record. In the paraphrase upon the Lamentations it is said, that 
g Targum on Lam. 5.5.  when the wicked Nabuchadnezzar saw some of the captived Princes of the Children of Israel, to go empty without burden, he commanded them to sow the books of the law together, to make sacks of them, to fill them with gravel from the shore of Euphrates, and then to lay them upon their necks; that then there was no rest unto their eyes. As for the Chaldee paraphrase on the Canticles so often alleged by you, it is all over in every Chapter replenished with Thalmudique fictions: And what worth is there then in these witnesses, if they had given testimony unto those diverse readings that you maintain? If their translations according to the margin or line be of authority, you may thereby bring the rabbinical fables into the text and prove them to be divine scripture, written by the spirit of God, as well as you may justify lo, not; and lo, to himself.   

YOu add yet further in the 
// Annot. on Exo. 21.8.  same place: that the Greek copies here vary, some having, hath betrothed her to him, other some, hath not betrothed: and so Theodotio and symmachus also translated, hath not betrothed. Answer.  
1. Howsoever they translate this place in the Greek with much variety: yet this is to be observed that none of the several translations do commend unto us a double reading, as your translation doth: each of them shows unto us but one only reading: and therefore the example of every one of them testifieth against you. Had the Greek translators imagined that the double readings were a divine tradition delivered unto Moses at mount Sinai, it had been great impiety in them to have suppressed the same: This had been to have clipped the Lords coin by paring away so many parts of his holy word.  
2: As for these Greek translations of the old Testament, had they been more direct for your purpose, yet should their testimony have little helped you in this matter; Their credit is very small, in respect of the innumerable errors, falsifications and corruptions of the holy text whereof they are most apparently guilty. You say indeed touching the Greek and Chaldee versions, that they are, 
“ Preface to annot. on Gen.  both, of great authority, especially the Greek, honoured even by the Apostles in their so often following not only the words but even the theological exposition. And for the declaration of this, you produce diverse examples, comparing the Greek version with the new Testament in Esa. 11.10. with Rom. 15.12. In Prov. 3.34. with jam. 4.6. In Prov. 11.31, with 1 Pet. 4.18. In Esa 42.4. with Mat. 12.21. with sundry others And else where also you 
“ Preface to annot. on Psalms  writ to the same purpose I answer.  
First, for the translation of the 72. interpreters in the days of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus: it is uncertain whether they translated any more than the five books of Moses: for the testimony of ancient writers varieth much about this matter: And josephus witnesseth, that Ptolemee had not the whole scripture, but the 
% Antiq. jud. proaen. lib. 1. c. 1.  law only from these interpreters: and allegeth this as a reason, why he undertook a more full declaration of the jews story. And this reason of his, is against their opinion also, who imagine that the rest of the scriptures were translated by other 72. interpreters in the days of Herod and the last Ptolemee for if the whole story of the old Testament had been by such a famous translation of other Septuagints turned into Greek & published unto the world, then could not josephus have alleged this reason as a special cause of his enterprise. And then if this testimony of josephus be true, the most of those instances which in both your forenamed prefaces you bring to countenance this translation of the Septuagint as being approved in the new Testament, are quite beside the matter; because the most of these your instances are taken not from the law, but from other parts of scripture, which according to the testimony of josephus were not translated by the septuagint.  
Secondly, the translation of the septuagint whether it was of the law only, or of the whole scripture of the old Testament, is much to be suspected as an unfaithful and maimed work even from the first beginning thereof: seeing diverse 
// Hieron. prefat. in Pentateuch.  witnesses do record unto us of them, that they did purposely add, altar detract and change many things in their Greek translation otherwise then they were in the original Hebrew text. The honour that many give unto these interpreters is far too great, 
“ August. de civitate Dei lib. 18. Cap. 43.  affirming even their aberrations and contrarieties to the text, to be written by the direction of a divine and prophetical spirit: and tell us also of 
“ Epiphan. de mensuris & ponderibus.  miraculous things touching this translation, and this both with contradiction to themselves and apparent contrariety to the truth.  
The jews themselves confess that this translation of the law hath been a burden upon their consciences; for which they do repent unto this day R. jaakob describing the diverse fasts which they observe, each month in the year, saith that they fast 
a Arba Turim, lib. Orach chajim. in in Taanith, or treat. of fasting, fig. 580.  in the eight day of the month Tebeth, because then the law was written in Greek in the days of king Ptolaemeus and that there was darkness in the world for three days. This their practice is suitable to their ancient envy against the gentiles, 1. Thess. 2.16. Act. 22.21.22. And being so affected, it is the less marvel, if they sought to hide or change diverse things in their translation.  
Thirdly, that ancient translation of the septuagints doth not appear at this day. Some think we have only some fragments thereof: and others think it to be quite lost. Touching these opinions, D. Whitaker 
b De sacra scriptura. contr. 1. quaest. 2. Cap. 3.  saith Verior illorum sententia videtur, qui versionem illam omnino perijsse existimant. He approves their judgement most, that hold it altogether lost. And again in the same place, after many corruptions noted in it, he saith we may thence conclude that either we have not this translation of the 70 elders; or else that it is so infinitely and filthily corrupted, that it is now of very small authority.  
Fourthly, as for that Greek translation which is extant at this day, going under the name of the septuagint, & which you honour so much and allege so often, it appears evidently to be a most corrupt thing, full offorgeries, and swarming with errors over all from the beginning to the end of it. All good writers at this day do generally upon occasion witness so much. In special there is one 
“ Engelbertus Engels in proaem. pentaglott. val. Schind.  learned man who hath taken pains to set down some general heads & as it were standards under which those troops and legions of error and falsifications might be in some part reduced and marshaled. Divers examples he shows of several kinds, and yet unto each kind more instances might be added: yea and more general heads of such errors be described also. Many witness that it was corrupt of old: but for this time present, the corruptions are unspeakable and without number: and more also then the corruptions of Onkelos and jonathan the Chaldee paraphrasts, & therefore also of less authority though you in your comparison affirm the contrary.  
Fiftly, as the errors of this Greek translation are for number many: so are they for the nature of them very great. Some of them do directly contradict the text as in Ps. 105.2.8. Gen. 26.32. in the first place affirming what the scripture denies, & in the later denying that which God affirms in his word. They impugn the truth of the holy story, in describing the years of sundry patriarchs, especially by giving so many years unto Methuschelah as if he had lived 14. years after the flood, Gen. 5. In stead of 40. they put 3 days, jon. 3. That most absurd fable of the jews touching the play with Leviathan is countenaced by this translation of the septuagint Ps. 104.26. The most impious error of the Arrians denying the eternal godhead of Christ, doth also receive strength from this corrupt version, whiles they translate Prov. 8.22. he hath created me in the beginning of his ways: in stead of he hath possessed me, as though Christ were but a mere creature. In respect of these forgeries, it is most untrue which you say, of this Greek translation, with the Chaldee: that they are both, of great authority. The Chaldee Paraphrast translateth that place of the Proverbs as the Greek hath it.  
Sixthly, whereas you say, that the Apostles do so often follow not only the words, but even the Theological exposition of these interpreters; this is also an uncertain and unwarrantable assertion for all the examples that you allege who is it that can certainly prove into us that the Apostles followed the septuagint & that those corrupted Greek versions of the old Yestament were not rather corrected according to the allegations of the Apostles in the new;  this translation is generally supposed to be a patchery out of many; what hinders but that the correctors of the septuagint, in later editions, might follow the words of the Apostles, & that so by this means, that agreement of expositions words and phrases which is betwixt them in some place might arise?  
Sevently, suppose the Apostles in their Greek writings did use the version of the septuagint, in some allegations as being then best known there being few or none other translations at that time, it doth not follow hence that it should therefore be honoured above others in these times, when as there is not the like occasion of writing in Greek; when as there are many other translations extant more fit for use, and far freer from corruption.  
Eighthly, as for the translations of Symmachus & Theodotio, they being both of them heretics and enemies of Christ, and one of them also an Apostate from Christianity to judaisme, yea & since that time also their translations being exceedingly corrupted, it skills not much, whether the margin or the line, or both be followed and observed in the fragments of their Greek versions. Their credit is far too weak to procure divine authority unto both the diverse readings which are in the Masorites Bible, yea though they had plainly avouched the same, which yet is not showed out of them: even by your own instance of their translation, they followed but one reading only, and therefore their example, if it be aught worth, is against yourself, who deliver two unto us, and those both as from the Lord.   

ANother spice of this transgression is, that 
* Annot. on Gen. 23.2 & 33.4. & on 34.31. etc.  you propound unto us for grounds of instruction, to be observed & meditated upon, such traditions of the Masorites as are not manifested to be from God, no more than those diverse readings before spoken of: as namely the great and little letters in the mids of words and sentences; the extraordinary pricks that are set over some words, etc. Touching these we may observe;  
First, that they have no other ground then the Kabala or tradition of the Masorites: These and other such like traditions they hold to be the strength of the law and of divine warrant, and commended unto us by the holy Ghost: Elias Levita in his explication of the masora or tradition sings on this manner: 
// Masoreth hammasoreth, in his rhythmical preface.  vahalo hammasorah, high sig lethorah: Is not the masora, the hedge of the law? And to this purpose after his own song, he allegeth the song of songs, Cant. 3.7.8. with the opinion of the Rabbins, touching those 60. strong men which are round about Solomon's bed, the valiant men of Israel, all handling the sword, expert in war, every one having his sword upon his thigh for the fear by night: these saith he are the tradition or masoreth, 
“ Ibid. prefat. tertia.  and their signs, lest the law should be forgotten in the captivity. R. Solomon in his commentaries on the same scripture teacheth the same. But note the uncertainty & vanity of them, even from their own vain and perverted expositions: The Chaldee paraphrast upon the same place expoundeth those 60. strong men, to be the Priests spreading out their hands, standing upon their pulpits, & blessing the people, the house of Israel with the 60. letters delivered unto Moses their master, etc. By those 60. letters (as I take it) they mean that form of blessing prescribed, Numb. 6.24.25.26. for by the reckoning I find that in it there are just 60. letters, contained in those 3. verses. Aben Ezra in his comment on Cant. 3. expounds those 60. strong men to be the 60. myriads or six hundred thousand that entered into the Land.  
Secondly, whereas on Gen. 33.4. you say. Therefore the word kissed is extraordinarily noted in the Hebrew with three pricks over it, as leading the reader to observe well this matter: let us see what extraordinary mysteries your jew doctors will teach us from hence: It is 
“ joan. Buxt. Thesaur gram. Cap. 5. ex jalkut.  showed us out of their records thus, Rabbi Iann●… said the pricking doth show that Esau sought not 
a Lenasscheko.  to kiss jaakob, but 
b Lenasschec●o.  to bite him: and his neck became marble, so that the teeth of that wicked one were set on edge. Therefore also it followeth, And they wept to wit, one for his neck, th'other for his teeth. R. Solomon in his commentaries on that place notes further the difference of the Rabbins touching this matter.  
Thirdly, whereas upon the word harlot in Gen. 34,31, you say: In the Hebrew Zonah, the first letter is extraordinarily great, for some hidden meaning, What if it be, to signify the stout and big words of these young men to their father? So a little letter is used before in Gen. 23.2. to signify moderation without excess in Abraham's weeping. Your conjecture for Zonah hath some colour, though a trifling vanity and without ground, but your assertion to countenance the same from the little letter in Gen. 23. to signify moderation is a very unreasonable and absurd speculation. For what colour of reason is there, that a moderate sorrow should be signified by an immoderately little letter, that an ordinate affection should be represented by an inordinate extraordinary token? if the big letter in Zonah note the fault of the excessive stout and big words in the young men to their father: why should not the letter in BAcAH, Wept, wanting the due proportion and measure with the rest, as well note a defect and fault of the too little sorrow in Abraham? The comparing of these two examples so unequally opposed and mismatched together doth justly reprove and refute your collection from the same.  
Fourthly, whereas you pleaded 
c Pag. 46  before, that the separation of Mr. Cluse your elder from the French church, was lawful, because of their preaching from human apocryphal catechisms; even by the like reason may you see that your ministry also is to be forsaken and left, if you preach in your congregation, and expound the scriptures in such manner as you do here. For what are these extraordinary pricks, that you speak of: these forms of great and little letters in the mids of words and sentences, but human apocryphal devises of Rabbins and Thalmudiques? what divine warrant have you for them, and for your expounding of them and of Keri & cethib, both together in one place? It is ten times more lawful to expound the principles of Christian religion in Catechisms according to the manner of the French Churches, then to expound these jewish fables and toys in such manner as you do. These jewish devises are 
d 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.13.  expressly condemned by the holy Ghost: th'other not so.  
Fiftly, if the Lord by the finger of his spirit do direct us to take special observation of those extraordinary pricks that you tell us of in Gen. 33.4. to the end that we might search out some hidden meaning therein: then are you again guilty of great perfidy and unfaithfulness, which in your translation and annotations also in other places do pass them over and conceal those parts of the scripture, where divine warnings of meditation are propounded unto us. For whereas there are fifteen words noted by the scribes and by some printers to have such pricks over their heads: five of them are by you already wrapped up in darkness and passed over in silence, namely in Gen. 16.5. & 18.9. and 19.33, and 37.12. & Psal. 27.13. In each of these places, are these pricks to be seen, which you omit with out giving any warning of them. So do you also pass by the little letter in 
“ Annot. on Gen. 2 4.  behibbarcam: the great letter in 
* Annot. on Psal. 80.13. & vers. 15.  Cannah, and the suspended letter lifted up in the word jagnar, etc. These being of like regard by the tradition of the Masorites, aught in like manner to have been noted by you: and suppose you could not have showed the reason of them in these places, yet should you at lest have given warning of them unto your readers and have left them to their consideration. In like manner do you also pass by the crowns of the special letters which are so often noted therewith in the la, of which it is said by R. judah, that 
“ Thalmud in Menachoth cap. 3. Fol. 29.  Moses on a certain time ascending on high, he found the holy blessed God binding crowns upon the letters; to wit, three for each of the seven letters contained in the word schagnatnazgats, as was noted 
“ Pag. 294  before. In the same place of the Thalmud it is recorded how the Lord foretold unto Moses, that after certain generations there should come a man even Akibah been joseph by name, who should expound unto us all those crowns, pricks and titles of the letters: that the Lord also at Moses request did show that man unto him: and that Moses in admiration of him did say, O Lord of the world hast thou such a man as this, and dost thou deliver thy law by mine hand? etc. Now R. Akiba being come: and you being so familiar with these Talmudists, is it not wonder that you have nothing to say for our instruction, touching these crowns and mitres, especially there being the same Talmudique warrant to prove that they are divine, holy & from God, as there is to prove Keri and cethib, the diverse readings to be both written by the spirit of God? When the Lord showed the pattern of the tabernacle and instruments thereof unto Moses, he commanded him to make 
e Exod. 25 11.24.25. & 30.3.  limbs or crowns of gold for the ark, the table and altar of incense: & it had been great unfaithfulness in Moses to have neglected the same. Now the frame of the holy scriptures is as precious and excellent as was the form of the tabernacle: if therefore those pricks over special words belong unto them of right as their crowns, then is your unfaithfulness in the house of God, great in your omitting of them.  
And as for the jew doctors, they plot with these pricks a Crown of thorns for the head of the Lord directly contrary unto the letter and sense of the scripture: as in Gen. 19.33. where it is said of Lot touching his eldest daughter, that he perceyved not, neither when she lay down, nor when she rose up: because of the prick that crowneth the word rose, 
% Thalmud de nazir. cap. 4. P. 23.  they gather and teach that though he perceyved her not when she lay down, yet he percewed her when she rose up. Where it is said in Gen. 37.12. they went to feed the flock, etc. because of the prick over the word the, R. Solomon 
“ Comment. on these places.  gathers that they went not but to feed themselves. In Numb. 3.39. because of the crown, of pricks over the word Aaron, R. Sol. gathers that Aaron was not in the number of the Levites. In Deut. 29.29. because of the pricks over the words, to us and to our Children the same rabbin teacheth that Israel was not urged to do the things revealed until they had passed over Iorden & taken upon them the oath in mount Gerizim, etc.   

ANother curiosity of much like nature with the former is, when according to the manner of the Cabalists, you draw observations to illustrate your doctrine from the transposed letters of the scripture. As for example concerning Er and Noah you 
“ Annot. on Gen. 38.7.  say thus: The letters in Hebrew of this word evil, and of his name Er, are the same, the order only changed: the like whereof is before in noah's name and Grace, Gen. 6.8. I answer, 1. The letters of the scripture being thus transposed by men, are no scripture nor ground of instruction; if the order be only changed, it is enough to change the whole sense: if accidentally it come to pass in one or two words, that there is an agreement of sense, yet in hundreds it falls out otherwise: and therefore there is no found collections or annotations to be made from such a forged order of transposed letters. 2, though the Hebrew letters that signify Evil, be the same with Er his name, yet the vowels differ, and they also make the signification different: 3, suitable unto this curiosity, is that presumptuous assertion which in your annotations on the same verse you make by occasion of this Er and his evil, in that you say, as our Lord Christ was to come of judas, Heb. 7.14. so God would have no wicked man to be his progenitor. For where hath God revealed this unto you, which you do so peremptorily affirm? or why do you presume above that which is written? The son of God hath abased himself for us in wonderful manner, and in many degrees; in that he was made man; suppose man had been without sin: in that he took upon him our nature, even after the fall, after that our nature was abased and dishonoured with sin: in that he refused not to come of such parents, as were stained with notorious adulteries, as David & Bathsheba: in that he refused not to descend unto us through the loins & womb of incestnous parents, and even at the act of incest, at the same time and instant, as in judah & Thamar begetting Pharez: in that he came of wicked parents before their effectual conversion, as 
// Josh. 24 2. with Gen. 11. with Gen. 12.  of Terah begetting Abram, before God called him. And further, how know you that none of Christ's progenitors from Arpacshad to Terah, from Nathan to Salathiel: from Salathiel to jesus in so many generations, were wicked men? why dare you speak so boldly, where the scripture is silent? As it is sin to remove the ancient bounds, so is it also a sinful presumption to set down such bounds and limits of Christ's humiliation as God hath not described unto us in his word. Besides, is there not as much reason to say that God would have no wicked woman from Evah to Marie to be the mother of Christ, as that no wicked man should be his progenitor? And if this may be affirmed in honour of Christ's kindred, why may it not as well be extended unto others that were in the same loins with him: and where shall the stay be? if modesty and sobriety stay us not, there willbe no end of forging and presuming above the scriptures.   

OF this sort also is that kind of observation which you commend unto us when as you note the word sleep, to signify, quiet sleep without cark and sorrow: And for proof to confirm the same, you add: 
a Annot. on Psal. 127.2.  Therefore also the Hebrew word Shena is written with, a quiet dumm letter, (otherwise then usual) to denote the more quietness. Answ. 1. The Masorites indeed both in Masora magna, & parva do set their mark upon this word, for a memorial of their tradition concerning the same: Elias Levita also in his explication of the Masora doth 
b Masoreth hammasoreth in Tabulis primis: Orat. 9  mention this word Shena, but he doth withal in the same place note many other words of like nature and observation, viz. 22 words wherein Aleph is quiescent or deficient in the mids or in the end of them: and 17 others which they call maphkin Aleph: All these vary from the common and usual manner; and do yield the like ground and warrant for instructions to be gathered from them, as doth the word Shena in Psal. 127.2. Yea and not these only, but all the other forms of words, full, defective, changed, etc. which he hath noted in that treatise. Elias Levita there alluding to the tables of the law, in his first tables hath 10 words or sections: and in his second tables 10. other sections describing those words from whence the masoretical mysteries are collected. And if any sound collections are to be drawn from such grounds than are you to blame which pass by such words without giving your readers any warning thereof: If your annotations on this place, ps. 127. be just, then are they defective in other the like places as in Ps. 94.5. Gen. 20.6, etc. 2. If some mystery were to be gathered from Aleph in Shena, yet how should we be assured, that it doth denote more quietness, as you affirm? if it had been written Shena with the letter hè in the end according to the usual manner: you might as well have said that hè is a quiet dumm letter: being quiescent in the end of a word as well as Aleph. And we see the word Shenah without Aleph is else where used to signify a most quiet sleep: as the 
c Eccles. 5.11.  sweet sleep of the labourer: and the 
d jerem. 31 26.  sweet sleep of the Prophets; and the 
e Prov. 3.24.  sweet sleep of the godly. Yea and further the word 
f Esa. 56.10.  hazah used to express the sleep of the greatest sleepers, hath in it a double hè without any Aleph, as most fit to denote unto us a strong sleep. Moreover if Aleph in Shenah be a note of greater quietness, then why should it not signify the same in other words as well as in this? And then according to this your collection, if hè be a more quiet letter then Aleph, the thrones of earthly Princes should be more quiet without cark and sorrow, then is the throne of God; because the word 
g Gen. 41.40. judg. 3 20, etc.  Cese used ordinarily for their thrones, is written with Aleph, the quiet dumb letter, denoting (as you say) more quietness; whereas the word 
h job. 26.9  Ceseh whereby the throne of God is described, doth (otherwise then usual) want the letter Aleph and hath hè in stead thereof.   

Much like unto this, is that kind of instruction, which you 
i Annot. on Gen. 1.1.  use, when having alleged some scriptures, to prove by the heavens & earth in Gen. 1.1. are understood, the world & all things therein: things visible and invisible: You add further, that the Hebrew articles eth & ha', seem also to imply so much; eth, having the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so being of general comprehension: & ha', of plain demonstration. If this kind of teaching were good you might as well say, that when the Prophets Esaias, Amos and Micaiah are said to see the Lord in their several visions; they did see him and all that is in him: because this same article eth  prefixed before the name of the Lord in each of their 
k Esay. 6.1 Amos. 9.1. 2. Kin. 22.19.  visions; and that it being of such general comprehension doth imply so much. But seeing this is impossible, you shall do well to cease from the wisdom of such Cabalistical collections.    

CHAP. V.  

A Fift error is, in that you allege the words of the Rabbins contrary to their meaning; either not understanding what they mean, or else wilfully perverting that which they say, and this also in matters of greatest weight: This may be seen in many instances.  
First, when as you speak of Adam cast out of Eden, & kept from the tree of life, you say; 
c Annot. on Gen. 3.24.  The ancient jews had an expectation of recovery of this loss by Christ, though now they are ignorant of him: for they writ of 7 things which the King Christ shall show unto Israel, two of which are the garden of Eden and the tree of life. R. Elias been Mosis, in sepher reshith chocmah, fol. 412. Also expounding that in Song 1.3. the King hath brought me into his Chambers: Our Doctors of blessed memory, have said, that these are the Chambers of the garden of Eden. And again, there are also that say of the tree of life, that it was not created in vain, but the men of the resurrection (that are raised from the dead) shall eat thereof, and live for ever R. Menachem on Gen. 3. And by the garden of Eden (or paradise) it seems they understood the Kingdom of heaven, for the chalde Paraphrast on Song. 4.12. saith, as the garden of Eden into which no man hath power to enter; but the just, whose souls are sent thither, by the hands of Angels. I answer.  
1. Why might you not as well have said, that the later jews as well as the ancient jews, have still an expectation of the recovery of this loss by Christ, namely of the garden of Eden, and of the tree of life, etc. do not the jews that now live receive and approve the writings of these Rabbins here alleged by you? how then do you show any difference betwixt them in this point?  
2. How can you say by way of opposition, in comparing the later jews with the ancient, that now they are ignorant of Christ, seeing the ancient jews were also ignorant of him? The Chaldee paraphrast being of chiefest authority among all that are here alleged by you, was most ignorant of Christ: he knew not that Christ was come, but 
% On Cant. 8.  writes of him as of one that should come hereafter, though by consent of all he lived after the death of Christ. And further he writes of two Christ's that are to come: for, expounding those words in Cant. 4.5, and 7.3. Thy two breasts are as two young roes that are twins, etc. this paraphrast saith, that these are two Messiasses that are to come, namely Messiah the son of David, and Messiah the son Ephraim. And many other things he writes most ignorantly touching Christ, being a blind guide unto the later jews that yet are alive to confirm them in their ignorance.  
3. Though the Rabbins speaking of the garden of Eden and of the tree of life, do therewithal mention the men of the resurrection and the sending of them thither by the hands of Angels: yet is this no token that they understood hereby the Kingdom of heaven: because these blind Doctors hold and teach that there is a double resurrection, one in which the bodies of men shall be raised up to live on earth again at the coming of Messiah: and an other at the last judgement, when they shall be raised up to live in the Kingdom of heaven. The Chaldee paraphrast expounding those words, 
d Cant. 8.5  who is this that cometh up out of the wilderness, etc. and alluding to that place in 
e Zach. 14.4.  Zechariah, where it is said that the mount of olives shall cleave in the mids, shows that at the coming of Messiah (which he mentioned a little 
f On Cant. 8.1.  before) the dead shall arise, the mount of ointment shall be divided, the dead of Israel shall ascend from under it, also the dead that died in the captivity shall come 
// Orach Cubbaia.  the thorny way from under the earth and shall ascend from under the mount of ointment or of olives. The meaning is that those which died in Israel, in the holy land shall rise again with greater ease; and those jews which now living in dispersion shall die in other countries must not rise again in the lands where they died, but must have their bodies roiled and tumbled under the ground through diverse holes and clefts in the earth until they come under the mount of olives, and then that being divided in the mids, they must arise in that place. Aben Ezra shows 
“ Comment. on Dan. 12 2.  further that those which rise at the coming of Messiah shall live long time on earth, that their days shall be as the days of a tree, and then dye the second time & rise again with an other resurrection afterward. Yea, this kind of resurrection of the body is believed and received as an article of the jews faith, and recorded in their creed, as is showed at large first by Sebast. Munster in 
“ Emunath jehud. p. 46. 47. 53.  that their creed which he published together with the Hebrew edition of the gospel according to Matthew: and afterwards by 
% Synag. judaic. pag. 29, etc.  Buxtorf; at which resurrection the jews think that they shall live on earth so many hundred years as the patriarchs did in the old world before the flood, before that they die the second time: and with all they write of so many miracles to be wrought for them at that time, as it is no marvel that they do withal dream of their carriage into an earthly paradise by the hands of Angels at the same time.  
4. Though the Chaldee paraphrast speak of the just entering into the garden of Eden, etc. yet doth it not appear that he meant the Kingdom of heaven, but the garden where Adam was placed at first, even the earthly Eden: seeing in the same book he speaks of the use thereof in diverse things▪ having spoken of the beauty of the first temple, he saith, 
g on Cant. 1.16.  but the house of the sanctuary to come, which is to be built in the days of Messiah the King, shall be much more beautiful in that the walls thereof shallbe of the cedars of the garden of Eden. That is the third material temple which they expect: and accordingly they expect that the matter thereof shallbe not from heaven, but from the earthly Eden. Again, speaking of the coming of their Messiah and of the feast that is to be made at the same time upon the earth, he saith, 
h on Cant. 8.2.  and there we shall keep the feast with the Leviathan, and we shall drink the old read wine, which hath been laid up in the grapes from the day that the world was created, and of the pomegranate fruits which are prepared for the just in the garden of Eden. And after this he speaks of diverse things to be done on earth, so that it is every way plain that he intended not an heavenly, but an earthly Paradise in these places.  
5. As for the testimony of R. Menachem, if we go no further than the words here cited by yourself, even by them it is apparent, that he had not a spiritual meaning, but spoke of that tree from which Adam was de●…rred, and of that tree created in the beginning, which he saith was not created in vain: meaning that the men of the resurrection, of that first supposed and pretended resurrection should eat thereof.  
6. As for the testimony of Elias been Moses in Reshith chocmah, it is so vain & superstitious a thing that I marvel you would allege the same, 1. whereas he writes of 7. things which the King Christ shall show unto Israel, you only mention two of them, viz. the garden of Eden: and the tree of life; had you but mentioned the other five: the reader might easily have discerned how vainly you have alleged this testimony: The other 5 things which he saith Messiah shall show unto Israel are these, to wit; the throne of glory: the lifting up of Korah and his company: Hell; the godly and the just: all the living and the dead: He speaks here of the garden of Eden, and the tree of life, as he speaks of Hell: to be showed, he speaks not of enjoying: therefore this testimony doth not so much as prove that they expected a recovery of the former loss: as you would have it: Much lesle doth it show that by the garden of Eden or Paradise, they understood the Kingdom of heaven, as it seems unto you: That seems rather to be understood by the throne of glory, which is here distinguished from Paradise: Lest of all doth it show that the ancient jews were less ignorant, than the jews of our time: for what can be more ignorant than this dream of these 7. spectacles to be showed at the Messiah his coming, when as not one of them was showed unto Israel according to the meaning of this rabbin? 2. They that do but consider what other vain and senseless things he writes in his numbers in the same place, may discern what a carnal rabbin this Elias was; as namely, that 7. sorts of men are accursed, which want phylacteries on their head and arms, fringes on their coats, post-papers on their gates, shoes on their feet; which have no wife: nor Child: which teach not their Children; which go not to their meeting house: which run not after the commandments: which eat with unwashen hands▪ That there were 7. men over whom jetser haragh or evil concupiscence had no power, viz. Abraham, Isaak, jaakob, Henoch, Moses, Ishai, David: what reason is there to say thus of these, rather than of joseph, joshua, Samuel, Elias, Esaias, etc.  
But you proceed, and say further; 
// Annot. ibid. on Gen. 3.  And that the jews understood not these things carnally, appeareth by these words of theirs. In the world to come there is no eating or drinking, nor any other of the things, which the bodies of the Sons of Adam, have need of in this world: as sitting and standing and sleep, and death & sorrow and mirth and the like: so our ancient wisemen have said, In the world to come, there is no eating nor drinking nor use of marriage but the just do sit with their crowns upon their heads, and have the fruition of the glory of the Majesty of God. Maimony in misn. treat. of Repentance, Chap. 8. Sect. 2. Hereunto I answer.  
1. The world to come whereof the Rabbins often speak, is diversely taken in their writings: Elias Levita 
“ In Tishbi in Athad.  shows that it is taken 3. ways, for the days of the Messiah: for the time that immediately follows death: and for the day of judgement: The same is 
“ citant Drusio; praeterit. on Mat. 12.32  noted by others also out of Don Isaak Abarbinel. Now Maimony in this place alleged by you, speaking of the world to come either in the second or third acception, doth not at all deny, exclude or remove a carnal understanding of the other jewish Rabbins touching the garden of Eden and the tree of life in the supposed time of their Messiah his coming and living upon earth: though they thought there was no eating, drinking, or marrying after the day of judgement, this proves not that they thought so touching the time of their Messiah his conversing with them on earth. R. Abraham Aben Ezra also doth very plainly and distinctly 
% Comment. on Dan. 12.2.  show the opinion of the Rabbins herein, namely that when those that died in the captivity are raised up at the coming of their redeemer, than they shall be delighted or feasted with Leviathan, with Ziz, and with Behemoth, and shall dye again the second time, and shall live again at there surrection of the dead in the world to come, where they do not eat or drink, but only enjoy the brightness of Schecinah, or the divine presence. And thus distinguishing the two worlds to come, he declares that in the first they did expect a carnal & earthly feasting and banqueting of the bodies that rose again, though after the day of judgement they believed it should be otherwise.  
2. Though they thought there was no use of marriage and material food after the general judgement, yet they expected a most carnal use of marriage for their Messiah on earth, and as is recorded in the articles of their faith, they believed, that 
// Emunàth jehud p. 54. 55.  every King of the gentiles should count it their honour to give their daughters unto him: and though King's daughters were his wives, yet the Queen an Israelitesse should sit at his right hand in a crown of the gold of Ophir, etc. That his other wives should come unto him at certain times when they were called to enter in unto the King, but that the Queen his chief wife should evermore be in his bed chamber, etc. that after he had lived many years he should dye with honour & his Son should reign after him and his sons Son, etc. And sundry testimonies of scripture are in the same place perverted by them for the proof of this their carnal opinion. And besides that which is before noted touching their feasting with the wine of Paradise, the carnal boldness of the ancient Rabbins in describing the banquets of that expected time of their Messiah, is yet greater: in that they presume to determine the largeness of the cups that shall then be used, saying that 
“ Thalmud in joma, c. 8. Fol. 110.  the cup whereof David shall drink in the world to come containeth two hundred, one and twenty measures or logs: as it is said, my cup is full: revaiah according to the Gematria is so: The ground of this mystery is taken from the words of ps. 23.5. Cosirevaiah, my cup is full; where the numeral letters of the word revaiah according to the Cabalists observation do express this Number; to wit, R in Hebrew account standing for 200, v for 6, ● for 10, & h for ●. and these added together make 221, the measure of that royal cup.  
3. You allege the testimony of Maimony by the halves, and thereby hide the absurdity of that Infidel which is meet to be known, that the reader be not deceyved by you. Maimony saith indeed that in the world to come, there is neither eating nor drinking, etc. But he saith withal in the same Chapter and Section alleged by you, that 
a Misneh, in Teshubah cap. 8. Sec. 2.  in the world to come there is neither body nor bodily substance (of any person,) but the souls of the righteous alone without bodies, as the ministering Angels without body. This he would prove from the saying of their wise men that say, in the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking, etc. Behold (saith he) it is made plain unto thee that there is no body there because there is no eating & drinking there, etc. And 
b Sec. 3.  afterwards again he would show this from the 
c 1 Sam. 25  words of Abigail unto David, that there is no body there, but a bundle of life, etc. And again he saith, all the good things that the prophets prophesied of for Israel, they were nothing else but things for the body, which Israel shall enjoy in the days of the King Messiah, in the time that he shall turn the Kingdom to Israel, etc. Thus doth the place alleged show what a carnal opinion Maimony had concerning the Messiah, and how carnally the Rabbins did understand the spiritual promises and prophecies concerning Christ, quite contrary to that which you would make your readers to believe. Though they imagined a resurrection of the body to live upon earth again with their Messiah, yet they denied the resurrection of the body to live in heaven therewith after the last judgement. Thus you deal with the testimonies of the Rabbins, as hucksters with their deceitful merchandise: you paint and colour them, and set a deceitful gloss upon them, that so you might the better vent these rabbinical wares.  
4. How can you allege this testimony of Maimony to show a difference betwixt the ancient Rabbins and the jews that now live, touching their opinion of Eden and the tree of life to be enjoyed by them, seeing Maimony is of so great credit with them now at this present? where is there a rabbin or jew that now differs from him herein and will not acknowledge as much as is contained in this your allegation? This being so, the opposition which you make betwixt the ancient and later jews in this matter touching their expectation of recovery of their loss by Christ is very vain.   

ANother instance of your perverting the meaning of the Rabbins, as though they took Michael to be Christ, is to be observed in you, in that you say, concerning the man that jaakob wrestled withal: 
“ Annot. on Gen. 32 24.  The Ancient jewish Rabbins acknowledged this Angel to be Christ: Our doctors of blessed memory (R.D. Kimchi, on Hos. 12.4.) have said this Angel was Michael: and of him he saith (Gen. 48.16.) the Angel that redeemed me from all evil. Than you add; Micael is Christ the Archangel, Dan. 10.21. Jude 9 Rev. 12,7. Later Rabbins do feign, that this was Esau's Angel, who sought to hinder jacob, etc. The like observation you have 
% Annot. on Gen. 31 11. & on Exod. 14.19.  else where also, as though they took Michael to be Christ: Hereunto I answer.  
1. Your opposition here also betwixt the ancient and the later Rabbins is vain. For it doth not appear that the doctors of blessed memory whom Kimchi speaks of, were more ancient, than those Rabbins that feign this person that wrestled with jaakob, to be Esaws Angel. R. D. Kimchi in his commentary even upon the same verse alleged here by you doth twice give unto his own Father joseph Kimchi that title of blessed memory, yet was he not more ancient then R. Solomon jarchi who 
// Comment. on Hos. 12.4.  expounds that wrestler to be Esaws Angel. David Kimchi is recorded to have lived anno 1190, and Rab. Solomon to have died anno 1105. The title of blessed memory doth not carry any such antiquity with it, as you would here make us believe.  
2. How know you that the later Rabbins feigned this exposition, and that they did not receive it from their ancients, as well as many other the like fond interpretations? yea R. Solomon when he expounds that wrestler to be the Angel of Esaw, he saith it is 
“ Comment on Gen. 32 24.  perush rabbothenu the exposition of their Rabbins: which speech bears as much show of antiquiry in it as that of R. Kimchies' doth.  
3. That the Rabbins of old did not take Michael to be their Messiah or Christ, it is evident over all by their writings. The Chaldee paraphrast 
% on Cant. 8.4. etc.  framing that last chapter of Solomon's song into a dialogue, brings in many persons speaking one after an other: vers. 4. the King Messiah is brought in giving a charge: v. 5. Solomon speaks as a Prophet vers. 6. the Church or Children of Israel speak: vers. 6. The Lord of the world, God himself is said to speak: vers. 7. the Angels of heaven are brought in speaking: and vers. 8. Michael the Prince of the nation of Israel, and as a chief Angel hath his speech also and so hath a distinct person attributed unto him diverse from the Messiah. Again in the description of those ten miracles which the jews do 
// Abkath rochel citant Buxtorf Synag. c. 36.  feign to be wrought before the coming of the Messiah, Michael the archangel is evidently noted as a distinct person going before and making way for the Messiah the son of David, and blowing three times the great horn or trumpet and working wonders therewith: so that by their opinion he must needs be a distinct person from the Messiah. The Chaldee paraphrast in an 
“ on ps. 137  other place as hath been showed before ascribes the like works to Michael and Gabriel, as being follow Angels of the like condition. And other Cabalists do likewise show this; they 
“ Bereshith Rabath. Fol. 1.  writ that Michael was created in the beginning together with other Angels: they give the like office to him with the rest, and divide works betwixt them in like sort: In the administration of the world they 
% joann. Reuchlin. de arte cabalistica. lib. 3.  give unto Michael the rule and government of the east wind; to Raphael the government of the west wind: to Gabriel the government of the North wind, and to Noriel the rule of the South wind. And Michael is reckoned among the 72. Angels by which they ascend unto God in their prayers. These 4. Angels are also 
// R. Abraham in Zeror Hammor, on Numb. citant Io. Buxtor. de Abbreu. hebr. p. 35.  said to carry the Chariot of the divine majesty, and to have waited on God when he came down on mount Sinai, like unto 4 standard bearers, even as the Israelites marched under 4. ensigns: Michael having the right hand, Gabriel the left hand: Noriel going before, & Raphael following. In the like manner also when they assign unto 7. Angels the government of the 7. days, they ascribe unto him his lot and his portion of one day as they do unto the rest, 
“ junius annot. on Tobit. 12.15.  giving Sunday to Raphael, Monday to Gabriel, Tuesday to Sammael, wednesday to Michael, Thursday to Tzidkiel, Friday to Anael, and Saturday to Kephariel: So that by all these testimonies and many more the like it is apparent, that they did not take Michael to be Christ.  
4. Whereas you allege some scriptures to prove that Michael is Christ; that is nothing to the question; nothing unto the honour of the ancient Rabbins unless you could prove that they held the same thing with the scriptures: but the contrary thereunto is already manifested.   

Again you seem to err from the Rabbins meaning in this, that you ascribe unto them the knowledge of Christ from their speeches of Schecinah. You say, 
“ Annot. on Exo. 34 9  By the majesty or divine presence of the Lord, which the Hebrews call Schecinah: we may well understand Christ: for the Hebrews usually distinguish this from God the Father: and say; there is no coming before the blessed and most high King, without schecinah. R. Menachem on Levit. 10. Our saviour more plainly saith, No man cometh unto the Father but by me, joh. 14.6. Of him the ancient jews seem to speak, under this name Schecinah: though at this day they despise their salvation. See before on Exod. 33.14.15. & 34.6, & 14.19. Answer.  
1. Whereas you do here oppose the ancient jews acknowledging Schecinah against the later in regard of their despising their salvation, this is vain: for both the ancient jews you speak of, and this magical Menachem with the rest have despised their salvation in refusing Christ, as well as the latter jews: and the jews at this day again do acknowledge Schecinah, according to the testimonies and speeches of the ancient jews. How unjust then is this opposition?  
2. If the ancient jews spoke of Christ under the name of Schecinah, then did they despise their salvation, in that they held Schecinah to be 
% See before P. 336  one of those 5. things that were wanting in the second temple, whiles our Lord jesus did live on earth. So they must needs be blasphemers of him and deniers of the Lord of life, looking for an other Schecinah.  
3. This word Schecinah properly signifies habitation or dwelling, and so may be understood and applied to any special revelation of the grace and glory of God resting or dwelling upon any place or person ordinarily or extraordinarily according to the diverse degrees in which it pleaseth him to manifest the same. According to this signification may all the testimonies alleged by you be understood of the jews, and yet they still remain ignorant of the person of Christ. Whereas you allege out of Menachem, that there is no coming before God without Schecinah, this may be understood of some certain measure of the spirit, required in those that should draw nearer unto God than the ordinary sort of men: according to the like testimony which you 
// Annot. on Exo. 28 30.  allege out of Maimony giving a reason why the Priests in the second temple did not inquire of God by urim and Thummim. Every Priest that speaketh not by the holy Ghost, and on whom the divine majesty resteth not: they inquire not by him. And so the saying of Menachem hath no affinity with the saying of Christ joh. 14.6. For any Priest or godly person might come unto the Father by Christ, according to the meaning of Christ, though they wanted that extraordinary Schecinah. And further how doth this his testimony show unto us their distinction of God the Father? etc. As for the other notes you refer us unto in Exo. 33. and 34. by that which is already said it may appear that there is no necessity of understanding them of Christ's person, considering withal, that the Rabbins use to attribute the titles of Christ unto the Angels; and that sometimes also the name of God is given unto the signs and tokens of his presence.  
4.  Schecinah habitation, or dwelling in the Church & in the members thereof is 
“ john 14.17.23. Eph. 2.22. 1. joh. 4.15.16.  common to each person in the trinity, to the Father and to the holy Ghost as well as the Son; and seeing withal that this name of Schecinah is by the Chaldee paraphrasts and other writers often attributed to God absolutely considered, what reason have you to restrain their meaning to the second person in the trinity?  
5. R. Moses Bar Maimon writing of Schecinah or habitation, saith; 
“ Morch Nebuchim, Chelek. 1. perck. 25.  where so ever this word is spoken of God, it signifieth the firmness of his glory, that is, of his glory created in that place, or the firmness of his care abiding upon any thing: And so he brings example, that so the glory of God dwelled upon mount Sinai. According to this his interpretation may that place of the Prophet be understood: 
% Esa. 4.5.  And the Lord shall created upon every place of mount Zion and the assemblies thereof a cloud and smoke by day, etc. Now while the Rabbins do thus expound the word of the outward sensible tokens of Gods glorious protection and care, and of the graces created or infused upon his Church, we can not justly from this their phrase conclude, that they spoke of the increated Son of God under this name.  
6. It is recorded, that 
// Thalmud in Baba bathra Fol. 134. and in Succa Fol. 28.  Hillel the old man had 80. disciples: 30, of them were worthy that the Schecinah should rest upon them, as upon Moses: other 30. of them were worthy that the Sun should stand still unto them, as unto joshua the son of Nun: 20 of them, were of a middle sort, etc. Hence it appears that these Rabbins did understand by Schecinah the more high degree of knowledge and grace of the spirit: for were they so senseless to think that the first 30 only were partakers of Christ, and that the other 50. were without the Messiah, or that their graces were not from him, whom they should acknowledge so bountiful unto others? If so, then surely you have no reason to think the later Rabbins more ignorant than those ancient dotards that were so far from the knowledge of the way to salvation and life.  
7. If Michael, Gabriel, Nuriel and Raphael do carry the Chariot of Schecinah, as was noted before according to the opinion of the Rabbins: then is it probable that either they thought Michael was not Christ, contrary to your imagination; or else that they thought not Schecinah to be Christ, as it yet seems unto you: for should the Messiah be both horse and rider at once in their account?  
8. Whereas the Thargam or Chaldee paraphrast saith on Pf. 110.1. The Lord said in his word, etc. If by word he meant the Messiah, according to 
“ Preface to Annot. on Gen.  your opinion, then doth he also upon the same psalm plainly distinguish Schecinah from the Messiah: for there he faith further vers. 5. The Shecinta or Schecinah of the Lord is at thy right hand: So by your own exposition if they make Schecinah a helper to Christ at his right hand it will follow that the ancient jews should not think Christ to be Schecinah. And many other places might easily be alleged out of the same paraphrast, to show that the jews held the Messiah and Schecinah to be two several things: but this may suffice for the present.   

WIth this kind of error we may reckon your misinterpretation of some of the diverse readings recorded by the Masorites: for example, the word jadau, you expound it thus, 
a Annot. on Exod. 32.19.  his hands) or, his hand: that is, each of his hands: the Hebrew hath both readings: the first by the vowels and margin: the other by the letters in the line. And again, the like: when after the same manner, you interpret the word berichan, to signify 
b Annot. on Exo. 35 11. & on Exo. 39.33.  bars or, bar: etc. But herein you err, seeing both the readings whether in the margin or in the line, are to be translated his hands, his bars: and neither of them his hand, his bar: and the same is to be held for the other divers readings whereunto you refer us in Levit. 9.22. Deut. 2.33. and the like. If the word read in the line had had Cholem annexed with van, then should it have been so as you say: but seeing it hath there a kamets coming before van; that 
c R. D. Kimchi in Miclol. Fol. 197.  kind of affix is still a note of plurality in the signification of words. Though sometimes jod be wanting in the last syllable of such words by a grammatical figure, yet do they not therefore cease to retain a plural signification; as is 
d joa. Buxt. Thesaur. gramm. lib. 2. c. 8.  showed in diverse words, in ghnammudan, pillars: Exod. 27.12. Tabbeghnothan, rings, Exo. 28.28. which are of the same form with the words jadau & berichan as they are written within the line in the places above mentioned. Can you show that the words in the line, had other manner of vowels belonging unto them, then unto those in the margin; then should you have some reason for that you write here in your annotations: But seeing it is observed concerning those 848 diverse readings, that the readings in the line and the margin differ only in letters, and that 
e Elias Levita Masor, hammasor. praefat. 3.  there is no difference in the vowelles in any of them: and seeing the copies of the holy scripture do also witness the same thing unto us: therefore had you no warrant to write so as you have done. These things may seem small: but seeing they concern the purity of the holy scriptures, therefore are they not to be despised, especially of you, which would have the diverse readings to be both written by the spirit of God.   

HItherto also may be referred your unfound observation upon the word Zebojim: when you note, that 
f Annot. on Gen. 14 2.  it is written by the letters in the line Zebiim, of Zebi which signifieth glory, pleasantness, & a Roe: by which name the pleasant and glorious Land of Israel is called, in Ezek. 20.6. But by the vowels and in the margin noted to be read Zebojim, as being unworthy the pleasant name. Here you err many ways, 1. There is no warrant to say it is written by the letters in the line Zebiim; for the letters in the line without vowels, do yield no word at all: if you device vowels for it, as you do, than you destroy the tradition of the Masorites, who (as I showed before from Elias Levita) do admit no difference of vowels in any of their diverse readings: And where as they make two diverse readings: if your observation were admitted, we should then have three, viz the first, Zebiim: the second Zebojim, without vau as it is now in the text: the third Zebojim with vau as it is in the margin: the first devised by yourself: the two latter already received by the Masorites. 2, if difference of vowels were to be admitted in these diverse readings, yet not in such manner as you feign for you err in deriving Zebiim of Zebi; by putting Chirck for Kamets'; Zebiim for Zebaim: This your error is plainly reproved by the 
g Kimchi in Miclol, Fol. 239.  chiefest of the Rabbins that show the forming of this word. 3, suppose Zeboim was put for Zebiim, yet have you no reason hence to gather that it was unworthy the pleasant name: for why may not Zeboim come of Zebi also, and so carry in it a signification of glory and pleasantness as well as your imagined Zebiim? And if Zeboim do not come of Zebi then show from whence it comes and what signification it hath wherein no glory and pleasantness is implied. 4, by this kind of collection where you thus exclude and remove the signification of one of the diverse readings from the subject spoken of, you do also overthrew your interpretation of these diverse readings in other places, where you labour to retain, to establish and to apply the signification of them both unto the subject matter that is mentioned with them. With such inconveniences are you justly entangled, while you maintain these diverse readings for grounds of doctrine and instruction: whiles the Masorites traditions are chosen of you as your text, which thus you preach on. Hereby you run into absurdities which even the Rabbins themselves are free from.    

CHAP. VI  

A Sixth Scandal is that blasphemous assertion touching the help of the Rabbins, when as concerning the Chaldee paraphrast and other Hebrew doctors, you say that you allege their expositions for two causes: the one, 
Preface to Annot. on Genesis.  to give light unto the ordinances of Moses touching the external practice of them, in the common wealth of Israel, which the Rabbins did record, and without whose help, many of those legal rites (especially in Exodus and Leviticus) will not well be understood, etc. To this presumption I answer, in defence of the holy scriptures;  
First, The law of God is 
a Ps. 19.7.8. & 119.130. Prov. 1.1.— 6. & 8.8.9.  perfect: and not only for the truth thereof, but also for the perspicuity, and evidence sufficient in itself (as a divine instrument) to convert the soul from any sin: to give wisdom unto the simple, and to enlighten their eyes in any doubt or danger: why do you then accuse them of imperfection, as though the well understanding of them did depend upon the records of the Rabbins? The whole scripture is 
b 2 Tim. 3.16.17.  given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to convince, to correct, to instruct in righteousness that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect unto all good works: But you contradicting the spirit of God tell us that without help of the Rabbins many legal rites will not be well understood: and so according to your tenant, the man of God cannot be absolute, nor made perfect unto all good works, and to all the works of his ministry as to expound Exodus & Leviticus well, unless he be a Scholar of the Rabbins: To be a disciple of the Prophets and Apostles, and of Christ jesus himself is not sufficient with you, unless he be also a student and proficient in the School of the Thalmud. As 
c judg. 14.18.  Samson once upbraided the Philistines, that they could not have found out his riddle, but that they ploughed with his heifer: even so the jews at this day might upbraid the Christians, & tell us out of your mouth, (if there were any truth in this your assertion) that we could not have found out their mysteries, nor well understood the ordinances of Moses, except we had ploughed with their heifer of the Thalmud. You aught to fear the Lord who is a jealous God and 
d Esa. 48.11  will not give his glory to the Thalmudists: 
e Neh. 8.8.  Ezra and 
f Act. 9.22. & 17,2.3.  Paul and 
g Act. 18.28.  others honoured the scriptures, and did well expound them when they gave the understanding thereof by the scripture itself, and by comparing them together: but you dishonour the scriptures and take away a great part of their glory, when you say they will not be well understood without help of Rabbins: yea you are herein guilty of the same blasphemy with the Rabbins themselves: and your speech is in effect one with theirs, who are noted to affirm that 
h R. Bechai in God hak kemach. Fol. 77.  the law written cannot be expounded or made plain without the help of the mouth tradition: for from those pretended Thalmudicall traditions are your explications drawn. How do you forget yourself & your former writings in which you profess touching the Shepherd of Rome, that 
i Answ. to joh. Ains. p. 22.  you will never go over the Alps to fetch your food from him? And yet here you run over the Alps, yea over the mountains of Ararat to fetch your food from the Babylonian Thalmud as though you could not be well fed without rabbinical chaff. Heretofore you could write and maintain; that 
k Ibid. p. 153.  It is a  against the truth to say, that the holy Bible which we have written, doth not sufficiently express diverse mysteries of us to be believed: And yet here to make way for the broaching and venting of your rabbinical wares, you contradict yourself: for if many legal rites will not be well understood without the Rabbins, then doth not the holy Bible sufficiently express diverse mysteries unto our understanding: And thus yourself are guilty of the like  against the truth, whiles to win credit unto the rabbinical expositions, you spare not to slander both the perspicuity of the scriptures, and also the 
l joh. 1.16. & 7.37.38 & 14.26. & 16.13. Eph. 4.8.14. Esay. 29.18. & 35.7.8. Heb. 8.10.11.  grace of God given unto the Churches of Christ so abundantly in these last days: as though the spirit of truth, and all the gifts which Christ ascending on high hath given to us could not lead men to understand the scriptures well: as though without a thread of direction from those infidel jews, that deny Christ, we could not come out of the pretended Labyrinth of the scriptures.  
Secondly, as for the external practice of Moses ordinances in the common wealth of Israel, recorded by the Rabbins: what extraordinary light is to be expected from those blind guides whom our Saviour every where condemneth for their ignorance, blindness and superstition? even the Pharisees, those more ancient Rabbins, (by which title you do so often commend them) were ignorant of the law, and by their traditions received from their Elders had falsified & corrupted the right practice of the ordinances of Moses, and to magnify their own devises and inventions, they 
m Mat. 5.20.— 43. & 15.2,3.— 14. & 16.12, & 23.16, etc.  wrested and changed the law, & the right observation of the whole decalogue and of every commandment in the same: unto the legal rites they joined a burden of their own traditions, men's precepts, vain worship, plants which the heavenly father had never planted, and made the commandments of God of no authority, for these things Christ often reproved them, denounced woe unto them, and for this cause the jews again denounce woe unto our Blessed Saviour and 
n Thalmud tract. Gittin Cap. 5.  blaspheme him wickedly with words which I abhor to mention, as being a contemner of their wise men. And is it not madness then to think, that the law of God will not be well understood, without the help of such accursed and woeful guides?  
But to give the reader some more particular instances of this; Let it be considered what a sorry change you have made in leaving the ministers of Christ to be come a disciple of your jew-doctours. Against the Church of God in England you protest on this manner and say unto us: 
H. Bar. refut. of Giff. p. 214  we hold that you have poisoned all the fountains of sincere doctrine and pervert the whole Testament, & turn away the practice thereof by your damnable false expositions, yea that you teach not one point sincerely. If this were true then had you reason to separate: and not to hear such damnable doctrine: but let us see whether those fountains be purer, without drinking whereat you would make us believe we could not well understand some parts of the holy scripture.   

AGainst the first commandment, your Rabbins teach us to choose a false God without Christ: they impugn the doctrine of the holy Trinity, as I showed before. They teach many things not agreeing with the nature & majesty of God: as that he should 
a Rasi on Psa. 104.26  play ●hre hours in the day with Leviathan; that 
b Chald. paraphr. on Cant. 5.10.  in the day he exercises himself in the scripture, & in the night studies the Thalmud: that in the 
c Thalmud in Beracoth Cap. 9 Fol. 59  hour when he remembers the dispersion of Israel, he lets two tears fall into the great Sea and makes lamentation for the destruction of the temple: That the 
d Thalm. in Cholin. c. 3. F. 60. & Rasi on Numb. 28.15.  Sun and moon being created equal in light at first, upon the complaint of the moon, he diminished her light: but the moon expostulated so long with God, that as they writ he appointed a sin offering to be brought for himself for a reconciliation: even that Goat offered for a sin offering in the beginning of every month. That the Sun, Moon, and Stars are living creatures having reason and speech, the jews hold firmly as I noted before: and therefore no wonder that the Moon should so pled with God. As the creatures pray in their wants so they teach that the creator himself doth make prayers: R. johanan in the name of R. josei 
* Thalmud in Beracoth, c. 1. Fol. 7.  proves it by that place in Esa. 56 7. where God calls the temple Beth tephillathi; The house of my prayer: They note it is not called the house of their prayers, but of his. And R. Zutra bar Tobijah shows what his prayer is, viz. that his mercy may overcome his wrath and his other properties, etc. Concerning the anger of God, they write further in the same place, that God is always angry once in a day: which they would prove from that saying Ps. 7.11. But this anger they say is but for a moment: and how much is a moment? They teach that if an hour be divided into five millions, eight thousand, eight hundred, eighty eight parts, than a moment is one of them. They say no creature knows that moment save only Balaam: because it is said, he saw the vision of the almighty, etc. Numb. 24. and therefore in Balaams' time God was not angry once a day according to his manner, lest Balaam should have cursed Israel in that moment, and so destroyed them: this they will have to be noted from Numb. 23.8. with Mica. 6.5. For it is held that if in that moment of God's anger any man should curse an other, he must needs die presently: and that men cannot prevail with God in that moment: And hereupon they write also that God bade Moses to stay and wait till his face or anger was past, that then he would give him rest, viz. when the moment of his passion and indignation was over: that they would prove from Exod. 33.14. Concerning that moment of indignation they say that the cocks then standing upon one foot, their combs become pale and lose their redness, etc. Into such a horrible pit of ignorance of their creator, have these miserable jews been cast, by the heavy hand of God upon them. Their confidence in creatures appears by the sundry sorts of 
e Elias Levita in Tishbi in Lilith.  charms which they have taken from the names of Angels written on their walls and doors in time of danger. Yea as the rude Indians are said to offer sacrifice to the Devil for fear, lest he hurt them: so the 
f Ibidem in Samael.  jews themselves write of their offering or gift, which in the feast of reconciliation they give unto the wicked spirit or fiend whom they call Samael.   

IN stead of God's true and pure worship required in the second commandment, they bring in a Sea of superstition: In stead of worshipping Christ, they have 
g Seb. Munst. de fide judae: p. 110.  prayers against him, so execrable, as that I think it not meet to rehearse the same. And for other prayers how vain are they? Among the 5 things that stay them from prayer, one is when their hands are not clean: And of this they write, that 
h Maimony in Misneh, in Tephillah, or treat. of prayer, c. 4. Sect. 1.2 5  if a man have journey by the way, and the time of prayer be come and a man have no water: if there be betwixt him and the water the space of 4. miles or 8000. cubits, he is first to go unto the place of water, to wash and then after that to pray: but if there be betwixt him & the water a greater space than this, he is to wrive or rub his hands with gravel or dust or the like and then to pray. But this distance of 4. miles they do there expound of the place before them; but for the place after them, they are to return but one mile back for water and no more: This washing of hands they require for every set time of prayer beside the morning: for than they require the washing of face, hands and feet before prayer. For preparation to prayer, they require a settling of the mind and thoughts: And therefore they teach, 
i Ibidem, Sec. 15.  if a man return from a journey and be weary or troubled it is unlawful for him to pray: and their wise men say, a man shall be weary three days until he rest and refresh his mind, and after that he may pray.  
In the time of prayer they use phylacteries: and of these R. Hanina in the name of R. johanan gives this rule; that 
k R. Alphes in phillim, or treat. of phylacteries, Fol. 78. A.  they may not make the phylacteries of the head, to serve for phylacteries unto the hand: but the hand-phylacteries are allowed to be made head phylacteries: because they may not descend from a greater holiness to a less: but contra. Touching the hand whereon these phylacteries are to be worn, the Rabbins say, 
l R. Alphes ibid. f. 81. a  it is the left hand; for proof thereof they allege these scriptures, his hand hath founded the earth, and his right hand hath spread out the heavens: and again, she put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the hammer of the workmen, judg. 5. But if a man be lefthanded, than he is to wear them on his right hand, because that is unto him as his left hand. The like care they have about their zizith or fringes with as many superstitions as there be threads in a fringe. Further, 
m Thalmud in Babha bathra c. 2, Fol. 25.  if a man seek wisdom in his prayer, he is to pray towards the South; if he seek riches, he is to pray towards the North: and the reason that they give hereof is, because the table was set on the northside, and the Candlestick on the Southside, (Exod. 40.22.24.) When for their necessities they go into the place, where they think it is not meet that the Angels should be present with them: they have 
n Arba turim, Orach Chaijm, tract. 1. fig. 3.  a set form of prayer, in which they desire those Angels, the ministers of the most high to keep them, to help them and to stay for them, until they come forth of that house: with many other superstitions annexed, not fit to be named. They think also, that 
o Ibid. fig. 4  there is an evil spirit abiding upon their hands until they have washed, etc. When they are see to pray, they tell us that 
p R. Alphes in Beracoth, c. 4. F. 22.  though a King salute them, they may not answer him, and though a serpent bite them by the heel, they may not cease. Yet the gloss upon that place, helps to mitigate the matter a little, and faith, 
q R. jonah comment. on R. Alphes.  though they may not cease to speak, yet they may go aside to shake of the serpent, to avoid danger etc. After prayer for the further confounding or 
r Orach Chajim, in Rosch hasschanah fig. 581. & in Seder Tekiath Shophar, fig. 596.  astonishing of Satan, as they say, they use sometimes to sound a Trumpet, or to take up a great shout together, without sounding of the Trumpet. He that kills a bird or beast, 
s jore deghnah, Treat. of covering blood, fig. 28.  must cover the blood & a set form of prayer or blessing is appointed for that action; except it be, when they kill a beast which they call Cavi begotten of a Roe and a he goat: though they cover the blood thereof, yet may they not do it with prayer & blessing even as they teach that 
t Tract. Milah. fig. 365.  they are to circumcise an Hermaphrodite, a person that is both male and female, but without that set form of blessing appointed for the action of circumcision. And infinite and the traditions wherein they put holiness and religion: Yea they 
u Thalmud in Sanhedrin, c. 7. F. 68  tell us of 300. traditions about one kind of leprous spot and of three thousand traditions about the planting of Cucumbers besides those which are for the plucking of them up. And how many millions of superstitions must they then have for all other things? But if there were nothing else but their set forms of prayers which they use: according to your profession they must be violatours of the second commandment & great Idolaters. And touching these they say, that 
w Maimony in Misneh, in Beraco●…d 〈…〉.  Ezra the scribe and his consistory ordained the form of all their blessings, & that it is not meet to add unto one of them or to diminish from them: and that whosoever changeth the coin which their wise men have coined in their blessings, cannot but err, etc. If in any thing the Rabbins might know the external practice in the commonwealth of Israel then in this general point, that they used set forms of prayer, though they might err touching some particular prayers: If in this matter they cannot help you better to understand the practice of God's people, then in none other rites. Show if you can, how we may regard them in any tradition, if not in this.   

FOr the third commandment, they have also most vain doctrines, touching taking the name of God in vain. They say, whosoever 
x Maimony in Misneh, tract. jesudei hath orah, Cap. 6,1.2 3, etc.  destroys any of the holy and pure names of God, he is Lukah, to be beaten or whipped: for proof they allege Deut. 12.3.4: Now these are the 7. names, jehovah, Adonai, Eloah, Elohim, Ehich, Shaddai, Tsebaoth: whosoever blots out but one letter of these names, he is Lukah, to be beaten: And further, they say, whosoever blots out any letter added to the name of God, in the forepart thereof, as L in Laihovah: and B in Belohim, that is free: but the letters added to the name of God, in the afterpart thereof, as C in Eloheca: on M in Elohecem, may not be blotted out, but are holy as the name of God. Yet he that blotts them out is not Lukah: but punished with a lesser kind of punishment, with Maccath Marduth, etc. Again they hold it for an heinous sin, that any man should pronounce this name jehovah: only they 
y Thalmud in Kiddushin c. 4. f. 71, & in Sotah, c. 7. Fol. 37.  allow it to be pronounced in the sanctuary, and that only by the Priests and that not at all times but only in the solemn blessing appointed Numb. 6, & that also with a swift voice, that the found thereof may be as it were swallowed up. The reason alleged is, because the Lord saith, this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial Exod. 3.15, where they do not read, leghnolam, for ever; but leghnallem, to hide, to conceal: as though God would have his name jehovah concealed, & Adonai or Elohim to be his memorial pronounced in stead of it: And diverse like superstitions they have about the name of 12 letters, and the name of 42 letters. Yet they 
z Aben Ezra on Zach. 14.9. Thalmud in Pesachim, c. 3. Fol. 50.  hold that in the world to come, viz. when their Messiah comes, that then it shallbe pronounced of all; because it is said, Zach. 14.9. that there shallbe one Lord, and his name one, to wit, the name jehovah to be read as it is written, etc. Moreover as they abuse the name of God, by obtruding all their traditions upon him, as if he had given them at Sinai; by perventing the law that he hath given: so do they also by concealing some parts of scripture, when they say, 
a R. Alphes in Megilla, c. 4. f. 365.  some of them are to be read and expounded: some of them are to be read and not expounded: and some of them neither to be read nor expounded; And diverse instances they give for each of these kinds. And not only this, but they do also show in strange manner, how a great part of the scriptures shallbe abolished, even then when they will have their traditions to continued: they say, that 
b Maimony in Misneh, tract. Megillall, c. 2. sec. 18.  all the books of the Prophets and Cethubim (viz. job, psalm, proverbs, canticles, Daniel, Ezra, etc.) shall cease in the days of Messiah, except the volume of Ester: behold it shall continued as the 5. books of the law and as the traditions of the law schebealpeh, delivered by mouth, which are not to cease for ever. This is the blasphemy of your Maimony. Concerning oaths, as our Saviour in his time 
c Mat. 5.34 & 23.16, etc.  reproved diverse of their errors: so are their later Rabbins also to be condemned. In that 
d Sebast. Munster, Annot. on Gen. 2.  story where the 7 places of paradise are described by them, with their several glory, and with the several persons that are in each of those places, they say, that when the same were showed unto jehoshua been Levi by the Angel of death at the commandment of God, he suddenly leapt from the devil into that place, and swore by the name of God that he would not departed thence; Hereupon though the Angel of death would have drawn him back, and though the ministering Angels also complained hereof unto God, yet because- of his oath, it was concluded of God that he should stay there, it having been found that this rabbin had never made false oath before. The like liberty and presumption in swearing do others of them commend unto us on earth, when as some of their great Rabbins having a special request unto God do tell him with an oath that they will not departed from the place where they stand until they see their desire granted. Thus it is 
e Thalmud in Taanith, or treat. of fasting, c. 3.  accorded of Chone Hammagal, that in a time of great drought when as other humiliation would not prevail, he shut up himself in our with a Cake, and prayed thus, O Lord of the world, thy Children direct their eyes unto me, knowing that I am dear unto thee as a Child unto his Father: I swear by thy holy name, that I will not departed hence, until thou have pity upon thy infants: This being done there came showers of rain. And thus R. Solomon jarchi their great Parshandatha or chief expositor of the law, interpreting those words of the prophet I will stand upon my watch, 
f Rasi & Kimchi comment. on Habak, c. 1.1.  writes hereupon: ghnugah ghnag Habakuk, etc. that is to say, Habakkuk baked a Cake and stood in it or by it, and said, I will not departed hence until I hear what he will say unto me, etc. And this exposition is also related by Kimchi in the same place. This practice is like unto the dealing of some presumptuous persons in these our times, of whom I have heard, that coming unto persons possessed and taking with them a pound of raisins do avow they will eat nothing else until the persons be dispossessed. Many other vain doctrines they have touching oaths & blasphemies but I may not insist further upon them.   

TOuching the observation of the Sabath taught in the 4th. commandement, they 
g R. Abraham Aben Ezra comment. on Exod. 20. Isaak been Arama in Akedath Isaak, portâ 45.  show from their wise men, that the 7. planets have each of them a several day in the week assigned unto them wherein they bear rule and show their force; that among these planets Saturn & Mars are hurtful stars above the rest: that those who begin any work or enter upon any journey when they bear rule shall not prospero but come to some hurt: that among all the days of the week there is not to be found any day and night together wherein those two hurt full planets bear rule save only upon the Sabath day: & that therefore it is not convenient for men to be then exercised in worldly affairs, save only in the service of God: This is laid down as a reason of rest upon the seventh day: If this were just and sound, it should go ill with Christians who have their Sabath now changed from the seventh to the first day of the week: Now for the keeping of this Sabath, they propound most carnal and absurd observations: they then 
h Maimony in Misneh, tract. Schabath, c. 30.  require that a man have clean and fair apparel, and change of apparel; and if a man have not change of apparel, yet they require him so to wear it, that it may seem not to be the common apparel. They bind every man to make; banquets on the Sabath, and if it be possible to keep them with wine: to spread the table upon the evening when the Sabath gins: and to see that it be spread when the Sabath goes out, though a man had no more meat than an Olive to set upon the same: And for honour of the Sabath, they do then especially commend taschmish hammittah, the use of the marriage bed. And they teach there, that it is unlawful to mourn or cry on the Sabath even to pray for compassion and to seek mercy from God, even in affliction, except it be extraordinary, as when the city is besieged, etc. They say, 
i Ibidem, c. 19 sec. 1.3.  whosoever wears arms on the Sabath, which are put on like apparel, as helmet, brigandine, and boots of brass, he is free: but who so carries arms that are not like unto apparel, as spear sword, bow or the like, he is guilty: That it is unlawful for a woman to go forth on the Sabath, with a ring which hath a signet upon it; but if a man do it, he is free: and on the contrary, that it is unlawful for a man to go forth on the Sabath with a ring, which hath no signet upon it, but if a woman do it she is free. They say, 
k Ibid. c. 27.  whosoever goes out of his bounds on the Sabath, he is Lukah to be beaten; those bounds they describe to be 2000 cubits: but if a man walk through the city where he lives, though it were as great as Nineveh, that it is lawful. If a man through ignorance or otherwise exceed that bounds than he hath but 4 cubits left him to stir in. If for performing the necessities of nature he be urged to go aside, yet he must return to that place again, (to his circle.) They teach, that 
l Ibid. c. 16. sec. 12.  if one man alone (overtaken with the Sabath in his journey) do rest in a plain and make a trench round about him: if there be in it a space containing two measures (of seed,) it is lawful for him to walk through all that space, but if there be in it more than the space of two measures, than he may not move above 4. cubits: & so it is if there be two men together. But if there be three Israelites or more than these behold these are a camp, & it is lawful for them to walk for all their necessities, though it were diverse miles: and this so, that the space of the two measures which they have compassed in be not left void without some vessels or implements in the same; otherwise it is unlawful for them to move through the whole trench, but only for 4. cubits: And a Child may not make up the number for a camp, etc. If we will believe Rabbins this was the external practice of the legal rites in the jews common wealth: how should we understand these things without their help?   

FRom the observation of the fift commandment they teach men to go astray both in defect and excess of giving honour diverse ways: As in Christ's time they did frustrate this commandment of God by their sacrilegious 
m Mat. 15.4,5,6.  Korban, in giving that unto the Priests which they should have bestowed on their parents: So do they still teach men to practise. They say, 
n Maimony in Misneh, in thalmud thorah, c. 5. sect. 1, etc.  if a man see a thing lost by his Father, and a thing lost by his Rabbi, he is first to bring the thing lost unto his Rabbi: If his Father and his Rabbi be laden with burdens, he is first to take of the burden of his Rabbi, then of his father. If his father and his Rabbi be taken captives, he is first to redeem his Rabbi then his Father. They say in the same place, that it is unlawful for a man to teach in the presence of his Rabbi for ever: and whosoever teacheth a tradition in the presence of his Rabbi is guilty of death. If there be the space of 12 miles betwixt him & his Rabbi, and a man ask him a word of the tradition, it is then lawful to answer him, etc. But for a man to set himself to be seen, and to sit down to teach whosoever shall ask him: though he be in one end of the world and his Rabbi in the other end of the world, yet it is unlawful for him so to teach, until his Rabbi die, or except he get a licence from him, etc. If the 
o R. Alphes in Moed Katon, c. 3. Fol. 380.  Father of the house of judgement transgress, they may not censure or suspend him for it, but they say unto him, boast of thy glory and stay at home, etc. If a student, or young scholar transgress they may not suspend him openly but in the night, when the Sun is gone down: and their proof is as Raschbal there noteth, because it is said by the Prophet: Thou shalt fall in the day: and the Prophet shall fall with thee in the night: Hos. 4.5. And the night shall cover him (Mica. 3.6.) Again whereas the law of God appointeth, that he which curseth Father or Mother shall die: they do frustrate this commandment, by this distinction, that 
p Arb. Tur. l. jor. dea. trac. cibod ab. fig. 241.  this is to be understood of such as curse by some of the proper names of God: but if they curse by any of his attributes they are not subject to this punishment but only sin as if they should curse any other of Israel, that is not their parent. And where God ordained those that smite Father or mother, to be put to death, this they say is to be understood of such smiting where a wound or blue mark follows: and that otherwise it is but as if they had stricken an other Israelite, etc. They give this honour unto their parent of parents, the father of their great court, that the same error which is an heinous sin in an other, shall not yet be so in him: for whereas they 
q Maimo. in Morch Nebuchim lib. 3. perck. 42.  make 4. degrees of transgression, viz. 1, against a man's will: 2 of error: 3 of pride: 4 of malice; They do in the same place note, that there is herein this great difference betwixt private men, and their chief rulers: namely that if a private man work any transgression and judge according to his own understanding, it is a transgression of pride: and he may may be put to death for it: but the chief rulers and the high Priest not so: in them this is but a transgression of error.   

AGainst the sixth commandment, they give allowance of murder, diverse ways. They say, 
r R. Moses mikkotsi in SMG, in Loim, precept. ●… 163.  if ten men do strike a man with ten staves, so that every one be sufficient to kill him, & he die; whether they struck him one after an other, or whether they struck him together as one man, they are all free from being slain by the court of judgement, because it is said every soul of a man which is one, if he kill, etc. They say, 
s Maimon. in Misneh, in Aisure Biah, cap. 12.  whosoever goes in unto a woman that is a gentle, (under whom they comprehend Christians) whether by way of marriage, or by way of fornication, if he do it manifestly in the sight of ten or more Israelites, if they find him and be zealous and kill him: behold these are to be praised and preserved: this is halacah lemosheh Missinai, a tradition delivered unto Moses at Sinai: But if the zealous come to kill this man and he escape, and kill the zealous to deliver himself out of his hand, then is not he to be slain for killing the zealous. In an other case they 
“ SMG. in A sin, praec. 70.  hold it lawful to kill the Gentle that doth but strike a jew, and for proof they allege Moses his example, Exo. 2.11.12. Again they 
t Arba Turim, l. joreh dea, in Abodah Zarah, sig. 158.  teach, that if any of the Idolatrous gentiles (such as they esteem Christians to be) do fall into a pit, or into a place of danger, he that sees them may not lift them or help them out, except they hire him: even as they may not heal such persons but for a reward, etc. But if they be heretics, apostates, or the the like, such as do leave their judaisme and embrace Christianity, they hold it lawful to thrust them down with their hands viz. to drown or kill them as occasion is offered. And many other bloody doctrines are maintained by them.   

MOst vain also are the rabbinical doctrines touching marriage, tending many ways to the violation of the 7 th'. Commandment: They say, 
u Arb. Tur. lib. Eben Ezer, in Aisure Biah, sig. 1.  that every man is bound to take a wife, to increase and multiply: that he which doth not marry, is as he that sheddeth blood: and as he that defaceth the image of God: and that he causeth Schecinah or the majesty of God to departed from Israel: that whosoever lives without a wife, lives without goodness, without joy without blessing, without habitation, without law, without wall, without peace, &. that such an one is no man, etc. that the commandment of taking a wife is exceeding great, because they may not cell the book of the law, but for to learn the law, and for to get a wife: that this commandment lies upon a man when he is 18. years old: that he may not pass 20 without a wife: the disciples of R. Ishmael say that until 20 years God stays for a man that he may take a wife: but if he pass 20 years without a wife, the holy blessed God saith, let the bones of that man be broken. R. Asher saith if he pass 20 years without a wife, the house of judgement is to compel him to marry. Only they have an exception for students as been Azzai that made the law his wife, etc. If a man have had a wife and Children by her in his youth, he must also as R. jehoshua saith take one in his age: and so to prove that a man may not live a widower they allege that saying of Solomon, Eccl. 11.6. If a man have lived with a wife 10. years & she have brought him no Children, they say he is bound to put her away, that he may fulfil the commandment, increase and multiply. Further, that a man is to take many wives to increase and multiply: but the counsel of their wisest men is that a man should have but 4 wives that he may the better please them: that yet if they live in such places where the law allows them to take but one wife (as herein Christendom) they are then to follow the custom. Besides this as they have many canons touching marriage unmeet to be mentioned, so they 
w Eben Ezer in Aisure Biah, sig. 24.  have allowance of some practices which are monstrous and against nature not to be named. And woe to them that fetch the exposition of God's law from such practices as are recorded by these Rabbins.  
Again, they teach that 
x Maimony in Aisure Biah, c. 17. sect. 2. & 3.  every Priest whether high Priest or other inferior priest that takes one of the three women (either harlot, or divorced or polluted) and shall marry her, he is to be punished: but if he go in unto her after the manner of an harlot, he is not to be punished: because it is said, he shall not take: until he take and marry her, etc. But if the high Priest go in unto a widow (after the manner of a harlot) he is punished once: if he marry her, he is to have double punishment, etc. They teach 
y Ibidem cap. 3.  also, that he which goes in unto a deaf woman; to a mad woman: to a person that is Tomtom, i● in respect of certain knowledge neither male nor female: to an Hermaphrodite that is both male and female, etc. that all these are free, if presumption be not added. Their other vain traditions concerning women, wives and maids are innumerable.   

OF their false expositions of the eight commandment, there is also a great number. Their Thalmudique canons require a man to restore the thing lost by an Israelite, but 
z R. Moses mikkotsi SMG. in Asin. praec. 74.  if they find a thing lost by an heretic, an Epicure, an Idolater and such as openly pollute the Sabath, they give men liberty not to restore unto them the thing lost by them, etc. If a 
a Thalmud Sanhedrin, c. 8. fo. 72.  thief dig through and break into the house of a man and steal away his goods, they do not require restitution in this case as in other thefts, because the thief herein adventured his life, and it had been lawful to have killed him if he had been taken in the fact. And 
b Choshen hamishpat, in Genibah, sig. 351.  such a kind of excuse they have to free him that steals upon the Sabath day. If a thief 
c Ibidem, sig. 350.  steal a thing and cell it, and an other thief come and steal it: the first thief is to restore 4 or 5- fold: the second is required to restore double if he stole it after the owners thereof despaired to find it: but if he stole it before they despaired to found it again, then is he free from the double restitution, by their canons. They say, 
d SMG, in Asin, praec. 71.  if a man steal any thing from a gentle, from any that is not an Israelite, or if he steal the treasures of the sanctuary he is freed from restoring double, because it is said he shall restore double unto his neighbour, etc. Touching receyving of alms, 
e joreh dea. tract. Tsedakah, sig. 253.  their canons are, that a man which hath meat for two meals may not receive any thing from their Tamchavi, the common dish, or almsbasket: if a man have meat for fourteen meals, he may not receive any thing from their Kopheh, the common purse or poor man's Box: if a man have two hundred pieces of that money, which they call Zuz, (commonly reckoned to be the fourth part of a shekel,) though he do not traffic with them: or if he have fifty of those pieces, and do traffic with them, then may he receyve no alms at all: if a man have two hundred of those pieces of money, wanting a penny or a dinar: though any would give him a thousand more of those same pieces at one time, behold he may then receyve them all: Or if a man have a house and much household stuff, and have not these two hundred pieces of money, he may still receive & need not cell his household stuff, though they be vessels of silver & vessels of gold, etc.   

AGainst the truth and lawful witnessing thereof, taught in the 9 th'. commandement; they bring diverse glosses to pervert the same. They 
f R. Moses mikkotsi in SMG. in Asin, praecep. 74.  allow a man in many cases to break his word and his promise: and diverse instances hereof are alleged by them, in such bargains or agreements, wherein they have promised to give unto an other more than he deserves, & then is convenient for him. When many give testimony concerning one matter, if there be 
g Choshe● hammishpat in Eduth, sig. 36. & SMG, in Loim, praec. 213.  one of the witnesses that be a Kinsman, or otherwise insufficient to bear witness; then they hold that the testimony of them all ceaseth, yea though they be an hunddred of them, yet their testimony is void. They hold 
h Ibid. in Loim, praec. 214.  also that it is not lawful for a man to join in testimony with a wicked man, although the wicked man be willing to witness the truth also. When they 
i Chosh. hammishpat, tract. Eduth, sig. 36.  examine witnesses apart and ask them whether they went to see that thing, or to be witnesses: they hold, he that answers, he went to be a witness makes the whole testimony unlawful: he that answers, he went to see, doth not prejudice the testimony. Moreover 
k SMG. Loin, praec. 215.  because it is said, the Fathers shall not be slain for the children, nor the Children for the Fathers; they collect and conclude that fathers may not be put to death upon the testimony of their Children: nor Children upon the testimony of their Fathers. And many other such like canons they have concerning this matter.   

COncerning the lust forbidden in the 10 th'. commandement the more ancient Rabbins have denied the same to be any transgression of God's law as appears 
l Mat. 5.22 28.  by our Saviour's refutation of their opinion therein: But diverse of the 
m Maimon. in Moreh Nebuchim chel. 3. perek. 34. & R. Moses mikko. in Loin, 158.  later Rabbins do acknowledge this concupiscence of the heart to be a sin and forbidden of God. The ancient jew-doctours whom you use most to commend, are herein most erroneous and greater corrupters of God's law, than their successors. And how much more are we to reject these Rabbinical traditions, when as the Rabbins themselves do begin to be weary and ashamed of them?   

THirdly, as for those legal rites which (as you say) will not be well understood without help of Rabbins especially in Exodus & Leviticus: The truth is that the Rabbins dote about nothing more than about them. This is evident by manifold examples: Among other legal Ordinances described in Leviticus, the first and the tenth day of the seventh month were appointed to be kept holy, Leu. 23.24.27. Of these days thus say the Rabbins; 
n R. Alphes in Rosch hasschanah Cap. 1. Fol. 303.  Three books are opened in the beginning of the year, one schel Tsadikim gemurim, for those that are perfectly just: an other schel Reschaghnim gemurim, for those that are perfectly wicked: a third schel Benonijim, for the middle sort: The first sort are then presently written and sealed unto life: the second sort are presently written and sealed unto death: the third sort are suspended and stand until the day of reconciliation, (for 10. days, from the first unto the tenth day of the seventh month:) If in that mean time they do well or merit, they are then written into the book of life: if they do not merit, they are then written into the book of death. Hereupon they say, for ever a man must look to himself, when he is half pure, and half guilty: by one good work he may bring himself lecaph zacuth, into the state of purity; and by one transgression he may bring himself lecaph chobah, into the state of guiltiness and be cursed for ever. Therefore they exhort to seek the Lord while he may be found, that is, the 10 days betwixt the beginning of the year, & the day of reconciliation. The school of Schammai 
o R. Alphes, ibid. Fol. 304.  makes the same distinction of persons for the day of judgement, & saith of the third sort, the middle kind, that being laid in the balance they go down to hell: then they cry and come up again: and for proof of this their going down to hell for a while, they allege diverse scriptures, viz. Zach. 13.9. 1 Sam. 2.6. Ps. 116.1, etc. But the school of Hillel saith further of that third sort: if they be of the sinners of Israel they shall be twelve months in Hell, and after that be delivered: but as for heretics, apostates, etc. those go down to hell for evermore. Again where as God commanded in the levitical ordinances, that there should be drink offerings of wine with certain other sacrifices; with these do the Rabbins teach drink offerings with water to be used at the feast of Tabernacles. The Masorites for a note thereof, set this sign 
p Masorah ketamah on Numb. 29. 19  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Elias Levita expounding this mark shows 
q Masoreth hammasoreth, in schibre Luchoth, sive in fragmentis Tabularum.  that by the three numeral letters in Bûz are noted the second, sixth, and seventh days in the feast of Tabernacles, where in the description of the drink offerings for those three days, there is written in the Hebrew for the second day niscehem with man: for the sixth nesaceha with jod before the affix, and for the seventh day cemishpatam with man, these three last letters yielding the word maijm which signifieth waters hereupon they collect and conclude that they had drink-offrings of water for those three days as well as drink offerings of wine, for the other 5. days of that feast which in their description have still niscah, a drink offering without addition of jod or man, Numb. 29.16.— 38. And this observation is also recorded in their Talmud from 
r Taanith, c. 1. Fo. 2.  R. jehudah been Bathirah, & from R. Akiba. If these be just and true expositions, who could have found them out or well understood them without help of Rabbins?  
Again, the observation of the Sabath is often commanded in Exodus and often in Leviticus: and see how well they record the external practice thereof in the common wealth of Israel: and what cause you have upon such records to commend their expositions unto us. They teach us that it is a principal duty of the Sabath to make good cheer upon that day: and to keep 3 feasts in the same: at the beginning, middle & end thereof. 
x Thalmud in Sabath c. 16. f. 118  R. Iose blessing himself saith, let my portion be with them that keep the three banquets of the Sabath. This they say is, 
y Esa. 58.13  to call the Sabath a delight. i. Oneg. R. jehudah, saith this Oneg or delight, 
z Thalmud ibid.  is to have tarts, great fishes, and heads of garlic. To those that thus delight themselves on the Sabath, they apply that saying of David, delight thyself in the Lord, and he shall give thee thine hearts desire, ps. 37.4. And for confirmation of this they tell us many strange stories: 
a Thalm. ibid. f. 119.  R. Chaia tells of the householder that had a golden table with sixteen silver chains affixed thereunto, which sixteen men could scarcely carry; also that it was furnished with dishes, spoons, trenchers, pots, etc. & all this given him of God, because whensoever he found a good fat beast, he kept the same to honour the Sabath withal, by making good cheer. And because the word Oneg, or delight, in Esa. 58. doth want the letter vau, the numeral letter which standeth for six: hence they collect that they aught not to continued fasting on the Sabath above six hours: And for this they have 
b Arba Turim in Orach chajim, in Sabath, sig. 288.  a Canon requiring great care herein lest the delight of the Sabath should be violated; that they must make haste to end their prayers and service before midday, that they may then keep the second feast of the Sabath, etc. As for the works forbidden on the Sabath, they make them of two sorts, Aboth melacoth, 
c Thalmud Tract. de Sabb. & joa. Buxt. in Synag. judaic. c. 11  & Toledoth melacoth, that is, Father or head works, and the generations proceeding from them and both sorts under great penalty are condemned by them: The head works they reduce unto 39 articles: the offspring derived from these are a huge number. A head work forbidden is, to blow or till the ground: under this article they condemn all digging, filling of ditches, watering of herbs, etc. Therefore their Rabbins permit men to sprinkle, their houses or chambers with water, that the dust be not raised, but forbidden men to sweep with besoms: lest in sweeping any clefts or holes like unto little ditches should be filled with dust. A work forbidden is, cutting down of corn, and reaping: under this article they comprise all plucking of apples, dates, figs, gathering of berries. And therefore they permit men to eat apples or other fruits, if they will put their mouths unto them as they hung upon the tree: but with the hand to pluck away an apple from the tree or berry from the bush, that they utterly condemn. Sowing corn on the Sabath is a head work forbidden: but under this also, they forbidden men in giving of corn to hens or the like creatures, to cast any more grains of corn unto them than they will be sure to eat: for if any grains lighting upon the earth where the rain falls, should hap to spring and grow, this should then prove a great sin, like to that of the husbandman that sows his field on the Sabath day. To bear a burden upon the Sabath is a capital sin: and hereupon they forbidden men to wear pattens upon the Sabath, as the manner of some is that are to walk through miry and foul places: their reason is, though these seem to carry a man: yet indeed he bears the burden of them when he lifts up his feet and goes with them.  
Killing of beasts by butchers is unlawful on the Sabath: accordingly they teach that if a flea be found leaping on the earth or on clotheses it is not lawful to take it on the Sabath, but if the flea bite, than it is lawful to take it to remove it and cast it away, but not to kill it: but if it be a louse that may be killed. Yet on the contrary side R. Eliezer teacheth that whosoever kills a louse upon the Sabath, doth as much as if he should kill a Camel. And hereupon touching the hunting of a flea there grows a great and subtle dispute among the Thalmudistes. The works of artificers in their ordinary trades and callings being forbidden: thence they 
d Sebastian. Munster in Mat. 15.  say, we may not blow the fire with bellows on the Sabath, because it representeth the work of an artificer; but through a hollow reed or cane men may lawfully do it. And in making a fire, great care is to be used that the sticks be not so laid, that they should carry show of a building: That were unlawful, like the building of a house on the Sabath. Moreover there is great 
e Thalmud in Betsah, or treat. of the egg. c. 1. fol 1.  controversy betwixt the school of Hillel and Schammai touching the egg that is laid upon a a good day. And some of them 
f Seb. Munst. in Mat. 15.  say, that it is unlawful to touch an egg that is laid upon a good day, and consequently that it is much more unlawful to eat the same: yea if they be uncertain when the egg was laid and do but doubt whether it is laid on a good day or on a common day that it is then unlawful to be eaten: yea if such an egg be laid among a thousand other eggs, that they cannot know it from the rest, that then they all become unlawful. Thus do the Rabbins record the external practice of Moses ordinances in the common wealth of Israel: thus do they help us to understand the observation of the Sabath and other legal rites: There is as much assurance of truth and right in these traditions as in others that you allege from them: and I desire the reader to excuse me in the rehearsal of them, because the knowledge hereof helps to refute your presumptuous assertion touching the help to be received from them. When they have 
g Thalmud de Sabb. c. 16. f. 119 & Arba Turim in Orach Chajim trac. Schab fig. 262.  prayed diligently on the Sabath, and in special have uttered that verse, Than the heaven and the earth were finished & all the host of them: Gen. 2.1. The Rabbins tell us, that then there be two Angels one good, the other evil, which bring them home to their houses, and laying their hands upon their head, do say, Behold, this coal hath touched thy lips; thine iniquity shallbe taken away and thy sin purged. R. Iose saith, that there be two Angels, the one good, the other evil, which every Sabath day in the evening do lead each man from the Synagogue to their house: where if these Angels do find the Sabath-candle burning, the table spread, and the bed prepared, than the good Angel saith; God grant, that the Sabath following, all things may be in this house so as now they are, whereunto the evil Angel is constrained to say Amen, whether he will or not. On the contrary, if these two Angels coming to the house, do find the former things unprepared, than the evil Angel saith, let all things be in this house the next Sabath, as now they are: whereunto the good Angel is compelled to say Amen, whether he will or not. The Rabbins say it is impossible for Christians and others to keep the Sabath as the jews do, because they want a soul which the jews have more than they. By virtue of this superfluous soul, they say that the heart of the jews is enlarged to rejoice and to be glad and hereby they banish all cares and troubles out of their breasts, and so keep the rest of the Sabath. This 
h Thalmud in Betsah c. 2. fol. 16 & Thalmud in Taanith c. 4. fol. 27  soul as R. Simeon been Lakish affirmeth is given them every week at the beginning of the Sabath and taken away at the end of the Sabath again. This they also labour to prove by the scriptures, from the word of Moses, Exo. 31.17, and in the seventh day he rested and was refreshed; schabbath vaijnnaphesch. Whereas the men of the station appointed 4. fasts in the week, to wit, on the, second, third, fourth, and fift days: on the second day for them that went down to the Sea; on the third, for them that traveled in the wilderness: on the fourth, for little children that the squinancy should not fall on them; on the fift, for women great with Child, and for nurses that they should not let their suckling's fall: on the evening of the Sabath they fasted not, for honour of the Sabath, and much lesle upon the Sabath itself: but on the first of the week: what is the reason? R. Samuel bar Nachmani saith, because that day is the third after their affliction; Resh Lakish saith, because of neshamah iattirah, the redundant Soul: for Resch Lakish saith, a redundant soul is given to man in the beginning of the Sabath and taken away in the going out of the Sabath, as it is said, schabbath vaijnnaphesch: straightway as he hath kept the Sabath that soul departeth or is lost. For this loss no marvel if they fasted the next day of the week. Again, the Rabbins teach, that upon the Sabath day the Souls in hell do rest from their torment: and their fire that uses to burn them all the week, ceaseth. They 
k Thalmud in Sanhedrin, c. 7. fol. 65.  say, that Turnus Rophus demanding what the Sabath day was above other days, R. Akiba answered him, that the excellency thereof above other days was proved by three things, by the river Sambation: by them that had familiar spirits: by his Father's sepulchre, where the smoke did not ascend upon the Sabath: And the Rabbinique 
l Gloss. on Talm. ibid.  scholiast on the same place declares, how that river Sambation though it flow and run violently all the week yet rests on the Sabath day: how the spirits are not raised on the Sabath day: how the souls in hell tormented and burned all the other days of the year, do yet rest on the Sabath: and that so accordingly the soul of this Turnus his Father being in hell, and the smoke of his burning ascending through his grave on other days, did yet cease on the Sabath. When the jews have ended their prayers & concluded the Sabath, then comes an evil Angel called Dumah which commands them to return unto their torment. 
m joa. Buxt. Synag. judaic. p. 253  Hereupon it is an ordinance & rite among the jews that they may not quite empty any vessels of the water in them upon the Sabath, but always to leave some in, lest those miserable souls that are come out of hell for the space of the Sabath, should any where want water to cool and refresh themselves withal. And a thousand such like vain observations are retained among them. On this manner (Mr. Ainsworth) do your ancient and later jews record the external practices of Moses ordinances: so that it is manifestly true which one said, 
n Buxt. ibid. p. 36.  it doth as well become the jew-doctours to expound the holy scripture, as it doth a wild boar to dig a vineyard.  
Fourthly, To come yet nearer unto you, tell us what one legal rite there is which could not be well understood without the Rabbins exposition alleged by you in any part of your annotations: Name one if you can: Nay even such jewish records and expositions, as you yourself do pick out and present unto us as more worthy to be remembered then others: with which also you do adorn your book & paint the face of your annotations: even those also are so full of notorious absurdities, presumptions without scripture and apparent pervertings of the same, that by them it may easily be discerned what little reason or warrant you had to say, that many of those legal rites especially in Exodus and Leviticus, will not be well understood without the help of the Rabbins. For example,  
Touching the diverse gestures in the worship of God, you 
a Annot. on Exo. 4.31.  record, that the Hebrew-doctours in the Zohar do help us thus to understand them: that the bending of the head, with the face toward the ground, was for to escape judgement and the bowing of themselves (or worshipping,) was for to obtain mercy: and that the bending of the head was before the worshipping: according to the mystery of the sin offering before the  offering. To illustrate this vain distinction you allege diverse places of scripture to show the order of the sin-offering & burnt-offring: you might have done better to have alleged as many in refutation of this Zohar. Touching other external practices in the jews common wealth: you tell us from the rabbinical records, 
b Annot. on Exo. 21.19.  He that kicked his neighbour with his foot, paid five shekels: he that smote him with his thigh, paid three shekels: he that bent his fist and smote him, paid thirteen shekels: if he smote him with the palm of his hand one shekel, etc. Touching the neighbours gored Ox, you 
c Ibid. on vers. 35.  note that the Hebrew doctors take it strictly and say. If an Israelites Ox push an Ox sanctified (unto God:) or an Ox that is sanctified do push an Israelites ox: he is not bound to pay (by this law;) for it is said his neighbour's Ox. Touching the law of fire kindled in stacks of corn, you 
d On Exo. 22.16.  note, that the Hebrew Doctors explayn thus: One brings fire, an other after brings wood: he that brings the wood is bound to pay. One brings wood, and then an other brings fire: now he that brings the fire is bound to pay. If one come & make the flame, than he is bound to pay, etc. Touching the kind of usury, you 
e Ibid. on vers. 25.  show us this their exposition: It is unlawful to take usury before or after. As, one intending to borrow of a man, sends him a gift, to the end that he may lend unto him: this is usury aforehand. Or, he hath borrowed of a man, and paid him again: and sends him a gift, for his money which he had of him for naught: this is after usury. Who so borroweth of his neighbour, and was not wont in former time to salute him first: it is unlawful for him to salute him first, (& I need not to say to praise him:) for it is written, Usury of any word (or thing) Deut. 23.19. though they be but words they are unlawful. Likewise it is unlawful for the borrower to learn his leader to read, etc. all the while his money is in his hand, if he were not wont to do it before: as it is said, Usury of any thing: And again a little after in the same place. He that lends unto his neighbour, may not retain his servant to do work for him, although the servant sit still and hath nothing to do, etc. Touching the law of first fruits, you 
f Ibid. on vers. 29.  note that the Hebrew canons say, They bring no first-fruits but of seven things, viz. of wheat, and of barley, and of grapes, and of figs, and of pomegranates, and of olives and of dates. And if one bring other besides these seven kinds, they are not sanctified. They bring no first fruits of liquors, save of olives and grapes: if a man bring other liquors they are not received of him. There is no measure of first fruits set by the law: but by the Doctors a man must separate one of sixty. If the well understanding of the legal rites do consist in such explications and interpretations as these: then will I yield unto you that the ordinances of Moses will not be well understood without the rabbinical records, as you would have it: I think no man alive would have arrived unto these profound determinations, nor ever have light upon these expositions, except he had ploughed with the Iewes heifer of the Thalmud. Touching the precept of keeping men far from false matters, you 
g Annot on Exo. 23.7.  note, that from thence the jews have a rule, A judge that knoweth of his fellow, that he is a violent extortioner or a wicked man, it is unlawful to be joined in society with him, as it is written from a word of falsehood thou shalt be far. And so they in jerusalem, that had a clear conscience were wont to do: they sat not in judgement, till they knew who should sit; nor sealed any writing, till they knew who should seal it with them, etc. If this rule were sound, then would it help much to the establishing of your separation and not only of it: but of a further than you, I think, will maintain. Touching the fruits of the seventh year, you 
h Ibid. on vers. 11.  note how it is showed by the Hebrew records, that whatsoever was properly man's meat, as wheat, figs, grapes and the like: they might not make of them medicine,, plasters etc. though for man's use because it is said, To you for meat, Leu. 25.6. & not for medicine, etc. A number of these vain traditions I observed before in setting down your first scandal in allegation of the Thalmudists & many more such like might be also noted, wherein it may appear how well the Rabbins understood the external practice of the legal rites: yea I may justly say of these their expositions as yourself do of the 
k Answer to john Ains. p. 65.  pope's determinations. Whereas men might have some good measure of light in these mysteries, by the plain scriptures it is come to pass by these Rabbins and Thalmudique glosses, interpretations, comments, etc. that darkness and gross darkness hath covered many people, who if they had never read any thing, but the book of God, might have seen much more clearly, through his grace: 
l P. 66. 67.  Their expositions do often times as well clear the truth, as a cloud before the sun. Yea even the plainest places, which in holy writ are as bright as noon day; these Thalmudists have enveloped with Egyptian darkness. Their expositions do illustrate the scriptures, as the smoke of the pit did the Sun and the air Apo. 9.2. So far wide are you, in saying that many legal rites will not be well understood without their help. You once 
m Ibid. p. 21.  said well: The scriptures are not so bore and naked as to need the rags of men's inventions to array them. Why do you now then yourself so plod and labour to array them with the mensturous rags of the Rabbins?  
Fiftly, where as you 
n Preface to annot. on Gen.  say further: By their records also, many particulars about the Passeover, which Christ kept, Mat. 26. the phylacteries which the Pharisees wore, Mat. 23. and other things mentioned in the Evangelists, will much be cleared: whereof see the annotations on Exo. 12, & Exo. 13.9. Even these more special instances chosen out by you, do also plainly witness against you that the Thalmudique traditions do not so much clear as darken and obscure the ordinances of God; and the story of the scriptures: As for your annotations on Exo. 12. touching their keeping of the , which you desire us to see: there we see a number of superstitious traditions related by you, but not reproved by you as was meet: you 
o Annot. on Exo. 12.8.  tell us of their sauce charoseth a memorial of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt: you note the 4. Cups of wine which every man and woman was bound to drink that night without fail: you note the measure of each cup containing a quarter of a log, so much as an egg & a half: you note the several blessings to be made for every cup by itself: you note their tradition of washing their hands twice that night, whereas other nights they do it but once: and their blessing for the washing of hands: that all other nights, they eat either sitting or lying: but this night; lying only: you make relation also of a fift cup and the great hymn, that was said for it, viz. the psalm 136. But that they are not bound to this cup as to the four former cups. And in fine, having related these and some other of their traditions, you say further; These observations of the jews whiles their common wealth stood, & to this day: may give light to some particulars in the  that Christ kept: as why they lay down, one leaning on an others bosom, joh. 13.23. (a sign of rest and security) and stood not as at the first , neither sat on high as we use. Why Christ rose from supper, and washed and sat down again, joh. 13.4.5.12. Why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart, and for the cup (or wine) apart, Mark. 14.22.23, and why it is said, he took the cup after supper, Luk. 22.20. also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end, Mat. 26.30, etc. But we are here to consider, that 1. It is uncertain whether these were the observations of the jews while their common wealth stood: The records of the Rabbins from whose mouth you speak, are full of lies, fictions, contradictions even for matters of fact and practice: and even for these particular observations here mentioned by you: if you deny it, I can bring you plentiful proof thereof: And how great folly is it, to stuff our expositions of the scripture with such things as the conscience can not be assured of the truth thereof? 2. Suppose the observations of the jews before Christ were such as you in particular do relate: how unworthily do you apply his holy institution unto their vain inventions? Do you not make Christ jesus guilty of their superstitions and presumptuous additions unto the ordinance of God, as though framed himself unto their unlawful practices and followed the same? The light you boast of, is darkness, and not light. These things which the Rabbins record are not according to the law and the testimony: & whiles they speak not according to that word, what light 
p Esa. 8.20  is in them? The manner of Christ's sitting down with leaning upon one an others bosom, was according to the common & ordinary manner of their sitting down to meat at those times as appeareth by the use of the 
q Mat. 9.10, & 22,10.11. & 26.7. Mark. 16.14. Luk. 7 37. & 22.27.  like phrase serving to describe the same: and therefore was directly contrary to the superstition of the jews, that all other nights did eat sitting or lying, that night lying only: and therefore a superstitious bondage .. As for Christ's rising from supper to wash his disciples feet: what community is there betwixt it & the superstitious hand-washing of the jews? If our Saviour 
r Mat. 15.2, etc.  had no regard of the pharisaical washing of hands at other times; much less had he regard to this invention in the worship of God and celebration of this sacrament: yea it is impiety to think that he followed their fashion either in this or in any of the like traditions. 3. The observations of the jews in keeping their , according to the records of the Rabbins are ten times more than these that you have repeated: and they are of like nature, of like warrant and authority, even from their own brains: you might as well have repeated them also: as namely, The mystery of the 
s Arba Turim in Orach Chajim, sig. 473, etc.  three cakes covered betwixt two napkins in a dish; one which was highest representing the high Priest: the middle most representing the tribe of Levi: & the lowest representing the whole people of Israel: a mystery as worthy to be noted as that which you mention of the 4. cups, etc. You might as well have related the mystery of their cushions then sometimes leaned upon, sometimes not: their hiding of a piece of a cake under a napkin, to signify how their elders coming out of Egypt carried their dough upon their shoulders bound in clotheses, etc. Some other of these traditions I noted before, in describing their Idol-temple; and many more if need require may be brought forth for a testimony, how far they were from the right external practice of Moses his ordinances. As for your notes upon that 
t Annot. on Exo. 13 9  other place, which you sand us to look upon touching the Phylacteries: 1. we find there so much superstition and vanity recorded by yourself out of the Rabbins touching the manner, order, time and fruit of them, as may justly serve to reprove your own assertion, touching the necessary help of such recorders: It is wonder, that you beholding and considering their gross corrupting of Moses ordinances in the external practice thereof, are not yet ashamed to affirm that many legal rites will not be well understood without their help. ●… I find, by comparing your notes with the Iewes records, that you do yet omit the 
u Arba Turim in Orach Chaijm, trac. tephil. sig. 25, etc.  greatest part of the most superstitious observations which those magical Rabbins and charmers do record touching those phylacteries: as namely, the quality of the parchment whereon they wrote the sentences of scripture; the colour of the ynk, and the matter of the ynk wherewith they were written: the colour of the leather into which they were put: the quality of the beast of whose skin that leather was made; the quality & condition of the man that must kill that beast: The condition of the Tanner that must dress that leather the quality of those persons that might wear those phylacteries; the quality of the place where they must be kept when they were laid aside: the manner of their penance and fasting if they had let them fall to the ground: the curious ˣ manner of the knots they make in tying and binding them, so that the letters of the word schaddai, which is one of the names of God be represented and figured out therein. These and many other such things they 
y Thalmud in Berachoth cap. 1. p. 7.  hold to be divine traditions delivered of God unto Moses in mount Sinai when the Lord showed his hinder parts unto him. If Christian men did see the volumes of dotages which the Thalmudists have written touching these phylacteries, they might thereby learn to beware of following you to seek the well understanding of God's ordinances from such blind guides: But this I observe throughout your allegation of the Rabbins that to win the more credit unto your own notes, you conceal the grossest absurdities of them, like the deceitful merchant that to vent his wares conceals the greatest faults thereof: Thus, the simple may be deceyved by you both. 3, that the place of the Evangelists Mat. 23, touching the phylacteries which the Pharisees wore, should much be cleared by these Rabbinical records, as you pretend, it is but a bore assertion. Wherein is the text cleared? In what point may we better understand the words of our Saviour? And what is it in the rebuke of the pharisees which we could not as clearly understand, without help of the Rabbins? we may not measure nor Judge of the Pharisaical traditions observed in Christ's time, by the records of the Rabbins whom you allege: because the Thalmudique traditions recorded by these Rabbins are many of them of later invention, and far different from the traditions observed heretofore in Christ's time. For whereas 
z Mat. 12.11, & Luk. 14.5.  the Pharisees of old, if a sheep, ox or ass fell into a pit upon the Sabath day, would allow the same straighway to be lift up & taken out on the Sabath; the 
a Thalmud de Sabbat. c. 18. p. 128.  Thalmud allows it not, but only allows meat to be given unto the beast in the water; or if the water be deep, that bottles of straw or such like things be put under the beast to save it from drowning. R. julius Otto a jew converted unto Christianisme, in his book entitled the 
b Gali. Razia lib. 1. c. 13.  revelation of secrets shows many parables recorded in the Thalmud, which the Rabbins (as it seems) have had out of the Gospel, though corruptly set down by them: for how it can be showed, that Christ hath taken aught out the Thalmud, which was compiled long after his death, and stuffed with new invented traditions of the infidel and reprobate Rabbins, accursed for rejecting of the son of God; And what is the Thalmud but even the black darkness, and the 
c Mat. 8.12  utter darkness into which the jews are now cast? And what light is to be expected from such a hellish dungeon, where we may see the Rabbins, sitting fast bound in the chains of ignorance, superstition, infidelity and blasphemy? How dare you say, that some parts of the scripture will not be well understood: unless we become scholars in that accursed school?  
Sixthly, how can we expect any great light from the expositions of the Rabbins, when as they profess that they may not commit the secrets of their law unto us: yea they make it matter of death and condemnation to reveal the same unto us; that for such 
d Elias, Levita Masor. hammasor. praefat●…  cause they should go down to hell with grief, and be devoured with the fire that is not blown. They may not teach them but only to Israelites, and those also having the five conditions which they observe from Esa. 2. And further as your Rambam or Maimony saith, when they do teach the Israelites so qualified, yet it must not be by writing, 
e Morch nebuchim chel. 3. per. 1. ex edit. justinian.  but from mouth to mouth. Or at lest if they expound the secrets of their law in writing, it must be so obscurely and darkly that none but their own Scholars and friends can understand: and so Maimony in the same place professeth unto his special friend & scholar touching his own writing to him: as Aristotle once said of his writings, unto Alexander; that they were to be understood of the only that had been hearers of him. Hence it is that in the jewish writings there are many ambiguities: and many things spoken according to received opinions, when they have yet an other meaning ●… Maimony in Misneh (as he is 
f Annot. on Gen. 1.17.  alleged by you) teaches that there be 9 spheres, namely, one for each of the seven planets, one that hath in it all the other stars which are seen in the firmament: and a ninth sphere which turneth about every day from east to west, etc. But in other later writings, he 
g Mo. nebuch. chel. 2. perek. 10, & 11.  laboureth at large to show according to the demonstrations of Abubacus that there are but four spheres, to wit, the sphere of the fixed stars; one sphere for five planets: the sphere of the Sun: and the sphere of the Moon; And these according to the number of the elements: that the sphere of the moon moveth the element of water, that the sphere of the Sun moveth the element of fire: that the sphere of the five planets moveth the air: & that the multitude & variety of their motions in that sphere in their retrogradations, progressions & stations causeth the change of the air and wether: that the sphere of the fixed stars, changeth the earth, etc. These things he seeks to illustrate by the ladder on which the Angels ascended and descended: by the 4. steps of that ladder, and the 4. Angels, two ascending and two descending and meeting together upon one step, etc. likewise by the 4 Chariots in Zacharie, coming out from betwixt the mountains of brass, etc. Hereby it appears what uncertainty there is in such writings where they do purposely obscure and hide their meanings: like charmers they do obscurely 
h Esa. 29.4.  mumble and whisper out of the dust: and their talk is as of one that hath the spirit of divination, a hollow voice, loath to be heard, or understood. A man may say of the Rabbins mystical doctrine, as themselves do writ of Moses his sepulchre, which they 
* R. Solom. on Deut. 34.6.  reckon for one of those ten things which they say were created in the beginning of the world, in the evening of the Sabath on the sixth day: of this sepulchre they 
“ Isaak been Arama in Akedath Isaak, portâ, 105.  writ when some went to see it: when they stood above in a high place, they saw it as if it were below: when they stood below, they saw it as if it were above: when this company divided themselves, half of them that went below saw it over against them that were above: and the other half that stood above saw it as if it were over against them below. So doth the meaning of the Rabbins vanish and fly away from them that seek after some of their mysteries: To follow after them is to grasp after a shadow.  
Lastly, if it were true which the Rabbins and your Maimony in special doth write touching the cause of prophecy ceasing, and the spirit of understanding withdrawn from men, than should there be no reason to seek the right understanding of the scriptures from them. Maimony 
i Moreh nebuchim chelek. 2. perek. 37.  records that the cause is affliction and grief: because the imaginative faculty is weakened thereby: that the spirit of prophecy rests not upon an afflicted sorrowful man: that prophecy is taken away in the time of anger & anguish: that therefore jaacob prophesied not all the days of his sorrow because his imaginative power laboured about mourning for joseph: that prophecy rested not on Moses after the sending of the spies as it did before, until all that generation was consumed: because he was grieved for their evils, etc. that this sorrow and grief is the next cause of prophecy departing in time of captivity and dispersion, etc. that this is it which was said by the prophet they shallbe dispersed or scattered, to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find it: & again, Their King and their prince is among the nations, there is no law, neither have the prophets found out the prophecy of the Lord. So Kimchi 
“ Comment. on Ps. 3.5,  expounds the words of David, that he lay down and slept, viz. when by Cushi he heard the sorrowful tidings: that then the spirit of prophecy ceased in him, because it rests not on a sorrowful person: that when Nathan came to him with good and joyful matter, than he awoke and rose again, than the spirit came again unto him. Thus their own words and writings are against themselves: & according to the same, they being now scattered abroad, and their present dispersion being a most grievous captivity unto them, as they every where call it, the law is not among them, the word of God is not to be found among them: The spirit of the holy prophets and of good understanding is departed from them: And therefore their help to understand the ordinances of Moses should not be thought so necessary as you would persuade us.    

CHAP. VII.  

YOur seventh error and scandal in alleging the Rabbins is; that you approve and justify their presumptuous expositions of Moses, which they vainly and boldly affirm without the warrant of the scripture. It was great presumption in you to say that many legal rites could not be well understood without their help: yea although their expositions had been good and sound: for other men endued with the spirit of wisdom might have brought in like manner as good and sound expositions as they: but when you justify their rotten and unsound traditions, this is an other evil. To give instance in such an exposition as you do much insist upon, and describe largely with tables, as being a flourishing ornament of your annotations; Touching the names of the tribes engraven upon the stones, according to their births; you expound it 
k Annot. on Exo. 28.10.  or generations by their mothers: first all Leahs Children, (as Moses himself reckoneth them Exo. 1. vers. 2.3.) and then the other mother's Children and Rachel's last: as shall after be more fully showed, in their several stones; vers. 17, etc. This is a mere presuming to understand above that which is written, contrary to that reverence and sobriety which God requires: for 1, who hath told you or what Bathkol hath rung it in your ears, that all Leahs Children were first in the stones according to their naming in Exod. 1. rather then according to the reckoning which Moses himself makes of them by their births Gen. 29. & 30. Secondly, if you will have all Leahs Children together, though some of them by birth were younger than the sons of the handmaids, as in Exod 1. Why do you not in like manner set Benjamin before the sons of the handmaids as in the same place is done Exod. 1.3.4. which gives as much warrant for one as for the other?   diagram of a stone engraving, showing six of the names of the Twelve Tribes of the Israelites 


simeon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jhudah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Zebulun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Dan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Asher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Benjamin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉     diagram of a stone engraving, showing six of the names of the Twelve Tribes of the Israelites 


〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reuben  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levi  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jssachar  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naphtali  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gad  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ihoseph    
First, it is composed of many presumptions without warrant of scripture: and namely, these, 1. That josephs' name in this place should be written with H, and withal such a distribution of their names that each of the stones might have just 25 letters upon them: a cabalistical fancy: 2, that simeon was written on the left shoulder as in the table: and not with Reuben on the same stone: as also the separating of joseph and Benidmin & not setting them on the same stone: and some other of them in like manner also: 3. The unequal setting of the handmayds' Children in the mids neither perfectly according to the time of their birth whiles Issachar and Zebulunare set before Dan and Naphtan nor according to the dignity of the Mothers, while Rachel's sons are placed after the handmaids: 4, the placing of Naphtali before Dan his elder brother, being both sons of the same mother, of Bilhah the handmaid: In all these your Rambam 
l Col. 2.18  hath unjustly advanced himself in those things which he never saw, rashly puffed up of the mind of his flesh, & was not taught of God in the scriptures. Such curious and light bladders of presumption blown up with the breath of blind and infidel Rabbins aught not to be admitted of you, neither are they to be tolerated of any Christians.   diagram of a stone engraving, showing six of the names of the Twelve Tribes of the Israelites 


Gad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Asher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Jssachar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Zebulun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
joseph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Benjamin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉     diagram of a stone engraving, showing six of the names of the Twelve Tribes of the Israelites 


〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reuben  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simeon  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levi  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jhudah  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dan  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naphtali    
This exposition of R. Solomon though it have a vain respect to the equal number of letters on each stone, yet is it far more agreeable to the simplicity of the scriptures then that of Maimony, being free from those 4. unwarrantable presumptions delivered by him. Why do you take the worse and leave the better? 2. R. Moses Kotsensis 
o Sepher mitsvoth haggadol. trac. vessels of sanct. precept. affirmat. 173.  also as he relates the exposition of Maimony, so doth he also set down the interpretation of R. Solomon and doth not determine the ordering of the stones by Maimony to be more just and warrantable, than the order declared by jarchi. 3. When there is speech in the Thalmud of the distribution of the 12. tribes, 6 upon mount Gerizim to bless and 6 upon mount Ebal to curse: it is thus recorded there 
p Thalmud in Sotah cap. 7. f. 36.  R. Cahana saith, as they are divided here, so were they divided in the stones of the Ephod, etc. Now the division of them upon the two mountains was thus: on Gerizim stood, 
q Deut. 27 12.13.  Simeon, Levi, judah, Issachar, joseph, Benjamin: on Ebal stood, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan & Naphtali: This order of the two ●…les contradicts your order of the two stones: Again in the same next of the Thalmud it is noted that the names of he tribes upon the second stone were according to their births, but not on the first, because judah was there placed foremost. Thus they expounded Exod. 28.18. referring those words, according to their births, unto the latter clause of the verse only, and not unto the former part. 
r Thalmud. in Sotah c. 7. Fol. 36. A. B.  4, in the same ● tractate it is recorded that R. Hamina the son of Gamaliel said, the names of the tribes are not distributed in the st●… of the Ephod accor●…g to the order of the distribution in the book of numbers, but according to the order in the book of Exod. to wit, the sons of Loah according to their order: the sons of Rachel one of this side an other of that: and the sons of the handmaids in the mids. This testimony is very corruptly and imperfectly 
s Advertisement. of corruptions N. 1.  alleged by Mr. Br●…n, and yet after he hath perverted the same, he saith vainly, this note of the Thalmud endeth this ●…sie: and again in the margin he points at it and calls it, an exquisite note for a translator: whereas if there be any weight in that testimony (as there is not, it being a mere presumption) hem doth it plainly refute both his opinion, & yours that without judgement follow him too much, in this matter of ordering the stones: for if the sons of the handmaids were placed in the mids betwixt the sons of Rachel as in Exo. 1. ●…5. on this manner, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Ascher, joseph, as R. Hanina would have, then are both your descriptions false, being different from this order.  
5. R. Iohana● in that gloss upon the Thalmud which hath this title affixed, 
* Lex fux. gloss. on Sota ubi supra.  Thorah or, saith, Benjamin was half upon this side, to wit, upon the second stone, where the names were written according to the order an mount Ebal, Ben; and upon the first stone, jamin. In the gloss upon the otherside of the Thalmud, it is again noted how Iehud●… was placed first among the stones. 6. For a further proof of the lightness and insufficiently of these rabbinical expositions and presumptions, consider but the vanities that are recorded in the same leaf of the Thalmud above noted: speaking of the 
t Deut, 27.5.7.  altar upon the stones whereof God had commanded them to write his law, they record, that the law was written upon the stones of the altar in 70. languages as it is said, well and plainly, etc. They say there also, The hornet passed not over with them: but is it not written, 
u Exo. 23.  I will sand the hornet before thee? R. Simeon been Lakish saith, at the brink of Iorden the hornet stood and sprinkled bitterness or gall upon them, and blinded their eyes above, and made them eunuchs below, as it is said, 
x Amos. 2.  I destroyed the Amorites before them, whose height was like the height of Cedars, and he was strong as the oaks: notwithstanding I destroyed his fruit from above and his root from beneath. R. Papa saith, there were two hornets one for Moses and one for joshuah; that of Moses passed not over, but that of joshua did go over. There also they writ how the Angel Gabriel taught the 70. languages unto joseph: with other such like fictions. Let sober men take heed how they build any of their opinions upon such presumptuous expositors as these be: let not men seek for order among the sons of confusion that devil in the shadow of death, where there is no order, but their light is as darkness itself.   

Again, touching the order of the Tribes names upon the stones of the Breastplate, you note thus. 
y Anhor. on Exo. 28.21.  And here the Greek translation addeth, according to their generations (or births) as was expressed in the tenth verse, and is here again implied. For in the same order that they were graven upon the Berylles, were they here set and graven upon twelve several stones: as they are here set down in the Page following.  
Upon the 1 Sardine. was graven 1 Reuben. Sons of Lea. 2 Topaz. 2 simeon. 3 Smaragd. 3 Levi. 4 Chalcedonie. 4 judah. 5 Saphir. 5 Issachar. 6 Sardonyx. 6 Zabulon. 7 Hyacinth. 7 Dan. Of Bilha, Rachel's maid 8 Chrysoprase. 8 Naphtali. 9 Amethyst. 9 Gad. Of Zelpha, Leahs maid 10 Chrysolite. 10 Aser. 11 beryl. 11. joseph. Of Rachel. 12. jasper 12 Benjamin  
Hereunto I answer, 1. The names of the tribes are often described unto us expressly and plainly: many times 
z Gen. 29. with 30. ch. & 35.23. ●…6. & 45.8.— 24. & 49. 3-27 Exod. 1.2.3, etc.  before and many times 
a Numb. 1.5.— 42. & 2.3.— 29. & 7.12.— 78. & 10.14.— 27. & 13.5.— 16. & 26.5.48. Deut. 27.12.13. & 33. 6-24. 1 Chro. 2.1.2. Rev. 7. 5-8  after this place in Exodus, but never according to this order which you imagine here: always some difference is observed more or less. And what presumption is this, without warrant of scripture revealed to apply the names unto the stones, contrary unto the order of reckoning the tribes in every place? what modest Christian dare imitate you herein?  
2. Whereas you tell us that the Greek translation addeth, according to their generations: I have showed before that the greek translation which you allege so often in vain, is a most corrupt, and forged thing abounding with many unlawful & presumptuous additions, subtractions and alterations of the holy text, and therefore we aught not to build expositions so boldly upon the credit and authority of such a false and deceavable translation.  
3. Suppose it had been expressed in the text, that the names of the tribes: had been engraven upon these stones according to their generations: yet doth it not follow that they should be engraven according to the order, which you do here so peremptorily avouch and demonstrate in this table; for if the order according to the time of their birth be precisely followed, then are they to be reckoned as in Gen. 29, & 30, and then should the Children of the handmaids be set before Issachar & Zabulon, contrary to this your order: if the time of their births be followed in some part and measure, yet so as respect be had unto the dignity of Leah and Rachel above their maids, than might the order of Gen. 35, or Gen. 46, have been followed: which both are also contrary unto this your order; neither of them leaving Benjamin to the last place, as you do. Christian humility and shamefastness should have taught you to have suspended your judgement herein, & not to have intruded yourself into such things as God hath not manifested unto you.  
But for the establishing of this your assertion, you tell us in the same 
b Annot. on Exo. 28.21.  place, that This order of names is before showed out of the jerusalemy Thargum: The testimony of this Thargum you propound unto us and very carefully set before our eyes 
c Ibid. on vers. 17.18 19 & 20.  four several times according to the four parts of it: you minse it as if it were Manna or some angels food to feast us therewith and to instruct us concerning the four rues of stones; And this is that testimony which Mr. Broughton also hath in like manner 
d Advertisement of corruptions N. 1.  alleged to the same purpose.  
Hereunto I answer, 1. The testimony of this fabulous writing is of no worth, being full of unwarrantable presumptions, fables, errors and most gross absurdities. In the first section of Genesis, this Thargum saith, that Two thousand years before the world was created, God created the law, and prepared Hell and the garden of Eden, etc. On Exod. 1. this Thargum saith of Shiphrah the midwife, that she was jochebed; and of Puah, that she was Miriam; that these women fearing God got them a good name in the rest of the generations, and built them houses, the house of the Levites, and the house of the great Priesthood: This jerusalem paraphrast on Gen. 32. confirms the fable of Esaw his biting jaakob by the neck, as was noted before, and saith that both wept, Esaw because his teeth were set on edge, and jaakob because his neck was become Marble. This same Thargum on Deut. 33. telleth us, how the glory of God was revealed on Mount Seir to give the law to the sons of Esaw: but when they found written therein ye shall not kill, they would not receive it. That then this glory shined on the mount of the border, to deliver this law unto the sons of Ishmael: but when they found written therein ye shall not steal, they would not receive it. That then the glory of God returned and was revealed on mount Sinai with millions of holy Angels: That then Israel said, whatsoever the word of the Lord saith, we will do it and will receyve it, etc. And with a multitude of such like fabulous matters is that Thargum full stuffed: when you feed your readers with allegations of such authors, you may fill their bellies with gravel and ashes, and choke them in stead of nourishing them. And a heap of such vanities are in the same, which show the unsoundness thereof.  
2. Even in that very place which you allege is there apparent and manifest error in expounding the stones of the breast plate: and to omit others, this is to be observed in the two last stones, which this Thargum translates, Bedoicha & margalitha; Bdelium & a pearl: and herein contradicteth your translation: By this Thargum, Benjamins name should not be engraven upon the jasper, as you would have it: If you think the Thargum to be erroneous in this point, why do you follow the presumption of it in an other which is uttered as it were with the same breath in the exposition of the same verse touching order of the names?  
3. Against this Thargum jerusalemy, I may oppose the Thalmud jerusalemy: though neither of them be indeed of any worth, yet of you they are much esteemed and often alleged; and of the jews this Thalmud is the more respected. In 
e Thalmud jerusalemy in Sotah Fol. 21. B.  it, among the opinions of other Rabbins, according to that which I noted before out of the Babylonian Thalmud, the opinion of R. Zabida is recorded, touching the names in the Ephod, that the first were not written according to the order (of their birth) because jehudah was King, but the later were written according to the order. And so if, (as you affirm) the same order of engraving was observed both on the two shoulder stones and on the 12 in the breastplate, than this Thalmud jerusalemy affords us an order contrary to you and to your Thargum jerusalemy.  
Again, for confirmation of the order described by you; you allege that 
f Annot. on Exo. 28 21.  the same is also expressed by the Chaldee paraphrast on Song. 5.14. where speaking of the 12 tribes engraved on 12 precious stones, he nameth them thus: 1, Reuben, 2 simeon, 3 Levi, 4 judah, 5 Issachar, 6 Zabulon, 7 Dan, 8 Naphtali, 9 Gad, 10 Asher, 11 joseph, 12 Benjamin: who were like to the 12. celestial signs, bright as lamps, and polished in their works like ivory, and shining like sapphires. I answer;  
1. This Chaldee paraphrase of R. joseph Caecus (as it is commonly taken,) I have 
“ Pag. 390.  already showed to be most fabulous superstitious and erroneous, a fit match to be alleged as witness with your Thargum jerusalemy; neither of them being of any credit: upon the words of the former Chapter, Song. 4.6 until the day break and shadows flee away, etc. this paraphrast speaks like a charmer or Magician showing us a distinction of devilles, making some to be night spirits, some morning sprights, and some noon sprights: as also away of putting them to flight by the smell of the perfume in the sanctuary: not much unlike to the 
g Tobit. 6.9. & 8.2.3.  chase away of the fiend Asmodeus by the perfume of the heart and liver of a fish. The expositions which this paraphrast gives on each chapter of this Song, are a pregnant proof of the author's insufficiency to be allowed as a witness in these controversies.  
2. To go no further than this paraphrase on this verse which you allege; we may here observe how he erreth in the exposition of the stones, in making the seventh to be a beryl & the eight a saphir, manifestly contrary to the text, & contrary to you also: Had you fully set down your allegation, as you do a part thereof; had you noted how this paraphrast translates the stones, so as you do his naming of the tribes, than the reader might easily have perceived either your author's error, or else the refutation of yourself by his words cited in this place. But you did wisely to leave out that which is against yourself.  
3. This paraphrast in this same place alleged, saith that the names of the three Fathers of the world, Abraham, Isaac and jaakob were engraven together with the twelve tribes: Thus also it is recorded in both the 
h Thalmud Babylon. in joma, c. 7. Fol. 73. Thalmud jerusalemy in joma Fol. 44.  Thalmud, viz. for so much as the letters Tsadi & Koph were not found in the names of the 12 tribes in the breastplate, therefore as R. Samuel saith, the names of Abraham, Isaac, and jaakob were written above the names of the tribes in the breast plate; and because there wants also the letter Teth in those 12 names, therefore as R. Acha saith there was written under them, schibte jeschurun: or as R. Moses Mikkotsi 
i Sepher mitsvoth haggadol precept. affirm. 173.  noteth, schibte jah: And so by this means they would have all the letters of the whole Hebrew Alphabet contained in the breastplate; to the end that any answer of God by urim and Thummim might be delivered in the letters of the breastplate and so read and understood. Seeing these be their bold assertions, who would not be afraid to take the testimony of these presumptuous Rabbins? And much more aught every minister of Christ to be ashamed to allege their testimonies in his expounding of the scriptures, whiles with one breath they do at the same time sand forth such unsound fancies.  
4. Even as you yourself allege & repeat the words of this paraphrast: his vanity appears further in this, that by way of mystery these twelve stones are compared to the Zodiac, like unto the twelve celestial signs, etc. which 
k josephus antiq. judaic. lib. 3. c. 9  others yet have set down more fully, describing the the fabric of the world by the high Priests attire; The 4 elements they show thus: the earth by the silk, sea by the purple, air by the blue, fire by the scarlet colour; the sun & moon by the 2 stones on the shoulders: the 12 signs of the Zodiac by the 12. stones in the breastplate: the thunders & lightnings by the sound of the bells & pomegranates: the highest heavens by the holy crown, etc. So your Maimony 
l Mo. nebuch, chel. 2 perek. 11 & Chel. 3 per. 5.  expounds many places of scripture. And the vanity of these presumptuous speculations is such that if there were nothing else it might justly deter us from building our expositions upon their traditions, as you do. To give one instance more hereof in stead of many, and this touching these garments and ornaments of the high priest: R. Simon saith, 
“ Thalmud jerusalem, in joma. Fol. 44. col. 2, & 3.  As the offerings did serve to make reconciliation for sins, so the garments also: That the Coat made atonement for them that had worn linsey-woolsey: Some say, it made atonement for them that shed blood, because it is written, they dipped the coat in blood: (Gen. 37.31.) That the Dinnen Breeches did reconcile those that had uncovered the shame, etc. That the Mitre reconciled the proud in spirit. That the Girdle did make reconciliation for thieves; and as some say for the frowardness of heart: That the Breastplate of judgement did expiate them that had perverted judgement: That the Ephod did expiate their sin that had committed Idolatry: Their proof is because it is said, without Ephod and without Teraphim (Hos. 4.4.) That the Bells of the rob did make atonement for an evil tongue: That the Golden plate upon the forehead of the highpriest did reconcile the blasphemers: and their proof is because it is said, the stone sticked in his forehead (1. Sa. 17 49.) some say it did reconcile the impudent that had an hard face, their proof is because it is said, thou hadst a whore's forehead (jer. 3.3.) Others of them, as 
“ In Akedath Isaak, portâ. 51.  Ben Arama out of vajikra rabba, do record this same mystery: But let those that seek the meaning of the holy Ghost, leave these things to the Rabbins, & let jewish fables alone.  
5. Against this Chaldee paraphrast may be opposed an other Chaldee paraphrast upon the law going under the name of jonathan, who though he be vain, yet is he not worse than this; but he is one of the authors whom you yourself do 
// Annot. on Exo. 3.14.  allege in the exposition of Moses, and he (as is 
m Advertisem. of corrup. N. 3.  confessed) placeth the names of the tribes upon the stones in an other order than you would have them: so that one of the Chaldee paraphrasts speaks as much against you, as th'other doth for you Let them both alone and seek better warrant for your expositions of the holy scripture.  
In conclusion of this point touching the order of the stones, you say, 
n Annot. on Exo. 28.21.  The same order we showed also from Maimony, to be upon the two Berylls' verse 10, except the transplacing of Bilhahs' sons. To this I answer, 1. the presumption of Maimony in this matter is already manifested before. 2. even this very exception serves for the refutation both of you and your Maimony for what warrant is there to make this exception, and to assign a different order and place to the sons of Bilhah upon the shoulders and upon the breast of Aaron? what reason have you to follow such as without warrant do thus place and transplace the tribes according to their fancy?   

A Fruit of this your presumptuous intrusion touching the order of the names in the stones, is your error about the translation of the stones themselves; and in special that you interpret 
o Annot. on Exo. 28.18.  jahalom to be the sardonyx, which should have been translated the Adamant or Diamond, according to the example of the best translators both new and old: For  
1. The Adamant is known and found to be the hardest of all stones, resisting the power 
p Pliny, histor. nat. lib. 37, c. 4.  both of iron and fire, neither broken by the one nor melted by the other: & thereupon in Greek named Adamas of the invincible force of it, not easily subdued. Hereunto agreeth the hebrew name jahalom, coming of the word to strike with the hammer: showing that this stone is as the hammer of other stones, breaking them, but not broken by them: Hereunto agreeth the Chaldee name, 
q Onkelos on Exo. 28 18. jonathan on Ezek. 28.13.  Sabhalom, so called of enduring the strokes of the Hammer. Hereunto agreeth the arabique name, all mass which 
r On Exo. 28.18.  Aben Ezra and from him 
s In lib. radic. on jahalom.  Kimchi do note to be given unto jahalom, because it breaketh all other stones and boreth through the Bdelium, etc. The Adamant is also in the Arabic named 
t pentaglot. val. shined. in Dum  Diama of Dum a word that notes durableness and continuance: The Persian Thargum likewise gives such a name unto this stone, as shows the same nature of it: and calleth it 
u On Exod. 28.18.  loguard having affinity with the word garad which signifieth Scalpere to cut or grave: and according to this Pliny saith of the Adamants; 
v Natur. histor. lib. 37. c. 4.  expetuntur a scalptoribus, etc. They are desired of engravers, etc. It seems that of this stone they have their scalpra or scalpella, instruments of cutting and engraving. Now seeing the name jahalom doth so fitly agreed unto the nature of the Adamant, it is against all reason to leave and change the fittest name, and in your translation to give a new name without the force and help of any new argument.  
Whereas you say of the Sardonyx that 
w On Exo. 28.18.  It is a very hard stone like the Adamantor Diamond: and Mr. Broughton also saith, that it is the hardest next the Diamond, and fit for the notation of jahalom; I ask for your proofc herein: where is your warrant that the Sardonyx is a very hard stone like the Adamant? It is wonder you would not express it, if you had any. And beside, if it were as you say, that the Sardonyx were like unto or next unto the Adamant in hardness: yet hereby you confess that the Adamant excelleth in hardness: and all reason requires that the thing which is most excellent in his kind should beat the name or denomination above the rest, unless some other necessary proof were brought to the contrary.  
2. Seeing the manner of the holy Ghost is to describe & commend unto us the worth of excellent things by 
x Prov. 3.15. & 8.11 & 20.15. & 31.10. Mat. 7.6.  comparing them unto precious stones and pearls: and in this place Exod. 28. the Lord would show unto us the dear & precious account that he makes of his Children by engraving their names in these gems and setting them upon the breast of his son figured by the high priest: seeing also that the Diamond is 
y Pliny, Natur. hist. l. 37. c. 4.  esteemed of greatest price, not only among gems, but above other human things; for this cause, you aught not to have changed the common interpretation, by leaving out the most precious Adamant serving most fitly to express the meaning of the Lord, unless you could have brought unto us some rare and strong argument for your so doing. He that doth unjustly take out the more precious stone, and instead thereof put in a base into the breastplate, doth thereby in some measure obscure and darken the counsel of the Lord, and hide the brightness of his grace.  
3. Seeing the counsel of God in appointing this breastplate to be made, was (as in the rest of the tabernacle-works to show his wisdom and glory by giving gifts unto men, & by 
z Exod. 31. 1-6.  putting wisdom into the hearts of all that were wisehearted; and in special, (as is of purpose largely described) by calling Bezaleel and filling him with the spirit of God, in wisdom and in understanding, and in knowledge in all workmanship: and yet more particularly by reaching him the art to work in gold, to engrave in stone and to filler set the precious stones in gold: seeing the Adamant is more hard to be engraven then other stones, & that therefore the wisdom of God in teaching them to set this stone in the breastplate, might appear rather more, then in setting of the other stones: for this cause, men aught not without sure ground to remove this stone out of the breastplate, lest they be found guilty of cutting off one special means and occasion of showing and manifesting God's wisdom and glory seeing in all his works the Lord useth to seek such occasions. Pliny 
a Vbi supra.  considering the hardness of the Adamant, and withal the means that were found out to break the same by steeping it in the fresh and warm blood of a Goat, breaks out into admiration concerning this experiment, and acknowledgeth all such inventions to be the gift of some divine power or godhead teaching men such wisdom and skill. Whether this invention of preparing the Adamant to be engraven by the means of goats blood, was found out in the days of Bezaleel at the making of the breastplate: or whether any other way proportionable unto this was then used, it is uncertain: Always we are sure, that such rare invention and skill was used by the help of God's spirit, as might justly move men to break out into Admiration, and with Pliny to acknowledge the wisdom of a divine power teaching the same. Hereunto should men attend, and take heed of denying any means or occasion that might serve to manifest and demonstrate this glory of God.  
4. When as you dispute against Mr. Brought on touching silk or wool in the high Priests Ephod: you allege for yourself against him, the judgements and interprerations of diverse learned men, as namely, of 
b Answ. to Mr. Broug. Pag. 3.  Tremellius, junius, Marcus Marinus in Arca Noa, Munsterus, Vatablus, Pelicanus, Lyra, Arias Montanus, Forsterus, Avenarius: If the judgement and interpretations of these men, were at that time of any weight for you against him, them are they now at this time also of weight against both you and him, touching the precious stones in the high Priests Ephod: for there is never a one of these your ten authors but they are against you in this matter: none of them interpret jahalom to be a Sardonyx as you do: each of them allows a place for the Adamant or Diamond, in the Ephod. And besides these, there are yet more than ten other witnesses, which do all of them contradict your translation of this stone; johan. Buxtorfius, Mercerus, Pagninus, David de Pomis, Reuchlinus, Valentinus Schindlerus, josephus, Hierome, Calvine, and even that Greek translation which you do so often allege, though it have not the name of the Adamant yet it hath not the Sardonyx: and to these may be added the testimony of other translators in the English, Dutch, French Bibles & many others: and not one of them but they are in their translations & expositions of this word witnesses against you. It seems you have taken the Adamant from the breastplate of the highpriest that you might set it in your own breast, or in your own forehead, and so by virtue thereof hardened your face not only against all reason and judgement of the learned in this controversy, but against all the Churches of Christ by opposing them: By the virtue of this invincible & hard Adamant in your forehead you stand out against all the churches of God, and renounce the fellowship of every one of them.  
But as Mr. Smith once written for his separation, that 
c Parallels p. 34.35.  having john the divine for him, he respected not what all other divines could say against him: so you also flying unto the Revelation of john, for warrant of your translation, do tell us, that 
d Annot. on Exod. 28.18.  jahalom, in Rev. 21.20. is named in Greek Sardonyx. And this also M. Broughton hath 
e Advertis. of corrupt. M. 2.  told us before you. In an other place you you say, 
f Answer to Mr. Brough. p. 37.  you followed the translation of john the Apostle Rev. 21 of whom you were persuaded in general, before you knew the particulars, that he translated all the stones from Aaron's breast to the heavenly jerusalem. That you might most safely follow him (you say) none of grace will deny. I answer; Though none of grace will deny that you aught to follow the Apostle, yet many of grace and learning will deny that you do follow him: your bore persuasion and thereupon your bold assertion that john did translate all the 12. stones from Aaron's breast, and that he named jahalom in Greek Sardonyx, is no warrant for any of grace to follow you herein. Where is your proof or show of proof that john did so translate all the stones, as you speak? your bore persuasions and assertions that he did so do not help you, but make you more guilty of presumption, in obtruding your conceits upon the holy Ghost and taking the name of God in vain. We see the names of the tribes themselves are reckoned up by the 
g Rev. 7.5. ●. 8.  holy Ghost in the Revelation with omission of Dan, otherwise than they are reckoned in any place of the old testament: and how know you then, or how can any affirm that the very same stones mentioned Exod. 28. are all without exception and omission of any reckoned up in Rev. 21. as by your translation and annotations you make the simple to believe?  
Through this your presumption in expounding the stones of the breastplate it comes to pass that you deal not so sound in your controversy about the supremacy of Peter, as otherwise you might have done: when you would show the vanity of the popish argument, taken from this, that Peter was named first among the Apostles, you declare it thus: 
h Answ. to joh. Ainsw p. 73.  The first foundation of the wall of the heavenly jerusalem, was a jasper, the stone of Benjamin, th' Apostle Paul's tribe: will you grant me hence to conclude that S. Paul was head of the Catholic Church? In these words you give advantage to your adversary, for thus might he answer you. 1, it is presumption to say that the jasper was Benjamins stone: your allegation of Exo. 28. is but an abuse of scripture: you might as well have said that the jasper was the stone of Ascher or Naphtalt; being alike uncertain. 2. though the jasper had been the stone of Benjamin in Exod. 28. yet could it not be the stone of Paul in Rev. 21.19. because those 12. stones had the names of the 
i Rev. 21.14.  lambs twelve Apostles, of which number Paul was 
k Mat. 10. 15. & Act. 1.26 1 Cor. 15.5.8.  none, but was distinguished and reckoned apart from the twelve: whatsoever therefore may be said for peter in other places, paul could not step in to pled for any head ship above the rest from that place. 3. Suppose the stones in Rev. 21. had been all of them, the very same that were mentioned in Exo. 28. yet could not the Apostles be distinguished thereby or claim for pre-eminence in respect of the tribe, because diverse of them were of the same tribe being brethren, as Peter & Andrew: james and john; james and Jude; and for some of the rest they were happily of the same tribes with these: and therefore of necessity sundry of them must have their names written not upon the stone of that tribe whereof they descended by birth, but on some other: and thus your instance faileth in the very ground thereof, and therefore cannot justly serve for such a declaration of your reproof of their argument, as you intent thereby.  
Lastly, to conclude this point: to show the folly of the Rabbins, and how vain their testimony in these things is, observe their superstition and contradiction about an other of Aaron's ornaments: for example, The Rabbins as is 
l Drusius comment, ad loca diff. Exo. p. 217 cap. 52.  observed, have three opinions, touching the golden plate, viz. 1. R. Eleazar shows how the words engraven upon the same were written in one line, on this manner, Holiness to jehovah 2. R. Levi, thought if they were engraven in two lines than the word Holiness was written in the line below, & To jehovah in the line above. 3, others as in Moses Mikkotsi thinking they were engraven in two lines would have Holiness to in the under line: & jehovah above. Touching this plate, you observe out of Maimony, 
m Annot. on Exo. 28 36.  the letters were so graved that they stood out above the rest of the plate & were not cut inward: which is a mere presumption and rather refuted by the signification of the word there used to express that engraving then approved by the same. And whither may men be led if they will harken unto these presumptions as you have done touching the order of the stones in the Breastplate? Let the example of Drusius be a warning to you and others, that they take not so much heed unto jewish fables: This learned man, by his too great regard of the Rabbins in their writings, was coloured with diverse of their absurd opinions: taking some of them for a certain truth, and brought also to doubt and fluctuate about others: for example; whereas the Rabbins writ that Esaws Angel wrestled with jaakob for the blessing and 
n R. David Kimchi in Hos. 12.  wept because he could not prevail, Drusius writes, 
o Praeterit. lib. 4. in joh. 11. vers. 35.  if an Angel once wept, what marvel that jesus should weep? and that the Angel did weep which wrestled with jaakob, it is certain from Hos. 12.4. Whereas the superstitious Rabbins hold it to be a heinous crime & a matter of death for any (except the priests) to read or name this word jehovah as it is written, herein also he follows them thus far; that he accounts it 
p Praeterit. lib. 10 in Apo. 19 vers. 12.  mere ignorance, if not blasphemy, to hold that it may lawfully be read: and after again he saith 
q Ibid. in append. ad p. 445.  he thinks that no godly man which fears the Lord can with a safe conscience use the same. In his annotations upon those words, a voice from heaven Mat. 3.17. he saith, 
r Praeterit. lib. 1. p. 6.7  it was not so much a voice, as Bathkol, or an Echo; and in the same place noting out of the Rabbins 4. degrees of prophecy, he observes this Bathkol to be the lowest degree: and below urim and Thummim. The seven spirits mentioned Rev. 1.4. he notes to be 
s Praeterit. l. 10. p. 402  Angels: and declares this by the counterfeit story of Tobit. c. 12.18. & by the testimony of jonathan speaking of the seven archangels that stand before God. Upon the doctrine of the Rabbins, he professeth that he is 
t In loca diffic. Leu. c. 61.  doubtful and wavering in his mind whether Polygamy was forbidden by the law or not. Thus was he carried, but your danger of being carried further, is so much the greater in respect of your presumptuous estate of separation wherein you stand: in the practice & profession whereof (as if you were a new Priest risen up with urim & Thummim to show the errors of these last days) you arrogate unto yourself alone, above all other ministers the knowledge of these three things, viz. of a true Church: of a true minister: and of a true Christian: name one Minister of Chiste in the world, if you can that beside yourself is able to discern of these three things: And think seriously withal in the fear of God, whether you be not in danger of being blown away with the wind of presumption and error, for want of true humility.    

CHAP. VIII.  

YOur great partiality in alleging these Rabbins is an other main offence in you; & this appears in diverse kinds:  
First, betwixt yourself and opposites; you are partial in blaming them so much for using the testimonies of men, whiles yourself do use them far more frequently: you have often complained of me for making flesh my arm in alleging the authority of men against you: even when I did it not, as hath been showed 
a Pag. 45.47.50.  before. Herein you seem to be like unto that famous usurer who rejoiced to hear that sin of usury reproved, condemned and publicly preached against: in hope that others thereby would use it the less, that he might use it the more and have the more customers for his interest: but you are in this unlike him and more blameworthy, in that he only rejoiced to see others condemn it, whereas you yourself do often and openly condemn a practice, in the mids of your own most immoderate use thereof.  
Secondly, in respect of the authors alleged you are very partial; whiles you allege Infidels rather than the most learned Christians endued with the spirit of wisdom and understanding: yea so far that in your annotations even in Genesis & Exodus alone you have alleged these jewish writers more than a thousand times in exact number, whereas among them all I find not the name of one Christian writer from the Apostles time unto our age once alleged by you. But to prevent this blame you say, 
b Preface to Annot. on Genesis.  The Christian Fathers and Doctors because they are usually cited by other expositors abundantly: I thought needless to repeat: and the rather for brevity, which is requisite in annotations. But against this excuse it is to be observed, 1. that as for the heathenish writers though they be as usually cited by other expositors, and though they be as commonly known as the Christian Fathers and Doctors, yet you do very often allege them, and repeat the common allegations of them formerly used by others and find place enough for them among your annotations: should not the Christian writers therefore at lest have had as much honour as they, in your allegations? 2, you do also allege and repeat many jewish testimonies formerly alleged by others: If need be I can show you manifold instances in your annotations; so that you had no cause upon this pretence of rareness to have alleged them so much: there being many excellent observations of some Christian writers that are far more rare and unknown then sundry of the Rabbinical testimonies alleged by you. 3, though sundry of your Thalmudique testimonies be not commonly known, yet seeing the most of them are unprofitable, vain traditions and fabulous matters: it had been more profit for the Christian readers, and a greater help for their understanding of the scriptures to have alleged some of the best Christian writers in stead of some of the worst of those Rabbins. 4, it is to be observed, that though you glory in the name of a rabbin for every trifling allegation which you bring from them, yet when by stealth you 
c Annot. on Gen. 37.35  allege the rare observations of some Christians, as that of Hades derived from Adam, and divers others: then do you conceal the names of the authors as if you were ashamed to learn or borrow anything from them, you being separate from such a society in the Church of God as they all embraced.  
Herein you seem to be like unto the jews, who though they have their set form of prayer or blessings which they use at the lighting of Candles; yet their canon is, 
d R. Alphes in Beracoth, cap. 8 Fol. 42.  that they may not bless for the candle which they light at the candle of the gentiles or of Christians: so you, when you light your candle at the jews, in alleging any thing from them, as if there were special cause of blessing for it, your manner is to give them honourable titles of Hebrew Doctors, jew Doctors, Ancient Rabbins, etc. and not only that but without regard of that brevity which you pretend, your manner is to allege their testimonies at large with the superfluous and vain titles they assume unto themselves, viz. our ancient wise men: our Rabbins of blessed memory, etc. But on the contrary when you light your candle at the Christians, in expounding the scriptures, you smother their names in silence, as if you were ashamed of them.  
Thirdly, even towards the Rabbins themselves you are very partial, in alleging diverse of the worst sort far oftener, than those which are more profitable among them. Aben Ezra, R. David Kimchi, Ralbag or R. Levi been Gersom, which have taken great pains to expound the words and phrases in the text of the scripture, whose writings are far more profitable than those of Maimony, that spent his time most in expounding the Thalmud and the vain traditions thereof, are yet very seldom alleged by you. Others that are not half so judicious and far more fabulous writings, as R. Menachem, R. Eliezer, R. Bechai, the Thalmud, the Zohar, Tanchuma, Bereshith Rabath, Elleshemoth rabba, etc. being the main fountains of blind superstition and the greatest corrupters of God's ordinances have most honour given unto them by you. As for R. Eliezer whom in special you reckon to be one of 
e Annot. on Gen. 14.18.  the best and most ancient Hebrew Doctors, whose Pirkeis are often alleged by you: how many of his observations or testimonies be there, even of the best that you could choose and pick out of all his writings that are worthy to be recorded? From him you note that Adam's dressing of the garden should be his 
f Annot. on Gen. 2.15.  labour in, and keeping of gods law: that God did 
g On Gen. 3.14.  cut off the feet of the serpent and curse him: that the window or light which Noah was commanded to make in the ark, 
h On Gen. 6.16.  was a precious stone hanged in the Ark, which gave light to all creatures which were the rain: that 
i On Gen. 14.18.  Melchizedek was Sem: that 
k On Gen. 25.21.  Isaak went with his wife, to Mount Moriah, to the place where he had been bound Gen. 22.9.) and prayed there: that as the Chalde paraphrast translates jaakobs dwelling in tents to be a A Minister of the house of doctrine: so others as in Pirkei R. Eliezer, that he dwelled in tents and 
l Ibid. on vers. 27.  studied the law: that 
m Ibid. on veri. 34.  lentils were want to be eaten of men in their sorrow and mourning: and that jaakob did feed upon lentils in mourning and sorrow; for that the Kingdom and dominion and firstbirthright was Esau's: that the sons of Esau should not fall, until the remainder of jaakob come and give to the sons of Esau, food of lentils with mourning and sorrow and take from them the dominion, Kingdom and firstbirthright which jaakob bought of him by oath: that jaakob 
n On Gen. 29.10.  as a mighty strong man rolled away the stone from the wells mouth, etc. that the shepherds saw it and wondered all: and were not able to roll away the stone, but jaakob rolled it away himself alone: that jaakobs sinew being touched: 
o On Gen. 32.32.  it became like the fat of a dead thing: therefore it is unlawful for the sons of Israel to eat of the sinew, etc. that the 
p On Gen. 37.15.  man which met joseph in the field was the Angel Gabriel, called in Dan. 9.21. the man Gabriel: that of the 20 shekels of silver for which joseph was sold, 
q On Gen. 37.28.  every of the ten patriarchs, had two shekels to buy shoes for their feet. These as it seems are the best observations which you could find in the best of the Rabbins: the choice of the choice: And yet of them all there is not one of them free from presumption. And cannot the holy scriptures be well understood without these forgeries? In stead of these fictions you might have brought far more profitable annotations from Aben Ezra, Kimchi & Ralbag before mentioned touching the words and phrases of scripture: but you prefer the worst, & give lest honour unto the best of them. It is true indeed that there are many fables also recorded in these Rabbins, as I showed 
r Cap. 1.  before yet are they but drops in comparison of that flood of error, presumption and curiosity which is to be found in others of your most honoured Thalmudists: And as is observed by 
s joa. Rain. censura. lib. apocr. tom. 1. praelec. 77.  others touching Kimchi, so is it plain for the other two also, that the fables rehearsed by them are not set down as their own assertions, but ordinarily in the name of others.  
Lastly, in the writings of one and the same Rabbine you seem to deal partially: The superstitious Mishneh of Maimony is most frequently alleged by you: but his Morch Nebuchim which is of far better use is scarcely touched by you in one or two allegations. This later work of his, being made long after his Mishneh, though full of Rabbinical vanity, yet is not like to his former: in so much that the jews of France, as some do 
t Nebiensis in Octaplo. Annot. in Psal. 68  record, did themselves burn this his book because it seemed too much to favour the doctrine and profession of Christians.   

TO conclude, as these things do serve for a Glass of your error in alleging the Rabbins: so the due consideration of the jewish errors here noted upon occasion of this controversy, may justly serve for a Glass of Gods most severe judgement against Israel, that we may justify and glorify him in the same. Hereby we see the 
u Mat. 8.12  Children of the Kingdom bound hand and foot in the cords of these errors and cast out into the utter darkness of obstinate infidelity, superstition and blasphemy. Hereby we see the truth of God's word, in the present wrath that lies upon them according to the ancient prophecies 
w Ps. 69.23. Rom. 11.10  for blinding of their eyes and bowing down their backs. Hereby we should learn to kiss the son lest he be angry, and to harken to the voice of Christ in his Gospel, whiles it is called to day; when as we see the contempt thereof to be so fearfully avenged on this elect nation, by giving them up so long a time unto such horrible delusions, and by scattering some of them into all quarters, (even as the 
“ jud. 19.29.  Levites concubine cut into many pieces and sent abroad) that all the people of the earth might see and know the work of God upon them for their daily instruction. Hereby we may also learn to be touched with the miseries of this nation, holy in the root and still beloved for the father's sake. As 
x Mat. 2.18  Rachel is said to mourn for her Children slain in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof: so may both Rachel and Leah be said to make lamentation for these rejected and dispersed tribes. The miseries of Desolate jerusalem do call and cry unto us, louder than ever they did of old, 
y Lam. 1.12  Have ye no regard, all ye that pass by the way? Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow which is done unto me, wherewith the Lord hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce wrath. When we pray for them we pray for ourselves: their conversion is our 
z Rom. 11.12, etc.  riches & life to the world. And we may be bold to make our prayers for them, having the special promise of God for their restoration. Arise therefore & put on strength oh arm of the Lord: rise up as in the old time and as in the ancient generations: turn again the captivity of Zion, and take away the iniquities of jaakob: Lord how long wilt thou be angry for ever; shall thy jealousy burn like fire? Remember thy covenant made with Abraham, Isaak and jaakob, and call home thy banished: Let the new jerusalem descend from heaven as a Bride trimmed for her husband in the conversion of thy people: make a way for thy redeemed: remove the stones of offence, the Idolatries, superstitions, schisms and separations among Christians▪ Take away the veil that is spread upon the eyes of the jews, and show thy salvation unto them, that the whole earth may be full of thy glory shining in the face of jesus Christ. AMEN.     

ERRATA.  
PAg. 48. l. 10. for ear read are: Pag. 107. 26. for such read suck: Pag. 208. read Amram. Pag. 384. in the margin, read, r Pag. 369. s pag. 370. Pag. 437. in the margin read, Ketannah.