give us a distinction between the sentence of excōmunication and between the execution therof As in Jsrael the Elders Preists had a rightful power to giue out the sentence of death of leprosie according to the law without asking the peoples consent yea though it should have been without and against it Deut. 1.16 17.8.12 24.8 with 2. Chrō 26.16.20 Levit. 13. c. and then it was for the people to perform the execution accordingly so the Elders now may by office give out the sentence of excōmunication according to the law of God the people should accordingly put it in execution by avoiding the excōmunicate persons til they repent I answer this comparison is faulty many wayes First it speaketh onely of a rightful power wheras the thing they should answer to is both rightful and able power as themselves once distinguished or let them say whether the Church that Christ sendeth to for redress of syn hath not able power to excōmunicate 2. Secondly it matcheth the power of the Ministers in spiritual things with the power of the Magistrates in civil things which what is it but to make the one Lords spiritual as the other are Lords temporal according to the Popish hierarchie 3. Thirdly it misseth in the proportion of the Preists judging leprosie for Gods law in Lev. 13.2 is that the suspected person should be brought to Aarō the Preist or to one of his sons the Preists and the Preist should look and pronounce him unclean or clean as he discerned it The proportion hereto now is one Bishop or Minister rather than a Church of Ministers for if one Preist might judge then why may not one Minister judge now Doe not the Papists which allege this very example and apply it to one Preist make a fitter proportiō then they that deny this power unto one and yet apply it unto many 4. Fourthly thus farr I grant this proportion that as every Preist then might according to the law declare what was leprosie so every Minister now may and ought by the law to declare what is syn and heresie and this though it be without and against the consent of the Church of all the world Ezek. 3.17 21.2 Tim. 4..1.2 Tit. 1.9 But as then not the preist onely but the children of Israel put every leper out of the host so now not the minister onely but the childrē of Christ the church are to put the wicked out frō among them as the Apostle sheweth 5. Fiftly if the Elders the Magistrates might as these men say give sentence of death against a man though without and against the peoples consent then it was for the people to perform the execution then that people I say were in great subjection and servitude to their Elders that must execute that man to whose death they cōsented not and to shape the Ministers power now accordingly is to make them Lords and the Church their subjects and servants yea the Pope himself never had men in greater slaverie I know when Gods law condemned a man if it were shewed by all or any one of the Iudges or Preists or Prophets yea or Israelites the people should in order have executed him but oft times the heads of the people judged for rewards the Princes as Lions the Iudges as Wolves devoured them the Preists polluted the sanctuarie and wrested the law And then the people of the land whose duty also it was to look to open wickednes were neyther to folow the many nor mighty in evil And that the Iudges had power to put any man to death whom the people judged innocent I find not but would see it proved I find how in Naboths case though it were a wicked fact ther was a solemn fast and assemblie of the people with the governours how in Ieremies case he was accused to the Princes and people made his defense to princes and people and was acquitted by princes and people When King Saul sware that Ionathan should dye the people sware the contrary saved him from death when the high preists scribes would have kylled Christ they feared the people Luk. 20.19 22.2 and the people as wel as the rulers were caled before Pilate about Christs death Luk. 23.13 and by their voices prevayled Mat. 27.20.22.25.26 Luk 23.23 So that to prove the Ministers sole power now for to cut off a man from the Church by the Magistrates power then to cut off a man from Israel neyther is the proportion just if it were so neyther yet is it manifested that so it was in Israel 6. Sixtly the proportion which they here make is so misshapen that I marvel wise men would ever bring it forth to the view of the world For they make the avoiding of the excommunicated person by the people to be the executing of the sentence of excommunication wheras this censure is properly executed by him that in the name of Christ and with consent of the Church delivereth the wicked man to Satan as the Apostle willeth 1. Cor. 5. which being doon the man is certaynly excommunicated whither the people avoyd his company or not And if they otherweise here understand the word execution they doo but deceiv the reader with an aequivocation This their other example of the sentence of death and the execution therof wil plainly manifest For Pilate gave sentence of death upon Christ the souldjers that kylled him with nayles and spear they executed the sentence of death as we commonly speak and understand Then Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embaulmed him with myrrh wound him in a sheet and layd him in grave shal we say that these two now were the executioners of Christ because they caryed themselves towards him as towards a dead man Or if any refreyned from touching a dead man that had been hanged least by him they should be polluted did they here by execute him No more doo they properly execute the sentence of excommunication which avoyd the company of one excommunicated 7. But because al the weight of their wrested proportion frō Israel is couched herein let us look upon it a litle more In their Treatise on Mat. 18. there they say in Jsrael such as would not hearken to the Preists and Judges were to dye by the hands of the people Deut. 17. Agayn they say delivering to Satan in 1. Cor. 5. is in sted of death in Jsrael Levit. 20.11 By this one would think that the people now should deliver a wicked man to Satan when the Elders have judged him worthy otherweise how stands the proportion But they mean nothing less for a litle after they tel vs in the Churches excommunication ther is the giving of a sentence judiciarie which perteyneth to government and authority there is also in particular a delivering to Satan by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ c. which likewise
should be charged by 2. or 3. witnesses with heresy blasphemy or the like crime and complaynt thereof be made to the Church Mr. Iohnson in this his Answer coÌ„fesseth that the Church he would be asked whither womeÌ„ and childreÌ„ or no may depose al her officers joyntly persisting in transgression though in the same place he mince the matter too small in saying they may depose or refuse them separate from theÌ„ and againe refuse them Wheras to depose and to separate from or refuse are very divers For 1. to separate from the Eldership requires no power but libertie and therfore may be doon by one man or woman upon just occasion so cannot deposition be upon any occasion but by the Church for which deposition of al the officers of the kingdom of Christ the church a man would think the power of Christ were needful and that by it such a judgment should passe out Besides the Church in deposing her officers dooth not separate her self from them to speak properly but them from her Wel to take the least libertie he wil give the people If they may separate from al their officers persisting in transgression then they must receive the complaynt of sin which is orderly brought and by sufficient witnesses against them and must examine and judge the matter Now if it argue power to receive a complaynt of sin against one brother and to examine and judge it and so to censure him by excoÌ„munication if ther be cause dooth it not also argue power to receav a complaynt of sin agaynst all the officers to examine and judg it and so to censure them as their is cause by deposition But what now shall the Elders do accounting themselves innocent and wrougfully accused whilst the Church thus examineth things and judgeth of them Shall they surâ—ease their government and fayl the Church in so great a â—eed and would M. Iohnson so practise or are they not now to do a speciall work of theyr government not onely in preserving order but in directing instructing and guiding the Church by the wod of God in her whole procedings By which it appeareth that judging of sin and power to suppresse it is one thing and government for the right use and ordering of the same another thing The officers which are judged do govern and the bodâ— of the Church which judgeth them is governed by them We may yet further see this difference even in the Lordly governments of this world and that both in Peace and Warre In the civile government of our own land then the which none in the world in the right vse of it is more excellent when a malefactor comes to be arraigned at the Assises or Sessions he is to be tryed by his country a competent company where all cannot possibly passe vpon him which they cal the Iury whose power and sentence is of such force as that the Lord Cheif justice himself and all the Bench with him cannot proceed agaynst it eyther for the quitting or coÌ„demning of the person and yet the Bench governeth the whole action and the Iury is by them according to law to be governed I wish the Elders with whoÌ„ we have to do would allow the body of the church the like liberty at their Sitting as they call it that is at their spirituall Sessions or rather that they would better consider that they are as Ministers to stand and serve and not as Lords to sit and judge Lastly when an army is sent against the Kings and their own enemies the government is in the Captains and Officers but so is not al the power for fighting with and subduing of their and their kings enemies Neyther is all the power of the church which is an army with banners in the officers alone for the the subduing of Christs and their enemies sin and Sathan though the government be Thus may the difference plainly be seen betwixt power and government in the opening of which I have been the longer because 1. I think it a mayn ground of our controversie 2. Our opposites do much insult over us as speaking contradictions when we yeeld the officers all the goverment and yet deny theÌ„ al the power 3. The weaker sort ar much misled and caried away thorough want of discerning this difference I proceed to a second thing and affirm that Christ hath not left to the church amoÌ„g men onely a ministerial power which he confusedly calleth government as he sayth He hath left the word of God and gospell in the church which is lively and mighty in operation peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit c. ruling and reigning in and over the very hearts and lives of men binding their consciences and bringing into captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ. I know men can onely minister this power whither in doctrine or discipline as they speak But it is one thing to say the power is onely ministerial and another thing that men can onely minister it For men may be the ministers onely of that power which is kingly and Lordly in it self and so over men as this is So the saints can only minister their kingly power by participatioÌ„ of Christs aÌ„noynting as one speciall grace they have received of which more hereafter Now in laying down the things wherwith he chargeth me he alters my words misinterprets my meaning and conceals that which I have writteÌ„ and he read in my book for the explaning of the same And first he sayth I have taught that the people are as Kings one over another that I advance them one over another as Kings and above their governours intitling theÌ„ with Kingly Lordly power that is goverment as he explaines himself in the outward policie of the Church I doo not in these places or any other advance the people one over another much lesse over their officers in the outward policy of the Church that is as he explains his meaning in the government of it I doo every where profess the Officers the governours and the people the governed by them Neyther do I any where affirm that the people ar Kings or as kings one over another as he chargeth me I say in one place that the saynts are not Kings for themselves alone but for their brethren also as they are not Preists onely for themselves but for their brethren And in another place that every one of the faithful is a King not onely to him self but to every other member as he is a Preist and a Prophet c. Here is a King one for another and one to another but not one over another much lesse over the officers for government in the external policie of the Church The playn and simple truth then is whatsoever men eyther mistake of ignorance or suggest of an evil mind that we do not cal the saynts Kings in respeâ—t of outward order and government as though they were to order
AN ANIMADVERSION TO Mr RICHARD CLYFTONS Advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book hath published an other mans private Letter with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto Which letter is here justified the answer therto refuted and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam manifested By HENRY AINSWORTH Imprinted at Amsterdam by Giles Thorp Ano. Di. 1613. The Preface to the Christian reader OF all sorrowes that doo befal the people of God ther are none so greevous as intestine troubles which Satan rayseth among themselves With these above others we have been often afflicted the Lord so chastening our synns humbling us and exercising our faith and patience whiles many among us at sundry times have turned aside from the way of truth and holy commandement which God gave unto them And not contented to stray themselves alone they have sought by al means to draw others after them if they folow not they make warr against them What challenges provocations we have had by others the world hath seen heretofore by works published what now is further come upon us they may see in part though not as we have felt Our adverse brethrē although themselves have not answered the things formerly published against their present errours yet have not ceased to urge us with boastful speeches private letters and publik treatises to come into this feild and whiles wee were otherwise imployed they have much insulted against us and now rather then we should be quiet they take our private letters print them so restless is errour in it self so troublesom unto others And wheras Ch. Lawn and others first declined to these our Opposites faction and afterwards fel from evil to worse and have set out a lewd pamphlet to the disgrace of the truth and of sundry mens persons Mr Clyfton who hath printed my letter with M. Iohnsons answer intitleth his treatise An Advertisement concerning Ch. Lawns book but taking occasion by Articles therin printed the most that he advertiseth is against me It was my desire and purpose to have left controversies haue exercised my self in more quiet and comfortable meditations but it pleaseth not God as yet to grant my request therin My prayer therfore is that his gracious spirit may guide me in this conflict for his truth and gyrd me with strength unto this battel A few things I wil here breifly note touching our present controversie 1. The power of Christ which he left with his Church hath been continually assayled by Satan and his instruments Diotrephes began the love of preeminence in the Apostles time Bishops have prosequuted the same in all ages sithence but the high Preist of Rome did get the victorie and wears the triple crown Two pillars there are which do most underprop the towr of Antichrist 1. a proportion drawn from the goverment in Israel 2. and a pretended privilege from Peters keyes Pope Innocent the 3. from Deut. 17.8.12 bolstreth his canon law for exercising his jurisdiction over all causes persons proportionable to the high court and Synedrion of Israel Pighius writing for his Lords hierarchie and Dorman our countryman his disciple labouring to prove the same plead from the Iewes state how God provided to take away schismes that might arise by appointing a place and Iudge to flee unto in all such doubts Deut 17. and would have vs think that God hath provided as wel for his church now which hath no less need then they And because they had the same God the same Christ the same faith the same covenant c that we the lavv conteyned a shadow of the good things to come they think their proofs impregnable concluding from the high Preists court in Israel to their high Prelates consistorie in Christendom Bellarmine and other popish writers as this treatise after manifesteth allege the like arguments Our opposites now doo plead against us from the very same grounds wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the gospel telling us we may not be strangers from the politie of Israel whereof see after in this treatise pag. 13.14 c. neyther of them observing how the Angel foretold that Christ should destroy the Citie and the Sanctuarie of the Iewes Dan. 9 26. and so abolish Moses politie bring an other into his house wherin he should be found as faithful as Moses Heb. 3 2 5 6. And he hath forbidden his ministers to exorcise princelike authoritie or dominion over his heritage Mat. 20 25 26 1. Pet. 5 1.3 2. The Papists seek shifts distinctions to turn away the reasons that disprove their errours Bellarmine being pressed with judgments used heretofore in the Churches would ease himself thus Ther is a double iudgement sayth he publik and private Publik is that which is uttered by a publik judge with authoritie so as others are bound to rest in that judgement Private is the sentence which every one chooseth as true but it bindeth no man Publick judgment in the cause of faith is never given to the people but private judgement somtimes is given them c. In like manner these our opposites who themselves heretofore reasoned wel for the churches judging of synners from 1. Cor. 5.4 12. doo now seek to solute their own arguments with the same distinction Ther is also say they a publik judgement and a private c. The publik iudgment cōmeth out frō the Lord and from his ministers for him and the church or cōmon wealth whose publik officers they are The private iudgement is to every particular person touching their discerning assenting or dissenting to or from the things spokē c as every one is perswaded Jf this their iudgement agree with the publik it is already signified by the officers and so is the same with the publik Jf some disagree it is the dissent of such particular persons iudgement frō the publik of what sexe or conditiō soever they be that so are diversly minded is to be regarded as there shal be cause Alleging for this private judgmēt 1 Cor. 6.2.3 Act. 26.10 with 22.20 21.25 with 15.6.22 16.4 with 1. Cor. 5.12.13 1. Cor. 10.15 11.13 Now although these men quote scriptures which the Cardinal dooth not yet are the places but for a shew they yeild no sound proof of the question For none of them doo manifest that in the Churches judging of synners Paul intended the Elders onely should have a publik judgment and al the people beside but a private nay the contrary dooth appear by the whole argument of that chapter to omitt things which may be pressed against their distinction from Act. 15.22.25.28 and other places As when he mentioneth sorowing 1. Cor. 5.2 he meant not that the Elders sorow should be publik and the peoples private When he willeth that the wicked man by the power of Christ should
deceyt The whole Church is a kingdom of Preists that is of ministers who are to be guided and governed by their Officers caled also ministers in more special manner for the holy and orderly practise of the power And thus the Prophets foretold the state of the Christian Church saying strangers shal stand and feed your sheep and the sonns of strangers shal be your plowmen and dressers of your vines but ye shal be named the Preists of the Lord men shal say unto you The Ministers of our God Where the Officers of the Church are coÌ„pared to pastours husbandmen as the new testament also coÌ„firmeth vvhich should be of the converted Gentiles and the Church it self is the Lords preisthood and his Ministers Sixtly they ask whither we in the Churches goverment as the Anabaptists in the sacraments would not make them aliens from the coÌ„mon wealth of Jsrael c. I answer this was in their fourth observation before and there is by me answered I trust without absurdity or ungodlynes errors or evils all which they here insinuate against us for to fyll up their mesure But here agayn the reason deceiveth the reader for in sted of coÌ„mon-wealth or politie they bring in one body one Lord one faith of theirs and ours c. Ephe. 2. c. Al this we grant but the outward politie goverment we deny to be the same it being changed by Christ both for Citie Sanctuarie Dan. 9.26 There was alwayes one Lord faith of the Church but not alwayes one politie The kingdom and preisthood were first executed by one person as in Melchisedek afterward these functions were divided Kings might not doo the Preists work Also the civil government in Israel was changeable somtime without a King sometime with one yea sometime by hethen Kings as Nebuchadnezar Cyrus c to whom the Israelites were bound to be subject but not so in their sacraments that ther is no just consequence to be drawn froÌ„ the one of these to the other We rather may ask of our opposites whether they as the Papists would not draw us froÌ„ the testament of Christ vvho was faithful as Moses in al his house to the Ievvish politie novv abolished And let them tell us vvhether ther may be novv Archbishops over other Bishops and Ministers as in Israel there were Archpreists over other Preists and Levites or a superior court to hear the appeals from particular synagogues cities now as was then and whether the ministers of the Church now may be captayns of politik armies as Benajah son of Iehojada the cheif Preist was general of the feild in Ioabs room Such orders have been heretofore in Israel Seventhly they ask why we speak not of our selves what we pleaded to be the church spoken of Mat. 18 17. c. I answer because our plea is already set forth in sundry books as the Discovery the Reâ—itation of M. Gifford the Apologie the Treatise of the Ministerie against M. Hildersh the Answer to White c. And I ask of them agayn why they answer not the things already published in so many treatises but fish for more matter by subtile questions as if men had nothing ells to doo but answer al things that they write and demand and to let them range at wil without orderly answering as is meet They say some of us taught it to be the whole church alleging to that end Num. 15.33 27.2 and 35.12 I answer first we taught then no otherweise then as them selves taught heretofore with us Secondly we alleged many other scriptures and reasons both from the Prophets and Apostles though it please them to omitt those and cull out these against which they think they have more colour to contend For hereupon they thus argue 1 Jf this rule be found in the book of Numbers c. then it is not a new rule first given in Mat. 18.17 I answer they wrong us and would deceiv the reader we alleged not those scriptures to prove the rule to be the same then and now but to give light unto the question by shewing what was the peoples right then under the law and under the Magistrate which may be more but can not be less now under the gospel where the church ministery hath not the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage The Apostle applieth many things from Aarons preisthood to Christ yet he maketh Christs preisthood not to be after Aarons order but Melchisedeks should men now thus carp at his allegations Then they say those scriptures speak of civil goverment which we except about the Elders but they suppose we wil not give to the people civil authoritie I answer first them selves grant that the people have as much right and power now as they had in Israel but we deny they can never prove that the ministers now have as much authority over the people as had the Princes of Israel so our reasoning is good though theirs be naught Secondly for civil authoritie as we never chalenged it so neyther should it be objected to them but that they wil have it to be no new rule Then say we it must be left to the Magistrate and ministers may not intrude into their place And seing they thus urge it let them if they please clear them selves whither they think not that the Elders of the church may have civil authoritie also as had the Elders in Israel Thirdly they say that by these and the like scriptures it is certayn sinners in Jsrael were brought before the congregation of Elders I answer if they mean Elders onely as they must if they reason to the matter in hand I deny it and ther is no weight in their proof For it is also certayn that Paul imposed hands on Timothee 2. Tim. 1.6 but elswhere it appeareth others also imposed hands as wel as he 1. Tim. 4.14 So the Apostles and Elders came togither about a controversie Act. 15.6 but the whole Church came togither also verse 22.23 Titus was left to ordeyn Elders Tit. 1.5 but was he to doo it himself alone The keyes were promised to Peter Mat. 16.19 but were they meant to him onely In Rev. 2.1 Iohn wrote to the Angel or Messenger of the church but by Rev. 1.11 2.7 it is plain the whole church was intended So in Israel the law sayth in a case of mariage let her goe up to the gate to the Elders Deut. 25.7.8.9 but the practise of this sheweth that the people were also interested with the Elders Ruth 4.2.7.9.11 Jn Exod. 5.1 Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh but by Exod. 3.18 we may gather that the Elders of Israel went with them also So in the place cited Num. 15.33 they brought him to Moses and to Aaron and to al the Congregation the people are here meant with the Magistrates for God then
once had been onely in consideration and in their second letter as also appeareth they gave us certayn Reasons of their dislike Vnto which reasons of theirs we gave no answer as they both write before their parting And the causes were 1. For that they continued not long togither after they came to our hands 2. We had upon occasion of the motion made for a double practise propounded another course both more fit and warrantable as we thought then that for the bringing of things first to the Elders as appears in our letter Vnto which course though we do not bind our brethren yet may we safely say so farr as we remember that there never came complaynt of sin to the Church since we were officers but we took knowledge of it before eyther by mutual consent on both sides or at least by the party accused with whose christian modesty and wisdom we think it wel sorteth that being condemned by two or three brethrē he should not trouble the Church or hazzard a publique rebuke upon himself without counselling with them who ar set over him and who eyther are or should be best able to advise him Thirdly and which was the cheif cause we were without all hope of doing good when they once misliked the motion which made it Whilest they liked it we had hope though it were with hard measure to the other and so did further it to the utmost of our power but when they layd it down we knew all our labour would be lost in endeavoring their second listing of it Lastly where Mr Iohnson affirmeth that at the first treating of the matter we conceived that those by them dismissed should remayn at Leydē with us notwithstanding their want of meanes of living it may wel be as he sayth though we well remember it not And therin all men may see how we were even overcaryed with a vehement desire of peace with them and amongst themselves and how farr wee were from being partiall towards them with whom we agreed in the things in controversie Yea the truth is we were boldest with thē both because we would prevent all jealousy in the other and preserve in them all the interest we could for the common peace and also because we were wel assured of Mr Ainsworths great moderation upō whom the rest did much depend But howsoever we conceived at the first it is certayn that both they and we conceived otherwise in the agreement And therfore when one amongst them made exception that we should not dismisse thē back which came unto us to live a distinct congregation in the same city with them it was presently answered both by Mr Iohnson and Mr Studley that that concerned not them but that they would leave it unto us though that appeared afterwards to be the onely thing for which they broke off their purpose and promise And here the work of Gods providence is to be observed that they who would have no peace with their brethren abyding in the same city with them are about to leave it themselves and to settle their abode els where Which thing that it might well come to passe in short time they were by us put in mind of before hand if God gave them not agayne to reunite which by a peaceable parting might hav been furthered Which how much better had it been they had admitted of all things considered then thorough extreme streytnes in themselves not to medle with the mayn cause thus to have made their brethren their adversaries and themselves yea and us all a by-word to the whole world Iohn Robinson William Brewster This is the record of our brethren of Leyden touching our troubles Wheras our opposites object unto us that we refused to trie if by writing among our selves we could have come to better accord c. I answer first we had by a twelv moneths dispute tried if we could have come to accord but were further off in the end then at the beginning Secondly things were brought to that pass that the practise of their errours was established the truth in publik doctrines inveighed against the opposers of their errours compared to Korah Dathan and Abiram the Lords supper of a long time not administred among us occasions sought against sundry persons to cast them out of the Church peace by us offred by them refused peace by them selves propounded and confirmed and by them agayn broken open warr proclaymed against us as against men that refused disobeyed and spake evil of the way and truth of God c. was this an estate for us to continew in togither and goe to writing which would prove we knew not how many moneths or yeres work For loe to a letter of mine of 3. pages they have given an answer of 70. and if they continue thus to multiplie what volumes shal we have in the end and when shal vve have an end It is rather to be feared that vve suffred things to depend too long for vvhen the Apostles found Christians liberty to be indangered and bondage to be brought upon them though privily they gave not place by subjection for an howr that the truth of the Gospel might continew with them Gal. 2.4.5 Thirdly it vvas a vvay vvhich they alvvayes mislyked and in our former troubles vvhen heretofore M. Smyth and others having debated their causes in conference proffered vvritings then M. Iohnson himself vvith the rest vvithstood and refused that course But novv that vvhich they blamed in others they commend in themselves so partial are they in al things When they like of a thing it must be good vvhen they mislike it must be evil We vvish they vvould shevv more sinceritie And novv as vve desire the Christian reader not to be offended at the truth because of our infirmities who cannot walk in it as we ought nor to stumble for the troubles and dissentions which Satan rayseth among Gods people so wee desire these our opposite brethren to return into the right way from which they are estrayed and putting away al love of preeminence and of their own aberrations to receiv agayn the love of the truth and of brotherly concord that the name of God be no more evil spoken of by the wicked and that the harts which ar wounded by these dissentions may be healed and refreshed The Lord look upon the afflictions of Sion wipe away her tears forgive her iniquities take away her reproch restore her joy and comfort her according to the dayes that she hath seen evil Amen Finis Faults escaped in the printing Pag. 6. line 11. for that read than pag. 46. two lines before the end for uncirsed read uncircumcised pag. 70. line 23. for wholy read holy pag. 112. line 42. for wod read word * 3. Ioh. 9.10 †C. aper venerabilem Extrav qui sunt sil legit “ Hierarc l. 4. c. 3. l. 2. c. 3. * T. Dorm Proof of certayn articles denyed by M. Iewel fol. 7. * Heb. 10.