You object secondly, that this makes that David, Iehoshaphat,* 1.1 and the Church of God in their dayes were no true matter of a Church, for there was marrying many wives, the continuance of the high places, the bra∣sen serpent worshipped, Ioabs murder permitted, the bill of divorsement allow∣ed by Moses: so after Corinth and the Church of Asia being admonished repented not, 2 Cor. 12. 21. Rev. 2. 20. 21.
To let passe here Mr Smythes erroneous and Anabaptistical an∣swer,* 1.2 wherein he makes the constitution of the Iewish Church the constitution of the old testament, when as the Church of the Iewes was cōstituted in “ 1.3 Abrahā 400 & 30 yeres before the law or old testament was given, which was after added clean for an other end then to constitute a Church: the ordinances and communion he makes merely ceremoniall and carnall, which the scriptures ex∣presly call † 1.4 spiritual, whereof also prayer & prophe••ying were parts, neyther are our ordinances more spirituall ',' 1.5 remembrances of Christ come, then were theirs in their true and naturall relation, spirituall * 1.6 shadowes of Christ to come.
I do answer to the exception, first that you cannot prove the holy men you name to haue sinned in all the particulars wherwith you charge them, as Moyses in tolerating the bill of divorcement which you injuriously affirm he allowed, much lesse can you prove they were convinced of sin in suffering these things, and yet suffred them. Nay is it not your owne doctrine, that grace, and conti∣nuance in sin without repentance cannot stand together? But what countenance doe the infirmities of these holy men give to the pro∣phane and graceles multitude against whom we deal? and whom alone we cast out of the account of Saincts? with what conscience