An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of…

He had done well to have explained what he meaneth by that not settled, nor well ordered state of the Church, in which he thinks it belongeth not to the Elders alone, to admit or cut off members. His other ambiguous expression I understand better, for by the peoples privity he meaneth, that the people should hear the voices and suffrages of the Elders, and by the peoples consent, he meaneth the peoples voting with the Elders, as we shall hear afterward. That the admission of members,¹ ⟨p. 8⟩ought to be with the peoples privity and consent,² he will prove by two reasons. 1. Because we find in the acts of the Apostles, that men were received into the fellowship of the Church, and baptized publicly, and in the face of the congregation. 2. Because the whole commonalty, being nearly to join with these that are admitted, ought to take knowledge of the profession of their faith. These reasons can neither conclude the peoples right of suffrage in this matter, nor so much are the peoples hearing of the suffrages of the Elders: But only that the matter might not be ended without the peoples knowledge and tacit consent. Beside there is no small difference to be put betwixt the admission of Jews, Infidels, and Heretics, upon their profession of the true Christian faith, and the admission of such as have transported themselves from another Christian congregation, bringing with them a sufficient testimony of their holy profession of faith, and good conversation. In the mean while, Let the Reader note, that this disputer hath here in a parenthesis interlaced gross anabaptistry, holding it a kind of unorderly anticipation to baptise infants, who cannot give a confession of their ⟨p. 9⟩faith. And within a few lines, he lets another thing fall from his pen, which smelleth strongly of the Anabaptisticall tenet, concerning having all things common, even bodily goods.

Hee had done well to have explained what hee meaneth by that not setled, nor well ordered state of the Church, in which he thinks it belongeth not to the Elders alone, to admit or cut off members. His other ambiguous expression I understand better, for by the peoples privity hee meaneth, that the people should heare the voyces and suffrages of the Elders, and by the peoples consent, hee meaneth the peoples voting with the Elders, as wee shall heare afterward. That the admission of members,