stated degree of Superiority and Dignity among Ministers in the point of Government or to separate and exalt Government from and above the office of Preaching to which it is subservient and to appropriate it to certain Ministri-prelati above others can hardly be determined I need not here caution concerning ruling Elders seeing the more full description of Ecclesiastick Government is here given in order to Ministers in which these Elders being only partiall sharers it is not more agreeable to their warrant then suitable to this position 5. As the grounds of the equality and parity of Ministers by us asserted are by these truths plainly held out so that superiority of Power though still Ministerial competent to the meetings of the Brethren as well over the severall constituent members as over the Church according to their warrant hereafter declared is thereto very consistent and thereby mostly established whether these things all evident in the Doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles do not fairely exhibite the principles and platform of a Presbyterian Ministerie and its Ministerial parity Let men judge Really Sir when I consider Preaching to be the main office even our Lords own commission great erand into the world Discipline to be dependent upon it and wholly referable to its end and a simple Ministerial Government only allowed for the regulation and advancement of both and when I do remember that neither the glorious excellencie of the Lord Jesus hindered him to be amongst his Disciples as he who served nor did the many advantages of the Apostles and others extraordinarily gifted and accordingly imployed and sent out as their assistents requisite in the Churches infancie make them assume to themselves or endeavour to settle in the Church any superior Order above the degree of preaching Elders and Overseers whom they allwayes respected as their equals in the work of the Gospel And thirdly when I call to minde that wherever a Church came to be gathered the Apostles did either by themselves as at Lystra Iconium and Antioch or by their fellow labourers as Timothy at Ephesus and Titus in Crete there left and appointed by Paul for the work and charged to leave the place when called therein ordain Elders without any imparity or higher order and that Paul after having testified that he had keep back nothing profitable nor shuned to declare all the Counsel of God but shewed them all things did commit to the Elders of Ephesus the full charge and oversight of the Church of God without appointing any Angel Prelat over them And lastly when I reflect how that in the beginnings of the Gospel at Ierusalem all things almost were acted by Common counsel that where and when the Christian name did first take place there and at the same time we finde a Presbyterie of Prophets and teachers assembled and acting jointly and by the Command of the Holy Ghost sending out even the greatest of the Apostles as subject to them that Paul imposeth hands with the Presbyterie termeth it their deed Peter exhorts Elders as his fellows their Compresbyter when I say I ponder these thingsâ— they do make me assuredly conclude the Ministrie Government of the Church in the way of Presbyterie to be as much Iuris Divini as it is opposite to and removed from your Hierarchie Having thus discovered the foundation and traced the undeniable lineaments of Presbyterie in the Word of God I may not insiâ—t upon the inconsonant deformities of Prelacie only this I must say that though Prelacie were not attended with many and great corruptions and in its exaltation mark it lest you think me injurious to good men had not been alwayes enemy to Religion and Godliness Yet a superiour Order of Church-men usurping from the Pastors of the flock of God the Ministerial Power of Iurisdiction and the only right of Ordination and acclaiming to themselves the sole management of Government as their proper work with dignity and authority over their Brethren hath neither warrant nor vestige in the Scripture of the New Testament but is so palpably the invention of man that it is not a greater wonder that the Devil should have improved it to all that pride avarice wickednesse and villany which it hath produced then it is a mysterie how the world should have been thereby imposed upon and have endured all its rapine sacrilege and usurpation under the pretext of Religion to which it is so repugnant I come now to try how you impugne the jus divinum which we assert for Lay elders and other matters condescendâ—d up on by you and therefore hitherto by me not touched You say Lay-Elders are founded on no Scripture as the most judicious amongst us acknowledge And you wonder that when we urge from the Apostles giving rules only for Bishops and Deacons that Diocesans must be shuâ—fled out how we do not also see that ruling Elders are not there Who these most judicious amongst us in Scotland may be who deny Lay or rather Ruling Elders to have any Scripture warrant seeing your own N. C. is none of the Number I cannot apprehend but for your wonder I think it may be easily satisfied if you will but consider that it is not from the simple omission of Diocesans in this Text that we exclude them from the Church but since it is manifest from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that the true Apostolick Bishop was no other either in name or office then a Presbyter Nay that by the rules to him set down your Diocesans is plainly cast and rejected like as both in Acts Chap. 20. and Titus the names of Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously used is it not clearly concludent that your Diocesan hath no Scripture warrant whereas the ruling Elder as he is not in these places confounded and made the same with the preaching Elder but may justly enough share both in the general names of Elder and Over-seer and also in their rules without any incosistence so his liquid warrant as a distinct officer is elswhere obviously extant In the next place you add that the Brethren in the Council at Ierusalem prove too much viz. That our Elders are judges oâ— Doctrineâ— but if their concurrence both in the meâ—ting and in the decree may be fairly understood of an assisting and approving suffâ—age without attributing to all unanimous assenters the same power and Authority of deciding as is very casible in any other heterogeneous Assembly whether our argument conclude from the Brethren as distinguished from the Apostles and preaching Elders and therefore to be taken for ruling Elders or from the Elders there mentioned as including both the preaching and ruling Elders your abâ—uâ—dity doth not follow and our argument is nothing convelled But you say it is absurd to think that that was a Church judicature Pray Sir not so fast you would say that that meeting was not a General Synod for that it was a Church judicature its decree doth evince As
subordination of the parts unto the whole in matters pertaining and relating to the body and concerning its end are the inseparable propriâ—ties and privilege of a Society is evident aâ—ove exception which argument is the more confirmed that in the acts of the Apostles we finde the Church assembling and by Common Counsel managing its affaires and determining differences not by any speciall and expresse warrant or command but meerly in the exercise of this intrinsick power competâ—nt to the Church as gathered and erected in one Society This right then and power of meetings being undeniable to the whole by the same reason precedent they are confirmed to the parts the Subordination whereof to the whole cannot be drawn in doubt Thus you see how your own grant affirmeth what you dâ—ny but your N. C. answeres further That they at Antioch send up to them at Jerusalem And are not the Spirits of the Prophets subject to the Prophets To these Scriptures you reply beginning with the last That it is clear that in that place the Apostle is speaking of Pâ—râ—chial Churches which subjection none deny But Sir is not that which you call in question the Subordination of Sessions to Presbyteries Now if the Apostle tell us That the Spirit of the Prophets who in the dayes oâ— the Apostles had many of them charge pro indiviso jointly over the same Church but now a dayes have their distinct charges over Parochial Churches are subject to the Prophets gathered in one assembly may not the Subordination questioned be sufficiently thence concluded especially seing I can hardly suppose you so Anti-episcopal as to be Independant and still to doubt after the many irrefragable demonstrations given by the Presbyterians whether this Church of Corinth was a Presbyterial and not a meer Congregational or Parochial Church As for what else may be in your return I confesse I reach it not seeing that at the time of the Apostles writing we finde no divided Parishes and to fancie that the subjection spoken of waâ— of the Prophets in one Parochial Church such as at that time there was properly none and not rather of the many Prophets having the charge pro indiviso jointly over the whole company of the Beleevers in that Citie in which many parishes were virtually included is groundless and absurd To the first instance you say It is ridiculous to urge it seing they of Antioch sent not up to Jerusalem either as to a Church superior or as to an Oecumenick Councel but to men there who were immediatly inspired That they sent not up as to an Oecumenick Councel I cannot dissent from you seing I finde in the Text no suitable concurse for or vestige of such an Assembly but that they sent not up as to a Church superior is by you ill asserted and worse proved seing 1. The phrases in the letter sent from that meeting that certain which went out from us and it seemed good c. to lay upon you and that the same letter is termed a Decree do clearly prove a superior Authority in the writers 2. Because the example which ye adduce from the jews their high Priest for confirming your Gloss doth plainly redargue you in as much as the Jews consulted not the high Priest his Urim and Thummim without regard to his Authority but consulted him as the high Priest and the Person to whom God had therefore committed them Deut. 17. v. 10. 11. 12. putting them in the breast-plate termed of judgement and not of Responses But you may say supposing the matter was thus carried what makes it for your Assemblies I Answere yes very much for it sheweth 1. That if the Apostles who all of them severally were immediatly inspired and so might have determined this controversie did notwithstanding join with other ordinary Elders or Churchâ—officers and by common counsel give out their Decrees that common Councels their authority in the Church are juris Divini 2. That as the Church of Antioch in which the Apostle Paul Barnabas and several other Prophets wereâ— and the other Churches in Asia received and submitted to the decrees so it evidently intimats a subordination of these making as it were one Provincial Church to that great Assembly of the Apostles Elders conveened at Ierusalem You subjoin in this place That if that meeting at Jerusalem was a Councel then all Councels may speak in their stile it seems good to the Holy Ghost c. It 's answered 1. The connexion oâ— your proposition containeth an obvious non sequitur in as much as it is not from their being a Councel but from the certainty of these Scripture evidences whereupon their determination proceeds that their prefacing of the minde and sentencâ— of the holy Ghost doth flow 2. That that meeting was a Councel of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem a conveened in one to Consulte Reason and exercise Authority which severally was not so satisfying â—or the very Apostles to do notwithstanding of their immediâ—â—e assistance is plain from the Text especially Pauls deference to them 3. If you imagine that Ecclesiastick Councels cannot be of Divine right unlesse they have the Spirits absolute and infallible assistance you erre as grossly as he who for want of this infallibility should deny to the Church a standing Minâ—strie by Divine institution 4. Though the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost given to the Apostles aâ—d being to them in stead of the rule was indeed singular and extraordinary Yet as the Lord to all his Ordinances hath annexed the promise of an agreeable presence which doth not fail the sincere and faithfull improvers so Church Assemblies in matters of Faith to them committed and following the rule thereto prescribed are also thereby countenanced and in sound beleeving and upright walking may both attain to and profess their assurance of the Holy Ghosts assistance 5â— Seing that all Councel-acts and Canons anent matters of Faith ought to be guided by the Spirit and conform to the word of God and enacted and emitted in this persuasion these Meetings that truly keeping the rule and sincerely laying hold on the promise do proceed in their determinations may therein warrantably use the Apostles words and such as do otherwayes are only culpable in the presumptuous usurpation because they have not rightly followed and in effect attained unto the rule of the Word and the conduct of the Spirit which ought indeed to be their warrant 6. Having on these clear grounds declared the Authority of Ecclesiastick Meetings in Matters of Faith I freely grant that in other things which may be incident to their cognition and are not of Faith nor defined in Scripture they have neither the like warrant nor may they use the like expressions and therefore as in this case they cannot found upon the Lords Commandments so they are only to be respected as such who are intrusted to give their judgement and have obtained mercie of the Lord to be faithfull 7. The
beside their exprâ—ss Warrant the main thing of this Controversie they had such an agreeable conveniencie and deâ—encie to the service of Sacrificing then in use and might probably in the Priests to whom they appertained have had such a prefiguing respect to the immaculate innocencie of Jesus Christ our great Priest and Sacriâ—â—ce and yet did so little appear in the more solemne Garments of thâ— high Priest that the example adduced doth rather redargue then confirme your continuance of this now idle Rite I might further tell you that the use of Sack cloth among us was not offended at and if it had would probably have been forborne And also adde to these clear disparities your rigid imposing and exacting of these your Doctrines more then the Commandments of God both in prejudice of Christian Liberty and to the slighting of true godliness but whether the disparities above mentioned be subtile shifts as you are pleased to judge before you hear or solid differences these who are less prejudicate will easily discerne In the next place you returne to show us our difformity with the Scripture-pattern in demanding Why we do not observe the decree of the first Councel at Ierusalem to which I answere that we observe it except in so far as it was designed to be temporarie and framed to bury the Synagogue with honour viz. in the matters of Bloud and things strangled And as for meats offered to Idols the Apostle Paul did thereafter declare that point so that in these particulars the Decree doth not reach us This answere as to your reply differeth nothing from your Non-conformists And therefore I proceed and really Sir I finde in your return such pitiful inadvertencies as to the Text of Scripture that I cannot but premise my wish that in the study of it you may become more serious 1. You say that to alledge that the exceptions in the decree were made to please the jews is a divised phansie against expresse Scripture and yet the Text beareth Iames first propounding the thing and plainly adding this reason Act. 15. 21. For Moses in old time hath in every City them that Preach him c. Whereupon it follows then pleased it the Apostles pray Sir consider the Text and what this then can els import 2. You say St Paul wrote his Epistle before he went to Jerusalem and yet James tells him these things were still observed there whence you infer that commands in externals may be both local and temporarie What indistinctnesse and bad logick have we here If you mean that Paul wrote his Epistle that I mean anent meats offered to Idols before he went up to Ierusalem from the Church of Antioch to that Councel of the Apostles and Elders the Scripture is contraire showing that his travels unto Greece and all his dealing with the Corinthians yea and almost all his Epistles were thereafter but if you mean that he wrote befor his going up thereafter mentioned Act. 21. it may be so indeed as to his Epistles to the Corinthians and some other but then the Apostle Iames only tells him that the beleeving Jews were still zealous of the Law and that they were offended that he taught the Iews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses which is so far from concerning the Decree under consideration or the proving your point that a thing may be obligatory in one place and not in another that as Iames adviseth Paul to purge himself of that calumny anent the Jews so v. 25 he expresly resumeth and secludeth the case of the Gentiles before determined As to your other inference that Commands in externals are not intended â—or lasting obligations I grant this Decree or any other having a temporary reason is thereby determinable but if your meaning agree to your too visible design to resolve the Eâ—durance of these things which are absolutely setled into the Arbitriment of the Church or rather of the Civil Powers for it is evident that though in all your discourse you pretend the Church yet you take your measures from the Civil Authority it is not only groundless from the matter of the Apostles thâ—ir Decree but of dangerous consequence to the shaking loose of all Religion for proof whereof see how upon the back of this discourse you boldly attempt to make even the very Sacraments Arbitrarie by asking why weâ—â—se not washing of feet since there is no Sacrament set down more punctually in Scripture And when your N. C. retorts that you are under the same obligation which retortion may be pertinently made to most of your objections you tell him that you have a clear answere that in these externals God intended no perpetual obligation and therefore in them you follow the practice of the Catholick Church O unhappy Bohemians and you other Christians who suffered so much and so grievously for the retainning of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper If this new Doctor who with his New Light can penetrate unto the secrets of God and measure the duration of his intentions had lived in your dayes he could have told you that the Cup is but an externall thing under no perpetual obligation and by his Doctrine of Conveâ—â—encie led you to a safe and peacefull Accommodation to the practice of the Catholick Church but Sir they are at rest As for this your Laxe acceptation of a professed indifferency in externals what part of the Christian Religion or Worship may it not corrupt or subvert and seing it doth tolerate and allow the not practising of the washing of feet to you as well founded In Scripture as either of the Sacraments would it not in a just parity of reason dispense with and forego these also This is indeed doctrine so damnable that I hope it shall never need an Antidote and therefore I returne to examine your third or eight Sacrament I know not which for all are but externall of washing of feet And you say That it hath in Scripture of Element Water the Action washing the feet the Institution as I have done so do ye And ye ought to wash one anothers feet and the spiritual use of it Humility Whence you conclude Why do ye not there ore use this rite To which last point it is that waving any further discourse anâ—nt the Nature and requisites of a Sacrament whereof notwithstanding your parrallel description of this washing yet I perceive you are loath to apply the name I shall direct my answere viz. that this washing is not to be used because though our Lord did practise this lowly act of Condescendence as eminently expressive of that humility whereunto he would have his Disciples instructed yet neither is it in it self of the Nature of a Sacramental signe whereof all the significancie is from the institution and vertue in the exhibition of the thing signified which you cuningly omit to mention Nor doth Christ perform it by way of Institution for Repetition but by way of example for Imitation as is
to the Arguments taken for ruling Elders from the exhortation to rule with diligence and the enumeration of Helps and Governments amongst other Gifts bestowed on the Church seeing they are not adduced as by themselves so convincingly concludent but as accessory to these other places whereby the distinct office being proved the promise and gift agreeable cannot but add a considerable light Your terming them Sandie foundations is as foolish as your calling Helps and Governments extraordinary giâ—ts is groundlesse But both your N. C. and I inquire what you say to that Scripture let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour Especially they who labour in the word and doctrine That here both the Preaching and ruling Elder are included in the word Elder as I hinted before and that a distinction is made of him who both Preaches and Rules from him that only Rules is manifest from the words and you are so far thereby convinced that you acknowledge the office controverted to be spoken of but you say the Text supposeth its beiâ—g but doth not bear its institution this is truely exact and strict it seems you remember not that although all that was ever pleaded in behalf of your Bishops and the faire likelikood for them which you would draw from the Angels of the Churches proceeds only upon a supposition of the thing in being Yet none of our side do redargue your arguing from that place only for want of an express institution Consider therefore Sir that if the being of our Elders office be in this Scripture supponed and commended its institution is also thereby supponed and commended and this nicety of yours is no evasion but adding that there are five or six glosses put on these words which you protest without any reason to be better then ours you give us your own thus Let such among you as are fixed to rule particular charges be doubly honoured but specially these Evangelists who medle not in rule but labour in word and doctrine Sir I am sorry that having plenty you have made choise of one so many wayes peccant as importing first that at the time of the writing of this Epistle there were Elders fixed to particular charges or Parishes within Ephesus whereof the contraire is most commonly and probably held 2. That either there were at the same time beside your fixed Elders unfixed Evangelists belonging properly to Ephesus or that the Apostle speaks here of these Catholick Evangelists who belonged not to Timothie's inspection but which is worst of all your Gloss plainly destroyes the Text for whereas Paul doth first deliver a General that all well-ruling Elders be doubly honoured and addes a speciall ampliation dâ— Natura regulae of the Nature of a Rule in favours of these who also Preach you expresly say that these Preachers medled not with rule and flatly deny them to be of the number of these well-ruling Elders which are to be honoured Next where the Text makes labouring in the word an additament to well ruling and therefore deserving a special allowance you preferre the sole merit of Preaching to the double deserving of both Preaching and well-ruling but I pursue your raveries too far the words are plain well-ruling Elders Preachers or not Preachers are to be doubly honoured but such who do both Preach and rule well have the preheminence Now whether or not you have shown our Elders to be ill grounded I leave it to your second thoughts But you proceed to surprize your N. C. with a how want you Deacons and then you tell him That we had indeed somewhat called Deacons but they were not Scripture-deacons for such were not Lay-persons but Ecclesiastick separate by imposition of hands for the function and so were to continow whereas we yearly altered our Elders and Deacons Sir though in this point you represent our Leaders as Deceivers Yet really I should be sorry that you were aswell known to be a calumniator as the Deacons used in our Churches are clearly found in our Bibles Their institution Acts 6. is plain specially vers 3. Wherefore Brethren look ye out among you seven men of honest report full of the holy Ghost and Wisdom whom we may appoint over this businesse viz. the dayly ministration and serving of tables From which Scripture our Practice of chosing honest approved men for the Ministration of Charity there meant and the serving of tables is so exactly copyed out that I cannot but admire your confidence But you say that Scripture Deacons were not Lay-persons but separate by imposition of hands If by separation you mean the solemn appointment and designation of Deacons and hold the same sufficient to make them Ecclesiastick our Deacons as well as these in the Text are indeed Ecclesiastick but if by separation you understand a totall and perpetual sequestration from secular medling as you cannot be ignorant that it was and is the wish of many worthies amongst us that the Church could have been served with such Elders and Deacons so seing inevitable neceâ—â—â—tie through the want of an alâ—mony hath forced both our Church other reformed Churches which observe the same practice with ours to make use of such as they can get it is no commendable practice in you who are such a pretender to modestie and civility to cast up this lamented deâ—ect as our unpardonable blemish since it had become you rather who would be accounted a kindly child of the Church of Scotland to have overtured a way how the Church Patrimony whereby these Officers of the Church might have lived may be recovered from the Harpyes who devoure it now without remorse neither hath the after abuse of Deacons unto a preaching order used in the Roman Church any Scripture warrant as is clear from the Text and the rules therein expressed I grant we finde in Scripture Philip chosen a Deacon in the 6. chap and Preaching chap 8. vers 5. Acts and that it is probable that this and the like practices were there after made the occasion and colour of the formentioned abuse but if you suppose that the first Deacons did Preach by vertue of their institution you have no just ground for it in the word And Philips Preaching is so plainly annexed to an extraordinary dispensation or tacite mission to him and to many others upon the dispersion after Stephens Maâ—tyrdom insinuâ—te in the 4. vers of the 8. chap. that I doubt not but a second reading will convince you Next you add that Scripture Deacons were separate by imposition of hands for the â—unction I grant that was the manner of their first solemn dâ—signation but if the Chuch by reason of the Posterior abuse of which in probability the mistaking of this forme hath not been the lest cause or because of the reason formerly hinted viz. that because of the want of a competent maintainance they could not get such as would be totally and perpetually separaâ—ed foâ— that work hath thought fit notwithstanding
manifest from the Text Iohn 13. 4. c. where we finde that our Lord doth first wash his Disciples feet before he told them what he was a doing and then having done the act not simply significant by his appointment but of it self as the effect expressing the greatest humility as its cause he teaches them not a â—oâ—emne reiteration but the use in these words If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet ye also ought to wash on anothers feet If I have been among you as he that serveth so ought ye to serve one another for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you I have not shewed you humility in a figure to be repeated for your remembrance but by a solid practice taught you the like performance so that to turne this pattern unto a rite is in effect as far from our Lords purpose as the instruction of plaiâ— examples is preferable to that of Mystick representations which exposition is so true and sound that as this phansie of yours was never owned by the Church of Christ so it is most certain that whâ—re it hath been followed I mean by the Pope and this action hath been used as a rite it hath only been made a colour to the most prodigious and superlative pride that ever the sun beheld and thus I hope all men may see that the not using of this washing never again used for any thing we read by way of Sacrament or Ceremony either by our Lord or his Apostles and Churches is neither a difformity in us from the Scripture nor an argument for your irreligious laxenesse in things you call externals As for your Demand why in your Worship do you not Kiss one another with a holy Kiss seing it is no where commanded in worship as you seem boldly and ignorantly to suppose and the Christian manner of the thing in customary civility is only recommended by the Apostle as an allay of chastity and kindnesse in Civil rencounters the question is but a petulant extravagancie of your vain imagination Next you Enquire why do you not anoint the sick with oyl I answere though you addresse this demand to a N. C. yet it is evident that your conclusion of difformity to the Scripture pattern thence inferred is equally levelled against the whole Protestant Church wherein this Ceremony is univerâ—aâ—ly diâ—used and that not from your vain warrant of the Churches Authority in and over things expressly commanded as you judge this rite to be No this is a presumption so high and laxe that even the grossest Papists are unwilling to avouch it but the â—ound answere of all the Churches is that as the custome of Anointing might have been occasioned from an observance then in use in these parts where Anointings were much more ordinary then in our parts of the world so it is mentioned in the Scripture by the Apostle Iames not by way of Command but as the accustomed Symbole adhibite in the exercise of the Gift of healing which being then Ordinary in the Church is commanded to be applyed by the prayer of Faith whereunto the effect is solely reâ—erred and only with the formality of Anointing as being then customary in the like cases seing then that the Text runs clearly thus is any sick let him call the Elders and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord and the prayer of saith shall save the sick And that the application of the extraordinary Gift of healing by prayer with the then usâ—all circumstance of Anointingâ— is here only enjoyned how can you make this Text binding as to the manner and circumstance when you cannot but acknowledge that the substance viz. the power of healing is ceased But having made your N. C. say That the Apostle promises recovery upon the anointing you turne to fight with your own shadow and tell him There is no such matter that the recovery is promised to prayer and also forgivenesse and seing we pray by all for their raising up and that they may be forgiven why do we not aswel anoint But what Logick can make out this consequence in as much as Anointing being there only spoken of as the concomitant rite used in the application of the Gift of healing it is manifest that without the existence and exercise of the Gift it self it is not now to be repeated and therefore though prayer be principally commanded as the speciall mean by which even the Gift of Miracles was actuate and made effectuall and to this day doth remain as the great one by which all the promises either for raising up or remission are drawen out unto effect yet thence to inferre that Anointing a peculiar solemnity in the Gift of healing should still continow notwitstanding the Gift it self be ceased is very absurd Now that Anointing was an Ordinary observance in the exercise of the Gift of healing you may read it clearly in the Disciples practice Mark 6. 13. And they Anointed with oil maâ— that â—â—re sick and healed them This being then the just and true account not only of our practice but also of that of the whole reformed Churches how vain and ridiculous are you to tell us that our pretense of Scripture is but to impose on women and simple people and all our persuasion grave nods and bigwords but leaving you to puff petulantly where you can prove nothing I proceed to your next demand who taught us the change of the Sabbath and you say we will read the Bible long â—re we finde it there which you think sufficiently proved when you tell us That the Churches meeting recorded to have been on the first day of the week saveth not that they antiquated the Saturnday as you are pleased very coursâ—y to speak and that of the Lords day sayeth yet less Sir for answere let me only tell you that by this your conceited slighting of Arguments which you cannot answere with your vain arguings against these things which you cannot disprove you have discovered to me the deep wisdom of Solomons contradictory-like advice answere a foolâ— and answere him not Prov. 26. 4 and 5. in so saâ—â—sâ—â—ying a reconciliation that remitting you for answere lest you be wise in your own conceit to the labouâ—s of these who have cleared this point above cavillation I â—orbear to make any further answere lest I should be like unto you Only I think it worth the observing how like the progresse of your dangerous Libertinisme is to that verdict of the Apostles 2. Tim. 3. 13. Your first sally was only against ruling Elders and Deacons the next attacques the very Discipline of Church your third endeavours to introduce the Superstition of Lent the Table Altar-wise the Surplice to corrupt the worship your fourth resolves the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords supper into the Churches arbitriment your fifth pleads for Extreame Unction or els a liberty and power to the Church above the