Rectius Instruendum Or A REVIEW and EXAMINATION Of the doctrine presented by one assuming the Name of ane Informer in three dialogues with a certain Doubter upon the controverted points of Episcopacy the Covenants against Episcopacy and Separation Wherein The unsoundnes and in many thinges the inconsistency of the Informers principles arguments and answers upon these points the violence which he hath offred unto the holy scripture and to diverse authors ancient and modern is demonstrat and made appear And that truth which is after godlines owned by the true protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland asserted and vindicated Prov 19. 27 Cease myson to hear the instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge Printed in the Year 1684. THE PREFACE to the reader Christian reader THat which the wiseman long since offered to their consideration who observe the revolving course of providence is ther any thing wherof it may be said this is new hath its signal accomplishment in the renewed collisions of opinions and debeats The conflicts betwixt truth and error or not of yesterday but as early as the morning of time when he who is a liar from the beginning assaulted with a horrid calumny the truth and faithfulnes of God and having by a lie mad a breach in our first parents integrity by inducing them to believe it instilld his poison into our nature a love of darknes rather then light The eye of the understanding like natures bodily organ when its cristalin humor is vitiat cannot see and receive the impression of its object truth and duty in its lively colours and natâ—… simplicity and if sometimes the clear beames of truth force a passage for it self make some impression upon the perverse dark mind of man O how quickly is that litle Victory lost this begun signature obliterat by the rebellious will affections The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God nor can be hence truth is detaind in unrightiousness convictions stiffled and the convincing spirit of God counteracted and grieved Hence all the renewed pleadings for discoveries of truth begets in most men by a wofull antiperistasis nothing but renewed contradiction spurnings against it While as the suns vigorus influence upon the vapors of this dull earth by its irradiations it attracts and condenses thick foggs dark clouds of peruerse disputings the more to obscure it self Yet a holy seed there is and hath been in all generations children of light and of the day whose work and honourable badge it is to contend and be valiant for the truth who under the conduct of Michael that great prince who stands up for his people truths sincere lovers and asserters have from the beginning warred this good warfare against that old apostat and his followers So that the warr which John saw in heaven betwixt Michael and the Dragon was not then only begun but a new battel and encounter of that old warr proclaimd in paradise betwixt the seed of the woman and the serpent All men are inrolled in one of these two armies imbarques in one of these interests according as they are regenerat or unregenerat as they have the seed of God in them or not discovries of truth have various effects accordingly either of more intense love or violent hatred as the sun shining upon the flowers dunghil draws equally forth a sweet stinking savour The erecting of this royal stand art of Zions King and lawgiver ingadges his faithfull witnesses to flow unto it and come under it and excits such who have but the spirit of that world in them to a counter-muster against it Who would not have thought that the longed for appearances of that Immanuel and desire of all nations that eternal word and wisdom of God in the flesh should have put an end to all rebellion of wretched sinners agaâ—… him but it never grew more then by his convincing discovries of himself Eternal truth and holines suffred contradiction of sinners against himself he oft silenced enemies reasonings not their malice and the most admirable actings of his effectionat condescending love to men the giving of himself to death for them was intertained with the most virulent and hellish eruptions of their wrath against him in murthring him The rulers opposed this great ruler of Israel the learned scribes and rabbies with all their literal knowledge of Moses and the Prophets could not yea would not see and acknowledge this great Prophet the covenanted people would not receive this great messenger of the Covenant and they who boasted to be Abrahams seed rejected this promised seed could not see him when among them but hated him whom Abraham saw a far off and rejoyced in the discovery Yet this wisdom of God was then and still is justified of all children of God and such as are of the truth will see its beauty throw all the mists of mens calumnies and contendings against it The angry cloud wherwith God hath now of a considerable time covered the daughter of Zion in our land challenges in this as much as in any thing else our mournfull observation simpathizing compassion that men have taken the boldnes with perverse disputings to infest her true sons and children to assault her precius ordinances and priviledges and with a barefac'd impudence to indeavour the removal of the ancient land marks which our fathers have set nay which the great God hath established Yea to cajoll us with poor sophistry into a carless disregard and abandoning of the magnalia Dei the great things of gods Law important truths and dueties as if they were meer trifles and indifferencies to cast the aspersions of supercilius scrupulositie upon true zeal for God of rebellion upon true loyalti and faithfulness to the King of saints of devisive humor upon sincer indeavours after the union and true order of the house of God is it not to put light for darknes and darknes for light bitter for weeâ—…t and sweet for bitter yea cruâ—… percilius mockrie Yet at this rate are we treated by our prelatick pamphleters The authority of the second great moral precept anent the receiving and maintaining of all gods ordinances the doct worsh. disc and governm of his house the weight and importance of the third anent the observation of most sacred solemn oathes and vowes to him for this great end weighes but light in these mens ballances but he whose hand holds the plummet and line judgeth otherwise their ballances are false not the ballances of the sanctuary Their new plagiary divinity depending in a great measure upon the camelion-rule of worldly wisdom and steering its course by the versatil rule of human lawes is calculat for any meridian but that of canaan immanuels land where all must go to his Law and testimony and is pronounced base mettal which is reprobat by that touchston where every pin of the tabernacle must have its samplar from the holy mount ere it get
of Prelacy in Scotland and for Englands reserving I have told him that what ever glosses any may put upon that 2d article yet if the generall clauses and expressions mentioned will exclude all kinde of prelacie their glosses will not comport with the simplicity and genuin sense of the oath and therfor are not to be admitted Since if it can be made good from the scripture that all kinde of prelacy is unlawfull dissonant to the divine rule and repugnant to the power of godliness the oath doth most clearly strike against it Mr Crofton pag. 110. in answer to the Author whom he calls Dr Featly's ghost objecting that in the Covenant the Church of Scotland is set before the Church of England tells him that it is in relation to different acts the Reformed Religion of Scotland to be preserved of England to be Reformed that it is no Solecism to put the factum before the fieri to sweare the preservation of good acquired before ane endeavour to obtain the same or better to prefix the pattern to that which is to be therunto conformed He adds that his Antagonist hath little reason to grudge that Scotland should be propounded as a pattern of Reformation to England since Beda reports that this nation did as first communicat the science of divine knowledge without grudge or envy unto the people of England citing his Eccles. hist. gent. Ang. lib. 5. cap. 23. Hence he infers that it is no folecisin to propound us as a pattern of Reformation who had first obtained it and from whom Christianity it selfe was ar first transmitted to them Here let out Informer informe himself first that in the sense of the English Presbyterians the preserving of our establisht Reformation is that article wherin our obligation to Presbyterian government is properly included and that the article of Reformation yet in fieri relates properly to England 2. That they state a distinction betwixt preserving and reforming as distinct acts the one relating to our Reformation in Scotland already obtaind the other to that in England yet in fieri wherin they check this mans blunt measuring our obligation against prelacie first and principally by the second article and his denying our obligation to preserve Pretbyterian government containd in the first and his blunt confounding the obligation of the two articles to give some shadduw of his fancyed contradiction which he would fasten upon us viz. That we are bound against all Episcopacie in the first article and yet the second can admit of some For as we have before answered so Mr Crofton tells him here again that the acts and objects are different The preserving of the Reformation government and discipline of this Church which we see he holds to be Ptesbyterian government according to our two books of discipline and opposit to diocesan prelacie as such is a different act and object from these of extirpating Prelacie out of the Church of England And thirdly that with Mr Crofton and the English Presbyterians it is no such paradox as this man afterwards endeavours to perswade us that the Covenant obligeth them to Reforme England according to our pattern which we see they hold to be the Scripture pattern For Mr Crofton tells his Adversary that our factum was to be their Fieri and our acquired good in point of government the measure of their good to be obtaind and that the good they were to obtain according to the Covenant was the same with ours and tells him in terminis and expresly that our pattern is in the first article prefixed to which they are to be conformed From what we have said out of Mr Crofton touching his sense of the Covenant and the sense of the English Presbyterians who adhere thereunto it is evident that it strikes against all prelacy including the priority and power of diocesan Bishops and Arch-Bishops That prelacy disputed against by Gerson Bucer in his dissertations de Gub. eccl Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum Cartwrights Exceptions Paul Baines his Diocesans tryall Smectymnuus Mr Pryn in his publick and positive challenge for thâ—… unbishopâ—…g of Timothy and Titus cited by Crofton pag. 83. as unanswerable pieces Yea all Bishops whose office and authority is such as Mr Crofton to use his own expression might not stand up a Peer to them in officiall power tho a simple Presbyter so that our Informer is quite out in telling us that in their sense the Covenant is reconcilable to our prelacy and strikes only against that of England Again Mr Crofton in the Analepsis pag. 129. answering the charge of Ambiguity put upon that clause of the best reformed Churches tells the Masters of Oxford that the sense is in endeavouring the reformation of England the word of God shall be our rule and the best reformed Churches our pattern Wherein he clearly asserts with us that the obligation of the Covenant reaches the extirpation of whatever Prelacie is found contrary to the Word of God But so it is that the Apostolick Churches as we shall finde Mr Crofton here assert owned no Bishops but such as he might stand up a Peer unto so that the Scripture rule and by consequence the Covenant according thereunto strikes against and cuts of all Prelacy of Diocesian Bish of whatever Goverment doth admitt of any Church officers above Presbyters And in his sense they are oblidged to reduce Englands prelacy or hierarchy to a compleat presbyterian parity The Scripture makes with Mr Crofton the Bishop and presbyter meerly Synonima So that no prelacy wherein a distinction is admitted can consist with the Covenant in his judgment nor can any glossings of men prejudge this rule and the obligation resulting from this clause to extirpate Prelacy foot and branch Our Informer might have seen this his notion further refuted by the Author of that peice intituled The case of the accommodation examined pag. 39. 40. who shews that in so farre as England had attained we might close with them in a particular Oath for extirpating an evill discovered and yet for a further advance rest upon the more general tyes so surely cautioned till God should give further light so that the engadgement of both parties expresly only to extirpat that species did no way hinder the setting up of Presbyterian Government and rejecting of all prelacy to be Covenanted unto under the General provisions That it was aggreeable to truth and righteousness for us to concurre with that Church convinced of evills but not so enlightened as to remedies in Covenanting against the evills in particular and also to endeavour a reformation according to the Word of God and by vertue of this general oblidgement become bound to make a more exact search anent the lawfullnes or unlawfullness of things not so fully clear in the time of entering into the Oath and after the discovery to reject what seemed tolerable So that no hesitation among them doth hinder England and Scotlands respective obligations to extirpate all episcopacy as contrary
and others owned as such a tradition lib 1. de pecc mer. Basil names four Apostolick traditions signeing with the cross praying to the east anointeing with oyle praying in the standing postur from Easter to whitsuntyd See the Appendix to jus divinum minise Evan prop. 2. The informer and his fellowes make a great bustle anent the condemneing of Aerius for holding that Bishops and presbyters are all one But Beza could have informed him de grad 346. that Epiphanius Haeres 75 imputs to him as great heresies these Tenets 1. That he held it unlawfull to offer and pray for the dead 2. That he held that Saincts departed were not to be invocat 3. That there were not fixed fast dayes to be keept 4. That the jewish pascal was not to be observed because ourpassover is already offered Now if our Informer condemne him for these also we weed care the lesse for his condemning him in the point of prelacy 3. It is certain that the account of the first times immediatly after the Apostles is as to mater of fact very dark uncertain consequently a very slippery rule Hegesi pus apud Euseb lib 3. Cap 28. tells us that immediatly after the Apostolick age was gone tunc impii erroris conspiratio per seductionem eorum qui alienam doctrinam trad ant initium caepit Then the conspiracy of wicked error but the seducings of those who delivered another doctrine took its begining Eusebius himself the prime writer from whom in a manner is the wholl of all that is delivered anent Church Government and Bishops and who presents these fragmens of writers out of which our episcopal men gaâ—…her up their proofes in the proem of his History acknowledges that he is in that worke entered into a dark desert therein he hath no footsteps of any goeing before him but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some litle occasions or some pitty narations which every one in their own time hath left and delivered let any read haumer ane Inglish Bishop his translation of Eusebius wherein this will be found very clear Scalliger prolegom in Chron. Euseb. Saith Intervallum illud ab ultimo capite actorum c. the nterval from he last chotter of the Acts of the Apostles until the midst of the reigne of Trajan in which tract Quadratus and a Ignatius flourished let our informer observe this as to Ignatius may be truly called with varrâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or obscur wherin nothinthat is certan hath come to our hand concerning the affairs of Christians except some very few things which the enemies of godlines carches up by the way such as Suetonius Cornelius Tacitus Plenius Cecilianus which gap that Eusebius might fill up he drew some things without discretion and choise out of the upotiposes or exemples of I know not what Clement for he is not that learned Clement who wrote the Stromataâ—…â—…nd out of the fyve books of hegesippus a writer no better Tilen himself a great pleader for the Episcopal cause yet tells us Contr 3 l. 2 c. 2 Not. 39. and c. 3. Note 6 That the history of these first times hath great blacks and gapes which the Spurius Clements and other writers of the same stamp filled up with petty fables drawen from their own braine That from the end of the acts of the Apostles until Traian's times thereis almost nothing extant which is certain hence he saith occasion was taken by men of bad dispositions to make hold to faine anything whom even the Apostles times wanted not Not to insist upon the many things written and observed of Eusebius which may invalidat the credit of his history and his many gross errors therein and in other poynts observed by Scalliger and others How fabulous is that history of Christes Epistle to Agbarus rejected even by pope Gelasius in a Councel of Seventy Bishops at room That which Philo the jew wrote of the Essae Ans a Sect among the jewes Eusebius affirms that he wrot it of Christian mmks which Scalliger shewes to be false out of Philo himself in elencho tribaeresii He proves peters crucifixion at Rome by a tomb proofe In the computation of times Scalliger observes his gross errors Nay which is more considerable he discovers gross ignorance of Scripture in saying that the Cephas reprehended by Paul was not the Apostle peter but another of the number of the Seventy disciples Besyds many things in his personall cariage and qualities which may weaken the Credit of his History as his presideing in the councel of Tyre against Athanasius and standing upon the Arrians side Scalliger in his Thesaurus temporum Animad p 268 Setts down the testimonies of the Ancients concerning his errors Arrianisme wherein some affirme that he died When he wrote the history he was ane Arian Moreover Admitt his Testimony were abeve all exception yet that his history hath been corrupted by some ignorant impostor is demonstrated from this by Didocl cap. 4. p. 119 that he maks mention of Sozomen who was born ane hundred years therafter Lastly As to the Catalogues of Bishopes which our Informer and his masters befor him exhibit to us from the Apostolick times he might have found them aboundantly invalidat by many of the learned whose judgement and Testimonys are collected by Didocl cap 4 p. 121 122 123 124 c. Which we may well challeng this man to answer Therefore we shall dismiss it with these observes 1. That Tertullian Irenaeus and others who make use of this Argument of Succession against hereticks designe only to shew a derivation of true doctrine from the Apostles against them and that the Church had the Traduoes Apostolici Seminis a derivation of the Apostles Doctrine but never meaned it of a Succession of men of the same office every way Tertullian saith Arise o truth and expone they Scriptures c. Irenâ—…us in his time speaking of this Succession from the Apostles pressing adherence to the truth which they delivered makes mention of Presbyters opportet adhaerere iis c We must adhere to them who keeps the Apostles doctrine and with the order of presbitery mentain the word And again therefore we must obey these presbiters who are in the Church who have their Succession from the Apostles as we have showen Then he adds qui cum Episcopatus Successione charisma veritatis certum Secundum placitum patris acceperunt That is who with the Succession of Episcopacy have receaved from the father the sure gift of truth thus he l. 4. c. 44. And because this Informer singes their old song who before him will still Shuffle in Bishops when the Ancients speak of Presbyters Let him remarke what he sayes lib 3. cap. 2. Speaking of the contumacy of the adversaries of truth quum autem ad eam iterim traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per Successiones presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos c But when wee apeall them again to that
they and it is expreslie given them Act. 15. 23. To which we may add the Concil Aquisgravense sub Ludovico Pio Imperatore 1. Anno 816. Which approved it for sound divinity out of Scripture that Bishops and Presbyters are equal bringing the same texts that Aerius doth To these mentioned the learned Reynolds doth add the common judgement of Reformed Churches viz. Helvetia Savoy France Scotland Germanie Hungary Poland the Low Countries citing the harmonie of Confessions Yea their own Church of England Chap II. of the harmonie Therafter he learnedly refutes our Informer as to what he sayes anent Ieroms so often repeated a Marco Evangelista shewing both by the decree of the 4t Council of Carthage Cap 3. Anent Presbyters interest in ordination which saith he proves that the Bishops ordained not then alone in all places although Ierom sayes quid facit excepta ordinatione c and by Ieroms proving Bishops and Presbyters to be all one in scripture and even in the right of ordination 1. Tim. 4. 14. That Ierom could not mean Bishops in Alexandria to have had that Episcopall power since Mark about which the question is Where also he vindicats Calvin Jnstit 〈◊〉 4. c 4. Sect 2. cited by Bancroft as likwayes by our Dialogist here as consenting to the establishment of ane Episcopacie since Mark at Alexandria He saith That Calvin having showen that Ministers choose out one to preside to whom especially they gave the name of Bishop Shews that notwithstanding this Bishop was not above them in honour and dignitie that he should rule over them but was appointed only to ask the votes to direct and admonish and see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent And having declared that Ierom shews this to have been in by the consent of men upon Tit. 1. He adds that the same Ierom other where shews how ancient ane order in the Church it was even from Marks time to Heraclius c In which words of Calvin saith the Doctor seeing that the order of the Church which he mentions hath evident relation to that before described and that in the describing of it he had said The Bishop was not so above the rest in honour that he had rule over them It followes that Mr. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess upon Ieroms report that ever since Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superioritie over the Clergie A contradictorie Conclusion to that of our Informer The Doctor proceeds thus Wherfore to use no more proofe in a thing manifest which else might be easily proved more at large out of Ierom and Mr. Calvin both it is certain that neither of them doth affirme that Bishops so long time have had such a superioritie as Dr. Bancroft seems to father upon them To all this adde that Dr. Holland the Kings professor in Oxford at ane Act Iully 9. 1608. Concluded against Mr Lanes question an Episcopatus sit ordo distinctús a Presbyteratu eoque superior jure divino That is whither Episcopacie be a distinct order from the Presbyterat superiour thereunto by divine right That the affirmative was most false against the Scriptures Fathers the doctrin of the Church of England yea the very Schoolmen themselves Lombard Thomas Bonaventur A 2d Essentiall point of Presbyterian government in opposition to Prelacie is in the mater of ordination and jurisdiction viz that these are not in the hand of any single Prelat but that Presbyters have ane essentiall joynt interest therin And this also hath a large Consent and Testimonie of the learned both ancient and Modern For this the 4t Council of Carthage is adduced Can. 5. and the Councils of Constance and Basile anent Presbyters decisive suffrages in Council Cyprian Epist. 33. and 78. Council of Antioch Canâ—… 10. of Aneyra Can. 13. Ruffins hist. lib. 10. Cap. 9. Sozom l. 2. c. 23. and many such Smectim pag. 28 29 30 31. cites many Testimonies for this See Blondel Apol. Sect. 3. pag. 120. to 130. Prins un-Bish of Timothie and Titus from pag. 52. to 83. Where the full Consent of reformed divines is adduced such as Ioannes Luckawits in his confession of the Taborits against Rokenzana Cap 13. the Waldâ—…nses and Taborits apud Fox acts Monum p. 210. Illyric Catol testiumveritatis Tit. Waldenses 455. Melanchton Arg. Respons par 7. De Potest Episcopi Arg. 2. Hiperius on 1. Tim. 4. 14. Hemmingius ibid. Gerardus Loc. Theol. de Ministerio Ecclesiastico proves this at large Peizelius Arg. Resp. Par. 7. de Ordin Ministrorum in Arg. 1. Musculus Loc Com. de Ministerio verbi Mornâ—…y Lord of Pless de Eccles. Cap 11. Nay Canonists and Schoolmen themselves Summa angelica ordo Sect 13. and Innocentius there cited Filiuâ—…ius Iesuit de Casibus Consc. Par. 1. Tract 9. Alexander Alensis Sum. Theol. par 4. Quest. 9. M. 5. Artic. 1. Cajetan on 1. Tim. 4. 14. and many others Likwise it is made good that the Bishops swallowing up this power of Presbyters and reserving it only to himself comes from Popish Authority Leo primus Epist. â—…8 on complaints of unlawfull ordinations writing to the German and French Bishops reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops and among the rest Presbyterorum diaconorum consecratio the consecration of Presbyters and deacons Then adds quae omnia solis deberi summis pontificibus authoritate Canonum praecipitur That is All which things are commanded to be reserved to the cheife priests by the Authority of the Canons For this see also Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Clericorum l. 1. c. 6. And to this truth of Presbyters power in ordination the Confessions of reformed Churches gives a harmonious echo The latter confession of Helvetia Harmon of Confess Chap. 11. pag 232. asserts That the holy function of the Ministery is givinâ—… the laying on of the hands of Presbyters no word of Pre lats hands So the 18. Chap pag. 236. they are to be ordained by publick prayer and laying on of hands which power they say is the same and alike in all citing that passage Luke 10. he that will be great among yow let him be your servant So Act. 15. and Ierom on Tit. 1. therfor say they let no man forbid that we return to the old appointment of God so they call the Presbyterian way of ordination and rather receive it then the Custome devised by men So they call the Episcopall Method Thus the Confession of Bohem. Chap. 9. Harm Sect 11 pag. 246. 247. after setting down the qualifications of Ministers As to ordination they say that after prayer and fasting they are to be confirmed and approved of the Elders by the laying on of their hands So the Confess Sax Chap 12. Harm Conf par 2. affirme that it belongs to Ministers of the word to ordaine Ministers lawfullie elected and called Where we have asserted both the Presbyters power in ordination and the peoples interest in the Call of Pastors in
foundation and basis of that tye but begs the question in the application thereof to his case I suppose a Presbyterian Minister should plead this to warrand his officiating among his people in opposition to the Curat incumbent that the people are bound to owne him as their Minister because of this reciprocal â—…ye That the Scripture obligations mentioned by the Informer lyes on him to be faithfull and diligent which while he is endeavouring according to his duty founded on his relation to his people the people are therefore bound to attend on his Ministrie to esteem him love him receive the Law from him and and not to discountenance nor discourage him by withdrawing to another Now let this man shew what he will answer to this pleading and his argument will quickly evanish before his own answer If he say that the tye is loosed let him instruct what that is which has in this case loosed it Sure neither the Magistrates violence nor Prelatick censures according to our Principles and the Doctrine of sound divines when this case is truely stated And if this divine tye stand what will he say Will it not 1. follow according to him that a Minister may be under a standing tye to his people and they to their Minister and yet the people for all this may not be obliged to hear him but another hie nunc and that warrantably without hazard of disobedience to these Scriptures and then he hath with his own hand cut the throat of his bare generall argument from the reciprocal tye Sure in some cases the tye may stand and yet the actuall reciprocal exercise or obligation to the exercise of duties may be hic nunc warrantably suspended in very many supposable cases as of Physicall impediments in the people and Minister hostile invasion Pestilence Imprisonment c. 2. If the tye or relation do stand and likewise all things which do immediatly dispose to the exercise of duty then the Prelatical incumbent is in this case an intruder and not to be own'd For I suppose he will not say that a Presbyterian Minister might lawfully officiat in his own Parish after the Curat is setled there for this would quite cross the scope of his Argument Now the Question betwixt the two competitors is which of them hath the prior lawfull and standing tye will he dare to deny that Presbyterian ministers had this and since he cannot shew how it is loosed nor prove it to be loosed this argument will militat not for him but against him Next as for what he cites out of Mr Durham on Revel pag. 105 106. anent this tye It is still extra oleas and nothing correspondent to his purpose untill he instruct that which is the basis and foundation of this Relation in the case of Conformists which he neither doth nor offers to do Mr Durham speaks of a special delegation from Christ of his speciall warrand and appointment to such a man to treat with such a flock Now sure this most be instructed from his Word and Testament as to Curats before he can from this make any shew of Argument For Presbyterian ministers do upon better ground lay claim to this special appointment in relation to their flocks upon which conformists have intruded yet this man thinks these ministers are not to be owned And since this deputation and appointment is with Mr Durham the foundation of the duty betwixt minister and people it must be cleard from the word in the case of Conformists before this passage of Mr Durham will afford any patrociny to his cause Then he tells us Thaâ—… Mr Durham holds that this obligation is not founded on meer voluntary consent Well let him mark this and then he must acknowledge that it s not meerly the Curats gaping consent for the fleece and filthy Lucre nor the peoples blind consent that will make them Ministers of these Congregations where they officiat What is it then that founds this relation The Scipture-commands saith Mr Durham 1 Thes. 5. 12. Know them that labour among you and are over you in the Lord. Heb 13. 14. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls as they that most give account c. But will this man deny that Mr Durham speaks upon the supposition of the Minister his having the Ministerial call and mission according to the rule of the Word to ground his pleading these Scripture commands and his special commission to such a people And that he look't upon the Presbyteries mission and ordination and the peoples call together with due qualifications and the visible evidences of Christs call in the person thus admitted as the foundation of this special relation to such a flock according to the Scripture pattern and the order and Government of this Church then established I durst pose his conscience upon the truth of this and whether Mr Durham did ever dream of a speciall relation to a flock in this Church resulting from a Prelates mission in a Method of perjury in opposition to our Covenant and sworn reformation without the mission and ordination of a Presbytry or the peoples call and in a way of intrusion upon the charges of faithfull Ministers violently thrust out by persecuting Prelats the men thus obtruded being for most part such as have nothing that may ground a reasonable or charitable construction of them that they are sent of God but palpable evidences of the contrary While in the mean time the faithfull Ministers are willing to cleave to their flocks and the flocks to them If he say that all the Ministers he pleads for are not such I Answer he makes no limitation of this Argument but pleads the foremention'd Scriptures and Mr Durham's Testimony universally and tells us in the next page that Mr Durham binds the people fast to the Ministers of their own congregations by this discourse he means to the Ministry of all the Conformists As for that passage of Mr Durham's Testimony after cited by him anent the Sympathy betwixt Ministers and flocks and the reckoning that will be made in relation to mutuall duties We think it pleads very strongly for that Sympathy that ought now to be betwixt Presbyterian Ministers and their flocks which Conformists have usurped upon and the mutuall performing of duty to each other upon all hazards in opposition to the Curats intrusion And if Paul aggreaged particularly the Gentiles slighting and grieving him by his particular delegation to them which was even as to the Apostle himself by the imposition of the hâ—…ds of the Presbytry Act. 13. 13. Presbyterian Ministers delegation to their flocks which was in this manner must needs stand and may be much better pleaded upon this ground then that of Curats Who are sent to flocks by Prelats as their own underlings and have nothing like Pauls delegation in their mission So that Mr Durhams arguments and the Scriptures cited by him are
gospel and an enemy unto it Jackson thinks with sevral others that Paul said I knew not that he was the high priest c. ironically it being very improbable that Paul knew not the high priest and suppose it were so he knew him to be a ruler as his own words discover so that it was no excuse to say he knew not the high priest because as a judge it was against the law to revile him Therfore saith Jackson upon Exod. 22. 28. though they understood Paul as excusing himself yet he spoke by way of derision as disdaining he should be accounted Gods high-priest who carryed so Which saith he is the more probable when it s considered how far he was from having any true right to that place and power to which he pretended when Christ had abolished the legal priest hood Calvine on that place of the Acts sayes It s not credible that Paul-gave him his wonted honour Cum abolita esset adventu Christi sacerdotij Majestas secuta turpis prophanatio Paulum quasi integra vigeret solito honore prosecutum fuisse qui tunc sub Pontificum titulo nullo jure dominabantur after the majesty of the priest hood was abolished by the coming of Christ and vile prophanity attending it that Paul as if the priesthood had been standing intire would have allowed the wonted honour to such who under the title of Priests were governing without any right or just title And having objected to himself that we must not contemn civill Magistrats in his answer he puts a difference betwixt civil Mahistrats and Church rulers Inter civiles Magistratus saith he ecclesiae praesules aliquid est discrimenus there is a difference betwixt civill Magistrats and Church officers tho the administration of civil Rulers be perverse and confused yet he tells us the Lord will have subjection remain intire Sed ubi spirituale regimen degenerat solâ—…untur piorum conscientiae ne injustae dominationi pareant c. spirituall government being degenerat the consciences oâ—… the faithfull are loosed from obedience to an unjusâ—… domination But our Informer will say that I thuâ—… set the authors of jus divinum minist anglic by the earâ—… with Calvin and Iackson as to the sense of this place I answer they do not peremptorly and positively assert that Paul acknowledged him as high priest buâ—… onely that many think he did 2. Hence the weight of their conclusion subjoyned viz. that corruptions cleaving to Gods ordinances null them not is not laid upon this solely nor positivly at all even as a partial but onely as a probable ground And the conclusion it self when admitted will never reach his designe as is above cleared Again admitting that Paul acknowledged his providential title or jus in re as to a civil office and administration at that time as it may well have its own weight in reference to the premised conclusion civil rule as such being Gods ordinance which is not made null by corruptions so upon the the difference of civil from sacred rule this concession will not legitimat or infer an acknowledgment of the spiritual part of his administration Thus we have seen how well our Informer hath acquit himself in his arguing from the English Presbyterians Let us next consider how he reasons from Mr Rutherfoord in that peice forecited if at least we may call that which he here offers a formal reasoning since he offers not as I said any argument from these citations but sure we will find that these passages will burn his fingers In that piece scil Due right of presb page 220. to 256. There are several passages which this man takes hold of as 1. He asserts that separation from a true Church where the orthodox word is preached and sacraments duely administrat is unlawfull and vindicats 2 Cor. 6. Ans. This in Mr Rutherfoords sense will plead more for the Presbyterian Ministry professors then for Conformists whom he will not say that Mr Rutherfoord will look upon as our Church in such a case as this since as we heard he holds that in case of such a breach as we have now the pure Church remains with the smaller stedfast number and that the backsliders from truth and purity tho the â—…reater number yet really are the Schismaticks And â—…n this sense we are to understand him when he sayes that this separation as to worship will not infer an absolut separation And his allowing non-union where there is not sufficient cause of separation in the case of purer to be joyned with and his admitting a partial separation because of a partial corruption of ordinances Peacable plea page 121. will much more plead for a total non-union in this our case and I dare appeal this Informer if Mr Rutherfoords words Peaceable plea page 122. doth not suite our case and express such a sense therof as we have explaind and if he would not have applyed that which follows unto our present prelatick party had he seen our Church in this posture and in her present circumstances viz. we separat not from a true Church or her Lawfull Pastors when we separat from hirelings and Idolshepherds who will not go before us and whether he would not have thought and called Conformists so Thus page 148. concl 6. he tells us we may separat from the worship when we separat not from the Church So that its evident that in Mr Rutherfoords sense we separat not from the Church of Scotland nor her worship while withdrawing from Curats in attending the Ministry of Christs faithfull ambassadours In the Next place this Informer presents to us these passages further in that peice mentioned viz. page 233. the personal faults of others are not sufficient ground for separation That the disciples thought not the society unclean for Judas sin though they knew one of them had a Devil Again page 250. It was not Lawfull to separat from the Pharisees preaching truth page 253. The Godly separated noâ—… from the Church when the altar of damascus was seâ—… up things dedicat to Idols as Lutheran images are called Idolatry 1 Cor 10. 34. Idolatry by participation and the cup of devils yet Paul commandâ—… not separation and the table of the Lord was there I answer this is already removed by what is said above as to any conclusion for his cause which thiâ—… loose disputer doth not so much as offer to draw ouâ—… upon these citations 1. Unless he prove the Conforming party to be the true Church of Scotland to which in this case we are obliged to adhere or 2. If we can prove that according to our Churches Reformation Presbyterian ministers and professors are the true organick Church of Scotland though the persecute smaller number which according to Mr Rutherfoord is very easy for he sayes that in case of defection truth as life recools to the smaller hidden part Due right page 253. In either case I say this will plead more appositly for adherence to
clearly extant in Scripture His 2d Reason and exception to the Argument is that with us the word elder signifies both the preaching and ruling elder and that he can upon as good and better ground say that it signifies the Bishop the Minister both being elders but of different dogrees Ans. 1. When he shall make as evident from Scripture the Diocesian Bishopes distinction from and Superiority unto the Pastor or Presbyter-Bishop or Minister of a congregation as we have shown the superiority of the preaching elder abovâ—…â—…he ruleing elder and the distinction of the one from the other then his parallel will pass current but till then it is a meer non-sequitur The Scripture clearly distinguishes as we have seen the elder that rules only and the elder that both laboures in the word and doctrine and rules also clearlydiversifying the offices and allowing honour to the one above the other Now let this or any thing like this be shown as to the Diocesian Bishop and Presbyter-Bishop where will this Informer point us to such a distinction of Bishops their office and honour as there is here of the elders Nay since in all directions as to peoples obedience to Pastors their is not the least intimation of his supposed different degrees of pastours we strongly con the contrare So that we inferr the distinction betwixt the preaching and ruleing elder from the Scriptures clear specifying of different offices Acts and degrees of honour accordingly among elders but the sucks out of his fingers the different degrees of Pastors and the distinction of the Bishop from the Presbyter without the least Scripture-warrand 2. He grossly belies our princples and the truth when he maks his Presbyterian doubter alledge That the word elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular congregation which he forged to bring in and give some colour unto this his 2d Answer or reason But saltem mendacem opportet esse memorem A liar they say should have a good memory He be contradicts himself while suggesting in the objection that we hold that elder signifies no morethen a Pastour yet telling us for his answer that we hold the Word elder to signify sometimes the preaching sometimes the ruleing elder It is enough for our purpose that neither the word Bishop nor Presbyter doe signify any ordinary standing Church officer higher then a Pastor or Minister of the gospel labouring in the word doctrine whither indiscriminatim or in fixt particular congregations in the Apostolick â—…s we need not determin as to our defence here anâ—… untill he prove that either of the names doe signifie a higher ordinary officer which will be ad calendas Graecas the argument stands good against him We may here mind this Informer that hereafter he alledges that 2 Tim. 4. The Deaconta or Diaconship is in a general sense attribut to Timothy ane Evangelist yet he would reject it as ane absurd inference to conclude from this that there are different degries of deacons allowed or appointed in Scripture Which notwithstanding is his own consequence here and the strength of his answer to the premised Argument As for what he adds That Bishops were afterwards sometimes called Presbyters of their Churches thogh unquestionably Bishops in his sense in rembemberance of the indifferencie of the names in the times of the new Testament though they were ordinarly called Bishops We say it is certane that the first supposed Bishops named in the pretended Catalogues from the Apostles and Evangelists of which afterward were meer Presbyters and if they were called Presbyters in rememberance of the new Testament tymes the more guilty were they who afterward made the word Bishop contrare unto the new Testament times and language the Characteristick of ane office Superior to a Pastor or Presbyter and the rather in that whereas the word Presbyter or elder is severall times assumed by the Apostles in a general sense the word Episcopus or Bishop alwayes denots ane ordinary Pastor if we except that Episcopatus in Act 1. Which our translators on the Margin renders office or charge in a general sense so that when Prelats ambitious invention was upon the wheel it seems they should rather have appropriat to themselves the word Presbyter or elder a fit designation for Fathers of the Church as this man calls them The doubter nixt offers ane Argument against prelacie from Philip. 1. where the Apostle speaks of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that â—…nChurch we shall take up here with this hint of argument only adding that by confession of Prelatists there was never in one city more then one Bishop even when the inhabitants were all professed Christians much more here where the generalitie of the inhabitants were Heathens and the Christians but a small remnant So that the Apostles saluting here the â—…ishops in the plurall number Bishops of that one Church of Philippi and contradistinguishing them from the Deacons whom he immediatly subjoyns to them he must needs be understood of the Pastoures and Presbyters as the highest ordinary officers of that Church To answer this Argument the Insormer hathgathered together several scrapes and some very odd and inconsistent notions 1. He tells us that Ambrose takes these Bishops not to be the Bishops at Philippi but certan Bishops present with Paul when he wrote in whose name he writs to the Philippians joyning them with himself But this gloss as it is cross to the current of expositores so to common sense Paul who only was the Spirit of Gods penman joyns here Timothie with himself in the inscription as in severall other Epistles and having taken to himself and Timothie the designation of Servants of Christ he doth nixt after this description of himself and Timothie according to his usual Methode describe these to whom he writes viz. to all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons viz there at Philippi not with Paul they being ranked among these to whom he writes who are contradistinguished from Paul and Timothy the directors of the Epistle and supposed to be with these saints at Philipp Otherwayes there is no sense in the Text to read it thus Paul and Timothius to the saints at Philippi with the Bishops with Paul Had the Apostle joyned them with himself as he doth Timothy in the inscription they would have been mentioned in that branch of the verse together with him and not cast after the adress and the description of these to whom he writes The Apostle in Gal. 1. After he hath described and asserted his Apostolick authoritie he nixt adds and all the brethren that are with me to the Churches of Galatia Thus he takes in many with himself in this inscription before he describe these to whom the Epistle is addressed And should not these supposed eminent Bishops have been after this manner joyned with
abjuration of the present Episcopacie in the National and Solemne League and Covenant and the obligation of these oaths in opposition thereunto are examined CHAP. I. Atwofold state of the Question proposed the one touching the abjuration of this Prelacie in either or both these Covenants the other concerning the obligation of these oathts against it That Prelacie is abjured in the National and Solemne League and Covenant proved at large And arguments offered to evince their oblidging force upon the present and succeeding generations THE state of the Question in the Second Dialogue is twofold 1. Whither the Prelacie now established by Law in this Church be abjured in the national and solemne league and Covenant 2. Upon supposition that it is abjured in both the one and the other whither the obligation of these Oaths stands against it yea or not Wee shall a litle touch For the 1. Our National Covenant sworne by King Iames in the the year 1580 and by the Estates of this land and many times thereafter solemnlie and universally renewed both by our Church and State doth clearly exclude Prelacie The passages thereof pleaded against Prelacie and wherein our obligation lyes are these 1. In General wee professe to believe the word of God to be the onlie rule the Gospel contained therein to be Gods undoubted truth as then received in this Land maintained by sundrie reformed Kirks States chiefly by our own Whereupon we renounce all contrary doctrine and especially all kind of Papistrie in generall particular heads as confuted by the word of God and rejected by the Kirk of Scotland 2. After a large enumeration of many points of poprie disowned upon this ground and vowed against as contrary unto the word of God and the gospel of Salvation contained therein Wee renounce the Popes worldly monarchie and wicked Hierarchie and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against the word of God 3. Wee vow to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirke in Doctrine faith religion Discipline Swearing by the great name of God to continue in obedience to the doctrine and Discipline of this Kirke and upon our Eternall perill to maintaine and defend the same according to our vocation and power all the dayes of our life Now the obligation of this engadgement against prelacie is evident these wayes 1. All doctrines contrary unto or beside the word of God are here rejected and disowned All doctrines contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel recived and believed by the Church of Scotland and whatever hath been brought into this Church without or against Gods Word But so it is that the present hierarchy is contrary unto the Word of God both in its Diocesiâ—… and Erastian mould as hath been proved at large And we heard that this Church of Scotland since it received Christianity did stand for a long time under Presbyterian Government and untill Palladius was sent unto us from Pope Celestine never knew a Prelat Ergo Prelacie in its Diocesian Erastian mould is here abjured 2. Our Prelacie is condemned in that clause of the Popes wicked hierarchie whereby the Prelatick Government is most clearly pointed at which is evident thus 1. That the Government of the popish Church is prelaticall this man will not deny it is by Arch-Bishops Bishops Primats Deans c and it being distinct from his Monarchie for else the naming of his worldly monarchie had been enough and moreover it being ranked among these things which are brought into the Church against the Word of God and into this Church against her pure Doctrine which was clearly the sense of it that assemblies and the body of this Protestant Church entertained assemblies declaring that the Word Bishop was not to be taken as in time of Papistrie And Iohn Knox whose sense and Judgement herein was certanlie retained and upon all occasions manifested by our Reformers accounting Prelacie to have quid commune cum Antichristo Ergo Prelacie is here vowed against simpliciter and in it self considered 2. If he grant a hierarchie to be here abjured sure it must be abjured with the rest of the corruptions enumerat in that large list of them exhibited in this Oath Now these are abjured in themselves simpliciter as contrary unto the Word of God and the doctrine of this Kirke ergo So must a prelacie or hierarchie be in its self abjured under the same formalis ratio as thus brought in whither by the Pope or any other 3. This hierarchie is supposed in this Oath to be contrary unto the Discipline of this Church as well as the popish Doctrine is therein supposed contrarie to her pure Doctrine Now as we shall shew the Discipline which this Church then owned was Presbyterian So that that Discipline or Hierarchie which stands in opposition to Presbyterian Government is here abjured but so it is that prelacie ex se sua natura stands thus opposit unto it ergo by the hierarchie all prelacy is abjured 3. Prelacy is abjured in that clause where we professe to joyne our selves to this reformed Kirk in her Discipline as well as her Doctrine and vow and sweare adherence unto both Now that the Discipline then owned by this Church was Presbyterian Government or discipline Is evident these wayes 1. Discipline by generall assemblies and Synods having compleat parity of all Ministers with a joynt decisive suffrage is Presbyterian Discipline but this was that Discipline owned by our Church For her first Nationall Assembly compleatly Presbyterial in its mould was in the Year 1560. After which time untill 1580 When this Covenant was sworne there were many assemblies exercising their power 2 That is presbyterian Discipline which did judicially condemne prelacie as having no warrand in the Word and ownes no Church officers as lawfull but pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons But so it is that this was the judiciall decision of our generall assemblies long before this Covenant for the first book of discipline containing the Basis of presbyterian Government was approved and subscribed by this Church in the year 1560. And the Second book of discipline in Anno 1578. Which two books compleatly overthrow Prelacie layes down a mould of Presbyterian government And therafter in the assembly at Dundie Anno. 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Prelat was particularly condemned by a solemne act and abolished as unlawfull and void of Scripture warrand ordaining under paine of excommunication such as brooked the said office to lay it aside as ane office to which they are not called of God and cease from preaching and administring Sacraments under hazard of the same Censure or using the office of a Pastour till they receive admission de novo from the generall assemblie Now in the nationall covenant this existent discipline being sworne to be maintained who can say but that Prelacie is most formallie abjured therein Especially if it be considered that in the same year 1580 This national covenant was sworn at which timethese
God all duties we are tyed to in his holy law 4. They are universall engadgements all were given up to God in them representatives and members of Church and state 5. perpetuall and reall as that betwixt David and Ionathan 2. Sam 9 7 21 7. That betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites Ioshua 9 18 19. And that Covenant Dent 29 14 15. Secondly the binding force of theseengadgements appears in the subject they affect as first our Church in her representatives and in their most publick capacity the solemne assemblies in both nations 2. State representatives Parliaments thus all assurances are given that either civil or Ecclesiastick lawes can affoord and the publick faith of Church state is plighted with inviolable tyes So that they must stand while we have a Church or state in Scotland both as men and as Christians as mmbers of Church State under either a rereligious or civill consideration we stand hereby inviolably engadged and not only representatives but the incorporation of Church and State are under the same Thirdly their binding force appears in the matter and Object 1. The immediatformall object is the Word of God the Truths and duties therein contained and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godlinesse under that formalis ratio is here abjured the eternall Truth of the Gospell as holden out in the Word and received in this and reformed Kirks being the grand rule in this engadgement whatsoever is approved by it is embraced and what is condemned by it is rejected under that notion 2. The more remote or materiall Object are the publick necessary great and important Truths and duties therein enumerat both of the 1 and 2 Table and the errours and sins therein abjured To the observation faith and obedience of the one and abhorrencie of the other under the formentioned consideration as either consonant unto or dissonant from Gods eternall Word and truth we stand perpetually and inviolably oblidged So that this Oath hath ane objective as well as subjective necessity contained therein a necessity of the matter in its own nature prior to the engadgement as well as a necessity of performance flowing from the engadgement it self which may take place in things indifferent Finaly the constantly obliging ends and scope of these engadgments joyned with the importance of the Matter subservient to these ends further discover their inviolable obligaions There is here both necessitas precepti necessitas medij finis The matter sworne to be performed falls under divine precepts the sins and evills abjured falls under divine prohibitions and these engadgements are both in respect of the matter it self and as to the professed scope of the swearers and engadgers levelled at continually obliging ends such as Gods glory the advancing of Christs Kingdom the publick good of Church and State the preservation and propagation of publick and personall reformation truth unity c. Now both these Oaths and Covenants are professedly entered into as perpetual engadgements and in order to these great ends for ever to be promoted as their tenor clearly holds out If any say what is all to the speciall obligation for Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacieâ—… the Oath may be temporary or cassat and made void as to that point though there be never so great duties otherwayes engadged unto therin Ans This particular engadgement in relation to the maintenance of Presbyterian Government and in opposition to Prelacie runs along in the forementioned particulars 1. It falls under the obligation of the Oath vow promise and Covenant and under the forementioned qualifications of solemnity universality and importance Again 2. the publick faith of Church and State reaches this most evidently and is engadged for it And 3. as Gods great ordinance holden out in his Word Presbyterian Government falls within the compass of the object of these Oaths and under that consideration is sworne to be maintained and Prelacie as contrary therunto is abjured which contrariety hath been already cleaed Again Presbyterian Government is here engadged unto as subservient to these great ends mentioned and Prelacie is abjured as hindering the same as both the Word of God and experience hath convincingly discovered CHAP. II. The Informers arguments against the abjuration of Prelacy in the nationall Covenant fully examined Some reasons of his against an Oath in generall or this Oaths obligation upon the posterity weighed The Apologeticall narration and the Assembly 1638 vindicated WE come now to examine what this new absolver or pretended doubt-resolver hath presented to us against the oblidging force of these great engadgments The defence which he hath patcht up out of the survey of Naphtali and that pamphlet called the seasonable case consists of 2. parts 1. He denys that the bond of either the national or solemne league and Covenant doth strike against the present Prelacie 2. Upon supposall that the solemne league and Covenant doth strike against it he denys its obligation In both points we shall examine his grounds and trace his Method I the doubter alledges that Prelates are abjured in the Covenant so that none may warrantably owne the Ministry of such as preach under them as being perjured To this consequence he repones nothing but seems to admitt it and therefore we need not speak unto it Only he quarrells with the antecedent tells us that we would act more Christian Like if we were sparing in judging another mans servants who stand or fall to their own Master But the judging there forbidden being a rash felfish judging of others in things indifferent as meats or drinks and as Calvin paraphraseth the words de hominium factis pronunciare extra verbum Dei de factis aliorum non licet statuere secundum nostram ipsius estimationem sed ex verbo Dei That we are not to judge of mens practises by our own opinion but according to the rule of the Word and not without its limits Telling us further that Iudicium quod a verbo sumitur neque humanum est neque alienum that it is no human privat judgement which is drawn from the Scriptures the impertinent application of this passage premised Scripture to our case which is a practicall disowning of palpable perjury and turning away from such whose instruction causeth to erre from the words of knowledge is obviously evident This is no judging without Gods word but according to it to say that perjury is perjury sin is sin Our Informer by this new knack would take away all christian judgement of discretion yea by this his wide glosse all judiciall decisions whither civill or ecclesiastik Besides is not his pamphlet a judging of another mans servants Ministers and people as schismaticks and what not for disowning Curats upon the forementioned grounds Doth he not and all his party judge despise and persecute the people God for that which he calls indifferent and a disputable point at the foot of the page But to
proceed his Doubter alledging that all stand bound against Bishops in the Covenants which doe abjure them he cryes out at all Bound as a paradox and tells us that many Ministers and people never took it and asks if we think them bound Yes we think them bound as we do judge them bound in Gods covenant Deut 29. who were not there as well as these who were there young and old wives little ones from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water It seems this man either hath not read that chapt or understands not the import of nationall compacts even among nations themselves which do certainlie oblidge all members in the incorporation although not personally sworne by every individuall Will he say that no subject as a born subject oweth fealty and alledgeance to his Majestie but such as have personally sworn the oaths of supremacie or alledgeance If so then a man could not be guilty of treason which is certainly a breach of this fealty unlesse he had personally sworn which I know not who will assert But the doubter alledging That it obligeth even the posterity he tells us that this is a strange fancy Iuramentum being with casuists vinculum personale binding those that took it only that accordingly the Covenant sayes we every one for ourselves and not for our selves and others That the father who was against Bishops his swearing should not prelimit his sons judgement who is for them in a disputable point or oblidge him to act contrary to his judgment Ans 1. That there are covenants and oaths reall and hereditary as well as personal is evident in scripture and if this man were not more led by fancy then truth he would not deny it which is not only thus evident but acknowledged also by Casuists Was not that oath and Covenant Deut 29. made with them who were not there and belonging unto and by consequence engadging their seed for ever Deut 5 2 3. Moses tells the people emphatically that God made the Covenant with them who were then alive even that Covenant at Horeb though they were all near dead with whom it was made Neh 9. 38. all entred into Covenant but only some sealed it Was not that oath of Josephs brethren anent the carrying up of his bones from Egypt to Canaan the oath to the Gibeonites such as did reach and oblidge their posteritie So that oath betwixt David and Jonathan 2. Sam 9. 7. Now that the nature of this oath is such cannot be doubted it being about matters of perpetuall and everlasting importance which no time can alter evacuat or limit and having the publick faith of Church and state interposed therin by a vowand Covenant with God and man over and above the oath And likewise being in its nature promissory in relation to duties midses and ends perpetually necessary and oblidging it is palpably evident that it is reall and not personall only 2. For that expression every one for our selves it is very impertinently here alleadged to exclude the posterity for the end and motive of the oath before this is expressed to be the glory of God the advancement of Christs kingdome the happiness of the King and his posterity the true publick liberty safety of the kingdomes c. wherin every ones private state is included which of necessity includes the posterity and designes the obligation for them Next in the close of the first article the posterity is expresly taken in when the end and designe of the matters therin contained is said to be that we and our posterity after us may live in faith and love c And in the close of the 5. article we engadge to endeavour that the Kingdomes may remaine conjoined in a firme peace and union to all posterity and therefor his negative inference viz for our selves and not for our posterity is opposit unto the very sense scope and words of this oath so that this clause is cleary referable unto the various capacities conditions and relations wherein in order to the work of God the then engadgers stood 3. his notion about prelimiting the son by the fathers engadgement is a poore shift For this might be objected against any nationall mutuall compact in matters of a farr lower nature then this This might have been objected against Josuahs oath to the Gibeonites Might not the posterity look upon it as a disputable point to keep unto them and might not Zedekiahs posterity look on it as a disputable point to keep that oath of his to the king of Babylon I wonder if this man would think it ane unlawfull Covenant and vow to engadge for prelacie as now constitute and oblidge for our selves and posterity that it shall stand in this posture Sure he will not deny the warrantableness of this since he looks upon prelacie as the ancient apostolick frame owned by the primitive Church But shall the sons judgement who is other wayes minded be prelimited by the father or els must he act contrary to his judgement let the Informer see to this If he say it s not a disputable point to hold the present prelacie and that therefor the son is oblidged to informe his judgement and act rationally the obligation to the dutie carrying in its bosom a prior obligation to know it surely he must acknowledge that this is our case and answer as to the Covenant and that consequently his objection is naught and the horns of his horned argument are crooked so that it pushes us with neither of them We might also here tell him that a prelimitation as to practice in many things not indispensably necessary will fall under the fathers paternall power over Children witnesse that case of the Rechabites And that this will not in every thing inferre a prelimi tation in judgment as to the object simpliciter Nay who knows noâ—… that the great morall precept honour Thy Father and thy Mother imports a very extensive obligation upon Children as such in order to obedience to parents and gives unto parents a large and extensive authority hereanent But shall the son be prelimit in his judgment anent all these or act contrary to it so this objection in the Informers sense and according to his scope will blurre out a great part of the 5t Command But what needs more the matters here engadged unto are important truths and dutys not disputable points as he and the rest of his adiaphorist latitudinarian party would make them and therefor we are under perpetuall obligations to owne and mantaine the same But if this man will abide a quere here and a litle retortion of his notion further thinks he it not hard to prelimit the faithfull ministery and professors of this nation in their judgement about his disputable points of the present conformity by so many laws and acts or else oblidge them to act contrary to their judgement Sure fathers have at least as great if not a greater authority to limit their children then the Prelats
opposition in our capacity to all prelatick malignant enemies of the Lords worke and interest but how is it performd when we thus strengthen their hands in their avowed opposition therunto 7. How assist we and Defend in this common cause of Religion and liberty such as enter into this league when we thus Divide from our suffering brethren wound and offend them and shake off a faithfull Covenant-keeping Ministry 8 How maintain we our reformed Doctrine worship and union when thus owning false prophets and the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge and such as cause Divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine we have Learnd Prov. 19. 27. Rom. 16. 17 18. 9. How maintain we the priviledges of our Church and her Reformed Government when owning intruding prelats and their creatures as Ministers of this Church and disowning her true Ministers now taking her by the hand This practice is ane approving of Curats call and mission rather then that of presbyterian Ministers which no man will deny to be contrary to the Covenant Next owning and adhering to Curats in this our case and according to our principles hath an accession to much guilt otherwise such as 1. The owning of a palpably blasted and Disowning a palpably sealed Ministry 2 A high reflection on the sufferings of many Godly upon this ground 3. A shutting of our eyes against Ministerial Discoveries of the sin and duty of the time 4. A casting of our selves on tentations of greater complyance 5. A breaking of fellowship with these that are contending for Gods worke and denying a sympathy with them yea a trampling on their blood which has been shed on this ground 6. A disowning the Ministeriall authority and tearing the commission of Christs faithfull Ambassadours and depriving our selves of the blessing and benefit of their Labours c. 5. This practice of denying a Subjection to the Ministry of Conformists and of our Rulers demanded conformity therin unto the present course of defection will be found to fall under great scripture obligations such as 1. The obligation of persevering in integrity and holding it fast Colos. 1. 23. Heb. 10 23. Psal. 25. 21. Supposing prelacy unlawfull and the binding force of the Covenants in reference to all the work of reformation as it stood establisht this practice is clearly cross to the premised obligation both as ane acknowledgement of prelacy and Erastiani me and also as a Disowning of faithfull Ministers 2. The obligation of keeping at the greatest Distance from sin exprest Jude 23. 1 Thess. 5. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 22. will infer Disowning Curats in this case 1. All Direct or interpretative consent to sin is here Discharged 2. A practice otherwise lawfull will on this ground become inexpedient hic nunc We must not eat in the case of offence tho we may freely eat all meats Rom. 14. 14. 1 Cor. 10. 25. Now on the forementiond Suppositions the owning of Curats hath an accession to their sin beyond that of ane apearance or a touch It being both a Deserting the presbyterian Ministry and a badge of conformity to Erastian prelacy and all the corruption and defection of the time which is therby advanc'd promoted 't is also in this case of competition a deliberat adherence to the prelatick rather then presbyterian interest 3. The great obligation of a testimony to truth and Duty exprest Heb. 10. 23. Mat. 10. 32. will plead for this practice All truth must be avowed practically avowed We must walk circumspectly or exactly as the Word imports we must avow truth duty on the greatest hazard even the smallest mater is great when a testimony is concernd in it were it but the circumstance of an open window Daniel durst not ommit it upon the greatest hazard And as this testimony must be full so must it also be constant Demas shame is that the aflictions of the gospel made him forsake the Apostle after great appearances for Christ and embrace this present world And beside whatever truth or duty is opposed that becomes the speciall object of this testimony Hence Ministers and Professours in their capacity are called to contend for this Work of Reformation and Ministers silence as to a Ministerial testimony against this course of backsliding and people's disowning them and adhering to Conformists is so palpably cross therunto as nothing can be more 4. This practice is inferd from the scripture obligation to guard against the slumbling and offending our brethren exprest 2 Cor. 6. 3. Math. 18. 6. 1 Cor. 10. 32. Here is Discharged any Dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur saith Polanus Whatever practice gives occasion of our brothers sinning of calling truth in question of acting with a Doubting conscience or which weakens his plerophory or assurance is here discharged And neither the lawfulness nor Indifferency of the thing it self nor mens Authority commanding it Nor the weakness yea or wickedness of those in hazard to be stumbled will warrand the Doing of that out of which offence arises Paul Declares all meats lawfull yet will not eat in case of offence 1 Cor. 10. 25. 1 Cor. 8. 13. This Declaring of the lawfulness of that practice is equivalent to any civill Declarator or Law which alters not the nature of scandal Paul will not have the weak stumbled Rom. 14. 1 2 3. 1 Cor. 8. 11 12. Nor give occasion to the malicious who desired occasion 2 Cor. 11. 12. Now owning of Curats as the case is now circumstantiat doth harden them in their apostacy and hath a tendency to wound the peace of the godly who dare not owne them or may provoke them to act against their light and therefore unless owning them could be proved a necessary duty as matters now stand the premisd scripture obligation will infer it to be sinfull 5. disowning conformists will clearly follow from the scripture obligation to turn away from seducers and such as turn aside from Gods way 2 Tim. 3. 1. The apostle having given a large Induction of evills adhering to these in the last dayes putting among the rest of their black Theta's Covenant breaking concludes his discovery with this grand precept ver 5. from such turn away We must beware of false prophets the concision and of such as walk not according to the received ordinances Math. 7. 15. Rom. 16. 17. Philip. 3. 2. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Christs sheep do flee from the stranger and hear not his voice Iohn 10 27. 1. All promoters of wayes contrary to the simplicity of the gospel are here commanded to be eschewed 2. We must know and discover such by their fruits and practicall unfaithfulness as well as false Doctrine Mat. 7. 16. compared with 2 Tim. 3. These that practically act the foxes Cant. 2. 15. are to be taken away and consequently eschewed the saints must be fortifyed against these that ly in wait to deceive God disowns these that make sad the hearts of the godly and
their way and party is in many respects sinfull and since he Instances the protestants plea for separating from Rome on this ground knowes he not that the Papists tell us such stories anent union with the Church and that suffering without the Church is no Christian suffering to Iustifie their bloody persecutions which very well sutes his case And no doubt the protestants answer viz. That we are in Christs Church because owning his truth tho separat from their synâ—…gogue and that notwithstanding this pretence the blood of protestant Martyrs is in their skirts doth sute the case of Presbyterians in relation to their persecuters But the great charge followes viz. That we are guilty of as groundless and unreasonable separation as we shall read of in any age of the Church Bona verba How is this made good first saith he in casting off Christian love which is heart Schism 2. He chargeth with external Schism in separating in acts of Worship Now what if we recriminat in both these and retort this double charge upon himself Have they not disownd the Worship of Presbyterian ministers Professours and charged all to separat from them meerly for non-complyance with their perjured Prelats 2. Have they not for many years glutted themselves with their blood I may say sweemd in it upon the same very ground of forbearance as to prelatick complyance and endeavour by multiplyed lawes and Acts to root them out of the very nation Good Sir Pull this beam out of your own eye that you may see a litle clearer in this point But as to the first he sayes that we make difference in Iudgement as to lesser matters Church Government a ground of difference in affection as if they were no Christians who are not of our persuasion in these things putting thus lesser points into our creed and un unchurching and unsancting all who are not of our persuasion therin Ans. As to the first general charge I know none more guilty then themselves who are contending with fire and sword tanquam pro aris focis for these their lesser points and with unheard of rage seeking the ruine of all who dare not comply in Judgement and practice with them therein 2. I thinke Christian affection to their souls is best seen in opposing and testifying against their soul-destroying sins Thou shalt by any means rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him is an old standing rule Levit. 19 17. And if they be even hated in so far as owning pernicious wayes it s no more then what David avowes Psal 139 21 22. do not I hate them that hate thee I hate them with a perfect hatred I account them my enemies I hate the work of them that turn aside it shall not cleave unto me 3. As we have not so learn'd Christ to call every thing lesser or small poâ—…nts which his latitudinarian party have the confidence to term thus so we know no point of truth reveald and commended to us in the word as the object of our faith and matter of our practice which should be keept out of our creed lest our saith become much shorter then the Scripture pattern And we acknowledge not the new patchment of mens Lawes which this man and his fellow-Conformists have annext to their creed and which can pro arbitrio make or unmake these his lesser points But he sayes that we unchurch and condemn all Churches in all ages who have ownd Bishops Liturgies festivals and othâ—…r ceremonies And if we make the removal of these things necessary to a Church there hath not been a a Church for above a 1000 yeares together Ans. To make the last part of this argument not to contradict the first he should have said that there has not been a Church without these things mentioned these 1600 years but the man seeing his first flight or Rodomontade too fierce he did well to clap his wings closser Upon a review of this page I find our Informer in this charge playes but the pityfull Camelion and versipellis for finding that this assertion of his that Christians of all ages since Christs time and in all places have own'd Bishops Liturgies Festival dayes and other ceremonies would have drawn upon him the heavy burthen and task of a proofe he lightens himself of this burthen by a prudent almost which in this point is very significant But his confining the liturgies Festivals and other ceremonies within the compass of the last thousand years sullied with all popish abominations appearing too simple inadvertency within the compass of two or three lines he secures it with a much above But lest this prove too broad reckoning he instances the second or third century from whence he sayes we beginne our reckoning as to Bishops festivals liturgies and other ceremonies But 1. why mends he the matter so inadvertently as to run in such a wide uncertainty as the the length of 200 yeares in that calculation which he imputes to us 2. I challenge him to shew what presbyterian writter did ever commence the original of liturgies and festivals with his blind c. of other ceremonies which will travell who knowes whither and include who knowes what from the third far less the second century I affirm that its more then he or any for him can prove that the Church hath had Bishops liturgies and festivals since Christ. Our writters have abundantly proved the contrary and we challenge him to shew either his Diocesan Bishops liturgies or festivals and the c. of his ceremonies in the first Apostolick Church or in these two ages mentioned by him That there were not diocesan Bishops then or long after we have already proved and far less Erastian Prelats For holy dayes let him shew by divine appointment any other then the Christian Sabath in the Apostolick Church if he can or in the first succeeding ages As for the feast of Esther it is acknowledged to have come in by custome after the Apostolick times For liturgies we assert that the Apostolick Church and age knew no such thing as set impos'd liturgies and formes other then Christs prescriptions as to baptism the Lords supper and that they pray'd as was suteable to the present action and circumstances of time place and persons If he betake him to the liturgies which are ascribed to Peter James Mathew Andrew Clement Mark Dionisius Areopagite and other Disciples protestant writers will stigmatize him for embracing that which they have abundantly proved to be counterfit That liturgies had no place for a long time in the Church is proved by clear testimonies Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. shews that in their publick Assemblies christians did pray sine monitore quia de pectore that is without a prescription because from their heart And in his treatise de Oratione sayes that there are somethings to be asked according to the occasions of every man that the Lords prayer being laid as a fundation its lawfull to build on that
seems saith he that some then out of pride and singularity for sooke the ordinary and orderly assemblies of Christians Ans. In this accusation his so much boasted of charity is evaporate What! No assemblies for worship in this Church but among Conformists doth he not thus unchristian and unchurch all the Assemblies of Presbyterian Ministers and professors for worship why persuades he people to forsake these Assemblies and who now Iudges another mans servant as he who brands withself-conceit ignorance and schism all these Assemblies of Nonconforming Ministers and professours who dare not comply with prelats Again how proves he that no assemblies are orderly except the Prelatical we avow our meetings for worship to be the most orderly according to our Churches established Reformation and that their Assemblies are cross to her constution order and union both in respect of Curats perjurious intrusion the doctrine which they deliver and their manner of worship which is cross to this Churches practice and appeintment his charge of schism and disorderliness is still begged but not yet proved and orderliness is with him described from Church-walls and as for unity why have they east out hundreds of Ministers from officiating because they durst not joyn with Conformists in their perjur'd course of defection if this man be not here self convict let any Judge Let him produce if he can in our Assemblies for worship that which is contraire unto the nature constitution and worship of the assemblies mentioned in that scripture and untill this be we may on better ground recriminat this charge upon his withdrawing people from the Assemblies of Presbyterian ministers and professors The Doubter alledges poorly that all do not forsake their parochial Assemblies but some do now and then keep them He Answers that tho all withdraw not in alike degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable that people advance from step to step that some after withdrawing from them hear only the Indulged or those who have still preached without conformity in their own Châ—…rches and within a little will hear none of them that some hear in their own Churches but will not communicat the reason whereof he cannot understand since the efficacy of Sacraments depends not on the Minister that the lest degree of separation makes way for a greater that Baxter in his cure of Church divisions tells of some turning separatists who dyed Infidels Ans. He hath not yet proved that the withdrawing which he mentions is a Sinfull Schismatick separation and we hope we have made the contraire appear As for these degrees he mentions we say 1. His cruell uncharitablness to Presbyterian Ministersis here very conspicuous since he will not allow them to be in the least heard or own'd in their present case and circumstances Certainly to tye up people from occasional improvement of the various gifts which God hath bestowed upon his ministers even in a setled state of the Church and in her right constitution is cross to that interest in one anothers gifts and graces which the members of Christs mystical body upon the ground of their union and communion with the head and among themselves are priviledged with And in impeaching this the Informer blotes himself with scismatick uncharitablenes of the deepest dye 2. As it s no strange thing that in such a time of darkness desertion and defection peoples recovery be gradual and sometime attended with Infirmities in the manner of duties incident to us while in time so the contrary influences of love to truth and duty and fear of hazard may be easily productive of such variety in the carriage of poor tender souls in this matter In a word the Lords supper being a special badge of our union and communion in and with Jesus Christ It s no strange thing that tender souls scruple to pertake thereof from men at so palpable a distance from him as Conformists especially while this ordinance may be enjoyed more purely elswhere He tells us that Schismaticks ar cut off from the body and receive no life from it and if we may drawan inference and retortion from this assertion the people of God must judge Conformists to be such For these effects of separation which Baxter mentions we bless the Lord the contrary effects of sound piety in many who were prophane while owning the Ministry of Conformists are convincingly apparent since they separated from them and the effects of backsliding from Gods truth viz. gross prophanity or atheisticall Indifferency in the matters of God are as sadly evident in those who having once own'd Presbyterian Ministers have return'd to Conformists again As for what he objects and answers anent some of their own party going to others then their own parish-Curats whom unless insuperable le ts hinder to attend their own parish-Church he would have his fellows not to owne We are not much concernd to notice any further then to tell him that parvo discrimine refert which of them people go to the best of them being as a briar and the most uprights as a thorn-hedge and all of them blotted with such Schismatick opposition to this Church her pure constitution and principles as may put it beyond debate with tender souls lovers of truth and duty that they ought adhere to Christs faithfull ambassadours rather then any of them The Doubter objects that its hard to hinder to go where we may be most edifyed since we must Cover the best gifts 1 Cor. 12. 31. He answers 1. that the Apostle is not directing private Christians what gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of gifts and every one should be content with his own given for the edification of others yet that he should seek after better not in others but in himself Ans. Our Informer doth but trifle and deal deceitfully in his way of representing this and some objections ensuing for 1. He supposes that this is lookt upon in it self as a sufficient ground of adhering to Presbyterian Ministers without previous consideration of all the circumstances of our present case and also in supposing that nothing casts the ballance in the Judgement of the objecter as to profiting or not profiting but difference of gifts whereas we grant that the soveraign Influence of Gods Spirit who teaches to profit renders the means and ordinances effectual to salvation whether the Ministers gifts be great or small 2. We grant that tho people have a discretive Iudgement as to gifts and their own profiting and are to try the spirits yet in a setled state of the Church they are not to shake off the due regulation and guidance of a faithfull Ministry set over them in the Lord so as to be wholly at their own disposal herein since there is no Justling betwixt the privat discretive and publick Ministerial judgement in this matter 3. As in the tryall of Intrants not only the sufficiency but suteablenes of gifts for such a people is to be
their course of defection and so this practice is both sinfull in it self and scandalous to others His 2d Answer to this premised argument of his Doubter is That the Apostle ordinarly when forbidding to give offence speaks of the use of liberty in things indifferent that it must not be used to the offence of the weak brother lest contrary to his conscience he be emboldned to sin 1 Cor. 8. 10. Or be grieved because he thinks we sin in doing what we should not Rom. 14. 15. Ans. We shall not much stand upon this only we here see that the lawfulness of a thing in it self will not according to him Justify it in that case wherein either the weak is emboldned to sin grieved or made more weak and his plerophory hindred And that the sincere enquirer for Truth may be confirmed in this sound persuasion and guarded against what he after subjoyns I shall here offer unto him the sense and Judgment of an eminent Father and Reformed divine upon this point Chrysostome upon Rom. 14. Homily 25. Expones all the Apostles Arguments to the same scope of the unlawfullness of offending the weak in things indifferent Particularly upon verse 13. Si non salvare fratrem saith he culpam habet id quod Evangelici talenti deâ—…ossor indicat Quid non faciet datum etiam scandalum Sed inquies quod si suopte vitio scandalizatur infirmus propter hoc ipsum aequum fuerit ut illum feras Nam si fortis esset tali cura opus non haberet nunc vero quia imbacillior est multa etiam curandi diligentia opus habet that is if it be faulty not to save our brother as the hider of the talent maketh it evident What will not even the giving of Scandal do But you will say what if the weake be scandalized by his own fault Upon the same very ground it is just that you beare with him For if he were strong then he would have no need of such care but because he is weak he stands in need of much diligence for his cure In the next homily he hath many things upon the rest of the Apostles argument to the same purpose Upon the 14. ver I know nothing is unclean of it self He offers an objection to the Apostle for clearing the words Quid igitur non corrigis fratrem ne putet aliquid immundum esse â—…t quid non illum ab ista consuetudine omnibus viribus abducis Why do you not with might and main withdraw your brother from that opinion and practice a thing that our Informer and his fellows make no bones of as to dissentients To this he answers in the Apostles name Verâ—…or inquit ne moerore illum afficiam unde subdit Verum si propter cibum frater tuus contristatur non jam secundum charitatem ambulas Vides quoâ—… 〈◊〉 familiarem interea sibi faciat infirmum Auditorem ostendens tantam illius rationem halere se ut ne moestum reddat etiam quae vehementer erant necessaria praeciperere non audeat sed indulgentia illum â—…agis ac dilectione attrahat Neque enim postea quam vanuâ—… exemerat metum potenter illum traâ—…it aut cogit sed sui ipsius Dominum esse permittit that is I am afraid lest I make him sad and hence he subjoins but if thy brother be grieved with thy meat now walkest thou not charitably See how tenderly he deals with the infirme hearer shewing that he hath so great a regard to him that lest he make him sad he dare not command these things that are most necessary for he he doth not draw and force him after he hath taken away the groundless fear but permits him to be his own Master And upon the 1 Cor. 8. v. 20. He hath things to the purpose On verse 9. Non dixit quod licenti a vestraoffendiculum sit neque certo asseveraverit ne impudentiores faceret Sed inquit videte timore eos abducit ne faciant prohibet Et non dixit scientia vestra quod majoris esset laudis neque perfectio vestra Sed licentia quod suberbiae stultitiae non dixit fratribus sed infirmis sratribus ut gravius eos reprehenderet quod nequeinfirmis parcunt maximefratribus That the Apostle imputes folly and pride unto them who offend the weak brethren Upon the 10. verse the conscience of him that is weak shall be emblodned to eat c. He shews that the offender of the weak cannot charge the guilt upon his weakness tu enim imbecilliorem facis duo sunt quae te privant venia quod infirmus quod frater addatur tertium maxime horrendum quod Christus neque mori propter illum recusavit tu autem neque ei indulgere pateris That is the offender makes them yet weaker that two things render such as offend them inexcusable the one that they are weak the other that they are brethren and a third crime may be added which is most horrid that thou â—…fuses so much as to spare those for whom Christ refused not even to dye Upon 12. vers When ye so fin against the brethren wound their weak Conscience ye sin against Christ. He hath these words quid homine inhumanius existimari potest qui â—…grotum verberat Etenim omni plaga gravius scandalizare est nam saepenumero mortem adfert Et quomodo in Christum peccant Uno quidem modo quod quae servorum sunt ipse pro se accipit Altero autem quod in corpus ejus membra faciunt qui percutiunt Tertio quod opus ejus quod propriamorte absolvit ii propria ambitione destruunt What can be more i nhumane then that man Who beats one that is sick for to scandalize is more grievous then all strokes for it oftentimes brings death And how sin they against Christ One way because he takes to himself what concerns his servants another way because they wound his body and members Thirdly in that the work which he accomplisht by his own death they destroy by their own ambition Upon the last verse of the chapter If eating of flesh make my brother offend I will eat none while the World stands He saith Hoc Magistri optimi est officium suo exemplo erudire quae dicit Et non dicit sive juste sive injuste sed quomodocunque Sed non dico inquit Idolothytum quod propter aliam causam prohibetur sed si quod licet permittitur scandalizat etiam illis abstinebo neque una aut altera die sed totâ—… vitae tempore Non enim manducabo inquit carnes in aeternum Et non inquit ne perdam fratrem Sed simpliciter ut non scandalizem That is this is the duty of the most excellent Master to instruct what he sayes by his own example And he saith not I will not eat whether justly or injustly But whatever way I will not As