A Quench-Coal, Note
*Which will serve for an answer to Dr. Alexander Read Parson of Fifield in Essex, his late idle Visitation Sermon, (newly printed 1636.) upon this very Text. Throughout which be makes his owne private fantasie, the sole rule of Decency, without one word of Scripture to backe them.A Note vponupon 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order. Tending to search out the truth in this Question:
Whether it be Lavvfull for Church-Covernours to Command indifferent decent things in the administration of Gods Worship? VVritten by a judicious divine and pertinent to the matters debated in the Quench-Coale.
ALL (I conceive) that this place houldeth forth touching the point of Decency and Order, may be summed up in these particulars.
1. First, that the whole Church and every member thereof are to performe all the duties of Gods worship in a decent & orderly maner.
2. Secondly, what the Church and Members thereof are to doe in this kind; That the Church-Governours may and ough to see it done.
Thirdly, that it being the duty of Church-Governours to see that all things in the Cougregation be done decently & orderly; It is therefore their part in eminent measure to be able to discerne and judge what is decent and undecent, what is orderly & disorderly.
Now, when I say, it is their part, I meane, it is their duty; Their place and authority requireth it, not that they alwayes have a power and Spirit of discerning to judge a right in this case; For, it seemeth, the High-Priest with the rest of his Brethren and Prophets, yea and David himselfe, all of them thought it decent to bring backe the Arke of the Lord upon a New-Cart, which afterward David himselfe saw and confessed it, was not done after due order, 1. Chron. 15. 13. From whence it appeareth (since they also are subject to errours in this kind) that it will not be safe for them to judge and declare the decency of things by no better a rule then their owne wisdome, judgement & pleasure; But even they also as well as the people must be guided by such rules as the Holy Ghost directeth us unto in this case, which are the holy and infallible Scriptures, and with Scripture, Nature and Civill-Customes; Yea and I willingly also admit the lawfull Custome of the Church or Congregation in which a man liveth: For to judge of Decency by all these Rules we have warrant in Scripture, as 1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Cor. 11. 14. & 16.
And indeed, they who are to approve themselves in all their proceedings, (as*2. Cor 4. 2. When Peter and Paul commauded us to obey our Superiours they commanded to obey the Bishops in the Doctrine of Christ, not in their owne. Tyndals Answer to Mr. Mores first Booke, p. 286. Paul dia) and as all Church-Masters ought to doe, to every Mans conscience in the sight of God, ought to be seriously guided by these patterns.
It is not fitt for them (I say) to give for the ground of their proceedings, their owne wisdome and pleasure, but it be hooves them to justifie their doings therein frō such rules, as every good Conscience may see approveable, 2. Cor. 1. 12. 13.
Fourthly & lastly, this place in hand houldeth-foarth also farther this truth, that whatsoever thing the Church seeth by those former rules to be indifferent and decent, or which Church-Governours shall by these rules declare so to be, those things may and ought lawfully to be done.
For farther clearing whereof, and the better describing of the power of Church-Governours in these matters; It may be observed that of decent things lawfull to be done in Gods Church, some are; Indifferent and decent; As to preach in a Gowne or Cloake, whereof the one is no more necessary or expedient then the other. But now they are become Laudable Ceremonies, whereas before they were but Ceremonies alone. Now are they become necessary rites godly Institutions, seemly ordinances, when as afore they had no such names. Iohn Bales Image of both Churches on Apoc. 13. f. 108.
1. 2. Decent and Expedient; As to abide in single life, or to enter into marriage; Of which though marriage in time of persecution be indifferent, yet single life is more expedient, to prevent the troubles of the Flesh, 1. Cor. 7.
3. Necessarie and decent, either allwayes; As a Woman to keepe silence in the Church: Or at least Hic & Nunc, in some places and at some times, so as the neglect thereof would be uncomely and unexpedient, by light of
1. Nature.
2. Scripture.
3. Custome.
As, a*1. Cor. 11. 5. to 11. Woman to be unvailed in the Congregation in Easterne Countries, so, to abstaine from bloud, whilst the eating of it was offensive to the Iewes.
Now, for such things as are necessary and …, Church-Governours have power to give order and commandement concerning them. As did the Sinod at Ierusalem touching those things, which they called Necessary, to wit, Necessary during the time of the offence of the Jewes. VVhichWhich was necessary to be avoyded: Acts. 15. 28. Of such things as are decent and expedient, Church-Governours also have power … declare the Decency and Expediency of them, yea and to advise and perswade the practise of them; But not to give an Order or Law to bind the people thereunto farther then themselves shall find it expedient and decent for themselves.
Thus in point of abiding in Single-life, in time of the Churches Distresse, the Apostle gives his advise and judgement: 1. Cor. 7. 25. 40. Yea and perswaded to it, for avoyding trouble in the flesh, Vers. 26. & 28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of Conscience nor of outward practise…, as having no command for it from the Lord, V. 25. In which respect he calleth such a commandement (if he had given it) a Snare, V. 35.
And herein the power of the Church-Governours falleth short of the authority of Civill Magistrates, who may in civill-matters make binding Lawes for any thing expedient, for publike-weale, which subjects are readily to submit …, 1. Pet. 2. 13.
But*See Dr. Barnes his Discourse, that Mens constitutions bin… not the consciēce: p. 297. to 301. Church-Governours have not the like power in matters Ecclesiasticall, to make binding Lawes for any thing expedient in the Churches behoofe, unlesse Necessity be joyned with expediency.
Objection.
Against this it may be objected, Paul had power to commaund Philemon that which was convenient; Therefore he might make a Law commanding the Church some expedient decent things.
Answer.
It followes not; For first, its one thing to give a Commaundement for once, another thing to make a Law to bind One alwayes to doe the like.
Secondly, it is one thing to commaund a particular person, who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour, as Philemon did to Paul: Another thing to commaund, yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church, to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister, as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority, but*1. Cor. 4. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 1. 14. Simile. Stewardly or Economically, to witt, when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name, not in his owne. As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse, but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions, not his owne.
But,Note this of such things as are only Indifferent & Decent, I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise & perswade them; Much lesse charge and commaund them. And that this place in hand, 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power (though it be much urged to this end) may appeare from these reasons.
First, the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things, but of Necessary-Decent things, the neglect whereof was undecent, and disorderly, by the light of Nature, Scripture and Custome. As*1 Cor. 11. to 17. c. 14. 2. to 38. for Men to weare long-haire, women to,, be bare-headed, and for women to speake in the Congregation, as also for men to speake many of them at once.
Secondly, the words of this place run not thus, Let all decent things be done; Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done, but thus, Let all things, to witt, all Ecclesiasticall matters; As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church, all the duties of Gods worship; Whether Praying, Prophesying, Psalmes or Sacraments, or the like, be done decently & orderly, in orderly and decent māner:
But whether in that decent maner, which Church-Governours doe appoint, or in some other, that the Apostle limitteth not, but only requireth that all be done d…cently, which if it be done, his rule here prescribed is observed and followed.
3. Thirdly, the same may appeare out of this place by this argument.
If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things, then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein, should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle: As, looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King, He that violateth such Acts, or trangresseth such Orders, transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King.
But, it appeareth to be otherwise in this case, (See D. Barnes, That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience, p. 297. to 300.) as for instance.
If the Church-Governour cōmand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne (it being indifferent & decent so to doe) he that shall now and then preach in a cloake, transgresseth the commaund of the Church; But not of the Apostle: For he that preacheth in a cloake, preacheth also decently, or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke, de Pallio.
Now, if so be it be done decently, then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point.
But, because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in, give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments; To witt, that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law. (Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured, that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple, and are blockes in Christen mens wayes, that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience, nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven. Iohn Paru…y his Articles. Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 50….)
First then, that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty, that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund.
But to commaund indifferent decent things, by order of Law, exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority, and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty. Ergo, &c. The former of these, to witt, that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority, appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles, which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours,*This was the Argumēt of Ioannes de Wesalia, Abb: Uspergē sis, Paraleip…mena, p. 419, to prove. Quod Prae lati non habent autoritatem instituendi leges. Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission, to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them.
Now, all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary, not indifferent for the people to observe: If therefore the Apostles over & above the Commaundements of Christ, which are necessary, should teach the people to observe indifferent things also, which Christ hath not commaunded, they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission, 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10.
OBJECTION.
It will be in vaine to object, that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith, not of Government and Order:Answer. unlesse it could be proved, that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission, and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency: Which for ought I can s…e no man goes about to doe, unlesse it be from this place of the Cori, which hath been already cleared (as I hope) from any such meaning.
As for the second or latter part of the Assumption, that to commaund Indifferēt Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty, is of itselfe evident. For, whereas (for Example,) a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will, 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his, though they had received that Guift of Continencie, yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular, 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21.
OBJECTION.
It is wont to be excepted against them, that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions, but in the freedome of Conscience.
As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things, Christian Liberty is preserved, though the use and practise of outward things be limitted.
ANSWER.
Whereto I answer; The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty, not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry; But even in outward*See 1. Cor. 9. 4. 5. 6. 1. Tim. 4. 3. …. Actions and practise. Let him doe (saith he) what he will, he sinneth not, let him be marryed, Vers. 36. As who should say, the Conscience being free from sinne in it, J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it.
2. Argument.
The second Reason may be this; They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency, they (surely) make a binding Law, that all men shalbe of one mind or of one practise in such things. But the former is true, from the rule of the Holy-Ghost, binding all Christians, even the Apostles as well as others, Rom. 14. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Ergo, &c.
OBJECTION.
But if it be sayd here, that this place speaketh only of private Christians, not of Church-Governours.
Answer.
I answer; The place speaketh of Christians private and publike,†See Niceph. Cal. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c 33 34. 35. Socrates Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c 21. 22. l 7. c. 28. 35. seeing it reserveth and referreth the judgment of our Brethren in such like things, not to publike persons, but only to Christ, Ver. 4. 10.
Third Argument.
The third Argument or reason is this: They who did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came, they (surely) did not make Lawes and bind Christians to accommodate themselves to their judgements and practise in the use of things Indifferent: But the Apostles of Christ (and the Christians too in the primitive Churches) did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came; As appeareth from the *See Acts 21 23 24 26 27. Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. to 25 in the English trā slation.Apostles Example 1. Cor. 9. 10. 21. 22. 23. To the Jewes (saith he) J became a Iew, &c. Ergo, &c.
OBJECTION.
But, here it may be objected, though the Apostles rather chose to use their Liberty and their lenity then their authority in these indifferent things, wheresoever they came; Yet if they had pleased, they might have used their Apostolicall authority in binding all Churches to their judgements and practise in such things.
Answer. 1.
Hereunto I answer, first, that doubtles if they had received any such authority, they would in some placē or other, and at one time or other have claimed it and practised it; For, a sword never used rusteth in the scabbard; And, Frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum. It is a true Axiome, and pertinent to that we speake off.
2. Secondly, I say, that the Apostle himselfe doth clear the point, when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himselfe even to the weaknesses of Christians,Note this. least he should abuse his authority in the Gospell, 1. Cor. 9. 18. 19. 20. O that such Governours as plead so their Succession to the Apostles, and doe challenge in sundrie passages of government Apostolicall authority, would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolicall Spirit!
Fourth Argument.
Let a 4. Argument be this, That if the Synod of the Apostles and Presbiters and Brethren of Ierusalem did reach their authority no farther thē to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoake & burthen of Necessary things, & that only during the time while they continued Necessary; Then*See 1. Cor 7. 5. to 40. Col. 2. 19. 20. 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Mar. 7. 7. 8. 9. Matth. 15. 9. Gal. 1. 10. 11. 12. may not any Succeding Synod reach their authority to lay upon the Church Commaundements and Canons of Indifferent things; For, this Synod at Ierusalem was and ought to be the patterne and president of all Succeeding Synods; For, Primum in vnoquoque genere est mensura reliqu…rum.
And our Saviour teacheth us to refute abetrations from Primitive patterns with this, (Matth. 19. 8.) Non sic fuit ab initio. From the beginning it was not so: But the Synod at Ierusalem reached their authority no farther then to lay Commaundements upon the Disciples only touching Necessary things, Acts 15. 28. Necessary (I say) either in themselves (as abstaining from Fornication;) or at least in respect of present offence, as abstaining from blood, &c.
And let me conclude this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his intercourse with the Apostle Peter, about a matter of this kind: If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe Indifferent things or Ceremonies of the Iewes; Then other Church-Governours wilbe as much blame-worthy for compelling Christians by Law & by grevious cēsures, to obserue the Ceremonies now in questiō, though they were Indifferēt. But, the Apostle Paul tells us, that Peter was to be blamed in this case, Gala. 2. 11. 14. Ergo, &c.
OBJECTION.
Now, if any except thereat (as some are wont to doe in this case) and say, that Peter was therefore blamed, because the Ceremonies to which he compelled the Gentiles were not urged as things Indifferent, but as Necessary to Iustification and Saluation.
ANSWER.
I answer; This is but a meere evasion, and will stand them in no stead; For, it is certaine, Peter did not account them as necessary, he knew the contrary, nor did he so use them himselfe, nor so compell others to them; But, knowing his Liberty for him (a Iew) to use them among the Iewes, he used them when the Jewes came downe from Ierusalem, out of a tender care to prevent their offence.
OBJECT.
But, you will urge againe, and say: The false Teachers did urge them as necessary.
ANSWER.
I answer; What then? So did the Christian Iewes at Ierusalem, yet Paul himselfe used them there, Acts. 21. 23. 24. 26. 27. notwithstanding the corrupt opinion of worship and Necessity which they put upon them, as much as ever did the false Teachers in Galatia.
OBIECTION.
Why then (will you say) did Paul blame that in Peter, which he practised himselfe?
Answer.
He had indeed blamed Peter for that which he practised himselfe, if he had therefore blamed him for practising such Ceremonies, because they were urged by others with a corrupt opinion of Necessity and worship.
QVERE.
What was then the difference that made the practise of Paul lawfull in using the Ceremonies at Ierusalem, and the practise of Peter unlawfull in using the same Ceremonies at Antioch?
ANSWER.
J answer. The difference was this: Though that corrupt opinion of the necessity of the Ceremonies prevailed alike in both places; Yet the Ceremonies themselves had not the like warrant in both places. In Ierusalem they were knowne to have been the Commandements of God, and were not yet knowne to the Christian Iewes to have been abrogated, and therefore at Jerusalem they had warrant from God to use them, to avoyd the offence of the weake Iew there; But at Antioch and in all other Churches of the Gentiles they were, (at best) but things Indifferent, as having never been commaunded of God there; Whence it was, that Peter saw his Liberty to forbeare them there at his first comming.
QVERE.
What was then the Sinne of Peter in resuming the practises of the Ceremonies there?
ANSWER.
His Sinne was double. First, the abuse of his authority in the Church, for that unawares by his Example he compelled the Gentiles to the use of such Ceremonies, as himselfe saw Liberty to forbeare amongst them; And which having never been commaunded by God to them, he had no power to impose on them. His other sinne was, the dissembling or concealing of his Christian Liberty which he should then (then) have stood upon, when he saw the false teachers urge these Ceremonies upon the Gentiles as well as upon the Iewes, to the prejudice of their Christian Liberty.
When things that are indifferent are commaunded to be done of necessity (as now all our Prelates Ceremonies are) then are not the same to be obeyed, because the same destroyeth our freedome in Christ. Dr. Barnes saith: Mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience. p. 300.
The Summe of all this will lead us by the hand one step farther, namely; If it be a sinne in Church-Governours to commaund (especially upon strict penalty) Indifferent decent things; It wilbe a sinne also in Ministers, and in private Christians to subscribe Ex animo, and to yeeld obedience by Cōformity to such commaunds, although the Ceremonies were as good (indeed) as they were pretēded (which I believe they are not) Indifferent-Decent-Things. For, doth not such voluntarily Subscription and Conforming to them build up our Church-Governours, yea and with them (that which is most to be taken to heart of us, our Soveraigne civill Governours also in the confidence, that such commaundements are as well lawfully given by them, as received and obeyed, yea confirmed and allowed by us?
Now, to build up or edify a Brother to sinne is properly to offend a Brother; For the proper Definition of an offence is, that which edifieth a Brother unto Sinne, as the originall word expresseth it, 1. Cor. 8. 10. and so to sinne against a Brother, is to wound his Conscience; Yea, and as much as in us lyeth, to cause him to perish for whom Christ died; Which is no better then Spirituall Murther of his Soule.
Now, if thus to edifie any Brother to Sinne be so heynous an offence, how much more heynous an offence is it, to edifie our Governours to the giving & urging of such commaundements, yea and to the sharpe Censuring of all others, as refractory and factious persons, who choose rather to undergoe the losse of the greatest Comforts they enjoy i… this World, then to wound the Consciences either of them selves or of their Governours.
It is true, by forbearing obedience to those commaundements we offend the Spirits of our Governours, and make them to be (though causelesly) offended with us; But by yeelding obedience to these things we should offend their Consciences in edifying them to sinne, and provoke the Lord to be offended with them. Better they be offended with us, without fault, then through our fault God to be offended with them and us.
It is not for Christians; Much lesse for Ministers, to redeeme outward peac… and Liberty at so de…re a price as the hazard of the blood of so many precious Soules, especially of our Governours in highest place and Authority.
What then shall we thinke of thoseaOur Prelates ought to be our Servants as the Apostles were to teach us Christs Doctrine, and not Lords over us to oppresse us with their owne. Peter called it tempting of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. to lade the Heathen with ought above that w…ch necessity and Brotherly Love requireth, and Paul rebuketh the Corinthians and Galath…ās for their over-much obedience, warneth all men to stand fast and not to suffer themselves to be brought into bondage. Tyndal Answer to Mores, 1. Booke, …. 285. 286. Lordly Dominering Prelates, who not only take upon them to enforce both Ministers and people to the observation and practise of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer, further then the Sta…u…e of 1. Eliz. c. 2. and the Law authorizeth them; But likewise by their New-printed Vsi…ation Oathes and Artic…es, presume (like so many P…pes and Parliaments) contrary to the Law of God, the*25 H. 8. c. 19 21. 1 Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. Statutes of the Realme, and their owne 13. Canon (even of their owne heads alone, (without the Kings Authority or Licence under his great Seale) to impose new Popish Rites and Ceremonies of their owne devising,bSee B…shop Wrens Visitation-Articles. (is standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospell and Nicene Creto; Bowing at the name of Iesus, Praying toward the East, Bowing to Altars and Commu…on-Tables, and the lik…, of which there is not one sillable in Scripture, or B…ke of Common-Prayer itselfe, and so are directly prohibited by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. which prohibites the use of any other Rites or Ceremonies then those expressed in the Booke of Common-Prayer, under severe penalties, cI doe believe stedfustly and faithfully, that you Bishops are ten times worse then the Great Turke. For he regardeth no more but rule and Dominion in this world, and you are not therewith content, but you will also rule mens consciences, yea and oppresse Christ and his holy Word. Dr. Barnes, p. 284.to enforce them on Ministers and people against their consciences, by Excommunications, Suspentions, deprivations, imprisonments, threats and such like open violence?
Certainly, we must needs conclude them to be meere dActs 4. 1. ta 13. c. 5. 17. to 42. Fox Acts and Monuments 1610. pag. 415. 416. 417. 418. 428. 434. 435. 438. 552. 562. 567. 598.Antichristian tyrants, not the meeke Disciples of our Lord Iesus Christ, who never tooke such authority and State upon them, thus to tyrannize it over mens consciences, bodies & estates in things indifferent, much lesse in things unlawfull, as many of the Ceremonies and Jnjunctions are; Against which all godly Ministers and people ought solemly to protest, and to goe one126. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. E…. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. boldly in their Ministry and Christian dutie, in despite of all their threats, imprisonments, their suspentions and Excommunications to the contrary, which in truth are meere nullities, not only by Gods Law, but by the fGal. 5. 1.Lawes and Statutes of the Realme, since our Bishops have no Lords Patents or Commission under the broade Seale Authorizing them to exercise any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Censures, or to keepe any Visitations & Consistori…s; And since all their proceedings, suspentions, excommunications, are made in their owne names, under their owne Seales, not his Majesties, as they ought by Law to be. Wherefore gExposition on the Prophet Abdias, the last page of all.Let us all now stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ (yea and the Lawes of our Realme too) hauehave made us free, and not be againe intangled in the Prelates yeokes of bondage, formerly grievous, but now intollerable.
I shall close up all with Bishop Pillingtons words. It is not meet that God should be King, and the Pope and Prelates to make Lawes for him to rule by: But God rules by his owne Lawes.
Gregorius Magnus Pastoralium, l. 3. c. 5.
Aliter admonendi sunt subditi, & aliter Praelati. Illos, ne s…bjectio conterat; Jllos, ne locus superior extollat: Illi ne minus quae rubentur jmpleant; Illi, ne plus justo jubeant, quae compleantur. Illi ut humiliter subjaceant; Illi quoque ut temperanter praesint.
Marsilius Pat: D…fensoris Paris: Pars 2. c. 28.
Talium Decretalium ordinatores praeter licentiam fidelis Legislatoris aut Principis, ad ipsorum quoque observationem quenquam inducentes verbis su…reptilijs, quasi cogentes, comminando simplicibus eorum transgressoribus damnationem aeternam, aut blasphemias, five anathemata, vel alias maledictiones inferentes in quenquam verbo vel scripto, corporaliter sunt extremo puniendi supplicio, tanquam Conspiratores, & Civilis Schismatis concitatores. Est enim gravissima species CRIMINIS LAE SAE MAJESTATIS, quoniam IN PRINCIPATUM DIRECTE COMMITTITUR; Ad ejus etiam supremi pluralitatem, & consequēter per necessitatem ad solutionem cuiuslibet Politiae perducens.
I should be glad to see this adjudged for Orthodox Law, as it is, and executed on our audacious Innovators, convicted of High treason by it.
FINIS.