Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 3 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Informers answers and reasoning upon the point of Scandal and offence, in reference to the owning of Conformists, considered. His dangerous principles both as to civil and Ecclesiastick power in this point. His answer to the Doubters argument for Presbyterian Ministers preaching in the manner controverted, taken from the practice of Christ and his Apostles, examined. His absurd principles …nent the Magistrats coercive power over the exercise of the Ministerial office.
Having discovered this mans unsoundness in the points above examined, wherein we have seen how in opposing the Lords work, his faithfull servants their laboures in promoting it, he hath dashed against the Scripture and sound divines, and stated himself in opposition to both. We shall next discover, some more of his errors, which, are the issues of the former, & of the wicked designe for promoting wherof, they are presented. The first that offers it self to be considered, is in the point of Scandal. From which we argue against the owning of Confor…ists as is above exprest. And this grand doubt-resolver will needs discusse it, but with what success we shall presently see.
His Doubter in the next place offers to him an argument against hearing Conformists, [taken from the offence and stumbling of many godly, flowing from this practice of hearing them, since they look upon it as a sin; and tells him that the Apostle sayes we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others.] We have already proposed, and some way improven this argument from the scandal of the weak in this case. To this he first answers, that when we are forbidden to give offence, Its meant of not doing that which is of itself sinfull, whereby we grieve the godly, and lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our evill example; but when we do our duty in obeying God, we cannot give offence to any, and if they take offence Its their own sin and weaknes, but none is given. As here (he sayes) its their weaknes to offend at maintaining unity and peace, that this rather gives a good example, and to ly by from hearing Conformists for fear of offence of the weak, is to omit duty and harden them in sin. Ans. The Informer offering this reply from the sense of that scripture generally hinted by his Doubter, seems at first view to restrict the command of not giving offence, to that which is in it self sinfull, wherin it might easily be made appear that he contradicts sound Divines, scripture and himself. Especially the passage to which the Doubter referrs being of a far other sense and scope. But lest this censure should appear too Critical, and upon consideration of his second answer, I shall not medle with what he sayes here in thesi, or this assertion in it self considered. But to the assumption & application of this passage in his answer, I return to him this in short, that he doth but here still beg the question in supposing that the owning of Curats is in this our case a duty and a maintaining of peace and order in the Church, wherof we have made the contrary appear: and that maintaining the true union and peace of this Church, is to owne her true and faithfull Ambassadours, contending for her reformation, true order, and union against 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 de…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? …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. Ver…or inquit, ne moerore illum afficiam unde & subdit: Verum si propter cibum frater tuus contristatur, non jam secundum charitatem ambulas. Vides quo… … 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 …agis ac dilectione attrahat? Neque enim postea quam vanu… exemerat metum, potenter illum tra…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 ne que mori propter illum recusavit, tu autem ne que 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 …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 …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 tot… 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 also he saith not that he will not eat of the Idolothytwhich is forbidden for another cause. But if that which is lawful and permitted give scandal, even from these things I will abstain, and not for a day or two, but during my whole life. For he saith I will not eat flesh while the world stands. And he saith not lest I should destroy my brother: But simply lest I should offend him. And a little afterward having shown, that what the Apostle speaks belongs unto us. he saith, dicere enim quid mihi curandum est, si ille scandalizatur, & ille perit? Crudelitatis illius atque inhumanitatis est: Atque tunc quidem ex eorum, qui scandalizabantur, infirmitate id contingebat. In nobis autem non itidem; Talia namque peccata committimus, quae etiam fortes scandalizant: Nam cum percutimus, cum rapimus cum trahimur cupiditate, & tanquam servis liberis abutimur, nonne haec sufficientiasune ad scandalizandum? Neque mihi dixeris illum calceorum sutorem esse, alterum Corearium Statuarium vero alium: Sed considera fidelem illum esse & fratrem. Illorum namque sumus discipuli Piscatorum, Publicanorum, tentoriorum Opificum: Christus einm in fabrili domo educatus est, & fabri sponsam matrem habere non est dedignatus, & ab ipsis incunabulis in praesepi …acuit, neque ubi caput inclinaret, invenit: Et tantum iteneris confecit ut fatigaretur & ab alijs victum accepit. That is, for to say, what am I concerned if such a man be scandalized, and such a man perish? is his inhumanity and cruelty: But some of those who then were scandalized, were offended through weaknesse, But soit is not in us: for we commit such sins which do even offend the strong. For when we strike, and offer violence to them, and are drawn by our own lusts, and abuse free men as if they were slaves, are not these sufficient to scandalize them? Say not to me, this man is a Shoemaker, the other a Tanner, the other a statuemaker, but consider that he is faithfull, and a Brother. For we are the Disciples of those fishers, Publicans, and tentmakers. For Christ was educat in a tradsmans house, & disdained not that his mother was betrothed to a tradsman, and himself lay in a manger for his cradle, neither found he where to lay his head: Was wearyed with his journey, and received maintainance from others. In which passages, it is evident that Chrysostome upon the great moral and Apostolick grounds, of the weak their interest in Christ, his tenderness of them, his dying for them, their spiritual hazard while their conscience is wounded, their liberty in Christ, the cruelty and uncharitableness of offending them, demonstrates the hainusness of, & vehemently inveighes against this sin, and clearly asserts with the Apostle, that the lawfulness of the practice in it self, affords not the least warrand for doing of that out of which seth, or whereby the weak brother it made more weak.
Next, I shall offer the sense of an eminent Reformed divine upon this point. Pareus upon this chapter doth fully confirme our principles on this head. Let the Informer read his analysis of the chapter, where he will find him digest the Apostles reasons and arguments against the giving offence in matters lawful, and learndly prosecutes them in his exposition, which he will find to be such as do cut the sinnews of the new and dangerous principles in this point, which the Prelatick formalists do maintain, citing Chrys. in some of the passages mentioned. Which purpose he also prosecutes in his commentary upon Rom. 14. and 15. Chap. Upon the 7. verse anent the pollution of the weak conscience, he sayes that this pollution is not so much to be imputed to themselves, as unto those that did induce them to eat by their ill example. Upon the 9. verse he shews that the lawfulness of their practise excuseth not abuse in this case, calling scandal, dictum vel factum quo alius deterior redditur, citing Rom. 14. 21. Upon the 10 vers. he shews that the danger and guilt there pointed at, is the inducing of the weak to imitat the practice with a fluctuating conscience. Upon the 11. He shews that the Apostle puts together aggreging circumstances of this sin of giving offence in things lawful viz. that we ought to edify and not destroy by our knowledge, next that the person scandalized is our brother. 3. An infirm brother, whom to wrong must be extreme malice, 4. Which is the greatest of all, that Christ hath dyed for the infirm brother. The same he resumes upon the 12, vers. and explains the sense of Chrysost. and Beza as to the wounding of the weak conscience. Upon the Apostles conclusion vers. 13. He shewes that he expresseth a resolution of the same nature and extent with that Rom. 14, 21. viz. not to do that whereby our brother stumbles, or is offended or is made weak. Adding, idem vult intelligi de toto genere rerum mediarum & licitarum, potius in his se libertate sua cessurum, quam ut fratrem offendat. Sic the sin tacite ingerit quae est presentis loci doctrina praecipua: In casu scan dali etiam a rebus licitis abstinendum esse: Quia tunc sunt illicitae & peccata, per accidens quidem sednostra culpa, quando quod facere possumus ac debemus, (N. B.) offensionem infirmorum non cavemus. That is, the same he will have to be understood of all things lawfull & indifferent, that in these we ought rather to cede from our liberty then offend our brother. Thus he tacitly enforceth that point which is the chief Doctrine of this place. That in the case of scandal we must abstain from things lawfull, Because then they become sins and unlawfull by accident, yet by our fault when we guard not against the offence of the weak, which we can and ought to do. In the close he sayes, that the Apostle will have us in things lawfull not simply to eye what is our right, but what charity and edification do require,
But now let us come to the assumptian and application of our Informers concession, to the present case and question, are there not many weak brethren who may be embolded to sin, or (may we suppose) condemn me sinfully if I hear Curats? Suppose the practice were lawfull in it self, what will cure this malady? Behold a Catholicon presently, We must know (saith he) that if the command of Authority interpose & enjoin the thing Indifferent, then its no more in my liberty pro tunc. Because (forsooth) I am restricted by Authority, which makes the thing necessary. Ans. 1. This man charges a great defect upon the Apostle Paul who in all his discourses upon guarding against offence in things indifferent, makes no mention of this new case & knack, anent making the indifferent thing necessary, by the command of Rulers, and exeeming thus the giving of offence from guilt? But all along he pleads by many arguments in the places mentioned, that if the thing be indifferent, the case of offence makes it unlawfull. And all his arguments in these passages, which do press the eshewing of offence are moral and constantly binding (and consequently admit no such restriction as this) such as Christs tenderness of the weak, their redemption purchased by his blood, Christian liberty, the evill of my brothers doubting, whatsoever is not of faith is sin &c. And he moves objections against his doctrine, such as, I have knowledge; I have faith—And shall I be limited of my liberty, because anther is weak or wilfull &c. Such like objections he moves and answers, but of this exception and restriction anent a command from Rulers altering the nature of the thing, and loosing all his arguments in relation to offence, the Apostle mentions nothing.
2. This puts a blasphemous authority, upon the Magistrat; we know the terrible interminations and threatnings thundered against giving offence, and discoveries of the dreadfull tendency thereof, wo to them by whom offence comes, Again, better be cast into the sea then offend one of the little ones—destroy not him, saith Paul (with thy offensive carriage) for whom Christ dyed. Now will the Magistrats command give me sufficient warrand and security in and for a thing indifferent, to destroy my brother, and, will it list off Christs wo and make it lighter then a feather, which is more dreadfull then to be cast into the sea with a milstone tyed about ones neck.
3. I would know if this Informer will deny that the Apostolick precepts in relation to offence & scandal, pressed with important and great motives in the premised Scriptures; are of ane universal and moral nature, and do reach and oblige all that owne the profession of Christianity in their several relations and capacities. These precepts founded upon the everlasting and constantly binding grounds and motives of union, charity and love to the brethren (the great gospel command) edification, the communion of Saints, (the very bonds and ligaments compacting and strengthning Christs mystical body) none can deny to be of an universal extent, and to be among the grand rules of Christian practice limiting and directing our carriage in whatever relation we stand, whether Ministers or people, Masters or servants, Parents or children &c. And the superiour being under the obligation of these great rules (unless we will make God a respecter of persons) it necessarily followes that they do direct and limit him in the exercise of his power, so that this being one Regula Regulans as to all the Magistrat Laws; its must absurd to imagine that his counter-practice and Laws can loose himself or others from this divine superiour obligation, unlesse we will deiesie him and make his Law & practice the soveraign and supreme rule in every point as well as in this. Whence it followes by necessary consequence that the practice which is offensive, scandalous, and destructive to our brother, in its present circumstances, and upon the constant unerring scripture grounds & rules, cannot be altered in its present quality and state by mens commands crossing the divine Law, but remains a sinful scandalous practice though a hundred Lawes enjoyn and authorize it.
4. Was not Pauls Apostolick declarator that evry thing sold in the shambles might be Lawfully eaten, as powerfull to exeem that action of eating such things from the compass of offence as the Magistrats Law and authority? Sure he had at least as much, if not more authority in this point, then the Magistrat, especially as this Informer expones authority afterward from Acts 15. 28. yet that same practice, Lawfull in it self, and by the Apostle declared to be so, and accordingly enjoyned and authorized by him, must not be used in this case of the offence, even of the weak and ignorant, but the Apostle himself, though thus declaring and, (may I say) authoring the lawness of the practice, declares he will never use nor take it up in this case of offence. I beseech him, was not the warrantabliness of this practice in it self by the Lords word, declaring all things to be clean to the clean, and Pauls Apostolick declarator in this place, as valide to render it, of indifferent, necessary to the users, as the command of our civil Rulers in relation to this practice under debate, and a litle more, he having the mind of Christ, and being a Master builder of the Churches. Yet the offending of the weak, ignorant yea or wilfull, will in his Judgement cut short this liberty, and render the practice sinfull upon that ground. But moreover the instance of the brazen serpent will here bite and sting his cause and argument to death; for it was an eminent type of Christ, and reserved (and sure our Informer will say warrantably) as a signal monument of that rare typical cure of the people stung by the fierie serpents in the wilderness, yet when the people were stumbled, and it became an occasion of their sinning and committing Idolatry, good Hezekiah brake it, called it Nehushtan, and is commended for it by the Spirit of God. Now in this mans principles the interposing of authority for its preservation was sufficient to keep it from being destroyed, though all Israel should have been never so much stumbled, and ensnared to Idolatry by it, but the keeping of this monument God would dispense with in this weighty case. Sure that which rendred the preservation of it highly provoking, and Hezekiahs breaking of it commendable, was its stumbling and ensnaring tendency and effects, whatever authority and acts might have interposed formerly for its preservation. Will the Informer say that Gideons ephod (which in his intention was only designd for a monument of that victory over the Midianites) was lawfully preserved when it became thus ensnaring as the brazen Serpent, or that the preservation of it was lawfully authorized in this case? surely he will not for shame assert this, and so the case is here; and he may see in these instances (if his eye be single) that a practice though in it self lawfull or indifferent, yet, when become offensive in its present circumstance and inductive to sin, cannot in that case be rendred warrantable by any Laws of the Magistrat.
Finally, our Informer in this as…ertion cosseth found Divines and Casuists as well as the Scripures, yea and fights with himself. For we have heard from Chrysostom and Pareus (who are herein accorded by all our writers) that the action which is in its preseut state and circumstance, scandalous, is, while cloathed with these Circumstances, necessarily evill, and upon many weighty grounds severely prohibited by the spirit of God in the Scriptures forecited. So that no power and Laws men of can remove these scripture limits & marchstones. Next, the great ground and rule anent a scandalous action, and upon which the scripture motives against it are grounded, is the state, condition and freedom of the conscience, lest it be hindred in its plerophory, emboldned to judge without ground; and the person hindred to act in faith, or induced to act against it &c. So that to assert that the Magistrats command can invalidat these grounds and principles, and render the action not sanda…ous which is such otherwise, is to give him a Dominion over the conscience, and subject it immediatly and absolutly to his Laws, which is a principle disowned by all Protestants. Moreover the Informer himself defines the offence of the weak brother in things indifferent, an emboldning him to sin contrary to his conscience, or to judge that we sin when we sin not, citing 1 Cor. 8. Rom. 14. Now if the action be upon this ground & principle necessarily sinfull in its present circumstances, how (I pray) can the Magistrats command render it not only Lawfull; but necessary, as he is bold to assert. Can the Magistrat by his Law embolden a mans conscience to sin, and yet neither the Magistrat sin himself, nor the man sin in obeying him? Amesius a better Casuist then he will tell him (de Consc. lib. 5. cap. 11. Quest. 6. R. 6.) that nulla authoritas humana, vel tollere potest scandali rationem, ab eo quod alias esset scandalum, vel peccati rationem a scandalo dato. That is, no humane authority can take away the nature of scandal from that which otherwise were a scandal, or the nature and cause of sin from scandal given. And his ground is very considerable, which doth confirme what I have now said. Nullus enim homo (saith he) potest vel charitati & conscientiis nostris imperare. vel periculum scandali dati praestare. That is, for no man can put imperious commands either upon charity or our consciences, or exeem from the hazard of scandal given.
But now to fortify this raw & ignorant assertion as to scandal, our Informer brings Act. 15. 28.—these necessary things—from which words of the councils sentence, he drawes ane argument thus, that though of themselves they were not necessary, but somtimes indifferent, yet by the Authority of the council they were made necessary for the good of the Church, so [he sayes] obedience to authority preponderats the not giving offence, as the greater duty of the two, as divines and Casuists shew, and in this case the man who thus obeyes gives no offence, but doth duty, and if any take it, its causeless on his part, and occasioned through the brothers weakness, so that its scandalum acceptum non datum, groundlesly taken but not given, and when the Apostle forbids to use, our liberty to the offence of the weak, he speaks to those who were not determined by Authority. Ans. What poor ignorant and incoherent reasoning is this, 1. Its a strange sottish, or rather popish Assertion, that the necessary things Acts. 15. 28. were made so by the councils authority: For the text is most express, that the Apostles enjoyned this upon weighty scripturegrounds, and what seemed good to the holy ghost (speaking in the word) as well as to them, so that the holy ghosts grounds and commands touching the maintaining of love, and union in the Church, and the great rule of edification, and not stumbling the weak Iews, were the great and standing Scripture principles upon which this decree was grounded.
Now to shew how our Informer takes the papists here by the hand in this glosse, let us hear Calvine upon the place—[praeter haec necessaria] Hujus vocis praetextu superbe triumphant Papistae, quasi hominibus liceat ferre leges quae necessitatem conscientiis imponant—quia quod deccrnunt Apostoli necessario servandum esse pronuntiant—i. e. the Papists triumph proudly upon pretext of …his this place, as if men might make Laws imposing a necessity upon Consciences because what the Apostles decree, they affirme, must be necessarly kept.—Then he adds, atqui expedita &c. But the Answer is easy to such a foolish cavil (so he censures our New Casuist and his fellowes in this point) for this necessity was no longer vigent then there was hazard of dissolving union, so to speak properly it was an accidental or extrinsick necessity, which had place not in the thing it self, but in guarding of offence—which [saith he) is evident in the speedy laying aside of this decree. Then he tells us, that when the contention ceased—Paul shewes that nothing is unclean, and again establishes this liberty Rom. 14: 14. And commands to eat freely what ever is sold. Adding, that the papists in vain do snatch an occasion to bind consciences from this word and to conclude the Churches power to statute any thing beside the word of God. Telling us further, that from the word of God the Council drew this ground of exercising charity in matters indifferent. Then (saith he) in summa, the summ is, if charity be the bond of perfection, and the end of the Law, if Gods command be that the faithfull study mutual unity and concord, and that every one please his nighbour to edification, none is so rude who may not perceive, that what the Apostles here commanded is containd in the word of God.—And at the close he tells us, Apostol…s ex verbi Dei sinibus minime egredi.— That the Apostles would not step beyond the limits of the word of God.
But 2. This mans Babylonish tongue still wounds himself as well as the truth, for 1. he acknowlegeth that what the Apostles here decreed, was for the Good of the Church; which (if he understand any thing) he must needs take it according to the grounds laid down in this disquisition, specially that which the Apostle James proposes immediatly before his and the rest of ths Apostlee decision vers. 21. viz. that Moses had in every city, them that teach him, being read every Sabath day. So that it was needfull at that time upon the grounds of charity, union, and aedification, to beat with the weak Jews in abstaining from these things discharged by Gods Law, till the ceremonies were honourably buryed. Hence it followes clearly that this abstinence was made necessary upon these weighty grounds at this time, and not by the authority of the council only. Neither was the matter enjoynd, of a thing indifferent, made necessary, by their determination, but upon these grounds, and for the great end of the Churches good, which he mentions, this abstinence was at this time, and in this case necessary; And by the Apostles declared to be so upon divine warrand for what else will he make of that expression. It seemed good to the Holy ghost. Again, Paul and the other Apostles had no power but to edification, nor any dominion over the faith of Gods people, and so acted nothing here pro arbitrio or imperio. So that their sentence, was only a declarator of Gods mindeanent that which was antecedaneously to their decree hic & nnnc a necessary duty, although we deny not that the Apostles decision was to have its own weight in determining the Churches obedience. 2. He brings this passage to prove that obedience to authority will preponderat the not giving of offence. But so it is that the great ground of the Apostles decicision here is the guarding against the offence of the weak Iews, and obedience to this sentence was in not giving offence, and upon this very ground Christians were to abstain from these meats, whereas he foolishly distinguishes in this point betwixt obedience to authority, and not giving offence, as distinct duties, and makes the first to overrule the second, in plain contradiction to the text, which makes the not giving offence, to be the great duty, and the foundation of this obedience.
3. This charge will be the more conspicuos, and the Informers inconsistent prevarications, in this point, if we consider these things in the point of offence: 1. That every offence through weakness is not sinless upon the offenders part. The Inform…r himself doth (with the Apostle) assert this, who in the very preceeding page from 1 Cor. 8: 10. & Rom. 14. tells us, that the Apostle will not have that which … indifferent… or lawful in it self, used to the offence of t…e weak, or imboldening of their conscience to Sin. … That upon this ground it follows that, the Scandal… acceptum, or offence taken, as contra distinguish…d by our divines from Scandalum datum, or offen…e given, is badly and to narrowly described from …e groundless taking thereof, as if upon this account it were faultless upon the offenders part, it being certaine, that neither the lawfullness of the thing out of which offence arises, the good intention of the doer, nor mens commands, nor the weakness, yea or wi…kkedness of the takers of offence, will free the giver thereof from guilt, unless the action be in its present state and circumstances a necessary duty: for thus the distinction could have no place, and there were no Scandalum datum at all there being no ground to take offence, upon the takers part, and takeing this phrase in the Scripture acceptation as there can be no reason of a sinfull action properly. Nay though the effect should not follow, the giver is still guilty, as Peter was in giveing offence to our Lord, though that action could produce no sinfull effect in him, for he said to him thow art ane offence unto me. So that it is beyond debate with all sound divines and casuists, that any dictum or sactum, action or word, upon which the formentioned effects may follow, if it be not hic & nunc necessary, is a scandalum datum. 3. That accordingly all sound divines treating on this subject, in describeing a passi…e scandal in opposition to that which is given, do not draw their measures or description meerly from the weakness or othere bade disposition of the taker of offence, but from the state and condition of the action it self, out of which offence ariseth, which if not necessary in its present …tate and circumstances, they hold the scandall to be is well active as passive; Thus Mr Gilespie Engl▪ …op: cerem. Thus Ames: de Consc: lib. 5. cap, 1. …, quest 3, Resp. 1, 2. tells us, that, in omni scandalo …ecesse est ut sit aliquod peccatum, in every scandal of ne…essity there is some guilt, because it hath a ten…encie to the spiritual hurt and detrime… of our bour. And describing passive scandal, which is without sin upon the givers part, he sayes that this falls out, cum factum unius, est alteri occasio peccandi, praeter intentionem facientis, & conditionem facti, that is when the fact of one is the occasion of anothers sinning, beside the intention of the doer, and the condition of the deed it self. He draws not his description from the intention of the doer only, but from the condition of the deed it self, which if tending to the spiritual hurt of our neighbour, is still an active scandal, and no authority of men can alter its natur or remove its guilt, as we heard him before assert. Mr Durham on scandal, part. 1, chap 1. describeth scandal, that is taken only or passive offence, that it is such when no occasion is given, but when a man doeth that which is not only lawful, but necessary, exemplifieing this by the Pharisees carping at Christs actions Matth. 15: 12. and by that of Prov. 4. 19. where the wicked are said to stumble at they know not what. Thus clearly asserting that the lawfulness of the practice, will not wholly lay the guilt on him that takes offence, unlesse it be also necessary. 4. The Informer cannot deny, that this necessity of the action, must be evinced from clear Scripture commands and cannot be rationally inferred either from the assertion of the practiser, or the commands of the Magistrat simply, or any supposed Ecclesiastick canon, since this would evert the Apostles reasoning on this head. So that he is obleidged to evince the necessity of this practice controverted from other grounds then he hath mentioned, or this charge stands good against him, esspecially since (as we have said) the Apostles injunction which he mentions as to the free use of meats, was a greater authoritative determination; then any which he now alledges to render the practice necessary. And if a practice lawful in it self, and corroborated by ane Apostolick precept enjoyning it, could not be lawful in the case of offence, farre lesse can the constitutions he mentions make this practice lawful in such a case. So that our Argument, a Scandalo, stands good against him upon this point, in answer to which he hath brought nothing but what is contrary to Scripture, casuists, yea and himself.
The charge which he after exhibites against us, of erecting separat meetings in the houses and fields—and of our being Schismaticks if ever the Christian Church had any, we let pass among the rest of this mans petulant assertions, the grounds whereof we have examined and confuted. The people of God in obedience to Christs faithfull Ambassadours (by Prelats perjurious violence thrust from their watchtowers) assembling to hear the great Shepherds voice, erect no seperat meetings, but keep the assemblies of this Church driven by them to a wilderness, whereof (if the Lord open not his and the rest of his tribe their eyes) they will bear the sin and punishment for ever.
The Doubter object next, [Christs preaching in privat houses and fields, and peoples hearing therein, inferring that so likewise may we.] This argument our Informer (according to his usual candor) disguises, we say not that in a setled peaceable state of the Church, Ministers may preach and people hear in this manner, but upon supposal of this Churches disturbed persecute condition by a party of prevailing backsliders, Ministers preaching and peoples hearing, is warrantable upon the formentioned grounds; both Ministers (upon whom our Prelats hands have been very heavy of a long time, yea (I may say) their litle finger thicker then their predecessours loins,) sters and people being in this broken destroyd state of our Church chased, harassed, and denyed all ordinary places appointed for divine worship, nay scarce any place of residence in their native land free from the fulmina & thunderbolts of Prelats mad rage. But what sayes he to this argument, he tells us 1. That tho Christ preached thus, yet it was not to separat from the Iewish Church, nor did he disowne the hearing of their teachers, but allowed to hear Scribes and Pharisees with a (proviso) to beware of their leaven—that he sent those who were miraculously heald to the Priests, and did not bid disowne them. Ans. 1. Whatever be concluded as to Christs disowning, or seperating the people from the teachers of the Church of the Jews at that time (wherin the Informer hath offered nothing which will amount to a demonstration of what he affirmes, and his assertion tho granted will not fortify the conclusion he aimes at) yet this is certain and undenyable, (and in so far his Doubters parallel argument stands inviolable against him) viz. that our blessed Lord preacht after this manner which he condemns. Since he condemns in universum & simply Presbyterian Ministers preaching, and peoples hearing them in this manner, abstracting from the disowning of Curats and their Ministry, so that this answer meets not the objection as levelled against his principles. And he cannot deny but that in so far as Christ and his Apostles were owned, their ordinary Jewish teachers were separat from and disowned, but he condemns all owning of Presbyterian Ministers, and withdrawing from Curats, as ingraind Schism and sinfull separation. This answer is the more forcible, if it be considered that our Lord had liberty of their Synagogues to preach in, yet he frequently left them, and preacht in privat houses and in the fields, and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may use this liberty, whom (in a peice of cruelty beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees to Christ) they have banish't from pulpits. 2. As for our Lords not putting people to separat from that Church or the teachers thereof, we have already shown how far it is from his purpose, and what a wide consequenceit is, from a non-separation from the Jewish Church, and teachers tho corrupt, (while that legal dispensation stood, which was shortly to be removed, and the Gospel Ministry erected in its place) and from our Lords tollerance thereof as Gods ancient Ministry, though now corrupt, to which he was to put an honourable close, to conclude that a people are to disowne a faithfull Gospell Ministry and Church, in complyance with a number of destroying Innovators ejecting them, and razing a sworn Reformation, which all that Church are bound to defend. This is such a palpable inconsequence, as any may upon first view discover it. 3. There was (beside what is said) this reason in special, wherefore our Lord would not have the Jewish Ministry at first universally left, because he came as a Minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers; he was to come to the temple as the Kings Son and Lord of all the Prophets who went before him, the Law being to go forth from Zion, and the word from Jerusalem, Jesus came first to his own. Therefore the Jewish Ministery and teaching, was to stand for a time to make this apparent, and as Christs great witness for his authority, and the Doctrine of the gospel, either for their conviction or conversion; hence he appeald unto the Scriptures which they heard dayly read, and preacht, Search the Scriptures for they testify of me. And when he enjoynd the healed leper to go and shew himself to the Priest, it was to offer the Sacrifice which Moses commanded for a testimony unto them. So that to make the substituting of the Gospel to the legal dispensation and ordinances apparent, and its Ministry to the Jewish Ministry and Priesthood, to which Christs death and resurrection only was to put a final period, it was necessary it should be own'd in some measure. And Christ could not wholly disowne it without stopping a great part of his mediatory fulfilling of all righteousness, for he was as head of the circumcised people, and as of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, to obey the Judicial and ceremonial Law, and therefore he duely attended the passover and all the solemn feasts, which could not subsist in their exercise, without the standing of that old Ministry; Now how far this is from our Question, and inferring the owning of Curats in our case, is obvious to the meanest capacity. What he sayes of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees, is already answered. But now this Informer will offer some special reasons of Christs-preaching after this manner, to cut short our argument here; the first is, Because he was to bring in the Doctrine of the gospel, and preach himself the true Mes…ah, which was needfull to be done, and because of the opposition of his doctrine by the Jewish teachers. Ans. 1. Altho he was to bring in the doctrine of the Gospel into the world, yet as he was sent first and immediatly to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to exercise his Ministry toward them mainly (upon which ground at his first sending forth the Disciples, he commanded them to go to these lost sheep, not in the way of the gentiles) so he had the synagogues and Temple to preach in, and frequently did so; and yet notwithstanding went to the fields with great multitudes, and to other places then these appointed for their ordinary and publick Worship; and therefore Presbyterian Ministers may do the like, who are denyed our Conformists Synagogues or ordinary places of Worship, they being upon important grounds obliged (as our blessed Lord was) to officiat and bestirre themselves in the exercise of their Ministry. And therefore. 2. Since he reasons from the necessity of the Work which Christ was about, and the opposition which he met with therein from his enemies, these samegrounds pleads strongly for Presbyterian Ministers officiating in the manner contraverted, because the preaching of the gospel by Christs faithfull Ambassadours, was never more necessary, and never met with greater opposition from its enemies; and therefore upon his own grounds it followes, that Ministers ought to embrace all occasions of preaching and in any place where they can have accesse. Sure he dare not restrict the necessity of the work, and the persecution, from which he infers the Lawfulness of preaching after that manner, to that particular necessity and persecution attending the first planting of the gospel, or affirm that these grounds may never again recur for legitimating of this practice, since thus he would condemn ou… first Reformers.
Come we to the 2d Reason which is this, Christ was head of his whole Church, and was not to be limit in the manner of his. Ministry as ordinary teachers, but might preach where and when he pleased, since all belonged to his Ministry, and that none will say that he is pastor of the whole Church, but the Pope, nor can any meer Man do what Christ did in every thing. But our meetings (he sayes) are in despite of the Law, and we add disobedience to our schism. Ans. 1. We shall easily acknowledge that all Christs actions are not imitable, such as those of divine power, as working of Miracles, and the actions of divine prerogative, as the taking of the ass without the owners liberty, the actings of his special Mediatory prerogative, such as the enditing of the scriptures, giving of his spirit, laying down his life, instituting Church officers, Col. 3. 16. Joh. 10. 15. Mat. 28. 18, 19. These are not imitable, nor yet such actions as were meerly occasional, depending upon circumstances of time and place, as the unleavened bread, the time, and such like circumstances of his supper. But we say there are actions imitable, as 1. in general Christs exercise of graces, which have constant and moral grounds, and are commended to Christians for their imitation, every christians life (as such) ought to be an imitation of him the precious mirrour of grace, Mat. 11. 29. Learn of me for I am meek. &c. Eph. 5. 2. Walk in love as Christ also hath loved us. Joh. 13. 15. I have given you an example that ye should doe as I have done. The christian must walk as he walked. 1. Joh. 2. 6. 2. In particular, Actions on Moral grounds, flowing from the relations wherein Christ stood, do oblige, and are examplary unto, those that are under such relations, viz. Christs subjection and obedience to his parents, and paying tribute to cesar, do exemplify children and subjects their duty as in that capacity; so his Ministerial acts and faithfull diligence therein, do exemplify Ministers duty. Now the question is, as to this manner of Christs preaching in this case, that is, not in the ordinary and authorized assemblies of that Church but in the fields, and in houses, whether the grounds of it will not sometimes recur, and oblige ordinary Ministers? for its ratio exempli we are to look unto, rather then the meer circumstances of the Individual act, as Chamier tells us, Tom. 3. lib. 17. de Jejunijs. And for evincing this in our case our Informers own answer is sufficient, if we shall but suppose (which neither our Informer nor any of his fellows have ever been able to disprove) that Presbyterian Ministers are under a relation to this Church as her true Pastors, and under the obligation of our Lords commands to officiat accordingly. His grounds are the necessity of the work and the bitter persecution of Christs enemies; both which grounds are still vigent in relation to Presbyterian Ministers as is said.
For what he adds of Christs acting this as head of his Church, and not limit in the exercise of his Ministry, as ordinary Ministers, none of which is an universal postor. It is very insignificant here. For 1. every piece of Christs Ministry, his very teaching, and teaching in the temple, was as messenger of the Covenant, who was to come unto that temple, and in the capacity of head of his Church, yet are examplary for Ministers duties according to their measure. 2. He dare not say, that our Lords preaching after the manner instanced in the objection of his Doubter, or his preaching while fleeing from persecutors, was meerly founded upon this ground, and did flow from no other cause and principle but this viz. that he was not limited in the way and exercise of his Ministry, for he hath already assigned other Reasons of this, viz. the necessity of the work, and his persecution simply considered, so that if he should assert this, his 2. answer would contradict his first: and besides, he will not deny, but that such as were not heads of the Church, and who were in an ordinary peacefull state thereof, limited in the exercise of their Ministry, did preach after this manner, for the officers of the Church of Jerusalem Acts. 8. in that scattering and persecution, went every where preaching the gospel. So did our first Reformers (not to stand upon that moral precept given to the Apostles, who were not heads of the Church, viz. when they persecut you in one city flee to another) and the Informer will not say that they were not to carry the gospel-message with them in this flight Now that which those who were not heads of the Church, but Ministers, yea and ordinary Ministers have done the parallel of and warrantably, surely that Christ did not upon any extraordinary ground now expired: But such is this way of preaching, Ergo &c▪ In a word as its easily granted that ordinary Ministers are fixt and limit to their charges in a setled state of the Church, so he dare not deny, that a Churches disturbed persecute condition will warrand their unfixt officiating upon the grounds already given; and he should know that others then the Pope were universal pastours, and even in actu exercito, of the whole Church, viz. the Apostles as himself acknowledged, nor can he deny that ordinary Ministers are in actu promo related to the whole Church, as her Ministers given to her by Christ, and set in her. As for what he adds of our meetings, that they are against the Law, he knowes that all the Jews appointed that any who owned Christ, should be excommunicat. From the violence and persecution of which Law, himself infers our Lords, officiating in the manner contraverted, and he can easily make the application to our case, and answer himself.
The Doubter thinks it hard [to be hindred by the Law from hearing the word of God and other parts of worship, or that Ministers be hindered to preach, i… being better to obey God then men.] He answers 1. that the Law allowes and commands us to hear the word preach… in our own congregations in purity, and defends it, which is a great mercy, and that its better to worship God purely with the Laws allowance then in a way contrary to it. Ans. 1. Granting that the Law did allow some to preach faithfully what saith this for their robbing so many thousands of the Lords people, of the Ministry of some hundreds of faithfull Ministers? will a piece of the Rulers duty in one point excuse their sin in twenty others, and loose the people from their obligation to duty towards Christs Ambassadours? This is new divinity. 2. The law allowes none to preach (in the manner he pleads for) but with a blot… of perjury in taking on the Prelats mark, and complying with a perjurious course of defection, and allowes none to deliver their message faithfully in relation to either the sins or duties of the time, which is far from allowing to preach in purity, and in this case we must rather adhere to Christs faithfull shepherds upon his command, tho cross to mens Law, then follow blind unfaithfull guides in obedience thereunto, and this upon that same ground of Acts 4. 19. which he mentions.
But he sayes, that answer of the Apostles will no way quadrat with our case, why so? 1. Because the Apostles had an immediat extraordinary call from Christ to preach in his name, and so were not to be discharged by any power on earth. Ans. 1. That the Apostles answer suites our case, will be apparent when its considered, that our answer and Apology which we offer to our adversaries, who do now accuse and persecute us upon this ground, is one with theirs, their grounds in their answer, compared with the context, are [that they are Christs Ministers and witnesses, employed about the great gospel message, cloathed with his authority, and under the obligation of Christs commands lying upon them.] Now will not this quadrat with our case as to the substance of this answer, dare he say, that the Magistrats Laws can exauctorat a Minister of the gospel, or take away that ministerial authority which he received from Christ, might not thus the ministry be put out of the world; Dare he deny that he is a minister still notwithstanding of the Laws restraint, and standing under a ministerial Relation to the Church, as the Apostles were, and under commands and obligations consequently in order to the exercise of the ministry? can the Rulers meer prohibition loose either ministers their relation pastoral, or the obligations flowing therefrom?
2. Altho the call of the Apostles was immediat and extraordinary, yet this will not prove that their answer will not suite the ordinary and mediat call in such a case as theirs, when a minister is under a legal prohibition to preach: for first, we do not find that the Apostles did plead their extraordinary or immediat call mainly or only, if at all in this case, but their ministerial gospel call and message quatalis, the authority of the one, and the weight and importance of the other, in relation to all Ministers, are constant moral grounds bearing the conclusion of the same duty and apology as to them: since the substance of this Apostolick apology lyes in this, that they were Christs Ministers, cloathed with his commission to preach the gospel, which any faithfull Minister may plead in such a case. 2. Tho their call was immediat and extraordinary, upon which ground they were singularly out of the reach of the Rulers restraint as to their ministry, yet they were so likewise as Christs messengers and ministers simply in a general sense, for majus … minus &c. 3. As the Apostles had their power immediatly from Christ and not from the Rulers, which is the great ground why they could not be Lawfully prohibit to preach, and would not submit their ministerial authority, its acts and exercise, to the Rulers disposal, especially the gospel-message being of so great importance, so there is derived from them a ministerial authority in the Church, independent in its nature and exercise upon the magistrat, as theirs was, tho the Apostles (as I said) had singular prerogatives beyond ordinary ministers, and in that respect were singularly beyond the reach of their restaint. Now this authority was exercised by the Church renitente Magistratu for several generations, upon the same ground of this independent spiritual power and the weight of the gospel-message which the Apostles did here plead;
The Informer answers aly, that this prohibition tended to the absolute supressing of the gospel, and there was then no other way for propagating it through the world, but by their preaching, but now tho some be silenced, others are allowed to preach. Ans. 1. This piece of the apology for not obeying the Rulers mandat, is of his bold putting in, but nothing of it is in the text, viz. that there were no others to preach the gospel but they. Their Apology as I said is drawn from their authority, and message simply. 2 I ask him, could any one of the Apostles have submitted to this prohibition, upon an insinuation or assurance that the Magistrat would not hinder others to promote the gospel? if they could not, then he must grant that this anwer is naught, that the Apostles refused, because the prohibition tended to suppress the gospel: For the gospel was preacht and propagat, though one of them was a little after taken oft the stage, if he say that any one, or more of the Apostles would have submitted to the prohibition upon thir terms, then. 1. He contradicts his first answer, that their extraordinary immediat call could not be discharged by any power on earth, and 2. He charges them with unfaithfulness to Christ in laying up his talents, and laying by his work upon mens command not to preach. Sure Christs command and commission tyed all his Apostles conjunctly and severally: Paul said, too to [me] if [I] preach not the gospel, and one Apostles diligence, could not loose the obligation of the other, and excuse his negligence. 3. We have proved that there is no warrand from God for Rulers their immediat arbitrary discharging Christs Ambassadours to officiat, and consequently faithfull Ministers are not obliged to obeye. And upon the same ground that one apostle could not warrantably suffer the Magistrat to impose a silence upon him, be cause others were permitted to preach, Its unlawfull for ordinary Ministers to be silent, because others are preaching, and much more when those who are preaching are declaring themselves unfaithfull, and destroying but not feeding. So that our Informer doth but mock God, if not blaspheme, while blessing him, that authority, is opposit to our disorders, not to the gospel.
The Doubter next asks him [if the King and Laws can silence a Minister that he shall not preach the gospel.] He should have added, by his own proper elicite acts as King or Magistrat, or formally and immediatly. But this man must still shrewd himself in the mist and clouds of deceitful generals, and mould our arguments in his own disguise, that his simple evasions may appear answers. Well, what sayes he to this doubt▪ His answer is, (I ommit his insignificant reflection) that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood 1 Kings. 2. 27. which was a restraining his priestly power as to its actual exercise, to which he was bound to submit, so a King may discharge a Minister to exercise his Ministry within his dominions, which he must not counteract, suppose he think the King and law wrongs him, especially, when others do preach tho he be silent. Ans. This reason and instance is a baculo ad angulum, Solomon punisht Abiathar civilly for a capital treasonable crime, which deserved death, telling him (as the text saith) that he was a man of death, or one who deserved capital punishment, according to the nature of the hebrew phrase, which sentence of death Solomon (upon the grounds mentioned in that passage) did change into a sentence of banishment, and by this civil punishment did consequenter put him from the exercise of his priestly office, which he could not in that case perform: Ergo he formally and immediatly deposed him, and the civil magistrat may so immediatly and formally depose ministers, this is a consequence utterly unknown to all rules of Logick, or solid divinity. The Instance indeed proves, that the Magistrat may civilly punish a Minister for crimes, and consequently cut him off from the exercise of his Ministry, but that he can simply and immediatly, or by proper elicit acts, discharge the exercise thereof, can no more be proved from this instance, then that the man who gives bad physick, or hurts the Ministers person, and eatenus stops the exercise of his Ministerial office, hath an authority to inhibit the exercise of his Ministry.
As for our Informers restriction, anent the Kings inhibiting a minister to preach in his dominions, 'tis a very poor and transparent sophistical cheat, for no man ever said that he can exercise any magistratical power upon those who are without his dominions, whether ministers or others. And thus should his dominion in Gods providence be streached over all the christian Church, he hath authority (by this courtdivinity) to silence the gospel sound in a clap, and extinguish a gospel ministry when he pleaseth, and then this man would do well to ponder how this consists with the nature and designe of Christs great commission to his first ambassadours (his Apostles) in reference to the gospel message, and unto all ministers untill the end of the world, and his promised presence accordingly; as also whether the Apostles, and ordinary ministers afterward, did warrantably counteract the Magistrats opposition in this exercise of their Ministry; and what our lords answer would have been, in case such an objection anent Princes discharging the exercise of their Ministry, had been offered by the Apostles at the first giving out and sealing of their great patent and commission to preach to all nations, and whether our Lord would have told them that their commission did not bind in that case. The Informer is afraid to set his foot on such slippery ground as to assert that the King can depose absolutely, but yet averres that he can restrain the actual exercise of the Ministerial office, and surely if this be granted (in that extent he pleads for) it will abundantly secure self-seeking polititians from the trouble of a faithful Gospel-Ministry, & they will be content to part with this nicety of a simple deposing. But if, in the Judgment even of some of his Rabbies, whom I could name, the most formal ecclesiasticall censures do amount to no more then this legal restraint of the exercise, he doth but pityfully resarciat his lapse, and mend the matter by this whimsey.
As for what he adds of [Beza's letter to the non-Conformists in England, not to exercise their Ministry against the Queens authority and the Bishops.] The often mentioned difference betwixt the then State of that Church, and our present condition, doth quite invalidat his proof, since certainly in some cases the counteracting the Princes command as to the exercise of the Ministry, requires a very cautious consideration, but had our case in its present circumstances and latitude as above delineat been propounded to Beza [touching the overturning the Reformation of this Church (so fully setled by civil and Ecclesiastick Authority, and confirmed by Oaths of all ranks) by Prelats and their adherents ejecting all faithfull Ministers, who will not be subject to that course.] Sure Beza who (as we heard) requested John Knox never to let Prelacy be introduced into Scotland, and all faithfull Ministers to contend against it after it was cast out, would have judged Minsters obliged in this our case, especially after Prelacy is thus vowed against, to keep their possessions, to preach the gospel, and testify against such a wicked course, as well as it was the duty of our first Reformers to preach against the will of the then Bishops and persecuters; Besides, its the Doctrine and principles of our Church, that neither the Magistrate nor Prelats censures can loose a Minister from the exercise of his Ministry; which is above cleared. So that our Informers great Diana, which he is all this time declaiming for, viz. The imposing of an absolute silence upon the true Pastors of this Church, that Conformists onelyonly may be heard and ownd, doth so stoop and bow down, that the underpropings of his slender artifice, and poor mean pleadings, cannot prevent its precipice and ruine.