CHAP. I. Of Judging in general.

THe love and charity we owe unto our Neighbour,Which are the true works of Charity. if we desire that God may shew mercy unto us, doth not onely consist in those works of Charity specified in Matth. 25. To feed the hun­gry, to give drink to the thirstie, to clothe the naked, and to comfort and relieve our neighbour (especially such as professeth himself a Christian) in all corporal and temporal necessities; these being the most notorious works wherein Christian Charity is externally manifested above all others, insomuch as they are accounted evident marks and fruits of a true and lively faith and love towards Christ, whereof also the Apostle James, Chap. 1. vers. 17, speaketh: Pure and undefiled Religion before God and the Fa­ther is this; To Visite the Fatherlesse and the Widows in their afflictions: But we must also principally shew our selves charitable and compassionate towards our neighbour in his sins; and not onely in those sins he committeth against us, [Page 2] to forgive him willingly and from the bottom of our heart, which is the most necessary and difficult work of Charity, without which no Sacrifice, nor Alms will be acceptable to God, and whereof we are put in minde daily in the Lords Prayer: but also in all other trespasses against God and men, not to judge him rashly, much lesse condemn him; as our Saviour doth teach us, Matth. 1.7. and Luke 6.37; where he comprehendeth all the works of Charity in these four words; Judge not, condemn not, Forgive, give.

For first, We ought not to judge him in his sins, especially in such which pro­ceed from humane infirmitie and ignorance, but rather excuse him as much as lies in our power. Secondly, we ought not suddenly to condemn him in such of­fences, which are committed more out of an inexcusable malice then weak­nesse; but rather use all our possible endeavours to convert him, and save his soul from death and damnation. Thirdly, We ought to forgive him with all our heart those sins he hath committed against us. Fourthly, We ought also to give to him, and supply willingly all his wants. And thus we shall fulfil all the works of Christian Love and Charity. To which the Lord in the said Chapter doth earnestly exhort us by three strong and efficacious Motives. 1. By the example of our heavenly Father, to whem We, being his children, must conform our selves, especially in love and compassion: Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful. 2. By the promise of a proportionable re­muneration; If we do not judge nor condemn, God will not judge nor con­demn us; if we forgive, God will forgive us also: If we give and willingly assist others, God will forgive and relieve us also, and not sparingly, but libe­rally and abundantly: Finally, in every thing, With the same measure that we mete withal, it shall be measured unto us again. 3. By the representation of our faults and weaknesses, which he setteth out by Three similitudes: Of one blinde person leading another which is likewise blinde: Of a Master, who will have his disciple more learned and perfect then himself: Of a Physitian or Oculist, who will pull out the mote of another man's eye, when he himself hath a beam in his own eye: Lest we may not presume to Judge and condemn others in their ways; or to hate and forsake others, when yet we our selves are many times blinde and stand in need of a good master and guide: nor to upbraid others with their indiscretion and imperfections, when We our selves are in many things indiscreet and imperfect masters: neither to finde so great fault with other mens motes in their eyes: or to undertake so boldly the pulling out, when many times by the cure of the motes of our brother, We our selves thrust into our own eye a strong and great beam of Hypocrisie, Spiritual pride, Presumpti­on and Self-love, without perceiving it at all.

What sort of Judging is prohibited and what not.Neverthelesse this sort of Judging which the Lord speaketh of, is not so meant or to be understood, as if all judging in general were prohibited and unlawful: For he doth not thereby prohibit the Jurisdiction and Judicature whereby the Magistrates do judge and condemn Delinquents, in God's stead; and whereby the Church, or the Ministers and Elders of the Church in Christ's stead do judge scandalous members: nor the Judging of Conscience, whereby every Chri­stian ought to judge and discern aright in his own Conscience good from evil, truth from falshood, justice from injustice, that he may know both in doctrine [Page 3] and life what to believe and not to believe, what to do and what to eschew. Such manner of Judging is not onely not prohibited, but often commanded; Joh. 7.24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement. 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are with­out, God judgeth. 1 Cor. 10.15. I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. 1 Joh. 4.1. Try the spirits, whether they are of God. 1 Thess. 5.21. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. But Christ's meaning was to prohibit there­by all Presumptuous judging of other men, as far as it is repugnant to love and charitie, or to justice and truth: When we presume to be our neighbours Judges, 1. In regard of his sins, and that when we judge him either by his afflictions, tri­bulations and sufferings; like as Job was judged by his friends, and David of­tentimes, especially in Psal. 41, crieth out against such judging of his enemies or false friends: or by his words and works, when we either make the worst construction or sense of that which was not so evil meant, spoken and done, whereas we might have extracted and made the best of it, and excused it: or when we exasperate too much the defects and faults proceeding out of hu­mane infirmity, and so make huge and vast beams of the least motes; or cen­sure upon false and ill grounded slanders and calumnies, that which is uncertain yet (if not altogether forged) whether it was thus spoken, done and meant. 2. In regard of the very thoughts of his heart, minde and intentions, against his own words and works, meerly out of a malicious suspition to render him odious and contemptible to others; or when we will needs judge him in matters though certain and evil enough, yet with little or no respect either to his or our own good: or lastly, when we are not contented to judge his sins, but even presume to sit down in God's Tribunal pronouncing sentence against his soul, and condemn it to hell it self.

All this presumptuous, uncharitable, unjust and unprofitable judging, is prohi­bited by Christ, and extendeth to all sins in worldly businesses and ordinary tem­poral affairs; viz. to such as are incident to words or works of the Second Ta­ble, and much more to all sins in matters of God's service and Religion, viz. to the words and works of the First Table.

Again, he enjoyneth these Two duties, being the chief and most requisite works of charity, that we should not judge others, but rather excuse them; not condemn, but rather further and hope for their amendment, because with­out these, the other Two duties which consist in Forgiving and Giving, cannot be well performed: Yea, he doth in this order presse the aforesaid duties, because by such judging and condemning as he forbiddeth, most commonly, though unjustly, occasion is taken by many to conceive that they are not obli­ged to any charity at all towards criminous persons, nor to forgive them their sins, neither to give unto them nor help them in their wants; but rather to resist them in every thing, and to hate and persecute them to the uttermost: Act. 26.9, 11.

In opposition to which evil apprehension, our Lord Christ alleadgeth against such unseasonable judging this notable and familiar place of Scripture, Hos. 6.2. I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and giveth especially this lesson to the Pharisees and Scribes, to be learned by them, who did transgresse it most of all: Matth. [Page 4] 9.11. Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercie and not sacrifice: and Matth. 12.7. If ye had known what this meaneth, you would not have condemned the guiltlesse.

Unseasonable and rash Judg­ing, a grievous sin.And although this be in it self the easiest work of Charity (for what is easi­er for a man then to abstain and withhold himself from judging, the right per­formance whereof is the most difficult and dangerous work in the world, and pertaineth properly to God alone?) yet it is the hardest work by reason of the perversenesse of mans heart; and some finde it more difficult then to forgive their neighbours.

Moreover, Unseasonable and tenacious judging is not without reason esteem­ed to be the most common, the most pernicious, and yet the most hidden and secret Vice of all sins and corruptions.

The most common: Because we are all generally swayed by a natural procli­vity rather to judge and censure other men then our selves; And all sorts of men, high and lowe, of what dignity and degree soever, are obnoxious to this Uncharitablenesse. The most supreme Magistrates and Rulers of this world, Kings and Princes, whom God hath ordained to be Judges over other men, must give way often to be very injustly judged and censured, not onely by their enemies, but even by their own servants and subjects. Preachers and Ministers of God's Word, not onely by their Adversaries, but even by their fellow-bre­thren and Auditors. The most godly by the most ungodly: The wisest by the most foolish: Yea, God himself in heaven is oftentimes judged and blamed by fools and mad-men on the earth: Psal. 51.4. Rom. 3.4.

The most pernicious: For whilst we reprove others, we forget to judge our selves, though this be the most necessary and profitable judging: yea, wherein we judge others, we condemn our selves, Rom. 2.1. And all sorts of calamities and miseries amongst men; all disorders, distempers, distractions, differences and dissentions in every estate, in Common-wealths, in Christian Churches, even in Families, if we seriously search thereinto, proceed originally from no other ground, but from an Unseasonable, rash, uncharitable, and injust judging one another.

The most secret: Because it happeneth not onely in words and works, but many times in the very thoughts, as in those to whom our Saviour sayeth, Wherefore think you evil in your hearts? Matth 9.4. And then it comes com­monly under the colour and appearance of singular zeal towards Justice, truth, and the honour of God; and withal under pretence of love and charity to pull out the more out of our brother's eye: From whence it is, that it is not counted for a sin or vice at all; but rather passeth for a commendable vertue, for a good, holy, profitable, yea sometimes for a necessary work; whilst many Imagine that they must judge and condemn, lest otherwise they should be judged and condemned by God.

Especially in matters of Re­ligion.Which Unjust judging, if it be a dangerous and pernicious Vice in any temporal and worldly matters; certainly it must needs be more prejudicial and dangerous in matters of Religion and Faith, as being of the greatest moment and importance, in regard all differences, contentions, dissentions, slanders; all vain and swelling babling, all scholastical and profane Controversies, all foolish and unprofitable [Page 5] questions and literal disputes, which we are admonished so often by the Apo­stle to avoid; In like manner, all enmitie, hatred, envie and bitternesse which arise from them; And lastly, all Heresies, Schisms, Sects, Separation, and the destruction of the Universal Christian Church, do originally proceed from nothing more then from such Uncharitable judging and condemning.

Wherein in these later days, more then in former, not onely the vulgar and ignorant People, but even most of all those that should admonish others, Lear­ned Divines, have transgressed, and thereby given much occasion to this pre­sent lamentable devastation and destruction of Christendom, and wrought so much already with the greatest part of the Christians by such judging and con­tentions arising from the same, that in stead of true Godlinesse and Christian Charitie, which should be the onely scope and fruit of Christian Doctrine, at this present the Christian Religion is turned almost into a meer disceptation and debate of words, which at length may open a door to the Contempt of all Religion and Universal Atheism, as it is already in several places apparently manifest.

And although amongst these modern contentious Divines some are more ex­orbitant then other, yet none of them shall be able so fully to excuse and vin­dicate themselves, but they will be found to have sometimes transgressed the li­mits and moderation of Christian Charitie.

Wherefore we all have great need to repeat and ruminate again on Christ's old Lesson; Go ye and learn what that meaneth; I will have mercy and not sa­crifice.

To the apprehension and learning of which, none can give us better dire­ction then the Apostle Paul, who during his ignorance was also such a zealous and vehement judge; but afterwards, when God had shewed mercy unto him, did the more faithfully dehort others from it: especially the Romanes, in his most excellent Epistle to them, thorow the Whole Fourteenth Chapter, the chief sum and argument whereof is comprehended in Verse 13. Wherefore let us not judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stum­bling-block, or occasion to fall, in his brothers way.

In which words, if we do examine the Coherence by the precedent and sub­sequent Verses, the Apostle collecteth for us Two most necessary Rules:

1. What and why we ought not to judge one another, especially in matters of Religion and Conscience.

2. What and how far we may and are bound in conscience to judge.

Whereof as I have heretofore given a publike Exposition to the Christian Assembly, I intend at this present, upon the request of some Well-wishers to Truth and Unanimity, to impart to them a more ample Treatise, with an Ap­plication to the Modern Differences; not affecting Contention, but Peace and Unitie.

As the Apostle himself doth sufficiently intimate and imply that this is the most exact Rule for Peace and Edification, when he addeth, Vers. 19, Let us follow after the things which make for Peace, and things wherewithal one may edifie ( [...]) another.

Chap. 2. The Father of all Mercie, who is also a God of Judgement and Peace, grant to me and all that shall peruse this present Treatise, to set before our eyes his Judge­ments and Mercie, that we his children in all our Judging may exercise Mercie, Love and Peace, to the end that in the Great day of Judgement we may not be judg­ed by him according to the severitie of his Justice, but according to his Grace and Mercie.

CHAP. II. Wherein we ought not to judge one another in matters of Religion.

IN the beginning of the Fourteenth Chapter to the Romanes, the Apostle ad­monisheth them; Him that is weak in the faith, receive you, but not to doubt­ful disputations. The Greek Text hath [...]. The Vul­gar Version, Non disceptationes cogitationum. Beza, Non ad altercationes disce­ptationum; that is, not to a debate of disputes: or, as some expound it more properly with Augustine; Not to judging of thoughts; that is to say, Do not set your selves as judges over his thoughts, to reject him because of his weak­nesse of faith.

Which afterwards he applieth chiefly to those, who, though they had recei­ved the Gospel of Christ, and believed to obtain salvation by his grace; yet did observe the distinction of days and meats, or made a scruple whether they might eat such meat without sin and offence, which God himself had forbidden in the Law: Though some will have understood thereby the meats offered to Idols; concerning which, 1 Cor. 8, he teacheth almost the very same Doctrine.

Where the Apostle exhorteth those that were strong in faith, who had suf­ficient knowledge that such distinctions of meats and days in the Law, were now not any more requisite according the Gospel in Christ, but were a meer indifferent thing; that they neverthelesse should not contemn or condemn such as were weak in faith, who had not yet the knowledge of their liberty, or were doubtful of it; nor should judge their thoughts why they did abstain from such meats, but receive them in love and charitie.

Moreover, he giveth to them both this Rule, Vers. 3. Let him that eateth (understand every thing, by reason of the libertie of the Gospel) not despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not (every thing, by reason that he thinketh the difference of meats according to the Law to be necessary, or doubt­eth thereof) judge him that eateth: For God hath received him (in the Gospel.) Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Which he repeateth over again in the Tenth verse; But why doest thou judge thy brother? (that eateth every thing) or why doest thou set at nought thy brother (that eateth not?) We shall all stand before the Judgement-seat of Christ, where every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Whereupon these [Page 7] words follow: Let us not therefore judge one another any more; viz. in such a manner whereby we should reject one another, and not receive one another in things that are not necessary and indifferent, and notwithstanding are accounted to be necessary by some, out of their weaknesse of faith.

Out of which words and discourse of the Apostle, we frame this general Rule and Doctrine; That in those things, A General Rule wherein we ought not to Judge one another. which in themselves are not necessary for salvation, though by some they are counted to be necessary, none shall judge or condemn the other; but one ought to tolerate and receive the other in love and chari­ty, as brethren that are weak in faith.

And this Rule is of great force and validity, as well in matters that we ought to believe as practise: For both were called into question by the Primitive Chri­stians in the Apostles times: Some believed, that it was requisite to make a distinction of meats, and therefore did not eat every thing: Others believed and counted it unnecessary, and therefore did eat every thing promiscuously: Both did also herein rely upon the Word of God: Those, upon the bare and simple let­ter of the Law: These, upon the liberty of the Gospel, according to which they did declare the true meaning of the Law, which they had received from Christ and the Apostles. And although those did greatly erre in the letter of the Law, which was not intended for the times of the Kingdom of Christ among the Gentiles, but had its reference onely to the Old Testament: Yet the Apostle will that none shall judge, despise or reject the other, neither in their faith, nor works; but receive him as a weak brother in faith.

Whereunto this Observation ought to be annexed, That the Apostle doth speak onely of those, who out of meer weaknesse and fear to transgresse the Law, made it a matter of necessity, or at least a scruple of it: to whom it would have been sin, if they had eaten of the forbidden meat against their own (though erroneous) consciences; according to the doctrine of the Apostle, Verse 23. He that doubteth, is damned if he eat (viz. against his own conscience) be­cause be eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.

But those that rather out of malice and obstinacie, then out of meer weak­nesse and fear, did make it necessary, after such a manner that they not onely for themselves believed and did it; but also enforced it upon the believers among the Gentiles, as necessary to their own and other mens salvation, without any true ground from Gods Word; and consequently, besides the distinction of meats and days, did presse upon them the necessity of the whole Ceremonial Law, Circumcision, Sacrifices, &c. and therefore condemned and reviled the Apostle Paul and others, as enemies to the Law, who did faithfully maintain and defend the liberty of the Gospel: Those, I say, the Apostle, by the vertue of his Apostleship, hath very earnestly judged, reproved and condemned; yea, stigmatized and branded with an Anathema, especially in his Epistle to the Ga­latians, Chap. 1. vers. 8, 9. If any man, though an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that ye have received (by us Apostle) let him be ac­cursed; even for this reason, because they judged most presumptuously the be­lievers amongst the Gentiles and the Apostles themselves, and disturbed and scandalized thereby the Christian Congregation, so that they introduced a quite other Gospel, according to which they thought to be justified and saved [Page 8] by the works of the Law, and not by the grace and mercy of Christ.

Now seeing he hath thus censured those, which were so zealous for the ne­cessity of the Mosaical Law; how much more then deserve those to be censu­red that enforced the traditions and commandments of men for doctrines ne­cessary unto salvation? Matth. 15.3, 9. And yet how much more those, who under the name of Gods Word do introduce erroneous, or even Superstitious and Idolatrous Doctrine and Worship as necessary unto salvation? Whereof we shall speak more in the second Part.

At this present let us principally consider and apply this first Rule, wherein a Christian ought not to judge and condemn another, but rather receive and tolerate him as a weak brother in the faith: Namely, in such articles of faith and life, which either in themselves or by Gods Will and Commandment are not necessary unto salvation.

And not onely in these, that are generally agreed on not to be necessary, but also in such which by some either out of weaknesse of knowledge, or out of fear to sin, are esteemed to be necessary, though they are not.

Neverthelesse with this Caution, that they reciprocally do not judge nor con­demn in such pretended necessary Points of theirs, other Christians, which will not allow of them to be so necessary nor so true and reasonable. For other­wise this unjust judging and condemning would be damnable in themselves, especially if it should be done with Uncharitablenesse and Obstinacie.

I doubt not but the Modern Dissenting parties will condescend and assent without any difficulty to this Doctrine: for none of them will have laid to his charge, that he did judge and condemn his Adversary for Unnecessary mat­ters; but every thing must assume the name of necessary Articles of Saving Doctrine and Worship, wherein their Yea and NayYea and Nay. must necessarily be allow­ed. But even these are the hinges whereon all the Differences and Disputes will hang; What properly is necessary and not necessary unto salvation.

For although the Apostle teacheth us not to judge one another in those things, which one Partie esteemeth necessary, though in themselves they are not: yet it doth not follow, that we ought not to judge in matters which one Partie holdeth not necessary, or unlawful, though they are in themselves necessary: But we must necessarily judge, that he cannot be saved who rejecteth a Doctrine or Worship as not necessary and unlawful, which yet of it self is necessary un­to salvation.

Wherefore, before I proceed to the Application, I think it very requisite to declare briefly, and as much as will conduce to this purpose, What is neces­sary and not necessary unto salvation.

CHAP. III. What is necessary or not necessary unto Salvation.

WHat is necessary or not necessary to believe and do for to be saved, may be considered either in regard of the matter it self, which we of neces­sity ought to believe and to do; or in respect of the Persons, who of neces­sity ought to believe and to do them: or according to the revealed Word, Degrees and distinctions of the necessity of Doctrines. 1. In regard of the Doctrine it self. as be­ing the infallible Rule and Means whereby we know, what we ought to be­lieve and to do.

In the doctrine and matter of Faith and Life it self, we must exactly distin­guish what is necessary unto salvation, directè & per se, absolutely and by it self, wherein our salvation doth properly consist, and without which none may be saved; and what is necessary but reductivè, mediatè, consequenter; so far ne­cessary, as of necessitie it followeth and dependeth from that which is directly ne­cessary, or doth of necessity cohere with it.

For example: The Faith in Jesus Christ which worketh by Love, Gal. 5.6. 1 Cor. 3.11. 1 Cor. 2.2. 2 Tim. 1.13. 1 Joh. 3.23. (as it is generally confessed by all that call on the Name of Christ) is in it self and directly necessary; and with it every thing wherein properly and essentially this saving faith, love and obedience of Christ doth consist; without which no man can have true lively faith in Christ: which also properly is called The fundamental Doctrine of faith and salvation.

But by a necessary consequence, all other Doctrines of Faith and life which from this Fundamental doctrine, by exact and necessary Theological Conclusi­ons and Inferences may be derived and grounded thereon, are also in some man­ner necessary.

Which are likewise of Two sorts. Some are deduced by so evident and clear a consequence from the Fundamental doctrine and the Undoubted Word of God, that every understanding and knowing Christian may easily conceive them, and no man can reject them, unlesse he rejecteth also the Fundamental doctrine whereon they manifestly depend. Some, though they are also derived from the Fundamental doctrine of Gods Word; yet their consequence is not so evident, that every Christian, but onely Divines and men that are well versed in the Word of God, may conceive it: Yea, some Doctrines yet are not for every Divine's capacitie, but onely for those, who by a special illumination from God are endued with a more excellent knowledge of the heavenly myste­ries before others: Which therefore are not necessary for all to know, or to do; because they may retain the Necessary Fundamental doctrine and the saying Faith and love of Christ, though either they do not know and conceive at all such derived points of doctrine by reason of the infirmitie and shallow­nesse of their understanding, or call them in question by some pretended exce­ptions, or reject them quite.

And from these last sort of doctrines ariseth almost all the Contention: When one will judge the other for that, what for his part he deduceth and col­lecteth as necessary, from the Fundamental doctrine; but the other will either hold it for not necessary, or for erroneous and unlawful; insomuch that some either out of a meer mistake and misapprehension, or carnal affections, do so obstinately adhere and cleave to those pretended necessary derived points of do­ctrine, that they will make Fundamental points of them: yea, some are so, ex­orbitant herein, that if they do not quite deny the Fundamental points of do­ctrine, at least they do obscure and pervert one or other Article of them. Which otherwise are so clearly and perspicuously expressed in the Undoubted Word of God, by the Prophets and Apostles, that they cannot be denied or question­ed by any Christian but him that is clouded and blinded by his affections.

2. In respect of persons.Wherefore in the Second place we must discern what is necessary or not ne­cessary in respect of the Persons. For there are some Ʋniversal, or according to the Greek, Catholike Doctrines, which are necessary for all Christians to know, and at all times, especially in the Primitive Church of the Apostles have been unanimously received, taught, and believed by all true Christians: as the aforementioned Fundamental doctrine of salvation, with all that is evidently and undoubtedly depending from it; so that no man can reject it without he rejecteth also the Fundamental doctrine it self.

But some are but Theological Doctrines, which are not necessary for all Chri­stians, but onely for some to know, to whom God hath imparted before others a fuller measure of knowledge, and more excellent gifts and charge; from whom also he will require more then of others, according to the rule of Christ, To whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required, Luk. 12.48.

So that it is sufficient for one to know and to believe onely implicitely in the principal General Articles, that what another doth know and believe ex­plicitely in many Special Points which are comprehended therein. For the one, that he should believe and do that which in it self and directly is necessary unto salvation; for the other, that which he knoweth to be consequently neces­sary, or to be inseparably annexed thereunto: Yea, for one it is necessary to be­lieve many Truths, whereof he hath good ground and knowledge, out of the Word of God; which neverthelesse for another, who wanteth such know­ledge, are either not so necessary, or not so profitable, to believe without ground; yet are necessary, not to deny or contradict them obstinately out of carnal affections; because he cannot but have lesse ground to deny them, and rather ought to search the Truth diligently in the fear and worship of God, and to be ready to receive and acknowledge it with thankfulnesse, when it is demonstrated unto him out of the Word of God: Otherwise the Obstinate denying (which is incompa­tible and inconsistent with true faith and love to Christ and his Word, and pro­ceedeth meerly from carnal affections, whereby the understanding in the know­ledge of the Truth is darkened and eclipsed) would prove damnable unto him not onely by reason of the errour it self, but rather because of his Obstinacie.

Thirdly and principally, we must discern what is necessary or not necessary in regard of the revealed Word, 3. In regard of the revealed Word of God. being the rule and means whereby we may know what we ought to believe and to do.

Which Word, though properly there is nor ought to be but onely one, yet is delivered to the Believers in a Twofold manner, by Preaching, and Writing: From whence we must distinctly consider. Whether and how far the written Word of God, and whether and how far the preached and ministerial Word, or the traditi­ons and doctrines of the Church and their teachers, ought to be the rule of our Faith and life.

But since this is the Point that principally is controverted and debated be­twixt the Romane Catholikes and the Evangelical Protestants; we intend at this present to lay down the ground-work of that which is undoubtedly agreed on by both Parties.

As first of all, That the Books of the Prophets and Apostles of the Old and New Testament, which we on all sides acknowledge and receive for Canoni­cal, are the undoubted Word of God, and the perfect and infallible rule of our Faith and life; and that consequently every thing that is taught in them so clearly and manifestly, that every understanding Christian certainly and un­doubtedly may know and conceive it, must be necessary for all unto salvation: so that though they do not know explicitè and particularly all things; yet are ready to believe and receive undoubtedly all things, assoon at they do appre­hend them.

The Sum of the Articles we must believe unto salvation, is briefly collected in the Apostolical Creed, into which all Christians are baptized and received as fellow-members of the Christian Church: What we must Morally do, is ex­hibited in the Commandments of the First and Second Table concerning the love and duty towards God and our neighbour: But what we must Ceremonially and Sacramentally perform, is contained in the words of the Institution of the holy Baptism and the blessed Communion or Supper of the Lord, being the Two Sacra­ments of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ himself, as it is generally and undoubtedly agreed on: And lastly, what we ought to desire and ask of God, is included in the Lords Prayer. In which Five Fundamental Points of Chri­stian Religion, viz. in tribus Symbolis doctrinalibus credendorum, faciendorum, petendorum, what we ought to believe, to do and to ask, and in duobus Symbolis Sacramentalibus regenerationis & nutritionis spiritualis; how we ought to be regenerated, and as Children of God in Christ spiritually nourished unto a new and eternal life, doth consist the whole Catechism, which we for our part think generally necessary for all Christians; yet all is to be understood in that sense, which is most clearly taught and expressed in the Scripture; yea al­so, whatsoever so evidently and necessarily doth depend from the said Funda­mental Points, that every Understanding Christian (though he is not able to conceive the Divine Mysteries by his natural reason) may yet certainly and undoubtedly apprehend the doctrine or meaning of the Scripture, or the ne­cessary consequence of it. Therefore although any Controversie should be raised and moved about these Fundamental Articles, which in the Primitive Church had not been sufficiently declared or unanimously taught; yet they could not be generally necessary unto salvation for all Christians, but onely their unanimous and undoubted meaning.

Moreover, besides that what directly in it self is necessary, there are yet [Page 12] many other points of doctrine partly Theological partly Historical, and part­ly Philosophical; yea, in general, whatsoever is clearly taught in the holy Scri­pture, though its consequence and dependence from these Fundamental Arti­cles is not of such necessitie, and therefore not directly necessary unto Salvati­on; yet it is necessary for us to believe it, because it is thus certainly and clearly revealed in the Word of God. For Example: That our Lord Jesus Christ suf­fered under the Emperour Tiberius and under the Governour Pontius Pilate, as it is expressed in the Apostles Creed: or that the mother of the Lord was called Mary: or that our Lord rose from the dead the Third and not the Fourth day, &c. These are such circumstances in the historie of the Birth and Death of Christ, which though directly they are not necessary for us to believe and know unto salvation; yet they are necessary for us to believe, because they are as clear­ly and expresly set down in the Word of God, as the Articles themselves; so that no man that knoweth them, may deny or make a scruple of them, unlesse he would also deny together the whole Word of God.

Likewise, that in the last times the great Antichrist shall come, That at Christs coming to judge the world, not all men shall die, but the rest be chang­ed; which though it is not absolutely necessary unto salvation to know, yet it is necessary for him to believe it, who hath such knowledge of it from the Word of God.

And because the holy Scriptures do promise everlasting life and salvation to all them which truely believe in Jesus Christ, as he is revealed and manifested in them; we thereby further argue and conclude thus: That such doctrine of the Scripture is not onely necessary, but also wholly sufficient unto salvation; so that no other singular doctrine besides the holy Scripture, is necessary unto sal­vation. Which also the Primitive Church, both in its doctrine and universal practice, doth abundantly testifie that they held the sacred Scripture to be satis­factory unto salvation, even for the most-able and best-learned men, and the Five aforesaid Symbols or Fundamental Articles sufficient for all Unlearned Ignorant Christians, as we could prove it by many evident testimonies of the Ancient Fathers; which having heretofore already been done by many others, we thought it superfluous to enlarge our selves therein at this present.

Whether and how far the Tradition and Doctrine of the Church is necessary.Yet next and besides the Scripture, we do not decline and reject the Word and Doctrine of the Church, not as the principal Ground and rule of our Faith (for that is meerly and solely grounded upon this, Because the Lord said it; but not upon this, Because the Church or their teachers said it) but as requisite means whereby the Word of God is preached and taught unto us, and as a testi­mony of that what is declared therein.

Wherein notwithstanding we must exactly distinguish betwixt that, what the whole Ʋniversal Christian Church hath with an unanimous Consent taught and believed out of the Word of God at all times, especially in the Primitive times, and that what perhaps but one or other Particular Church, hath taught in the later times.

Whatsoever the whole Christian Church, especially in the first hundred yeers immediately after the Apostles, hath unanimously taught and believed out of the Word of God as necessary unto salvation; that same is an Infallible mark [Page 13] and testimony that it is certainly and undoubtedly the true sense and meaning of the Word of God, and consequently is necessary for all Christians to believe and receive it: Because there is no doubt but the true Primitive Church, be­side the holy Scripture, hath received also from Christ himself and his Apostles the true sense and meaning thereof, at least in all necessary Fundamental Points of the Christian doctrine.

Contrariwise, whatsoever the Primitive Church hath not taught, that same is an evident signe and testimony that it is not so expresly set down in the holy Scripture, that all Christians of necessitie should know and believe it unto sal­vation, because many thousands of the Primitive and best Christians have been saved without such doctrine.

But this testimony of the Primitive Church, of whatsoever it hath taught or not taught, is of such a nature that it is not to be understood by all Christi­ans, but onely by those who are well versed and have read the Volumes of the Ancient Fathers; which even very few of the Teachers and Ministers are able to do. Wherefore the greater part of Christians, especially when the doctrine and meaning of the Primitive Church is drawn into Controversie, ought to fix themselves and adhere closely to the evident testimony of the holy Scri­pture, without which they cannot have any certain ground of their faith and salvation.

For whatsoever not the Universal onely, but one or some Particular Churches have believed and taught, especially in the later times, whether it were done in their Councils and Synods, or else by their publike Confessions, or other writings, doctrines and witnesses: that very same, though it is a testimony of the belief and doctrine of the particular Churches; yet it cannot oblige other Churches or generally all Christians, nor be necessary for all unto salvation, neither ground and confirm their faith any further then the certain and indubitable Word of God hath demonstrated unto them, and they themselves have received it as consonant and agreeable to Scripture: Since it is granted on all sides, that the particular Churches may erre in their own particular opinions, and that the Christian Faith must not be grounded upon the word of one particular Church, but meerly and onely upon the Word of God.

Neverthelesse the Word and Authority of the particular Churches doth binde at least their fellow-members thus far, that they ought not rashly to contradict their doctrine and declarations, unlesse it be contradicted by a more evident testimony of Gods Word, and by an Unanimous doctrine of the Primitive Church. For otherwise this would prove a Presumptuous judging, or at least an Unnecessary scandalous contradicting.

We hope now,Why not a cer­tain specif [...] ­tion may be made of all the Points of Doctrine, that are necessary unto salva­tion. by all these things that are said it doth plainly and manifestly appear, What and how far it is necessary and not necessary unto salvation; al­though we do not specifie all points of Doctrine, nor precisely determinate what and how much might be necessary and sufficient to every one in particular; w^ch is almost impossible to do, for these Reasons. First, because we cannot directly know how far the capacitie of every one or the most unlearned and ignorant Christians, and how far Gods mercy may reach and extend above their under­standing, and therefore ought not rashly to condemn any man in his ignorance, [Page 14] to whom peradventure God may shew mercy. Secondly, because none can obtain a true knowledge and faith in Christ, but he must somewhat strive and labour for it, that he may encrease and thrive therein. Like as we cannot de­scribe and set a certain measure to the height and bignesse of a young childe (be­cause yet it must needs daily grow, if it be alive and in health) till it hath at­tained his full and perfect age: so may we neither circumscribe and limit any Christians knowledge within a certain measure, because he ought to grow and augment still in the knowledge, faith and doctrine of Christ, if he be a true Christian, till he is come to a perfect man of stature of the fulnesse of Christ, Ephes. 4.13. Thirdly, because we cannot fail sooner in any thing then when we presume to regulate and measure all other mens capacities by the measure of our own understanding, and do imagine that what peradventure we think to be clear and evident in the Word of God, that very same must likewise be as clear to all others, and therefore as certain and necessary for all; which is also the chief and principal reason of all Unseasonable judging in matter of faith, yea, the source and fountain of all divisions and dissentions in the Church of God.

Wherefore it is sufficient for our purpose to know in general, which no Chri­stian can deny, That all and onely that is necessary unto salvation, what necessari­ly belongeth to the saving Faith in Christ, which worketh by love, and cannot subsist without true repentance and conversion from sin, and without new obedience to Christ Commandments: Which all is so plainly and expresly taught in the undoubt­ed Word of God, especially in the Five aforementioned principal Points, that every Christian may sufficiently understand them unto his salvation, and hath been unani­mously professed in the Primitive Apostolike Church.

But whatsoever is not so clearly and expresly taught in the Word of God, as a necessary Article of Faith, Love and Obedience towards Christ, nor hath been understood and taught out of the same in the Primitive Church: That very same, though it dependeth from it by a necessary consequence, and there­fore may be true doctrine and agreeable to Scripture: yet it cannot be neces­sary for them, who do not understand it as yet, and retain onely the Fundamental doctrine it self, the saving faith and love towards Christ: at least so long till God enlighteneth and bringeth their understanding to a fuller knowledge of the Truth, which they in the fear of God ought daily to search into.

Whereby we do conclude further, that We ought also not to judge one another (according to the aforesaid rule of the Apostle) in these doctrines. Especially when the other may produce Motives and reasons to the contrary, and such, which are taken not from natural reason, but from the Word of God; and there­fore bindeth not onely his understanding, but also his conscience, that he cannot receive such doctrines for fear of sinning against God and his Word, but must at least doubt of them. For in such a case we must say, Whosoever doubteth, if he eateth (if he receiveth them) is damned (by his own conscience.) And ra­ther, according to the Apostle's exhortation, in such controversies of doctrines, We must receive him that is weak in faith, but not to doubtful disputations. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? To his own master he standeth or fall­eth. Let us therefore not judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or offence of conscience, in his brothers way.

CHAP. IV. That the Romane Catholike Church hath no ground to Judge and condemn the Protestant Reformed Evangeli­cal Churches as Heretical.

HAving laid this ground, we may easily, and as much as is necessary for eve­ry ones conscience unto salvation, deliver our Judgement and Opinion concerning the Modern differences and dissentions in matters of Religion, which among the Christians that make on all sides profession of the written Word of God contained in the Old and New Testament, are fomented and ag­gravated meerly out of an Unseasonable and Uncharitable judging and con­demning with such vehemency and bitternesse, yea, with such great effusion of blood and lamentable devastation of Countreys, that never the like was heard of any other Religion in the world.

At this present I will make but a short Application to the Three principal divided and dissenting Churches,Differences betwixt the Romane Ca­tholikes, Lu­theran and Re­formed Chur­ches. which are dispersed in the Occidental Christi­an World thorowout whole Provinces and Kingdoms. As first, the said Ro­mane Catholikes, or Papists so called, who besides the holy Scriptures, are grounded upon the traditions of the Church, and especially upon the Councel of Trent, and generally are altogether subjected and depend on the Pope of Rome, as being their Supreme Head and Judge in matters of Religion and Conscience; as the Churches in Italy, Spain, and the greater part in France, Germany and Poland.

Then, the Protestant Evangelical Lutherans, as they themselves will be called; who besides the holy Scripture, professe Confessionem Agustanam & Saxonicam formulam Concordiae as their Symbolical and Universal Books of doctrine; not that they ground principally their Faith and Religion upon them, but that they hold the doctrine and opinions of them conformable to Scripture and neces­sary unto Salvation; as in Germany, especially in high and lowe Saxony, some Churches in Swaben, Francony, Westphaly, Hessen, &c. and without Germany, the Churches in Denmark, Sweden and Prussia; although there is some dif­ference perceived betwixt them; because some have not received hitherto as yet the said formulam Saxonicam, and some of them have collected their own peculiar Corpora doctrinae, Confessions and Books of Doctrine.

Thirdly, those Evangelical Christian Protestants, who, because they will not be bound and tied to any man's, whether it be Luther's, Calvin's, Zuing­lius, or any other's Doctrine or Books, and therefore not be named by any man's name; but have purged and reformed their Doctrine and Religion from the abuses of Popery, onely according to the written Word of God, are com­monly called Reformed (by some Papists they are called Biblists or Scripture­men; of which name they need not to be ashamed, because they are grounded [Page 16] on and refer themselves wholly to the holy Bible) as the Churches in England, Scotland, Helvetia, the United Provinces of the Low-Countreys, all the refor­med Churches in France, with some particular Churches in Germany, Poland, Hungary, &c. Which though they have collected and framed also their pecu­liar Confessions, yet not with the intent to binde other Christians consciences even to their word, but onely to testifie their Unanimous consent and Unifor­mitie first and principally in the necessary fundamental Points of salvation, out of the manifest Word of God; then secondarily, in the confutation and re­jecting of the erroneous By-doctrines, especially those of the Popish Churches, which have no ground in the Word of God, but are è diametro opposite to it by a necessary consequence, And withal to decline and refute all sorts of calum­nies and slanders of their Adversaries. Wherefore also they by a special Confessi­on of theirs, do not reject the Confession of others, especially that of Augspourg, though there be some difference in words remaining, much lesse do presume to condemn other Eastern and Western Churches because of some different opini­ons or Ceremonies, if onely they do agree with them in the fundamental points of doctrine, and for the rest, withhold themselves from condemning others.

And even for these very same reasons have I hitherto addicted my self to the Confession of these Reformed Churches, and am resolved with Gods assistance, to persevere in it even unto death, not onely because I acknowledge in the con­troverted Points, the doctrine of these Churches (I say, Their own doctrine, which they themselves Ʋnanimously professe) to be consonant and agreeable to Scri­pture: but especially because besides the Indubitable Universal, Fundamental Doctrines and necessary Articles of faith, which they with one consent receive, they do not maintain or impose upon others any other doctrine as necessary un­to salvation, which in it self and by Gods command is not; but impart and permit to every one the due libertie of Conscience, and also do neither deny, pervert or mutilate any part or articles of the true Gospel of Christ, nor intro­duce any other By-Gospel or By-articles, or judge or condemn others for it.

Whereas other Churches, principally the Papists and partly the Lutherans, if they do not quite deny any necessary point of true Christianitie; yet do very much transgresse the true limits and rules both of Gods truth and Christian Charitie, seeing they Adde many of their Doctrines and impose them upon others, as necessary unto salvation, or judge and condemn them therein as Here­ticks, which neverthelesse in themselves and by Gods command are not necessa­ry, yea, false and not agreeable to Scripture.

I do not deny but there be some such sort of people found in our Churches, which are too too zealous and obstinate in their own opinions, and undertake to judge others, who will not altogether give their assent to them: Which is not sutable to the unanimous Doctrine of our Churches, and therefore may not be imputed to the whole Universal Church.

But that we may well know, which of these three divided and dissenting Churches judgeth the other, or is judged by them aright or wrong; I will first declare but briefly and onely as much as may conduce to the information of the Unlearned; Whether the other two, the Romane Catholikes and the Lutherans, [Page 17] have any sufficient and well-grounded reason to judge and condemn our Reformed Churches as Heretical. Then shall I take an opportunitie to shew in the Se­cond Part of this Apostolical Direction, Whether and how far our Churches ought to judge and condemn the other Two, the Papists and the Lutherans.

That the Romish Church hath no sufficient ground to judge and condemn our Reformed or Lutherane Churches, as far as they agree with us, to be here­tical; we make it good by reasoning thus: Because they cannot accuse us or make us believe, that our Churches either deny any Article of the Ancient, Apo­stolike Catholike Faith, or do introduce and condescend to any false heretical Point: But they do condemn us meerly for this, because we do not receive some articles of their Modern Doctrine and Religion, which they cry up for Ʋniversal or Catholi­cal, and yet either are not necessary unto salvation, as they must confesse them­selves of the greater part of them, or false, erroneous and superstitious, as we are convinced by the Word of God in our own Consciences.

For in the first place, although they charge and accuse us of all sorts of new,Calumnies and slanders of the Papists against the Evangeli­cal Protestants. Un-catholike, false, and partly heretical, damnable, blasphemous Doctrines; As that we make God to be the Author of sin: That we do deny all free-will of man, even after his regeneration: That according to our Doctrine it is im­possible, even to the believers, to keep the commandments of our Saviour: That by Faith onely we may be saved and justified, though we live never so sin­fully: That all sins shall be forgiven us, if we do but believe that they are for­given, though we do still continue in them: That the Justification is wrought meerly by an external imputation, without internal renovation and sanctifica­tion: That Repentance, and confession of sins, and new obedience, and good works, are quite unnecessary: That we reject all Fasting, all Vows, and Church-discipline, Dignities, Orders and Traditions of the Church; yea, obedience to Magistrates: Annihilate the Sacraments, or hold them to be but naked bare Signes: Blaspheme and despise the Saints in heaven; and such-like Points: Against which our Churches have always solemnly protested, both in their Confessions and Apologies, that such was not their faith and opinion, but that all these are but meer slanders, detractions, and mis-constructions. Whereup­on they have declared themselves with one accord, that they would not ac­knowledge nor hearken to any new doctrine, but onely adhere closely to the An­cient doctrine of the primitive Apostolike Church, as it is principally grounded upon the sacred Scripture, being the main rule of our Faith, and as it hath been declared out of the Word of God, against all Sects and Heresies, with an Una­nimous consent of the Primitive Church, especially in the General Christian Synods of Nicene, Ephesus, Chalcedone and Constantinople, whose Universal confession of Faith they unanimously maintain, of which the Romish Church it self confesseth in the last Council of Trent, Concil. Trid. sess. 3. to be the buckler and shield against all Heresies, the Principle whereunto necessarily he must agree that will professe the Christian Faith; yea, the solid and sole foundation, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Wherefore our Churches can­not justly be charged with any new heretical doctrine, because, though one of our Divines should defend any new opinion or exposition of the Scripture, yet they do not binde themselves to it, much lesse enforce it upon others as necessary [Page 18] unto salvation, but give way to be examined according to the rule and square of the Word of God.

When now for all this, the Romane Catholikes persist to condemn our Churches as heretical, because we will not receive besides such Ancient true Catholike Christian Faith, all their modern new-fangled Doctrines and Tradi­tions, which they have since added and invented in their Council of Trent and other Popish Councils of late times, or in the Decrees of the Popes: It behoveth them first to prove and shew firm and certain grounds, that those Doctrines of theirs are grounded upon the holy Scripture and the Primitive Church, is ne­cessary unto salvation.

Principal Controversies betwixt the Romane Ca­tholikes and Evangelical Protestants.For Example: Will they condemn us in our exteriour Service, or Wor­ship and Ceremonies, because we have no Images of the holy and blessed Tri­nitie, of our Saviour, of the Saints deceased, nor do adore them: That we do not pray and call on the holy Angels and the souls of the Saints in heaven, espe­cially the Virgin Mary; yea, that we do not digg and take their bones or other reliques out of their graves and worship them, nor pay Vows or make Pilgri­mages to them: That we do not buy or purchase the Popes Indulgencies, celebrate no Masses for the souls of the dead, nor make any distinction of meats on certain days, or a general weekly Fast; neither admit of any Auricular confession to the Priest of every particular sin: That we do not administer the holy Communion under one but both kindes or elements of Bread and Wine both to Lay and Clergie-men; nor celebrate any Masses without Com­municants, neither make use of the rest of Ceremonies, which they, against the first Institution of Christ, have forged for their Sacrifice of Masse, especially the adoration of the consecrated hostia in the holy Sacrament: That we do not observe their great Feast, called Corpus Christi-day, and the holy days of the Saints: That we perform our whole Publike Service not in the Latine Tongue, which is unknown to the Laicks, but in the known Mother-tongue, nor forbid to any Lay-man the reading of the holy Bible in his Mother-tongue, but exhort rather every one in general unto it: That we tell not our Prayers to God on Beads by fifties and hundreds; use not the sprinkling of the holy water, nor wear about us Agnus Dei, or such like consecrated reliques: That we allow not of the Orders of Monks and Nunnes, but in stead thereof we teach that the revenues of Monasteries ought rather to be converted to the use of miserable poor wretches that are not able to work, or employed for the maintenance of Churches and Schools: That we give liberty for Marriage both to Ecclesiasticks and Laicks, nor use the Confirmation and Extreme unction, or the holy Orders for making Ministers in such a manner as it usually is amongst them: That we permit no Temporal Jurisdiction or Dominion to our Spiritual Pastors, nor will have them submit to a Supreme and Universal Pope; neither exempt them from the jurisdiction and judicature of civil Ma­gistrates; and such like observations and assertions of their exteriour Wor­ship? Will they therefore, I say, judge and condemn us as hereticks? it is fit then to prove first by certain and undeniable Arguments and Warrants, and such which we may understand and satisfie our consciences withal, that the said Points are necessary to the saving Faith and Obedience of Christ; Except [Page 19] they would yeeld and confesse that they do condemn us for unnecessary things.

But now the Papists themselves will hardly affirm the aforesaid Points, the Images, the Invocation of the Saints, the Indulgences, &c. to be directly and in themselves necessary unto salvation; They commend and extol onely their singular good use and benefit, but do not enjoyn their necessity: Or in case they would in one or other point, as in the Auricular confession, Adoration of the consecrated Hostia, &c. intrude a necessity; yet they cannot make it appear so upon any pretence nor ground: But we may have evident proofs from the Word of God to the contrary, that they are not necessary, because they were not used by the Apostles and Primitive Christians.

Likewise in Points of Controversies, and articles of Faith and Doctrine; That we have the affiance and assurance to be justified and saved before God, not through our own merits and satisfaction, but onely through meer mercy and grace by a true and lively faith in the onely perfect Sacrifice of propitiation and merits of our Lord Jesus Christ: That also in the whole work of our con­version and salvation, we ascribe nothing at all to our own natural strength of free-will, but all to the meer grace and assistance of God, without which we are able to do nothing that is good; how can they then condemn us as hereticks for it, whereas they must at length confesse themselves,Bellarm. lib. 5. de Justificat. cap. 7. Propos. 2 & 3. this to be the safest and surest way not to confide and trust in our own strength, works, merits, but onely in Gods meer grace and mercy, and the precious merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? If this be the surest way, we must certainly and necessarily conclude, that our Doctrine in this point is not heretical, nor dam­nable, and their Doctrine of own merits and strength not necessary unto sal­vation, but rather, that our Doctrine is the surest and safest, whereby all ho­nour and praise is denied to man, and attributed to God alone, and their Do­ctrine dangerous and pernicious, ascribing all honour to man, and denying it to God.

Moreover, that we cannot be induced to believe the transformation of the bread, or Transubstantiation (as they call it) in the Supper of the Lord, or a true Sacrifice, though without blood, of the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ both for the quick and the dead, or the Purgatory. They cannot con­demn us for, unlesse they do convince us first, that such Doctrines are necessary unto salvation: so that Christs Sacrifice upon the Crosse, and the Spiritual eating thereof, profiteth us nothing, and the Blood of Christ cannot cleanse us from sins, except we believe also the Sacrifice of Masse and the Purgatory; which neverthelesse, I hope, they will not assert, or never be able to prove, since they partly confesse themselves, that they could not have been assured in those and such like points, onely by the words of our Lord Jesus, unlesse the declaration and determination of the Church had given to them satisfaction therein.

And this is their main Objection,Whether such Points of Do­ctrine, though not necessary in themselves, are yet necessary for all Christians by reason of the determination of the Church. That the afore-mentioned and such like Controversies of their Doctrine and Religion, though they be not directly and in themselves necessary unto salvation, yet are necessary even for this reason, [Page 20] Because they have been thus taught and ordained by the Catholike Church, which ought to be believed and obeyed in all things.

But here we ask first the question, What they mean by the Catholike Church? If they understand the Universal Christian Church, which since the Apostles hath been at all times and in all places dispersed (as the word Catholike doth imply it) then we confesse, as we have already declared it heretofore, that, what­soever it teacheth with one accord as necessary unto salvation, to be undoubtedly necessary: But they themselves will not assert this of most of the aforesaid Points; and though they should assert it of some, yet can they not prove it neither from the Word of God, nor by the true and undoubted Writings of the Ancient Fathers: Whereas by this very same ground, we can rather make appear the contrary, that the most and principal points thereof must be either false and erroneous, or at least unnecessary, because they have not been taught thus in the Primitive Church.

Neither hath the Primitive Church ever presumed and taken upon it self such a power, as if it might or should teach or ordain some new Doctrine un­to salvation, and so impose on the Christians a heavier yoke, and prescribe them a narrower way to salvation then it hath received from Christ and the Apostles.

Whereby also consequently is made void, whatsoever they object concern­ing the Ʋnwritten Word of God, being not able to produce any certain ground or warrant, that it was received by the Primitive Church. Although other­wise we do not absolutely reject the Traditions of the Church, which either are grounded upon the Scripture, or are counted onely as Useful Ordinances of the Church, and not as necessary unto salvation.

Constat omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem, quod Ec­clesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo suscepit: reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam. Tertull. de Praescr. c. 21.

Ex ipso ordine manifestatur, id esse Dominicum & verum, quod sit prius traditum: id autem extraneum & falsum, quod posterius immissum. Id. 32. Vi­derint qui Stoicum & Platonicum & Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt: nobis curiositate non est opus post Jesum Christum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium, Cùm credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus. Id. de Praesc. c. 7.

Adversus universas hereses jam hine praejudicatum sit, id esse verum quodcun (que) primum: id esse adulterum quodcun (que) posterius. Id. contr. Praxean. c. 2.

Si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faci­endum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Ne (que) enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, [...] Dei veritatem. Cypr. Ep. 63.

Si ad Divinae traditionis caput & originem revertamur, cessat error humanus: Ʋt si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quò minus aqua jugiter flu­eret, ad fontem pergitur: Ita si in aliquo mutaverit & vacillaverit veritas, ad ori­ginem Dominicam & Evangelicam & Apostolicam traditionem revertamur, & inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde & ordo & origo surrexit. Id. Ep. 74.

Ea facienda esse, quae scripta sunt, Deus testatur. Si ergò aut in Evangelio [Page 21] praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis, aut in Actibus continetur, &c. obser­vetur divina haec & Sancta traditio, &c. Quae ista obstinatio est, quaeve prae­sumptio, humanam traditionem divinae dispositioni anteponere, nec animadvertere, indignari & irasci Deum, quoties Divina praecepta solvit & praeterit humana tra­ditio? Id. Ep. 74.

Quod Stephanus (Episcopus Romanus) dixit, Quasi Apostoli hoc posteris tradiderint, plenissimè vos respondistis, neminem tàm stultum esse, qui hoc credat, Apostolos tradidisse. Firmilianus ad Cypr. Ep. 75.

Eos qui Romae sunt, non ea in omnibus observare, quae sint ab origine tradita, & frusta Apostolorum autoritatem praetendere, scire quis & inde potest, quod circa celebrandos dies Paschae & circa multa alia Divinae rei Sacramenta videat apud illos aliquas diversitates. Ibid.

Inter haec fidei naufragia, coelestis patrimonii jam penè profligatâ haereditate, tu­tissimum nobis est primam & solam Evangelicam fidem confessam in Baptismate intellectam (que) retinere, nec demutare, quod solum acceptum atque auditum habes bene credere. Hilar. ad Constantium.

Ecclesia Christi quae habitat bene & in toto orbe Ecclesias possidens spiritus uni­tate conjuncta est & habet urbes Legis & Prophetarum, Evangelii & Apostolo­rum, non est egressa de finibus suis, id est, de Scripturis sanctis, sed coeptam retinet possessionem.

Vos autem, ô Haeretici, non in Scripturis, sed in vicinia Scripturarum domum vestram jam non risu sed planctu dignam & lacrymis construxistis. Hierony. 1 cap. Mich.

Quae absque autoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei. Id. in cap. 1 Hagg.

In Catholica Ecclesia magnoperè curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubíque, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est etenim propriè veréque Ca­tholicum, quod ipsa vis nominis ratióque declarat. Vincent. Licin. Com­monitor. 2. cap. 3.

Annunciare aliquid Christianis Catholicis (videlicet ut partem Evangelii ad salutem necessarii) praeter id quod acceperunt (ab Apostolis) nunquam licuit, nunquam licet, nunquam licebit. Et anathematizare eos, qui annunciant aliquid, praeterquam quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non oportuit, nunquam non oportet, nunquam non oportebit. Id. cap. 14. ex Gal. 1.9.

But if they by the Catholike Church do not understand the Universal Church at all times, but onely the Modern Church, or which hath been in these last hundred yeers; yea, if they do not comprise the Modern Universal Churches of all Christian Nations, not those in Greece and others in the East, but onely mean the Romish Church; and not the whole Romane Church neither, or those that call themselves Romish in France, Spain, and other places, but onely the Pope and the Prelates of the Romane Church (for this is properly the Church, Ecclesia representativa, to which the absolute power and decision in matters of Religion is ascri­bed; not to the Laicks, yea, not to the common Ecclesiasticks) Then ask we further this question, How and wherewith they will con­vince our Consciences, that whatsoever this Church, which is to say The [Page 22] Pope with his Prelates teacheth and ordaineth, must therefore be necessary to salvation; and even in those things, whereof they confesse themselves, that God hath not commanded them in his Word, neither have been taught or ordained thus in the Primitive Apostolike Church.

Whereas we may rather demonstrate, that God hath plainly ordained the contrary in his Word, that we should not adore and worship the Images, that we should not call upon the Creatures, that we all that eat of the Bread of the Lord, shall drink also of the Cup, &c. And yet notwithstanding Gods Ordi­nance, shall we be obliged to believe and obey the Doctrine and Tradition of this Church, to the hazard and danger of our salvation? And that onely upon its bare word, because it boasteth that it cannot erre, and that it applieth every thing to it self, which is spoken of the Catholike Church or of the Apostle Peter in the Scripture? Pray, what is this else but to exalt the Church, or the Pope under the name of the Church, above God and his Word? May we not rather say to them with Peter, Act. 4.19. Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more then unto God, judge ye?

Being our Lord Jesus Christ hath exempted us from the necessitie of the Mosaical Ceremonial Law, how much more then from such humane Traditi­ons, which under the name of Peters Successors or of the Church, are urged as a necessary Point of the Christian Religion, either without any warrant from Gods Word, or against it?

By all which I hope it doth sufficiently appear, that the chief controversies betwixt the Romane Catholike and our Churches, concern not any new Do­ctrine which we have introduced on our side, nether the true Primitive Ca­tholike doctrine which since Christ and the Apostles hath been professed with one accord of the Primitive Church (for this very same we are ready and wil­ling to receive in every point, yea, we have received it already, and wish no­thing more but that the Romish Church might adhere closely to it without any addition.) But that the whole dispute and difference is meerly concerning such Doctrines and Traditions of the Modern Romane Church, whereof the Pri­mitive Church since the Apostles times in the first Three and Four hundred yeers and more, either knew nothing at all, or hath taught and practised the contrary: or though it hath made use of some such ceremonies and observati­ons, yet held them no ways for necessary Points of the Christian Religion unto salvation, but onely as free exercises of devotion, which afterwards neverthe­lesse have been converted into maifold abuses against their first intention, as we could punctually explain it, and many of our Divines have already abundantly and often spent their studie and labour in it.

Wherefore we refer to the serious consideration of all Christian and pious hearts, Whether men have cause and ground to judge and condemn us as He­reticks. We for our part are assured, that what hath not been for the first Christians necessary unto salvation, in so many hundred yeers, without which so many thousand Martyrs, and so many millions of Christians are piously de­parted out of this life; that cannot be also necessary for us in these last times, and we may live and die as religious Christians without it. For we need not any other Faith or Religion, besides that wherein the Apostles and the Primi­tive [Page 23] Christians lived and died. We have with them obtained like precious faith, [...], 2 Pet. 1.1. The old Commandment which they had from the begin­ning, 1 Joh. 2.7. The great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, Heb. 2.3. The Faith which was once delivered unto tae saints, Jude vers. 3. And this is the true Catholike, What is to be true Catholike. or the Universal Christian Faith, which hath been at all times, especially in the Primitive times; and as long as we stand fast to it, we are indeed the true Ca­tholike Christians: Whereas those that adde thereunto any new Doctrine of Faith and Life as necessary, which in the Primitive Church was not in use, though they bear and boast of the Catholike name, yet they are not true Ancient Catholike Christians, but New-Catholikes, which are equivalent with Ʋn-Ca­tholikes: And that Church, which by its own Command imposeth such Do­ctrines and Traditions as necessary unto salvation, though Christ had not com­manded, but rather forbidden them by his Apostles, and yet will condemn and persecute other Churches; doth thereby discover it self not to be a true Chri­stian, but rather Anti-Christian Tyrannical Church: Which also hath need to stand in fear of the Apostolical curse: If any man preach any other Gospel unto you, though an Angel from heaven, then that the Apostles have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.8, 9 And if any man shall adde unto the Word of God, God shall adde unto him the plagues that are written in it: and if any man shall take away from the Word of this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of Life, Rev. 22.18, 19.

But, we hope that all understanding and conscientious men, and such as love Truth and Peace amongst the Romane Catholikes, will beware of this maledi­ction; and taking seriously to heart this Declaration of ours, abstain hereafter from presumptuous judging and condemning us as Hereticks, much lesse perse­cute us with Fire and Sword, and Losses of our Goods and Honours, as hither­to they have done: which certainly doth not proceed from the Spirit of Christ, but undoubtedly from the Devil, who is that Arch-lyer and Murderer. Of which the Apostle also doth faithfully warn us, and especially the Romane Church, lest it might imagine some special priviledges before others: Those that are weak in faith, receive you, but not to doubtful disputations; (judge not their thoughts.) Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. But if this warning will do no good to them; certainly the other shall at length be fulfilled in them: Be not high minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches (the City and Church of Je­rusalem) take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodnesse and severity of God: On them which fell, severity, but towards thee goodnesse, if thou continuest in his goodnesse, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off: Rom. 11.21, 22.

CHAP. V. That the Lutheranes have no ground to judge the Reformed Churches to be Heretical.

WHat we have spoken now of the Romish Church concerning its judging and condemning us, the same we may partly well say of the Luthe­rans, which indeed together with us have protested against this judging and condemning of Papists in the forenamed points of controversie; and yet no lesse (although in fewer points) from whence also the Evangelical Churches and e­states generally all are called Protestants; do judge and condemn our Churches or Teachers as hereticks, under the most-odious mens names; who neverthelesse rely not upon any man, but upon the Nature, Word and Doctrine of Christ. To whom, according to the aforesaid Apostolical Rule, we may make appear yet more plainly then to the Papists, that they have no ground thus to judge and condemn us and the doctrine of our Church and Worship.

The principal points of Con­troversies be­twixt Luthe­ranes and Re­formed Pro­testants. 1. In Cere­monies.For in the first place, what concerneth some controversies about Ceremonies both of their and our worshipping of God; as that we use not in the holy Baptism the exorcism or conjuring of the devil to come forth out of the infants or young children; because we do not hold them either spiritually or corporally possessed by the devil; although they naturally are born in Original sin, and we have no warrant to cast the devil out of them by such conjuring, and therefore do justly abhor from taking therein Gods holy Name in vain.

That we have no such Images in our Churches, which by their own confes­sion are abused in Popery unto Idolatry, but rather approve and justifie the ta­king away of them, if it be done by Christian Magistrates in an orderly way after the example of the Kings Hezekiah and Josiah.

That also in the holy Communion we use not the Hosties, or Wafers, but or­dinary nourishing bread, and observe the breaking of it: how can they judge us therefore, whereas they themselves hold their Exorcism, Images, Hosties, not even absolutely necessary, nor the breaking of the bread in it self erroneous, but onely to be adïaphora, indifferent things?

Although we for our part do not account them absolutely indifferent mat­ters, but in some regard necessary, partly because of Gods command, partly because of the example of Christ, the Apostles and the Primitive Apostolical Church; At least for our selves, who should sin, if we should against our con­sciences use the Exorcism or the Images, or without any urgent cause omit the breaking of the bread: Yet, since we judge not, nor condemn according to the above-mentioned Apostolical Rule, those that do not judge the breaking of the bread necessary, but give way to their pretended liberty; It were fit they also should not condemn us therein, but to impart to us so much freedom, that [Page 25] we may herein follow the example of Christ (which we may do more safely, and without any sin) as we likewise permit them to omit it, and in stead there­of to follow the example of the Papists.

In like manner that we in our Catechism punctually retain all the Com­mandments as they are set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5, and do not omit,2. In the Do­ctrine. as they do, the Second Commandment concerning Images; will they judge us therefore? Should we not have the liberty to teach and to learn the Commandments of God, as God himself hath spoken them from heaven, and with his own finger graved them in the Two Tables of stone? Whereas we tolerate the Omission of the Commandment of Images in them that hold it not absolutely necessary for Children and Ignorants, though we cannot approve thereof nor excuse it, especially seeing what great Idolatry it hath bred in Popery, and that the said Commandment doth extend as well to the Children and Idiots, as to the Priests and Levites; yea, we conceive it to be most necessary for those, being natu­rally bent to Images and Idolatry.

Also in the differences in Doctrine of Faith, that in the holy Communion by eating Sacramentally the blessed bread and wine, we believe onely a Spiritual partaking or communion and presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, and not a carnal and corporal.

Neither believe Ʋbiquity or Omnipresence of Christs Body, but the Omni­present power, vertue and raigning of Christ true God and Man, even in those places where his Body is not present.

Nor an Ʋniversal reconciliation and propitiation by Christs death, whereby in­differently all men, whether they do believe or not believe, repent or not re­pent, have remission of their sins already: But whereby principally Repen­tance and Faith is required from all in general, and withal forgivenesse of sins and life in Christ is faithfully offered and promised, and consequently really and effectually conferred and given to those onely who effectually believe and re­pent.

Nor also an Ʋniversal Election of all men unto Salvation, but onely of the Believers; and yet so, that they are not elected by and according to their faith or works, which God hath foreseen in them before the election, much lesse that they should be saved without faith, or without good works. But so, that they are elected out of a meer special grace in Christ, even to this end, that they through faith might be converted from the bondage of sins, to be adopted unto children of God, and to good works, and made fit for to walk therein, and obtain ever­lasting Salvation.

Will they for these or other such like points of Controversie in Doctrine for the most part arising from thence, judge and condemn us as Hereticks (as most of them use to do?) then they must first prove, that their opinions and manner of expressions in those points which they so fiercely insist upon, and whereon commonly all the controversie dependeth, are not onely agreeable to Truth, but also absolutely necessary unto Salvation.

But we shall sooner prove those not to be warrantable by Scripture, then they shall make them good to be necessary, seeing we cannot finde any wherein the Word of God the truth, much lesse the necessity thereof.

For what is then that is necessary unto salvation? We agree already both in this against the Papists; namely, that whatsoever is necessary unto salvation, is plainly and expresly taught in the holy Scripture; but whatsoever are onely bare words of men, and Humane Traditions and Doctrines, ought and must not be necessary unto salvation, though otherwise they are not repugnant to truth. Wherefore they must first prove that such opinions and manner of ex­pressions of theirs which they esteem to be necessary, are expresly taught in the Scripture; and yet so, that we also may certainly and undoubtedly conceive them to be grounded thereon, as a necessary point of saving Faith and obedi­ence to Christ.

They will say, That they have proved it already sufficiently and abundant­ly, if not by words of the Scripture it self, at least by equivalent words, and by a necessary consequence drawn out of them; And that we therefore onely will not receive and condescend unto it, because it is contrary and repugnant to our natural reason: As for Example; When the Lord speaketh of the Bread, Take, eat, this is my Body, they make it to be equivalent, as if he had said, Eat my Body in and with the bread, and that he meant a natural, corporal and carnal eating. Likewise when the Lord said, I am with you till to the end of the world, they infer that his Body also is present with us, because Jesus Christ, or his Godhead, is nowhere without his Body, or separated from it.

But although this may seem to them in their Reason to be a clear and plain Exposition, or a necessary Consequence; yet we examining and comparing not onely our Reason, but also the words of Christ himself, and not the Five words by themselves alone, but all the words of the whole Institution toge­ther, yea, of the whole Scripture; we finde the Contrary a great deal clearer and plainer, that the words of Christ are not agreeable to their Interpretation, nor their Consequence of any validity, much lesse of necessity. For indeed this is plain and manifest, that Christ saying to his disciples, Take, eat, spoke of the bread which he took, brake and gave to them, and that he meant there a corporal, carnal, visible and natural eating of the bread; And it is also ma­nifest and evident that he spoke of that bread: This (which I have broken and given) This bread (which ye take and eat) This is my Body which shall be given for you: But that this is to be understood after a carnal and corporal manner, so that his body who sate with them at Table, and reached to them the bread, hath been Invisibly in and under the bread, and eaten, though supernaturally, with their carnal mouth, is no ways clear and manifest: But they themselves, and the Papists also, notwithstanding they adhere and insist both upon the lite­ral sense; yet they cannot agree among themselves in their pretended literal meaning; and besides, they both must confesse that they are words of peculiar Mysteries, which ought to be Mystically and Sacramentally understood. Where­fore it is yet more clear and manifest, since Spiritual things must be compared with Spiritual, 1 Cor. 2.13, that these words also, after the na ure and propri­ety of other Sacraments, must have a Spiritual meaning, as the Lord himself saith of the eating of his Body and the drinking of his Blood: The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life, Joh. 6 63. As both Papists and Lutherans must acknowledge, that in the Lords Supper is principally re­quired [Page 27] a Spiritual eating. We have also many pregnant motives, which are not onely grounded upon Natural Reason, but upon the words of the Institu­tion it self, upon the undoubted Articles of the Christian Faith, and upon many other manifest places of the Scripture, and therefore binde not onely our Ʋnderstanding, but our Consciences, that we cannot receive by any means their Interpretation concerning the Invisible body in the bread and the carnal eating thereof (which may be common both to the unbelieving and ungodly Hypo­crites, and also to the believing) because it doth more evidently appear to be repugnant to these words of God, then to be extracted out of the same by consequence.

But if we desire to have a certain, undoubted, and necessary Exposition of these words, Christ himself and the Apostle Paul hath declared it unto us: That the breast and wine is called the Body and Blood of Christ, because it is the New Testament and the Communion of his Body and Blood, and because we ought to eat and drink it in remembrance of him.

If we desire also to know how we ought worthily to eat and drink the Bo­dy and Blood of Christ; Christ himself hath taught it so plainly, Joh. 6, that our Adversaries themselves must confesse, that not onely the afore-mentioned Spiritual eating of the Lords Supper is principally required, but also is the one­ly true and saving eating, without which the oral manducation is rather noxi­ous then profitable and wholesome.

Wherefore we hold this declaration of Christ sufficient unto Salvation; and him that onely standeth to it, or giveth us but libertie to stand to it, we will in like manner not compel necessarily to receive our interpretations and expressions, which we acknowledge to be conformable to the words and ex­position of Christ: much lesse will we judge or condemn any man for an He­retick, because of the verbal alterations and disceptations in Schools; whether what Figure or Tropus, Metonymia, or Synechdoche, or praedicatio inusitata it may be called.

Likewise it is clear and manifest, that Jesus Christ hath promised to be pre­sent with us and all Believers, as true God and Man, with his assistance and grace, Spirit and gifts, power and operation, which no Christian can deny. But to infer and conclude thereby, that also his body, flesh and bones must ne­cessarily be present with us & all creatures on earth; That is no ways plain and evident, so that some of their own Divines do contradict it themselves by other manifest and plain testimonies of the Scripture.

And thus much may we say of all other different Points of Doctrine be­twixt us and them; and also of the Controversie of Predestination and Ele­ction, and what doth depend on it, wherein we next to the holy Scripture not onely refer our selves to Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius and other Ancient Fa­thers, and withal to the principal Scholastick Authors and Divines among Pa­pists, Thomas, Scotus and others that followed them, especially to the Modern Dominicans; but also to D^r Luther himself, and many Ancient learned Lu­theran Divines, Brentius, Herbrand, Flacius, Hofmann, Spannenberg, Althamer, Heshusius and others.

CHAP. VI. Which is the chief and principal Question in this present Difference of Religion, and what are the safest means for the settlement of a Christian Ʋnity.

COnsiderirg exactly every thing that hitherto hath been declared, it is appa­rently manifest thereby, that all differences in matter of Religion that now adays are in agitation betwixt the said Christians, especially betwixt those who acknowledge the holy Scripture to be the onely perfect Rule of their Faith and Religion, meerly reside in this chief and cardinal question, which if it were rightly and unanimously answered on all sides, no doubt, all such Contention and Controversie, or all uncharitable Judging and Condemning, would fall of it self, and a happie Unitie might be setled among all Christians in Doctrine and Religion, as much as may be necessary unto their salvation: Namely, Whe­ther besides the holy Scripture it self, such Interpretations and Consequences or Infe­rences (which by some Teachers or Particular Churches that follow them, are colle­cted and deduced out of the Word of God, according to the understanding they have, for their part in the Scripture, and held and received for certain, undoubted, or ne­cessary expositions and consequences) although they are not so plain and manifest, that all other knowing and understanding Christians besides them may conceive them, or as the Primitive Christian Church hath unanimously and undoubtedly received and taught, ought yet to be absolutely necessary for all men unto salvation, inso­much that all those that do not acknowledge and receive such Interpretations and In­ferences as agreeable to Scripture, may therefore be judged and condemned for He­reticks.

To which we directly answer, No such matter. But supppse that such In­terpretations or Inferences were certain and true, or in themselves necessary to be received by those that understand them; yet they are not necessary for those that do not comprehend and conceive them as yet in their consciences; neither can they therefore be judged as Ʋnbelievers, but ought to be received as weak in faith, according to the Apostles admonition: Them, that are weak in faith, receive you, but not to doubtful disputations; not to judge their thoughts, and to distract their consciences.

The main cause of all dissentions and differences in the Church of God.I think rather, even this to be the main and principal source and origine of all Divisions and Tyrannie in the Church of God, that men set upon their own Interpretations, Illations, Comments, Glosses, Formula's, Expressions, (which peradventure they pretend themselves to infer out of the Word of God, according to the profunditie of their understanding, or else adde there­unto out of Humane Traditions and Opinions) as high, nay, a higher estimate and price, and insist as vehemently thereupon, as upon the Indubitable Word of God it self: As if their words and expositions were as certain and necessary [Page 29] unto salvation as the Word of God; yea, as if they were able in some points to utter and deliver more plainly, expresly, fully, and considerately the heaven­ly Mysteries then the holy Ghost hath expressed them in the whole Scripture; Or as if all men did see whatsoever they think themselves to see and to know in the depth of their Understanding, or though they do not see it, yet were ob­liged to believe upon their word: This, this is the main and chief cause of all Divisions and Dissentions, and of all unreasonable judging and condemning in the Universal Christian Church.

This is also the true fundamental point of Popery, The Funda­mental Point of Popery. whereon all the Disputes and Controversies betwixt us and them depend: That the Pope with his Pre­lates pretend to be an Infallible Judge of all different and doubtful Doctrines, whose sentence and decision all men upon pain of damnation as certainly ought to believe and obey as the Word of God it self.

Upon this One onely ground all Popery is built; And principally for this Point we are constrained to abandon it. For otherwise for our part we could well yeeld to him his Primatum or Supremacie above all Bishops, yea, above Emperours and Kings (as long as it pleaseth them) upon condition he would not presume to take upon him Dominatum and ruling over mens conscien­ces: and expound also the Word of God, the best he can, and propound his sentence and opinion to his children within his Bishoprick, or also to others that will believe and obey him; if he would but acknowledge withal that he, as well as others, could erre and fail in those things which are not expresly and plainly grounded upon the Word of God; or at least, that it should not be necessary unto salvation for us, who do not acknowledge and receive it. But when he will absolutely have his word parallel with Gods Word, even in those points which we cannot but judge to be evidently repugnant to the Word of God, and so in stead of Christ will be a Lord over our souls and consciences, and of the Universal Christian Church on earth: Certainly those can no ways be blamed, who not onely give him no credit therein at all, but by reason of that proclame him to be the Anti­christ.

Now since we may not grant this power to the Popes at Rome, although they had entangled by their perswasion and kept in subjection during many hundred yeers in the Western Church, so many Emperours and Kings, yea, all Doctours, Bishops and Prelates; how much lesse may we impart it to any other Pastor and Teacher of Gods Church, of what name soever? And he that should ascribe perhaps to Luther or Calvin, Jerome, Austin, Abuses of mens particu­lar opinions and interpreta­tions amongst the Evangeli­cal. &c. or to any particular Convocations, as to the Authors Formulae Concordiae Sax. as also to whole and National Synods, that their own particular Interpretations, Con­sequences, I [...]lations, Manner of expressions were as certain and infallible, or as necessary unto Salvation as the word of God it self; what is it else, but to make of Luther, of Calvin and the rest so many Popes; of such Convocations and Assemblies so many Popish Councels; yea, to prefer in some manner mens words and opinions before the holy Scripture, as if they in some points had expressed themselves better, and with more perspicuity and circumspection?

For my part, I confesse that D^r Luther and Calvin have in the principal and most Points (though not in all) well, truely and profitably expounded the Scripture, because they have compared and declared for the most part Scripture by Scripture.

I acknowledge also that the Doctrine of the Confession and Apologie of Augspourg, with other Confessions of the Reformed Churches, Also the Do­ctrine of the Synod at Derdrecht is true and agreeable in it self to Scripture, in those Articles that have been handled and concluded therein; though withal I doubt not but some other Teachers of our Churches have yet expressed them­selves better and more perspicuously in some one or other point of the holy Scripture.

But that we should hold their declarations and particular opinions and expressions as indubitable and necessary unto salvation as the Word of God it self, and presently judge and condemn those for Hereticks, who do not fully receive them; They themselves, as much as I know, have never yet required it; But those, who under the name of Lutherans addict themselves to the profession of the Formulae Concordiae Saxonicae, when they not onely binde and tie their Ministers to it by a solemn Oath, but also us, who do not receive in points of Controversies their expositions, expressions and inferences contain­ed therein, for thorowly agreeable to Scripture; what is that then but to judge and condemn us as Hereticks? From whence must necessarily follow, that their expressions and opinions ought to be as certain, and undoubted, and as necessary unto salvation as the Word of God it self, which indeed would be a plain New Popery.

They use to accuse us,Who are those that make the natural reason to be the foun­dation and rule of their Faith. that we make our Natural Reason the foundation and rule of our Faith: Whereas we principally insist thereupon, that we ought not to ground any Article of Faith upon humane Reason, but meerly upon the plain, manifest and undoubted Word of God. We make use of our Reason, having been enlightned and brought unto the knowledge of Christ, as of a re­quisite means whereby to learn to understand the holy Scripture; for without Reason it cannot be understood:How far the Reason may be used in matters of Faith. That we also ought to infer out of the Scri­pture, whatsoever by a necessary consequence dependeth from it, and is agree­able to it, as much as we by Gods grace are able to comprehend it, or to refute and to reject whatsoever is repugnant to it: And that we ought reverently to apply the holy Scripture unto Doctrine, Consolation and Admonition; yet so that we do not oblige and binde any man in his conscience further to those In­terpretations and Inferences we in our understanding derive out of the Scri­pture, then himself together with us is able to understand them to be warran­table by it, and the Word of God doth binde thereunto.

But those who cry up their own Interpretations, Inferences and Expressi­ons, not onely for True Doctrines, but even for Necessary Articles of Faith, insomuch that they judge and condemn as Hereticks all others that do not ac­knowledge them to be agreeable to Scripture; They are those who make their Own reason and understanding to be the foundation and rule of their Faith; and yet not onely of their own, but of other mens Faith, and of the Universal Christian Church; They are those who make themselves new Popes and [Page 31] Infallible Judges in matters of Religion and Conscience.

Which honour we cannot give to any man living on earth, but to God alone and his undeniable Word contained in the Books of the Old and New Testa­ment, as also all the Protestant Churches in whole Europe have Unanimously always against Popery referred themselves thereunto.

Neverthelesse we do not reject all consequences and interpretations, How far we may make use of Consequen­ces and Inter­pretations in matters of Faith. nor all mens expressions, though they are not verbally and literally set down in the Scripture; as also we do not disapprove the Translation of the Scripture into other Lan­guages. We rather confesse that many Inferences and Interpretations may be very good, profitable, sound and necessary in themselves, and that we may many times of necessity use them for the confutation of several Errours.

But we cannot ascribe further to any mans Interpretations and Conse­quences an Ʋniversal necessitie unto salvation for all Christians, then we have declared already; namely, when they are so clear and manifest, that they may be understood and received for certain and undeniable of all Christians, or of those for whom they shall be necessary: especially when they have been ac­knowledged and taught undoubtedly and with one accord in the true Primitive Church, and therefore may be called true Catholike expositions.

Now those that do not acknowledge our Expositions to be such,How far those that dissent are to be tolerated. we may not therefore on our part judge and condemn them as Hereticks, but we must receive and tolerate them as weak in faith, according to the Doctrine of the Apostle. Neverthelesse upon this condition, that they reciprocally do not en­force upon us and others as necessary their own Interpretations and Inferences to the contrary; nor we being willing to forbear and tolerate their mistake, should they judge us presumptuously in our misconstruction of their pretended un­derstanding; neither should they bewray any malice and obstinacie in their contradictions; But also, that they together with us should adhere to the words and meaning of the holy Scripture, as far as they are clear and plain to all, And diligently enquire further in the fear and worship of God, into the true understanding of whatsoever they do not comprehend yet, or doubt of; And in the mean time walk by the same rule, as far as we have already on both sides attained, minding the same thing, and giving no offence, till God reveal un­to them and us even what is remaining, Phil. 3.15, 16.

And this doubtlesse is the safest and onely way,What are the best and safest means to settle and maintain a true Unitie a­mongst all true Christians. whereby the true unitie of Spirit may be maintained amongst all pious and religious Christians. For all those that now adays have the name of Christians on earth, do agree therein to this very hour, that they acknowledge and receive the Canonical Books of the Prophets and Apostles (whereof those of the Old Testament were origi­nally written in Hebrew, those of the New Testament in Greek) for the Word of God, and oblige themselves with one consent to submit their Faith and Consciences unto it. So that those that practise it not onely with words, but also with true and sincere hearts, may without any difficulty in all things agree, that are plainly and expresly taught therein; nay, they are already united therein by the holy Ghost; and those that agree in one minde, have all what­soever is necessary to believe and to do unto salvation, and are true fellow-members of the Onely Apostolike Catholike Church, if together with this [Page 32] Universal Christian Faith, they do but tolerate and receive one another as weak Brethren in Faith and other things,Chap. 5. that are not so manifest in the Scripture, wherein they may thorowly and generally agree.

Besides this, we know no other means on earth that either God hath given and ordained for us, or may be invented by mans wit, whereby a true Universal Unity may be setled and maintained.

The pretended Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope is no fit means for Unity, but ra­ther the princi­pal cause of all the Divisions in the Christi­an Church.For as much as concerneth the Supreme Jurisdiction and Infallibility of the Pope, which the Jesuites cry up for the onely means of the Catholike Unifor­mitie; That same is rather the principal cause and impediment, whereby the Unitie amongst all Christians both in the Eastern and Western Churches, is cut off and made impossible in mens eyes. Seeing that it is absolutely impos­sible, and inexcusable withal, that all Churches and all men of the world should subject and submit in every thing their consciences, who acknowledge no other Lord and Master but Jesus Christ, to One man Solely, who hath no charge and warrant for the same from God. Which though they urge and presse as the most necessary point to Salvation and Unitie; yet could not ob­tain it of some Romane Catholikes themselves, who extol the General Coun­cels above the Pope.

Neither the general Coun­cels are suffici­ent means for Unity in these last times.Nor are Concilia Ʋniversalia in these last times the true means for Unitie. For it hath been a meer Impossibilitie in these last thousand yeers, since the An­cient Romane Empires destruction and division in the East and West, and shall be impossible till the end of the world, to indict and gather any true Univer­sal Councel composed of all Christian Churches of the whole world. And grant that they could be called, yet they could not establish any other Unitie then by reiteration and renovation of that which with one accord hath been taught in the Primitive Universal Christian Church, out of the evident and undoubted Word of God. For the whole Christian Church on earth, though its meeting at once in one place were possible, could not presume to take up­on it self such power, to astrain and oblige its posterity to any other Doctrine and Religion further then they are bound by their Predecessors, or rather by God himself, through our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles. If any man, though an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that ye have re­ceived, let him be accursed, Gal. 1.8, 9.

Nor the Con­fessions & for­mulae of any particular Church.And so shall neither the Protestants, or any other particular Churches in any place of the world, and much lesse other dispersed Sects to and fro, be able to establish a tolerable Ecclesiastical Peace and Unitie, either by their vehement disceptations and disputes, or exhortations to Peace, or by Colloquia and con­ferences, or by National and Provincial Synods, or per Synodales formulas, or any other means, as long as they insist and adhere to their own particular Interpre­tations, Consequences and manner of expressions, and will of necessity judge others thereby. Seeing chiefly it is not to be expected, nor desired, nor appro­ved, that all Christians of the whole world should submit and agree unto any particular Church, or to the Interpretations of their Teachers, which are not manifest and evident to all by warrants from the Scripture; But far more will thereby the Divisions and Separations about the Interpretations and In­ferences, in making necessary Articles of Faith thereof by endlesse altercations [Page 33] and disputes (as woefull experience doth sufficiently testifie) increase and grow dangerous even to their final ruine and destruction: For,Chap. 7. if you bite and devoure one another, take heede that yee be not consumed one of another, Gal. 5. v. 15.

And how many thousand Christians, yea whole Churches are in the East, South, and West, which know nothing, or can know any thing either of the Decrees of the Popes, or of the Councell of Trent, nor of the Confession of Augspourge, or of other confessions of the Protestant Churches in Europe, much lesse of the Formula Concordiae Saxonicae? how is it then possible, that we should undergoe to settle by such meanes and writs a true Unity in the Universall Church of Christ, or to bind and oblige other Churches thereunto?

Now notwithstanding wee conceive also no hope to obtaine a totall and universall reconcilement of the modern unhappy differences and divisions in matters of Religion, Even by an Ʋniversall consent and agreement upon the holy Scripture, as far as it is plain and evident to all sides: Amongst those that are in­clined and given to contradictions and contentions, because God himself by his just judgement sendeth, Divisions, Heresies and Sects, partly for punishment, partly for triall, 1 Cor. 11. v. 19. Yet I make no doubt,In what man­ner, & how far the manifest word of God is the onely meanes of Vnitie. but all Pious and reli­gious hearts which love Truth and Peace, (whereof yet a great number is to be found every where and even in the middest of them that hate and abhore recon­ciliation) may without any difficulty be United, nay, are already United by the Spirit of Christ, upon the evident word of God, in the Vniversall saving Faith and sincere love and obedience of Christ, who also upon this only solide and firme ground of the universall saving truth and unity, may in safenesse, quiet and paci­fie their own Conscience amongst so many Divisions and Seducing Spirits, and withall declare themselves upon good grounds against all different dissenting parties, and yet shew themselves peaceable and without scandall.

CHAP. VII. That even these are the safest meanes to restrain all Er­roneous Sects.

THere may be severall objections made against this our Declaration:The First Ob­jection against the aforemen­tioned Do­ctrine. As first, that in this manner a great gap would be opened to all Sects, Arri­ans, Photinians, Socinians, Weigelians, Anabaptists, Arminians, or of what name soever, who, though they referre themselves on all sides to the Scripture, yet they obscure and pervert the plainest and most evident places of it, so that at length we should retaine nothing but the bare words and letters of the word of God, nor them also without controversie and disputes.

But if we do seriously consider the matter, this will be rather the only true, sure, easie, and most efficacious meanes not only to maintaine Peace and Unity amongst true beleevers, but also to silence and restraine all erroneous Sects; yea to cut of all occasions, least they disturbe, seduce, or teare the Church of God [Page 34] any more by their perverse interpretations and opinions: namely,

First, That we know, that their own particular interpretations & inferences must not be necessary unto Salvation, because they do either assert & affirm some new doctrin, which is not so manifestly and expressly asserted in the word of God, or deny some what, which is not so plainly denied therein; That both we and other Christians can in conscience acknowledge and receive the same, or the Primitive undoubted true-beleeving Church could have unanimously recei­ved such a meaning & sence thereof: Which is a certain & infallible sign that it must be either a false perverted, or at least an unnecessary interpretation or meaning; and that we therefore may reject it as unnecessary with a good con­science; but they may not with a safe conscience disturbe the Church of God with such unnecessary new doctrines.

Secondly, When they cry up such interpretations and opinions of theirs (though we certainly know them not to be necessary) not only for necessary ar­ticles of Faith or Gods Commandements, and their owne words, for meere words of God: Then we know further undoubtedly, that they are just such Prophets as God hath warned us from; Who shall presume to speak, in his name that which he hath not commanded them to speak? Deut. 18.19, 20. Who shall say, The Lord spoke thus, when he did not speak it? Exod. 13. Especially when they are so obstinate in their opinions, that they judge and condemne others for the same, or revile and blaspheme the contrary doctrine, or otherwise knowingly, purposely and wilfully draw thereby some distractions and divisions upon the Church of God: For which reason we have good cause to shun and eschew them according to the doctrin of Christ and the Apostles Tit. 1.10. 2 Tim. 3.6. to a­void them, Rom. 16.17 to withdraw ourselves from them, and have no company with them, 2 Thes. 3.6.14. 2 Joh. 10. Who, by judgeing others, and causing therewith divisions and sects, separate themselves from the Assembly of Christ [...], Jude 19. And also [...], being condemned of themselves, Tit. 3.11. Who also ought to be instructed in meeknesse of spirit, and convin­ced by sounder, better, surer, and plainer interpretations and inferences out of the word of God, and sometimes sharply rebuked Tit. 1.9 10.13. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. And to restraine them with all other spirituall meanes that Christ hath Or­dained, least they may prejudicate and hurt the Christian Church by their sedu­ctions, and spread farther their leaven, and sow tares.

Thirdly, How much more when they by their own interpretations and con­clusions in doctrine of Faith and life, do not only affirme or deny some what, which in the word of God is not so expressly affirmed or denied, but also do af­firme some things which are so evidently and expressly denied therein, or deny some things, which are so expressly affirmed therein, that all learned Christians, who will but understand them, and not out of carnall affections sticke unto them, may comprehend them without any difficultie; nay, it being evident and palpable to every one, that those Interpretations and opinions of theirs are but meerly strained and spun out of their own fancies, and not grounded upon the text and words of the Scripture it self, or equivalent places of it; Especi­ally the true Primitive undoubted Church, having with one accord taught ab­solutly the contrary: Those, if they in such a manner obtrude and urge their [Page 35] own forced Interpretations, or rather perversions of the Scripture, both with­out and against the manifest Word of God, as necessary as the Word of God it self, and thereby deny or pervert the true necessary Articles of Faith or Precepts of God, and that obstinately, as hath been mentioned before: They are not onely like to those Prophets who presume to speak in the Name of the Lord, that which he hath not commanded them to speak, but also like them that speak in the name of other gods, Deut. 18.20. because they will thrust as out of the way which the Lord our God hath commanded to walk in, Deut. 13.25. From whom he hath warned us, that we should not believe nor hearken unto their words, though they shew great signes and wonders, Deut. 13.1, 2. Matth. 24.24, 25.

Whereby, I hope, every one may see, that by the often-mentioned ground of the manifest Scriptures, not onely no occasion is given to the erroneous Sects, but rather the Sectaries mouth may be stopped with much facility and safety, and with more efficacie then by many subtil and endlesse Altercations and Dis­putes, or by all-Excommunications and Persecutions of Hereticks: although we do disapprove also this to be used against manifest obstinate Blasphemers, as Serve­tus was, who vomited such terrible and horrid Blasphemies and contumelious words against the holy and blessed Trinity, that they are noways to be suffered amongst Christians: Or when they under the colour of Religion plot Tu­mults and Insurrections against legal Magistrates, as formerly Munzerus and the Anabaptists at Munster did, which is not justifiable, though it happeneth for true Religion, much lesse for erroneous Doctrines sake.

But those that peaceably and closely adhere to the words of the Scripture, without maintaining and introducing singular By-Interpretations and opini­ons of theirs, as hath been told; those, I say, though they do not receive ours or any other particular Churches true Interpretations and expressions, we cannot nor will therefore judge as Hereticks, but ought to tolerate and receive as weak brethren in faith, as it hath been said many times heretofore.

Which we may illustrate with one or two Examples: As the first Chapter of John, which the Primitive Church (whose Writings and Doctrines are de­scended and conveyed to us, whereof no doubt but it hath together with the Books of the Scripture received also from the Apostles themselves the true meaning thereof, at least in the principal necessary points, of which this si one) hath Unanimously and Undoubtedly interpreted of the Son of God, who was in the beginning of all things, as the Substantial Word with the Father.

If the Modern Socinians interpret it of the beginning of the Gospel and the humane nature of Christ, to the end that they may deny the Article of Christs Godhead; we rightly reject such Interpretation not onely as not necessary, but as false and heretical, not that it is onely contrary to our Interpretation, but that it is so manifestly repugnant to the words of Saint John, that the Primitive Church hath with one consent taught the contrary: Insomuch also that none of the Ancient Arrians, or Photinians, to our and all Modern Socinians know­ledge, ever thus understood or expounded it; But Socinus was the first man, as he himself must confesse, that spun this Interpretation out of his own head, wherein at first his own brethren have partly contradicted him: Yet since [Page 36] that time hath he together with his followers preferred it, as if it were the un­deniable Word of God it self, and a most necessary Interpretation, before the words of Saint John and the Uniform meaning of the Primitive Church. Which may not be done without great presumption, nor if it be obstinately urged, without damnable Heresie, principally in such a deep, important and necessary Article of Faith, as it is accounted not onely by us, but the true Pri­mitive Church and the word of God it self.

On the other side, if they in such profound and incomprehensible Mysterie did adhere positively and closely, without mutilation and contention, to the words of the Scripture, nor added thereunto their own Interpretations and Inferences of their reasoning, beyond and against the Articles of Faith; we should then have no cause to judge them so sharply, though they would not receive or use all our expositions or humane expressions.

Likewise, when Socinus and his followers do wrest and pervert so many manifest places of the Scripture, which speak of Christs death, that he died for the propitiation, satisfaction, and remission of our sins, to this sense, as if he had not appeased Gods wrath against us, or which is as much, made satisfaction to appease Gods wrath, or purchased, propitiation and forgivenesse: but that he died meerly to this end, that he might by his doctrine and ex­ample convert us from our sins to God, and to pacifie our hearts towards him▪ And account their own Interpretations as worthy and necessary as Gods Word it self; So that they grievously slight and revile the Doctrine concerning the reconcilation of Gods wrath against us, and the satisfaction for our sins, which neverthelesse is so manifestly and evidently taught by so many testimo­nies of the Scripture, that the Universal Christian Church hath professed it with one accord at all times, and ever therefore held Jesus Christ for its onely High-Priest, Mediatour, and Saviour; Insomuch that even the greatest Pa­pists, though they supply by way of concomitancy the merits of Christ, by the Intercession and merits of other Saints, and their own merits and satis­faction, the daily Sacrifice of Masse, Indulgences, Purgatory, and such like things; yet have not denied the propitiation by Christs merits and satisfacti­on; nor any other Sectary, as far as we know, nor Pelagius himself hath directly opposed it, except onely Socinus, and perhaps before him Adailer­dus: Whereas Socinus himself cannot but acknowledge that the Mediatour of the Old Testament Moses hath in some manner appeased by his intercession (as Aaron and some other high-Priests by their Sacrifices) Gods wrath against his people of Israel; and yet will deny such power and vertue of the pro­pitiation for our sins to the most-perfect Obedience, Sacrifice and Intercession of our Mediatour and high-Priest Jesus Christ. Who seeth not then, that they intend arrogantly to prefer their own singular Interpretations before the manifest Word of God, and the unanimous consent of the Universal Chri­stian Church, and thereby, as much as lies in their power, shake and subvert the very foundation of our chief consolation in Jesus Christ.The Second Objection a­gainst the a­foresaid Do­ctrine.

In the Second place may be objected against the aforesaid ground of Saving Truth and Unitie, that neverthelesse the Primitive Christian Church hath condemned many Sects not onely for not receiving the plain words of the [Page 37] Scripture, but also for refusing the Interpretations and words of the Church. For example, The ancient Arrians in the Councell of Nicen and others,Chap. 8. for not re­ceiving the word [...] Consubstantial, alledging that such a word was not to be found in the Scripture.

But we Answer to this: That they were not condemned even for this bare word, but rather because of their peculiar Arrian phrase and expressions, and expositions concerning the created Divinitie of Christ. Against whom the Or­thodoxall and true-beleeving Church, did very earnestly insist upon the word [...], which though not in the letter, yet it is found in the Scripture more plainly and evidently and more conformably to the unanimous understanding and meaning which the Churches in the first three hundred yeers professed con­cerning the eternall God-head of Christ; not that it was directly necessary un­to Salvation, but conducible to the confutation of the ambiguous terms and opinions of the Arrians. Otherwise there hath been in those times true-belee­ving Bishops, who, though they had rejected the Arrian Heresie concerning the created Divinitie of Christ, and yet doubted of the word [...], because it was not to be found literally in the Scripture, were therefore not condemned, but tolerated as weak in Faith.

This very same we may say of all other ancient Sectaries, Macedonius, Nesto­rius, Eutiches, Pelagius, which were at all times condemned for their singular new fangled Interpretations, out of the word of God, according to the unani­mous meaning and doctrine of the Churches in the first three or four hundred yeers.

CHAP. VIII. That in the Reformed Churches, no new Doctrin as neces­sary to Salvation is taught.

IN the third place it will be objected,The Third Objection a­gainst the a­formentioned Doctrine. That we our selves defend many do­ctrines as necessary unto salvation, which yet neither in the Scripture were so plainly expressed, nor unanimously taught in the Primitive Church. I will give but a touch in some few, but principall Instances; That we deny the free will in man, the merits of good works, and the Sacrifice of the Masse: Which points were with one consent asserted of all ancient Fathers almost: That we teach the Justification, ex Solâ fide, onely by Faith. That we hold the Bread and the Wine in the Supper of the Lord to be bare signes and Seales, whereby the Body and Blood of Christ is but Signified, and not really given: That we defend Absolutum decretum, that God freely without any respect of Faith or Unbelief, good or evill works of men, hath decreed in his eternall Councell, to elect and choose some unto Salvation, others & the greatest part to cast away and reject as Reprobates, unto damnation: Also, That we understand by Christs going down into Hell, the hellish paines and torments Christs Soul suf­fered. [Page 38] Lastly, that we hold the Pope at Rome to be the great Antichrist: Which Articles of Doctrine, are neither plainly expressed in the Scripture, nor by the Ancient Doctors of the Church.

The true Do­ctrine of the Reformed Churches. 1. Of Free-will. We Answer: First that we do not deny the free will in man, in that sence and meaning, as some, and all the Ancient Fathers have taught out of the Scripture. For we confesse, 1. That the Naturall man hath a Free-will in many Naturall and Temporall Free indifferent matters.

2. In Celestiall Spirituall things to many Outward sins, either to com­mit, or to avoid them.

3. Yea also to many Outward good works.

4. That the Regenerate man hath a true Free-will, or which is made Free by the grace of God to true Spirituall works, which are acceptable to God: Yet so, that not onely the beginning, but also the continuall help and assistance of Gods grace is required unto it.

5. This onely we deny, That the Naturall unregenerated man hath natu­rally, without the preventing gracious help and operation of the holy Ghost, any Freewill to true Spirituall inward works, which are acceptable to God, as to Saving Faith, Charity, Hope, and consequently to the true Spirituall outward works, which arise from those inward. Which al­so the holy Scripture hath unanimously taught against Pelagius: That the Naturall man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse unto him, neither can be know them, 1 Corinthians, 2. verse 14. And that we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves, but our sufficiency is of God, 2 Corinthians 3. verse 5. For it is God, which worketh in us, both to will and to do of his good pleasure, Philipp. 2. Verse 13. He that hath begun a good worke in us, will also performe it, Philippians 1. Verse 6. Without him we can do nothing, John 15. Verse 5. For we are by nature the Children of wrath, dead in sins, Ephesians 2. Verse 5. And he that obeyeth sin, is the Servant of Sin, Romans 6. Verse 16.20. 2 Peter 2. Verse 19. But if the Sonne maketh us free, wee shall be free indeed, John 8. verse 34.36. And faithfull is he that calleth you, who also will doe it, 1 Thessalonians 5. verse 24.

But if there be besides any other controversie of mans Free-will, or Gods gracious help; we hold neither theirs, nor our particular opinions to be ne­cessary unto Salvation, especially for all Christians, who oftentimes under­stand but little or nothing at all of such subtil questions, and therefore ought not to judge nor condemne one another.

Like as amongst the Papists themselves, the modern Dominicans and Jesuites cannot agree about these questions, nothwithstanding the prohibition made by the Pope not to accuse and condemne one another for errours in Faith.

2. Of merits of good works.2. Nor do we deny the merits of good works in that sence as the ancient Fathers use the word Meritum desert, or Mereri to deserve, viz. That we obtaine there­by temporall and eternall remuneration by grace, for Christs sake in vertue of his promise: Which we confesse unanimously with them by warrants of the Scripture. But we deny onely Meritum de condigno, as the Papist School-authors [Page 39] and Divines, principally the Jesuites do teach, that such in themselves are condigne meritorious works of eternall life, so that God is bound to give ever­lasting life, not onely by reason of his truth and mercy for Christs sake, but also of right and debt, though he had not ingaged himself thereunto by any promise: Which condigne meritorious works were never taught either by the Scripture, or by the ancient Fathers, but are rejected of many Schoole-authors and Divines; yea by many moderne Roman Catholicks themselves: As the famous Jesuite Vasques confesseth, that many Catholickes dissent from us (calling us Hereticks) but in words, but most agree with us, in the matter it selfe, and condiscend of necessity unto our opinion. And the Jesuits them­selves are not as yet agreed, wherein properly the Efficacy and worthinesse of such Condigne merits of works consisteth. Vide Bellarm. de Justific. lib. 5. c. 17. Suarez. in 3. Thom. Tom. 1. quest. 19. art. 3. disp. 39. Vasq. in lib. 2^a. quest. 114. disp. 214. c. 2. & 4.

3. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse, 3. Of the Masse. it is sufficiently evident and mani­fest, that there is nothing plainly and expressly taught and declared thereof, either in the Institution of the Lords Supper, or in the whole volume of the Scripture.

And although some, or all the Ancient Fathers had taught it; yet it could not be received for an Article necessary unto Salvation, because they had not taught it out of the word of God; and, because Faith, love, and obedience of Christs Commandments and Institution, may very well subsist without the Masse.

But it is certaine, that even the Ancient Doctors of the Church never have taught such Sacrifice of the Masse, as now a dayes in Popery is professed and held for the Soveraigne Worship, and chiefest part of Religion. For although they called the Administration of the Lords Supper Missam, and that from thence, because the Catechumeni, those that were not yet Baptized, were usually dismissed from it, with these words, Ite, Missa est: And although they have attributed the name of Sacrifice to the Holy Communion it selfe; yet they did it not in such a sence and meaning, that the Priest should offer againe the real and essentiall body of Christ in his hand and mouth; and also performe a new Propitiatory Sacrifice both for the quick and dead, and for other necessi­ties, (as for sicke Cattell, for good weather,) as it is taught and expressed in the Councell of Trent, Sess. 22. c. 2. v. 9. Canon. 1.3. But that it is Sacrificium Eucharisticum, a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving; partly because the faithfull gathered and collected the Bread and Wine upon the Lords Table for the Holy Communion and necessitiy of the poor; (from whence the Germans retain still the name of Oblate [...],) partly because the Holy Communion it selfe is a Commemoration and Representation of the perfect Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ finished upon the Crosse, as the principall Roman [...]chool authors and Divines themselves do expound it, by calling it Sacrificium comme­morativum & representativum; So that we also may say as much, not of their Masse, but of the Holy Communion, as it hath been Instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fourthly, That man solâ Fide, onely by Faith is accounted righteous before God, Although we understand nothing else by the word solâ, but what the Apostle saith,4. Of Justifi­cation onely by Faith. that he is justified by meer grace through Faith, onely for Christs sake, without the works of the Law, and as some ancient Fathers interpreted it: Yet we desire not to impose and inforce that word as necessary upon any man, in regard that by many it may be abused and mistaken, as if we could be justified and saved by such a Faith which is onely without any good works: If that likewise the Papists did not inforce upon us their own expressions and doctrines concerning the merits and satisfaction of works, which are yet lesse warrantable by Scripture: But as long as they stick fast to this Tenet and opi­nion of theirs, that we are justified also before God by merits of our good works: They cannot finde fault with us, if we do reply to them by way of re­tortion, that the justification is done by Faith alone, and not by merits.

5. The true meaning and declaration of Christs words in the Holy Communion. Fifthly, The declaration and meaning of Christs Word that he called the Bread his Body, because it did signifie and represent his Body, or because it is a signe of his Body. Although we for our part acknowledge this exposition to be agreeable both to the words and very end of the Institution, and to all the Articles of Faith, and that some ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Augustine, Theo­doret, and others have expounded it thus: As the Papists and Lutherans them­selves do not deny the blessed Bread and Wine to be signes and seals of the Body and Blood of Christ given and shed for us: Yet we desire not to inforce and presse upon any man such interpretation as necessary unto salvation, or as the Word of God it self: Whereas many of ours (vide inprimis Wolfang. Muscu­lum in 26 Matth. pag. 552, 554, 555.) confesse openly, that this exposition, though it be not erroneous in it self, yet is not sufficient, unlesse it did shew and expresse withall the sort and nature of those signes: viz. not bare naked signifi­cative and representative signes, nor bare historical symbols and tokens of remem­brance, but signa exhibitiva, exhibiting and certifying pledges and assurances, whereby the things signified by them, namely, the Body of Christ, which hath been given for us, the Blood of Christ, that is shed for us, are really and verily by vertue of his promise, though not for the nourishing of our bodies, but to the cherishing and quickning of our souls, delivered and appropriated unto us, and likewise really and verily received by us, though not corporally and car­nally by our mouth; but spiritually by faith: As the Papists and Lutherans themselves do not deny such spiritual partaking as hath been said before, but acknowledge it to be the onely saving Communion.

Wherefore we for our part teach thereby no new Doctrine as necessary unto Salvation, but onely teach that very same, they themselves must allow and ap­prove of: If but they reciprocally do not inforce upon us their own particu­lar Interpretations, as hath been mentioned oftentimes already, nor judge and condemn us therefore, but give us liberty to adhere to the Words and Declara­tion of Christ and the Apostle Paul: But as long as they intend to obtrude un­to us their pretended carnal supernatural eating for a necessary Article of Faith, we cannot but contradict it by a more solide exposition and illation grounded upon the Word of God.

Sixthly, Concerning the Doctrine of Gods absolute purpose and decree of ele­ction [Page 41] and reprobation, we acknowledge and receive it thus far, as our adver­saries commonly construe our meaning thereof, not onely for no necessary Doctrine of Faith, but also not for the proper Doctrine and Opinion of our Churches: Being that such a term is not expressed in any general Confessions, but onely used by some Divines, which yet others do rather absolutely forbear, because of the misapplication and abuses with all sorts of calumnies that may arise from them.

And although we finde many disceptations and different Interpretations concerning the eternal Predestination and Reprobation, not onely betwixt our Divines, but also betwixt the Romish-School Authors amongst them­selves, and no lesse between the said Lutherans: Yet we cannot receive either theirs or our particular opinions for necessary Doctrines, which are profes­sed of all Christians, without the manifest Word of God and unanimous con­sent of the Primitive Church; not onely because very few men are capable to comprehend the depth and profunditie of those Points; but also, because it is sufficient for us unto salvation, to know onely of the Elect and Predesti­nated as much as the Apostle expresly teacheth: Ephes. 1. vers. 4, 5, 6. That God hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the World, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the Adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his Will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he made us accepted in the beloved. Ephes. 2. vers. 8, 9, 10. 2 Tim. 1. vers. 9. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Contrarywise concerning the Reprobates, it sufficeth us to know one­ly, that what Christ himself saith: He that beleeveth not, is condemned already, because he hath not beleeved in the Name of the onely begotten Son of God, John 3. vers. 18.

So that the fault and defect can no wayes be imputed to God, who himself taketh no delight in the death and destruction of a sinner, but will, that he may repent and live; not willing that any should pe­rish, but that all should come to repentance, Exod. 18. vers. 23, 32. and 33. vers. 11. 2 Petr. 6. vers. 9. But the fault and defect lieth ab­solutely and totally in themselves, who loved darknesse rather then light, and therefore receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved, John 3. vers. 19.

So that we are elected not out of any consideration and respect in our selves, but out of meer grace in Christ Jesus both unto salvation and the means or­dained thereunto; through sanctification of the Spirit, and beleef of the Truth, whereunto he called us through the Gospel, 2 Thessal. 2. v. 13, 14. But the Re­probates are cast away by Gods just judgement, because of their sins, unbeleef, and impenitency, unto the just punishment and condemnation of sins; ac­cording to the Word of the Lord: O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thy help, Hos. 13. v. 9.

Moreover, all other Disputes and Controversies of the predestinate and re­probates which may be moved and debated on, as, Why God to one parti­cular man, or to a Nation, though by nature equally corrupted in sins, hath shewed more grace towards their repentance and salvation then to another? Or, Why God hath not predestinated all men unto life, or converted and saved them all; which according to his Omnipotency he was well able to do? And such like things, which are not onely curious and unnecessary, but vain, pre­sumptuous, unprofitable question, to which we cannot return a better an­swer then the Apostle did: He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, (viz. out of meer grace) and whom he will he hardneth, viz. out of just Judgement. But, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God? Rom. 9. v. 18, 20. O how unsearchable are his judgements and his wayes past finding out! Rom. 11. v. 33.

But whosoever will not be satisfied with this answer of the Apostle, he will have as little cause to condemn thereby us and our Church, as to judge the Apostle himself or the ancient Fathers, Augustine, Prosper, Fulgen­tius, and others, who have taught this same against Pelagius: Or as the Je­suites their Dominican-Friars: Or as the Modern Lutherans their own Do­ctor Luther, and some other ancient Lutherans, who have taught this very same doctrine, and yet partly used harsher expressions then ever was done of our side.

7. Of Christs Destension into Hell. Seventhly, For as much as concerneth the Article of Christs descension into Hell; We must first know that this Point hath not been formerly expressed by all Churches in the Universal Symbol or Creed, as not onely Ruffinus, about four hundred yeers after Christ in Expositione Symboli doth testifie, that then this Article was not in use either in the Romish or Eastern Churches; but also is omitted by many ancient Fathers, and in the Nicene Creed it self. From whence it is, that some Popish Divines hold this Article not generally neces­sary for all men unto salvation.

Si nomine Articuli intelligamus veritatem, quam omnes fideles explicitè scire ac credere teneantur; Sic non existimo necessarium hunc computare inter Articulos Fidei. Quia non est res admodum necessaria singulis hominibus & quia ob hanc fortasse causam in Symbolo Nicaeno omittitur. Suarez Tom. 2. in 3. part. Thom. disp. 43. sect. 2.

Neverthelesse, Being it is grounded upon the Scripture, specially upon the 16^th Psalm, and Act. 2. we call it not into question, though not onely we amongst our selves, but also the ancient Fathers, and also the Papists and Lutherans do much differ, in their explications; where, for our part, we ought to distinguish betwixt that which by most certain Warrants of Gods Word is undeniable and necessary to beleeve, and that which is uncertain and doubtful.

The Papists commonly interpret it of Limbus Patrum, A Lake for the souls of the beleeving Patriarchs and our Forefathers of the Old Testament, from whence Christ by his going down thereunto, hath loosed and fetched them forth. Now suppose that this opinion were true and certain (though the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church do not agree in it) yet it could [Page 43] not be necessary unto our salvation, neither would yeeld to us any profit or comfort, since it doth onely concern the faithful Patriarchs.

Much lesse is it necessary for our salvation, that Christ is really with his soul descended into the Hell of the damned, as some even of the ancient Fathers deem­ed, that he preached to the damned in Hell, and delivered some out of it; which conjecture simply arose from the misapprehension of the words of the Apostle Peter, 1. Pet. 3. v. 19, 20. and 4. v. 6.

These two opinions now, if not as erroneous and false, yet as uncertain and doubtful, and as not necessary unto salvation, laid aside; At least thus much is undeniable and undoubted, that Christ is descended into Hell virtua­liter, as Thom. Aqu. and other School-Authors and Divines interpret it, which is to say, powerfully and effectually, where he by his death during three dayes and his ensuing Resurrection hath not onely destroyed the place of Hell for the damned, but the Kingdom and power of Hell for the faithful and godly, led cap­tivity captive, and disabled the Hellish spirits of all power over us. But whe­ther even this is meant by the going down to Hell expressed in the Creed, is to be doubted of for this reason, because the place of the 16^th Psalm and 2^d of Acts, whereon this Article chiefly is grounded, speaketh rather of the lowest degree of humiliation, from whence he hath been exalted by his Resurrection, then of the beginning of his exaltation.

Likewise it is without Controversie granted, that Christ hath suffered for our sins not onely in his Body, but also in his Soul unspeakable torments, which in the Scripture are called the pains and sorrows of Hell, Psalm. 18. and 116. 1 Sam. 2.6. So that many of our Divines have extracted this construction and sense out of this Article: Yet not so, as if Christ had suffered in his Soul the very pains of the damned, or any despaire, as the Papists by mis-construction of their words do charge them withall; but that he in his Soul out of a tender affection towards us, suffered as great pains, distresse, and sorrows for our sins and Gods wrath against us, which he took upon him to appease, as if they had been his own sins, or we our selves should suffer for our sins in Hell. Which no wayes can be accounted for a new, erroneous, and damnable Doctrine, be­ing grounded upon so evident Warrants of the Word of God; Psalm 22. and 69. and 88. Jes. 53. Matth. 26. v. 37, 38. and 27. v. 46. Luke 22. v. 44. Heb. 5. v. 7. And accordingly taught not onely by the ancient Fathers, but also the Popish School-Divines, Medina, Suarez, Thom. Aquin. in part. 3. quaest. 49. art. 6.

And although no Christian can make any scruple of the distresse and pains Christ suffered in his Soul; yet a great many of our Divines move here the Question, and not without reason, Whether this is the very meaning of the Article expressed in the Creed, or of the aforementioned places in the 16^th Psalm and 2^d of Acts, because those pains took their end upon the Crosse, and therefore are comprehended in the Articles of the Passion and Crucifixion; but the loosing from the bonds of Death and Hell, whereof David and the Apostle speaketh, was fulfilled by his Resurrection.

Wherefore others understand by this Article The Burial, by reason, that both the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek [...] signifie in the Scripture the Grave [Page 44] or Sepulchre, whereof the aforealledged places do speak, and that also the Ancients formerly omitted the Article of Christs Burial, when this Article was put into the Creed.

Others interpret it generally of the estate and condition Christs Soul was in during three dayes, that, like other souls, it departed out of this World till the third day, and according to the ordinary Phrase of the Scripture, was gathered unto his Fathers. For the word Sheol and Hades are generally under­stood of that Invisible World, whetherto the souls depart out of this World, and is attributed both to godly and wicked, without certain determination of place whetherto they are departed, which shall be manifested in the Re­surrection.

So that by this Article is meant nothing else, but that Christs soul after his death made no stay in this World, but departed, like other mens souls to the place of the dead, and as if it were holden of the bonds of death till the third day, yet in Gods hands; which was indeed the lowest degree of his humilia­tion; whereas in the mean while the World triumphed over him as over a dead man who went to Hell, till at length it was made manifest by his Resur­rection, that he descended not to the Hell of the damned, but to the Sheol or Grave to the faithful Patriarchs; As the Greek [...] doth not onely signifie a descending or going down beneath the Earth, but a departing in general. Act. 8. v. 5. and 9. v. 32. and 11. v. 27. and 12. v. 19. and 13. v. 4. and 15. v. 1. and 18. v. 5, 22. and 21. v. 10. and 27. v. 5.

By all which expositions doth manifestly appear that the two first opinions maintained by the Papists neither are solide and certain, nor necessary; The others, which partly they, partly we defend, as much as concerneth the Do­ctrine in it self, are consonant and agreeable to the Word of God and undoub­tedly received of all Christians; though the Controversie remaineth still; which of them draweth neerest to the true opinion of this Article in the Creed: And withall that we do not introduce any new Doctrine in this Article as necessary to salvation, being we give to every one liberty in his opinion, except in that which is agreed on of all sides. Which is also the safest way and sufficient unto salvation, if of this Article we do but generally so much know and be­leeve, that Christs Soul having suffered the extremest distresse and sorrow on Earth, verily departed to the dead, who are kept in the hands of his Father till the day of Resurrection: Although we do not even determine the place, that it descended really to the Hell of the damned, or to a certain Limbus, be­neath the Earth, before it entred into Paradise, which the Lord promised to the theef upon the Crosse; being we yet imbrace the most indubitable and cer­tain comfort arising from this Article, that Christ by such departure of his Soul hath delivered our souls from all the torments and pains of Hell, to the end that they confidently might follow him out of this World, without fear of Hell, into that Invisible World, whetherto the Lord hath prepared the way by his deceasing.

8. Of the An­tichrist. Lastly, Concerning the Doctrine of the great Antichrist, of whom the Scripture doth so much prophesie; Like as it is not directly necessary unto sal­vation to know that such an Antichrist is to come (although it is requisite to [Page 45] beleeve it for them that have the knowledge of it out of the Word of God, as hath been said heretofore;) Also much lesse is it necessary to salvation to know and to determine who is that great Antichrist, except unto them onely to whom God hath perfectly revealed it. And notwithstanding many of our Di­vines, though not generally all, are of this opinion, that the Pope of Rome, from that time he hath taken upon him to be instead of Christ the Universal and Su­preme Head of the whole Christian Church, over all Emperours and Kings and over all mens souls (which hath been specially observed since the time of Gregory the seventh) is that great Antichrist: yet they do not teach it even as a necessary Article of Faith, but as an Interpretation of the Prophetical Predicti­ons, which are very agreeable to Truth, yea partly accounted by them for cer­tain and undoubted, since they have the experience by the event, histories, and writings of the Popes themselves, that whatsoever hath been prophesied of the Antichrist, is now fulfilled in these Popes. And although this opinion of theirs must of necessity be thus far new, because the Primitive Church could know no certainty of it before the accomplishing and revealing of the Antichrist: Yet it is not so new neither; whereas this name hath been attributed to the Popes some hundred yeers before Luther's times, even by some German Emperours and Bishops, and among others by the Emperour Lewys the fourth Duke of Bavaria three hundred yeers ago; Yea, when before 1460 yeers Irenaeus out of the Revelation of S. John 13. v. 18. conjectured by his name, that he would be called Latinus, that is to say, Romane.

Neverthelesse not the whole Romane Church, nor all its Members, neither all their Doctrine and Rel gion is therefore to be accounted for Antichristian. God for­bid. But the Doctrine of Christ, which is left amongst them, ought to be dis­cerned from the Doctrine and traditions of the Pope, and the Temple and Peo­ple of God, over which he extendeth unjustly his Supreme Jurisdiction and Dominion, from the Pope and his Dependents, as it is prophesied of in 2 Thess. 2. v. 4. Revel. 18. v. 4.

But if the Pope or the Papists would reject or confute such opinion of the Protestants as erroneous; They cannot perform it better then by the deed it self, ordering matters in this manner:

First, That hereafter he do not anymore exalt himself over the Gods on Earth, over Emperours and Kings, to depose & deprive them of their Crowns, and discharge the Subjects from their Oath, obedience, and subjection.

Secondly, That he do not attribute to himself the power belonging onely to Christ, over the souls and consciences of men, or over Christian Doctrine and Religion, by adding thereunto and diminishing from it.

Thirdly and principally, That he do not Antichristian-like excommunicate and persecute those that do not acknowledge him as Universal and Supreme Head of the whole Christian Church. In doing so, none of our side will pro­claim him for an Antichrist, nor his Dependents for Antichristian. Otherwise, although they should erre or exceed in holding him to be the great Antichrist, when perhaps a greater yet is to come: Yet the Popes would have as little rea­son to charge them therefore with a damnable errour, as the Wolves the Sheep, for accounting that for the ravenousest Wolf which hath devoured most Sheep.

Thus we hope by these eight Points of moment, wherein we are accused of new Doctrine, is apparently and abundantly made clear and evident, (which also we could as easily have performed in all other Articles;) That we have introduced no Innovation of Doctrine, but rather for the main­tenance of the ancient undoubted Doctrine, separated again whatsoever hath been added to the Universal Primitive Christian Doctrine in the latter hundred yeers.

To which end all the Reformed Churches have generally at all times de­clared themselves by solemn Protestations, that they would hearken to no new Doctrine, but punctually and positively adhere to the ancient Catholick Apostolick Doctrine.

So that the principal difference betwixt us and the Papists and the Lutherans doth not properly concern the Doctrine, which we for our part maintain as necessary unto salvation, but onely the by-Doctrines and additions, which they for their part have innovated, and besides the Universal undoubted Christian Doctrine will inforce upon us as necessary; but we reject either as false and erroneous, or at least as unnecessary and doubtful.

For notwithstanding some new Interpretations of some place of the Scrip­ture, or some new opinions in some Controversie may be found amongst our Di­vines, (as they are very obvious and ordinary amongst the Papists and Lu­theran-Divines) yet by such singular Interpretation of some dark places of the Scripture, no new Doctrine is introduced, but grounded upon more evident Warrants: Or though one or other should maintain some new opinions, yet they are not pressed by them or by the Universal Church for necessary Do­ctrines, but liberty is given therein for each ones opinion: Yea, there are some which are not approved of at all, but rather rejected and set by: Like as not onely we, but the Papists themselves do not approve and allow of every thing expressed in the most ancient and principal monuments and writings of the Fathers.

But in case One or some of ours would cry up and urge their own singular opinions as necessary to salvation, With those we should finde even as much fault as with the Papists and Lutherans:

Quidquid ille, quamvis sanctus & doctus, quamvis Episcopus, quamvis Confessor & Martyr, praeter omnes aut etiam contra omnes senserit, id inter proprias & occultas & privatas opiniunculas à communis publicae as generalis sententiae au­thoritate secretum sit. Vincent. Licin. commonit. 2^o.

CHAP. IX. Whether, and how far we ought, or are bound in conscience to judge others in matters of Religion.

AGainst all this,The fourth objection a­gainst the a­foresaid do­ctrine. what hitherto we have declared con­cerning the rash and unseasonable judging and con­demning in matters of Religion; Many will object, that yet we our selves use to judge and condemne others; And not only the old Sects rejected by the Primitive Church, but also the modern Roman Ca­tholicks and the said Lutherans, who never as yet have been heard, much lesse judged or condemned in any universall Councell, or other legall Ecclesi­asticall Consistory, and that neverthelesse we judge and condemne them not only with words, but rather with deeds, in regard we separate our selves from their Churches and Congregations, perform our Divine Service in our peculiar Assemblies apart, or reform whole Churches in their Doctrine and Ceremonies; And that in such a manner, that we give thereby a great scandall unto others, causing by such separations or reformati­ons, at least a Schisme, Division, and Discord in the Christian Church; where­of the Apostle both in the often cited place and else-where hath faithfully warned us: Let us not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his brothers way.

Wherefore, having hitherto been informed by the first part of this Aposto­licall rule: Wherein, and why we ought not to judge one another; Let us now go on and learn also by the second part; whether, and how far we ought and are bound in conscience to judge in matters of Religion? We also shall easily thereby discern which side of the modern dissenting parts transgresseth or exceedeth therein; and which part is guilty of the pernicious Schisme, Di­vision and Separation, and of the great scandall and other distractions of the modern Christian Church from thence arising; And withall, whether, and [Page 50] which part ought,PART II. or is bound in conscience to reforme the other in Doctrine and Religion.Chap. 9.

The Apostle teacheth us in the said place, that we ought principally to judge this, That no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his brothers way.

Where, First is to be observed, that this judging he speaketh of is referred rather to the matter, to the works and words, to the Doctrine, practice, wor­ship, whereby any offence may be given, then to the persons; And that prima­rily to our own affaires, words and works, whereby we may put any stumbling block and offence in the way either of our neighbour, or of our selves; Seconda­rily, to the matters of our neighbour, as far as he may become unto us, or we unto him a stumbling block or offence.

Secondly, it is to be noted, that he doth not properly speak of the offence of affections, whereby we or our neighbour is provoked to anger, afflicted, offen­ded, and alienated from us: but of the offence of Conscience, whereby either our own Conscience is wounded, by going against Conscience, or the neigh­bour is misse-led into errours or sinnes of Conscience; or he being already in­gaged in errours and sinnes of Conscience, is by us strengthned and confirmed therein. But we need also to take heed of the offence of affections and the ha­tred arising from them as much as possibly may be, according to the rule. Rom. 12. v. 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Yet not so neither, that we give thereby an offence to our Conscience, and al­so by reason of the outward peace with men, should destroy and lose the inward peace of Conscience.

Thirdly, it is indubitabe hereby, that the Apostle requireth nothing else, but that we for our part give or put no occasion to fall in any mans way. Which hap­neth, when we either commit that which is evill, and omit that which is good, or abuse so our liberty in indiffent things, that the weak are scandalized at our example; which is to say, offended, made worse thereby, and mis-led into errors and sinnes. But it is no wayes required from us, that we, for the avoiding of such scandall and offence, which others without cause, either out of weaknes or malice receive at us, in doing what is good, and omitting what is evill, should therefore omit that which is good, and commit that which is evill. For we must not do evill, that good may come, Rom. 3. v. 8. Not wound our own Consci­ence, that another mans erroneous Conscience may not be offended; Yea, we need not neither forsake our liberty in indifferent matters, because of those that are offended at them out a Pharisaicall hypocrisie and malice, or judge and condemn us but only for their sake which are weak in faith. But against the others we must often times of necessity stick fast to the liberty for no other rea­son but this, l st they may impose on us a necessity against that liberty which Christ hath purchased unto us, Gal. 2. v. 4, 5.

Which generall rule of avoiding offence of them that are weak in faith, the Apostle doth apply in the words following, upon the meats which were fordid­den in the Law, but were indifferent things in the Gospel. I know, saith he, and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing (no meat) unclean (com­mon) of it self; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (common) From which he maketh a two-fold inference.

[Page 51]I. He that hath the knowledge and receiveth it for a free indifferent thing, may use it for himself without sinne: Yet so, that he give no offence towards sinne, nor grieve or distract without necessity the weak, who doth not yet acknow­ledge the same, but accounteth it for forbidden and unclean, Rom. 14. v. 15, For if thy brother be grieved with thy meat (in his Conscience) Now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

II. He that hath not the knowledge, but esteemeth it to be forbidden and un­clean, or at least doubteth thereof, may not use the same without sinne and offence to his Conscience, v. 20. All things indeed are pure, but it is evill for that man who eateth with offence, v. 23. and he that doubteth (whether they are indifferent or not, lawfull or unlawfull before God) if he eateth is damned, (condemned) viz. of his own Conscience, because he eateth not of faith. For whatsoever is not of faith (viz. so that we are sure that they are acceptable to God, or permitted by God) is sinne.

This very same Doctrine is repeated over again by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. Where he applieth it almost in like manner to meats offered to Idols, v. 5. Con­cerning the eating of those things that are offered in Sacrifice unto Idols, We know that an Idoll is nothing, &c. v. 7. Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with Conscience of the Idol, eat it as a thing offered unto an Idol, and their Con­science being weak, is defiled, &c. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man seeth thee, which hast knowledge, sit at table in the Idols Temple, Shall not the Conscience of him which is weak, be emboldned to eat those things which are offe­red to Idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died. But when you sinne so against the brethren, and wound their weak Con­science, ye sinne against Christ. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh, while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

By which Doctrine of the Apostle, we may here easily understand, what, and how farre we ought to judge in matters of Religion and Conscience: Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block, or an occasion to fall in his brothers way.

Wherefore, I.How farre we may judge of the Doctrine and Religion of the erring. we must not judge the persons whether they are damned before God or not, but properly and principally the matter it self, whether it be an article of faith or life, of doctrine or worship, and only so farre and to this end, that it may not become a stumbling block and offence of Conscience unto us and others: But the persons we may judge so farre, that we may avoid to give them the like offence, or we our selves to be offended at them.

II. And not only in those things, which are commanded or forbidden by God to beleeve or to do, and therefore are necessary; but, also which are in themselves free indifferent things, which is to say, neither commanded nor for­bidden, and therefore not necessary to do or to omit them: which neverthe­lesse we must judge thus far, lest by our liberty we put a stumbling block in the way of the weak, whereby they might deal against their Conscience, having no knowledge of such liberty, but holding them for necessary in their errone­ous Conscience, or doubting of them.

III. Being we must be so cautious in free indifferent things, because of the [Page 52] weak; how much more in things that are necessary and commanded or forbid­den by God, lest we may teach or do somewhat against our knowledge, and wil­fully, what God hath rejected and prohibited in his Word as unlawfull, or de­ny or omit what God hath ordained and commanded: Whereby we should give yet a more dangerous offence, first to our own Conscience, who have the knowledge thereof out of the Word of God, and then to others, whether they have the knowledge thereof or not, not only to do against erroneus or weak, but against true-beleeving Consciences, and withall against Gods command it self.

IV. But most of all, when such false Doctrine or Religion, which God hath forbidden, is pressed upon us, not only as sound and true, but as necessary unto salvation; or on the contrary, when the true sound Doctrine and worship, which God hath commanded, is forbidden and condemned not only as unnecessary or erroneous, but even as hereticall. Which also, if we did confesse or practice that, and did deny or omit this against Conscience, would not only prove a common sinne and offence to our and our neighbours Conscience; but also idolatry and a denying of God.

For since we ought not to give way, that such things which God in the Gospel left free and indifferent unto us, (as for example the Mosaicall di­stinction of meats, or the Circumcision which was injoyned to the people of Israel in the Law,) should be, as necessary, imposed on us, lest we might seek our salvation without Christ, Gal. 5, v. 1, 2, 3, 4. How much lesse then ought we to countenance those things which God hath absolutely forbidden, where­by we would seek our salvation, not only without, but against Christ, and be­cause of mens Traditions and Doctrines make Gods commandement of none effect? Matth. 15. v. 6.

Whether and how farre we may separate ourselves in the doctrine and religion of the erroneous Church.V. From whence we conclude further, when we because of such erroneous doctrine or Religion inforced upon us as necessary against the Word of God; as much as in our conscience we may have knowledge of it, are cried downe for Hereticks, condemned, excommunicated, shut out and cut off from the Chri­stian Church and the communion of the Saints; That then we have not only good reason, but also are in conscience bound and constrained of necessity and force to separate our selves and with-draw from that Church thus proceeding with us; And not consequently those, who of necessity as excommunicate and rejected men must separate themselves, but those, which do reject and force them to such a separation, are properly guilty of the unjust, uncharitable judging of mens Consciences, and also of the scisme and division of all the miseries and distractions depending from the same.

VI. Yea that no man, who in his Conscience acknowledgeth, that this Do­ctrine is the truth of God, which by such erroneous Churches or those that have charge over them, is thus excommunicated and condemned, may with a safe Conscience remaine in their outward communion and fellowship.

First, because he cannot but play the Hypocrite and dissemble thereby a­gainst his own true beleeving Conscience, and against the Word of God, so that he would become to himselfe a heavie offence and stumbling blocke to his own conscience.

Then, because he would also by his example be scandalous and offensive to other true beleevers, who together with him did acknowledge the same and were excommunicated for it; yea should strengthen and confirm their excom­munication and condemnation as much as did lie in his power; which certainly is a most grievous sinne not only against the confession of faith, but against the Christian brotherly charitie.

Thirdly, because he would also give an offence to the erring partie, by con­firming him both in such errours and in the uncharitable excommunication and condemnation with his own example, and assent and by making himself partaker of their sinnes and persecutions.

VII. Moreover, when such Church or part of it, although it doth main­taine such erroneous doctrine and religion; yet inforceth it not upon 'its fel­low-members, as necessary, nor excommunicateth or reiecteth them for it; but in such erroneous points of doctrine permitteth the true-beleevers to in­ioy their liberty of conscience; These then, though they have reason to avoid and beware of the Communion of the erroneous doctrine and worship, as of an abomi­nable and pernicious leaven, and to contradict it out of the word of God in due time and place, with Christian charity and meeknesse; yet in their other points of doctrine and Religion agreeable to the word of God; ought not as yet utterly to withdraw and separate themselves from such a Church, lest by their separation an occasion may be given to further scisme and division; which many times is more prejudiciall and offensive, then the errour it self.

Whereof we have set before our eyes not only the Prophets and other true-beleeving Israelites who lived in the idolatrous times at Bethel, and during the Baal-service in Israel, and yet not bowed their knees unto him: But also the ex­ample of Christ himself and his Disciples before and after his ascension; who did not separate themselvs from the Jewish Temple and Synagogues (as long as they could be tolerated in them) because of the leven of the Pharisees and Saduces; yea the Lord rather exhorted them, that though they should take heed and be­ware of the leven, Mat. 16. v. 6. yet should labour to do and to observe, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees did bid them observe in Moses seat out of the law. Matth. 23. v. 1, 2.

VIII. Out of all this we inferre yet further:When and how farre we may undergo the Refoma­tion. If not only private particular persons, but whole Congregations, or the greatest and principall part of them; especially they that have charge over them; acknowledge and discover by the Word of God any dangerous errour and abuse, which hath peradventure ta­ken root in them, Whereby somewhat that is erroneous and pernicious is added, or somewhat that is sound and necessary is diminished or perverted in the Ʋniversall in­dubitable saving doctrine and worship; That then they have good reason, yea, are bound in their Conscience and function to reform such dangerous abuses and errours according to the Word of God and the example of the Primitive un­doubted Apostolicall Church; yea, withall to exhort and animate out of Gods Word other Congregations unto like Reformation, lest they cast any further stumbling block and occasion to fall both in their own and their posterities way, Deut. 13. Jos. 22. Judg. 6. v. 10. 1 Sam. 7. 1 Chron. 13. & 15. 2 Chron. 15. & 17. & 29. & 30. & 31. & 34. &c. 1 Cor. 5. v. 7. & 11. v. 16. Gal. 5. v. 1.10. Revel. 2. v. 5.14, 15.24. & 3. v. 2, 3.

Yet so, that they do not therefore rashly condemn other particular Churches, which do not acknowledge such errours, but rather carefully endeavour to conserve the bond of Christian charity and unity in the rest of the Universall undoubted Doctrine, till they are likewise edified by their example, and delive­red from such dangerous errours.

But if other particular Churches are so much scandalized and offended at such Reformation, that they cry down therefore the reformed Congregations for Hereticall, excommunicate, or violently persecute them; Neverthelesse these said reformed Churches, as long as they cannot legally and lawfully be convinced of any damnable errour out of the Word of God, but rather are rea­dy to make good before any legall Ecclesiasticall Convocation or Synod, that they have setled their Reformation according to the Word of God, upon very weighty and urgent motives, and to adhere closely and positively to the univer­sall undoubted Christian Doctrine and Religion, are not only no wayes bound to shrink from and give over the Reformation of such acknowledged errors and abuses because of the scandalizing & offence of other particular Churches; which either arise from evill affections, or from an erroneous Conscience: But also they are so much more obliged stedfastly to cleave and stick to it; being the reformed errours and abuses are pressed upon them not only as lawfull, but e­ven as necessary points of saving Doctrine and Religion, whereby they become but a more dangerous and damnable stumbling block and offence both to them that acknowledge the errours, and to them that do not.

And so consequently not those Churches or Congregations which are refor­med according to the Word of God, but those that excommunicate and con­demne them therefore without and against the Word of God, will be guilty of the injust judging and of the schisme or division arising from it.

IX. And all this is done without lesse difficulty and contention; If in such reformed Congregations those to whose charge they are committed, whether they be Secular or Ecclesiasticall, with the Congregation, or the greater and principall part of it, agree and consent unto such reformation according to the Word of God. As it hath been practised in the times of the Kings, Asa, Josaphat, Hishia, Josia, and times of our Forefathers in the most Protestant Evangelicall Churches in Ger­many, England, Denmarke, &c.

But the difficulty is so much greater, when those that have charge over the Con­gregation, especially the temporall Magistrates as Patrons of the Churches dis­agree and dissent in the Reformation from their subjects, or from the greater part of them, (As commonly else it happeneth when the greater part of the Citizens and Commons in any City or Province dissent from the other) wherein even the wisest and most religious men may peradventure slide and stumble, being either defective or excessive in it, when they walk not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, or sometimes out of zeal towards truth, forget Christian charity and peaceablenesse, and whilest they labour to avoid the one, cause oftentimes another offence which is farre greater. As we have an example propounded unto us in the Apostle Peter himself, who by his dissembling with the Jewish Ceremonies, fearing them that were of the Circumcision and weak in faith, would have carried away and given a more dangerous offence to the beleevers [Page 55] among the Gentiles, unlesse he had been rebuked and withstood by the Apostle Paul, Gal. 2. v. 11, 12, 13, 14.

But that we in such cases according to the Apostles rule, as much as is possi­ble, may avoid to scandalize and offend the consciences;Wherein we must be espe­cially cautious in reformati­ons. we must first of all exactly examine the errour and abuse, which we intend to reform, whether it doth so certainly and infallibly appear by the Word of God, and besides, so prejudiciall and dangerous, that of necessity it requireth a publike Reformation, and may not be tolerated without a grievous offence and stumbling block to the Conscience; lest we, desiring to bring in presently a publike Reformation, and as it were, an alteration of Religion at every pretended errour and abuse, which yet is doubtfull, or could be remedied with more moderation and meek­nesse, or might be tolerated without prejudice to the soule, may thereby be an occasion of a greater offence then the errour it self; being the alterations and mutations are not lesse; yea, oftentimes a great deal more dangerous in matters of Religion and Church-government, then in all other temporall af­fairs; And then by reason of humane infirmity we cannot expect and look for such a perfection in the Church-militant here on earth, whereby it might be exempted from all defects, errours and abuses.

Secondly, though the errour and abuse is so prejudiciall and dangerous, that a publike Reformation in Doctrine and Religion should be requisite: Yet we must by all means beware of an exteriour violent compulsion, except it were a­gainst such horrid and hideous kind of blasphemies and insurrection, as we mentioned heretofore; where it doth manifestly appear, that they do proceed rather from an obstinate malice of the heart, then weaknesse and ignorance of the un­derstanding; Or except we had such an expresse warrant and instruction, with such a Propheticall zealous spirit as Elias: For otherwise all violent compulsion in matters of Faith and Conscience is absolutely repugnant to the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, who requireth from his people a willing, chearfull, sincere, Why all exte­riour violent compulsion is to be avoided. faithfull, but not a forced hypocriticall, unbeleeving obedience. It is also impossible to undergo such violent compulsion without a grievous offence and scandall of Conscience: For whatsoever is done of force against Conscience, is not of Faith, but against Faith, and consequently cannot be but sinfull and damnable, both to him that is compelled, and to him that compelleth; although the work else is good, commendable and right in it self, which the erring party against its Conscience is compelled unto, Rom. 14. v. 23. Neither can such compulsion of consciences procure any true, Christian, sound reformation and edification of the Church; but rather in stead of the intended edification, shall cause a most pernicious schisme or division, yea oftentimes a totall ruine and destruction of the Church; as we have at these present times in severall places many wofull exam­ples set before our eyes.

Thirdly, we must likewise take heed of an uncharitable condemning and excom­municating the erring party; And although the errour and abuse were abso­lutely damnable in it self, yet we ought not, and cannot rashly condemn the per­sons. First, because we ought alwayes to presume out of Christian charity, that they do erre only out of weaknesse, as long as they may under any pretense clear themselves from an obstinate malice. Secondly, because it is expedient for [Page 56] us to labour to over-sway rather the malice by meeknesse, and hope that they at length may be won and converted by Gods mercy and goodnesse, whereof we will speak more at large hereafter.

Wherefore in the fourth place it is most certain, that during such dissention of a strong party of the common people in any City or Province an Ʋniversall Reformation may not easily be undertaken by the true-beleeving party, be­cause it can hardly or never take any effect without exteriour force and con­demning of the erring party: And in case the erring party retaineth still, if not all, yet the most principall and necessary articles of saving fundamentall Doctrine, so that they cannot directly be accounted unfaithfull Heathens or damned Hereticks; but held yet for weak beleevers and erring Christians; then the said Reformation ought by no means to be put on against their will, before they are bitter informed; especially the errours being such, which have not been rejected or condemned by the Word of God in the Primitive Church.

Neverthelesse, lest the true beleevers out of want of an universal Reformati­on may be scandalized and offended in their own Conscience; They have good reason, yea, are bound for their part to avoid the communion of such acknowledged dangerous errours and abuses; yet in such a manner, that they do not directly se­parate themselves in the remainder of the true doctrine and worship from the erring Congregation, as long as they may be tolerated in it, but rather for the avoiding of the Schisme or Division of the Church, be carefull to maintain the bond of Christian charity and unity, till God may open the eyes of the erring party to acknowledge their errours.

But when the true-beleevers themselves are not tolerated by the erring par­ty (as it happeneth oftentimes) but excommunicated or condemned because of the rejecting of their errours: Then they have not only very good reason, but in some regard are compelled to settle separately their Assembly and Religion, and consequently a particular Reformation, because they are not obliged quite to omit and set the exercise of Religion aside for the erring parties sake; which they exclude from their Congregations, if not from the hearing of Gods word, yet from the use and communion of the holy Sacraments. Where again, not those that are of necessity compelled to separate themselves, but these that re­ject,Whether, and how farre the Magistrates may undertake the reformati­on without the consent of the subjects. and excommunicate those, are guilty of this Schisme.

Especially the Christian Magistrates may no wayes be restrained or blamed, if they acknowledging by the Word of God such like errours and abuses, though their subjects will not hearken to any Reformation; yet at least do re­form the said errours for their families and fellow-beleevers, without compulsion of the others: Like as Joshua denounced to the people of Israel, though they should forsake the Lord to serve other gods; yet he and his house would serve him, Jos. 24. v. 15, 16. And like as some godly Kings in Juda, and David him­self, though they could not restrain the people from sacrificing in high places; yet they for their own persons, with those that followed them, walked upright in the eyes of the Lord, not departing and turning aside from his House and Ordinances, 1 Reg. 3. vers. 2. 1 Reg. 15. vers. 14. & 22. vers. 43, 2 Chron. 20. v. 33.

For if it doth not stand with reason and equity, that the Magistrates should compell the true-beleeving or erring subjects against their Conscience; How much more unreasonable and unjust would it then be; that subjects,The Author in this place speaketh of the Prince E­lector of Bran­denbougs case with his Lu­theran subjects who endeavor to stop him & his reformed attendants from the free exercise of Religion. though true-beleevers, should stop and restrain the Magistrates and their dependents from their liberty of Conscience and publike exercise of Religion, which they under their protection, and in their errours enjoy?

And all this is chiefly to be observed in such difference and dissention of the Church w^ch concern partly the fundamental doctrin it self. But the condemning and separation is so much more to be taken heed of, when the difference and dispute ariseth not from any one point of the fundamentall Doctrine, or from any Idola­try and Superstition in Religion, but only from the by-points in Doctrine or Ceremonies; though the errours and abuses in them ought to be avoided as much as is possible, lest a little leaven may at length leaven the whole lump.

Where it may come to passe, that the erring which in their errour neverthe­lesse conserve the bond of charity in unity, are not only tolerated as brethren, but also accounted for better Christians then those who, though they do not erre in the controverted Doctrine, yet procure thereby a Schisme and Divi­sion by reason of their unseasonable judging and condemning, who although they keep on both sides the grounds of Faith, yet overthrow therwith the foun­dation of Christian love which is most of all requisite.

Whereof we read in the Ancient Ecclesiasticall Histories about the year af­ter Christ 250. a very memorable example of Cyprian and his followers on one side, and of Stephen Bishop of Rome and his dependents on the other side. Where­as, though Cyprian, together with the Bishops in Africa, erred in his opinion, that the Hereticks being converted should be re-baptized; Yet, because he did not by such erroneous opinion of his condemn others, who defended the contra­ry, but inviolably maintained the bond of Christian unity; (Servatur à nobis pa­tienter & firmiter charitas animi, collegii honor, vinculum fidei & concordia sacerdo­tii. Epist. 73.) He was therefore much lesse to be blamed then Stephen, who, though he did not erre in the Doctrine, yet condemned Cyprian and the others for it, was by the Bishops sharply reproved for such unchristian judging and unnecessary separation.

Tu, Stephane, haereticis omnibus pejor [...]s & lites & dissensiones quantas pa­rasti per Ecclesias totius mundi? Peceatum verò quàm magnum tibi exaggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti? Excidisti enim te ipsum, noli te fallere; Si­quidem ille est verè schismaticus, qui se à communione Ecclesiasticae Ʋnitatis A­postatam fecerit. Dum enim putas omnes à te abstiner [...] posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti.

Non pudet Stephanum propter haereticos asserendos fraternitatem scindere, in­super & Cyprianum Pseudo-Christum & Pseudo-Apostolum & dolosum operato­rem dicere: qui omnia in se esse conscius praevenit, ut alteri ea per m [...]ndacium ob­jiceret, qua ipse ex merito audire deberet. Apud. Cypr. Epist. 75.

Otherwise this said Cyprian, notwithstanding such errour hath been alwayes accounted for a godly teacher and Martyr in the Universall Christian Church. But when afterwards the Donatists in Africa, not only followed him in such er­rour, but also condemned and separated themselves from other true-beleeving [Page 58] Churches, They not without reason were rejected as pernicious Schismaticks, because they followed Cyprian in his errour,Chap. 10. but not in his charity and peace­ablenesse, and caused therby a most scandalous breach and schism in the Church, as it evidently appeareth by the writings of Augustin and Optatus Milevitanus against the Donatists.

By all which I hope we may sufficiently discern, whether, or how farre men ought, or are bound in Conscience to judge others in Doctrine or Religion, or to separate themselves from them, or to reform them. Which to confirm and illustrate with more grounds and examples in each point, I think it needlesse at this present; Seeing it is for the most part agreed on in Thesi, or position of it: But in Hypothesi, or application of it, each one favoureth his side best and transferreth the fault and cause of all dissentions and divisions upon his adversary. Where­fore for the conclusion thereof, we must apply such common and generall Do­ctrine to the modern differences and controversies, and especially to the three dissenting parties afore mentioned, without any partiality and passions.

CHAP. X. Whether, or how farre the Protestant Churches ought, or are bound to judge the said Roman-Catholicks in their Doctrine and Religion, or to separate themselves from them, or to undergo any Reformation.

AMongst all Schismes and Divisions in Churches, which ever since the A­postles times arose amongst the Christians; we shall hardly find any one which hath been fomented with more vehemency and fiercenesse, then that which in our Predecessours dayes sprung originally in Germany, and afterwards was spread over all Europe, and at this present is divulged, (witnesse our own eyes) to a most lamentable desolation and destruction of Christendom, so that some long continuance thereof, which is feared, will draw at length upon the necks of all Western Churches like punishment and oppressions, as formerly the Eastern suffered under the Turks, Tartars and other Barbarous Nations, unlesse the Lord doth shorten and prevent them by the day of his apparition. Wherefore every one hath good reason to be carefull and to search out which side properly is guilty, and the cause of such pernicious Schismes, that we may know to which to give assent, and to which not. Whereby it is not imagina­ble, that one side should be only and totally guilty, and the other absolutely in­nocent and guiltlesse. For it may well be, that there hath been faults on both sides, either in the excesse, or defect; whereby their minds were exasperated, and the divisions grown to such a high pitch. And the differences and discep­tations in Churches, are much like the warre or judiciall law-businesse; where many times the most just and equitable cause is very ill managed, and common­ly [Page 59] prolonged and extended to a great inconvenience, if not to the utmost ruine of both disagreeing parties. But, since indifferences in Religion, especially when a resolute Schisme and Division is already formed in the Church, no Neutrality, nor therefore a totall separation from the Christian Church, or the settlement of a peculiar Church is admitted; but assent is to be given either to one or the other side in the saving Doctrine and Religion, though not all its actions may be approved; At least thus far must be determined of the guilti­nesse and innocency of the different parties, to the end that men may know which Church is to be imbraced, and which not.

Which subject fully and punctually to handle and maintain would require a peculiar book, in regard that all modern writings, whether they concern Di­visions and Dissensions, or Ecclesiasticall Unity, are in some kind directed to this scope. But we shall here be constrained only to touch it in a short and com­pendious way, as much as will conduce to our present intention, and to declare it briefly by the aforementioned principles. And first, whether, and how farre we have reason to judge their Doctrine and Religion, to separate our selves from them, or to reform them. Then secondly, whether therefore by any means we ought to judge and condemn the persons or whole Churches.

I. Where then first it is to be exactly examined,How farre the Protestants are separated from the Romish Church. how farre the Protestant Churches have separated themselves from the Roman-Catholicks; Seeing they have not withdrawn themselves one from another in al points of Christian Do­ctrine and Religion, but remain still united in many great and weighty Ar­ticles, which have been unanimously acknowledged of both sides out of the Word of God. For both sides professe and receive the whole Vniversall Apo­stolicall Creed, whereunto we are Baptized on all sides. Likewise both sides re­tain the ten Commandements and the Prayer of the Lord: And although they o­mit in their Catechismes the second Commandement concerning Images; yet they retain it at least in their Bibles; so that we remain undivided at least accor­ding to the letter in three most necessary Symboles or Articles of the Univer­sall Christian Religion, credendorum, faciendorum, petendorum, what is necessary to beleeve, to do, and to aske, as was mentioned heretofore. And notwithstan­ding they have added many other human Ceremonies and Traditions, to the holy Sacraments which Christ himself hath instituted; yet we acknowledge that they have thus farre kept the true Baptisme, being the most necessary Sa­crament, that we nor they desire to rebaptize those that were baptized by us and them. Moreover, they receive and acknowledge with us the whole Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testament, to be the indubitable Word of God, whose Interpretation and meaning in many sound Doctrines, yea, I dare say in the most, is unqestioned betwixt us and them. Yea likewise in the Symbols of the Primitive Church of the first and principall Councels, which we receive on both sides agreeable and warrantable by Scripture: and finally, in all points of their Doctrine and Religion, which are true, Ʋndoubted, Ancient, Catholick, we remain as yet united with them against all other erroneous Sectaries, as hath been declared before: Wherefore we cannot, nor will judge them Here­ticks, but rather we must judge and determine by those undoubted and unde­niable grounds of both sides, all other differences in Doctrine that are left: [Page 60] And if we only might be tolerated by them without compulsion of Conscience; we, nor they had then no cause to separate and with-draw our selves one from another; And we would sufficiently find in the said articles whatsoever is neces­sary unto salvation.

II. Neither do we judge and condemn them in those things, which we gene­rally, and on all sides acknowledge and receive as free indifferent matters, which neither directè or indirectè in the Word of God are commanded nor forbidden to beleeve or to do, but rather confesse that men ought herein to conform them­selves to each Church and Lawes of the Countrey, Customes and Ceremonies; lest because of unnecessary things, a separation and scandall be caused according to Augustins rule: Quod ne (que) contra fidem, ne (que) contra bonos mores injungitur, indiffe­renter est habendum & pro eorum inter quos vivitur, societate servandum est. Epist. 118

But in such things, which We for our part account for free indifferent matters; but they for necessary, either out of custome, or because of the Tradition of their Church, or out of a mis-apprehension of the Word of God (as for example in Fasts and Holy daies) we ought to judge the matter thus far, lest according to the rule of the Apostle, we may cast a stumbling block or scandall before them by our liberty and knowledge in their pretended necessity; but rather dispense with our exteriour liberty in such indifferent things, because of them that are weak in faith: If but they reciprocally permit us the liberty of Conscience, that we are not constrained to receive & acknowledg them as necessary unto salvation.

As also contrariwise in those things, which We for our part esteem necessary, because of Gods Ordinance, but they as free indifferent things (as for example the Communion under both kinds) We must then judge their erroneous opinion thus farre, lest we omit and neglect Gods Ordinance against our Conscience for their sake. Yet neverthelesse, as long as they do not yet acknowledge with us such necessity and Ordinance of God; We have no reason therefore to judge their Consciences, nor to separate our selves from them in all other points of Doctrine and Religion, wherein we agree as yet together; If they would but let us enjoy our liberty therein, lest we should be constrained to do against our Consciences because of their pretended liberty.

III. Morover concerning such differences in Doctrine and Religion, where both sides account their opinion for absolutly necessary and godly & consequently the contrary opinion as repugnant to the word of God and his Ordinance, for false and erroneous, or even for superstitious and damnable; of those we ought and must judge so far, that we stedfastly adhere to Gods truth, since we have gotten the knowledge thereof out of the word of God, and avoid to have any commu­nion with the contrary errours and abuses, especially Idolatry and Superstition, lest we dangerously wound and offend our own Consciences.

Yet if they would not presse such Doctrine and worship of theirs which they for themselves hold necessary, as necessary upon us against our Consciences, who know it to be repugnant to the word of God; but at least would tolerate us amongst themselves as erring and weake beleeving Christians; If also their Religion and worship were so constituted that we could have a fellowship to­gether for the other points, wherein we yet agree, without communion of any Su­perstition, and without hypocrisie or denying of Gods truth and without scandall to [Page 61] other weake beleevers; We would or should then not utterly separate our selves from their Churches in the remnant of the true Religion because of their er­rours and abuses, which they have added unto it; but carry and behave our selves therein according to the example of the true beleevers in Judea, who under the idolatrous Kings in Juda forsook not quite the Temple of the Lord, though it was polluted with manifold idolatries; But performed their godly exercises therein according to the Law: Yea, after the example of Christ himself and his Disciples, who, although the House of God was made a den of theevs, and defiled with much leaven of the Pharisees and Saduces, and although they were aware of their leaven, yet neglected not with them to teach and to pray in the Temple and Synogogues, as long as they could be tolerated therein, Joh. 18. v. 20. Acts 3. v. 1. & 5. v. 42. & 13. v. 5. & 21. v. 27, 28.

But now at this present the difference and breach betwixt the Romish and Protestant Church is in a quite other case,Why we must of necessity separate our selves from the Romish Church. so that the Schism and Separation is unavoidable, especially for these reasons following:

First, because the Romish Church besides the Doctrine which on both sides is received for Christian and Catholike, will not let the Protestants enjoy their li­berty in many such Doctrines and forms of worship, whereof they themselves must confesse, that they are not necessary in themselves unto salvation; but inforce those upon them as absolutely necessary because of their Traditions and Ordinances of the Church, sub anathemate, upon excommunication and pain of damnation: And even in such things, which we for our part hold not only not necessary, but expressely repugnant to the Word of God, and partly Superstitious: As for example: The Communion under one kind contrary to the commandement of Christ: Drink ye all of this: The Invocation of Saints, and adoration of Images repugnant to the Commandement: Thou shalt not make to thy self Images, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, &c. The prohibition for all Priests to marry, and commandment for all Christians to abstain from certain meats at certain times; which the Apostle calleth Doctrines of Devils, 1 Tim. 4 v. 1, 2, 3. and more such like points, which for the most part were specified before in the 4. Chap.

Secondly, because they have introduced some such Doctrines and Religion as necessary fundamentall Doctrines, whereas they cannot shew us any evident and certain warrant from the written Word of God, that they are of God; but we may produce to the contrary more certain and manifest grounds from the un­doubted written Word of God, being convinced in our Consciences, that they are false, erroneous, and repugnant to Gods Word and Ordinance, or to the very fundamentall Doctrine, if not expressely, yet by a necessary consequence: and also absolutely damnable in themselves, especially to them who should entertain them against their Consciences: For example, That the body of Christ must dai­ly be formed of bread by the Masse-Priest, or transubstantiated, offered again for the quick and dead, and adored under the shape of bread: That we must de­serve eternal life through our own condign merits, make satisfaction for our sins we our selves, and yet even be doubtfull of our salvation: That all men on earth are subject to the Pope in stead of Christ upon pain of their damnation, and must beleeve and receive as the words of Christ himself, whatsoever he teacheth and ordaineth by vertue of his Supreme Popish power, And such like points, which they for their part maintain not only as necessary and sound Doctrines, but in­force [Page 62] them upon the whole Christian Church, as principall points of most ne­cessary fundamentall saving Doctrine.

Thirdly, because their chief and daily Religion and worship is so qualified, that we cannot even have a communion with that which they retain with us out of the Word of God, unlesse we would thereby against our consciences make our selves partakers of such erroneous Doctrines and Superstitious abuses especially in the Masse.

Fourthly, and principally, because they will not tolerate us, who cannot allow against our Consciences and the known Word of God, of their un-Catholick by-Doctrines and Ceremonies, which they have added to the Ancient Catholick Doctrines, nor receive us either as true-beleevers, nor as erring, weak, beleeving fellow members of the Christian Church, but utterly condemn and excommuni­cate us as unfaithfull Hereticks; yea, in many places persecute us with banishment, fire and sword, as it is apparently manifest to the whole world; so that they have solemnly published and authorized their un-Christian sentence in the Councell of Trent, in such a manner that it cannot be recalled, and consequently no meli­oration or reconcilement and agreement on their side can be hoped for, as long as they stand to the said Councell.

By all which I conceive each impartial and unpassionate man may easily com­prehend,How farre we judge the Papists. First, that we for our part, not only ought, but are bound in conscience to judge and determine thus far of their Doctrine and Religion, yet not with the intent that we should attribute unto our selves or to our Churches any jurisdi­ction or power over other Churches or persons and their Consciences, or consti­tute our own spirit to be judge in matters of Religion, as the Papists do charge us with­all; or that every Idiot or Ignorant may and can judge of Theologicall Contro­versies: But only that we, each of us for himself and his own Conscience, must judge and discern Judicio discretionis, (as far as God through his spirit hath endued him with knowledge of his word) what we apprehend to be consonant or repugnant to the Word of God, truth or falshood, good or evill, light or darknesse; and con­sequently what (for to avoid our own damnation) we beleeve for our selves or not beleeve, confesse or deny, or also set by as uncertain and doubtfull, and in one word what we must do and avoid for our salvation. Which judging and determi­ning, no man, let him be never so simple and unlearned, and of what Religion so­eve [...], can be hindred and refrained from; because no man, even amongst the Pa­pists themselves, can, or shall receive or reject any Religion for himself, but he judgeth partly of it, and hath his reasons and grounds, why he doth imbrace or reject it, though in his sentence and decision he may judg aright or wrong, build upon good or evil grounds, upon the Word of God, or the words of men; which either will make for his own salvation or damnation, as the Apostle saith in the precedent verse: That every one shall give an account for himself. Wherefore we shall also alwayes be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us with meeknesse and fear, The true cause of the modern Ecclesiasticall Schisme and separation is to be imputed to the Romish Catholicks. having a good conscience, 1 Pet. 3. v. 15.16.

Secondly, that also the cause and occasion of the Schisme and Separation of the Protestant Churches from the Romish, is not properly to be imputed to the Protestants, but to the Roman-Catholicks; yet not to the whole Romish Church, but principally to the Popes and their Prelates, who have their dominion over the Romish Church, and those Divines, whose advice and doctrine they follow.

Yea, that We are not those, who separate and with-draw our selves from the Catholick Church, but the Papists are they, who first by un-Catholick additions of new Doctrins and Traditions are fallen away from the true Ancient Catholick A­postolicall Church, and withall reject and separate themselves from us by their un-Christian condemning and persecuting us as Hereticks; And not only us, but all other Churches of the whole world, which are not subjected to the See of Rome, viz. the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Georgian, Aethiopian, &c. wherby neverthelesse the Romish Church, by pretending to be the Universal Catholick Church on earth, and excluding all others from it, hath separated it self from all other Churches in the whole world (like as in fromer times the Donatists in Africa) and is also become a right Schismaticall Sectary Church.

Wherefore also we must of necessity separate our selves from it, both for its un-Catholicall superstitious Doctrine and Religion, lest we make our selves parta­kers of it, and also for its un-Christian Tyrannical judging, because we may not be tolerated amongst them, but are utterly rejected by them; to the end that we may remain united with the true Catholick Church in the Univerall Christi­an Faith and brotherly charity in Christ.

Wherunto we are so often and earnestly exhorted in the Word of God: Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, Revel. 18. v. 4. Come out from a­mongst them, and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, 2 Cor. 6. v. 17. Take heed and beware of the leaven, Mat. 16. v. 6. Keep your selves from Idols, 1 Joh. 5. v. 21. Flee from idolatry, 1 Cor. 10. v. 14 &c.

Thirdly, that herein also we do not proceed against this Apostolick rule, but ther­fore rather separate our selves, lest we may offend and scandalize the consciences. And first, our own Conscience, which needs must be grievously offended, if we I should against our Conscience adhere to such a Doctrine and Religion, whereof not only we have no certain ground from the Word of God, but acknowledge it to be repugnant to it, and superstitious: whereby we should separate us from God himself, by reason we wilfully forsake and deny his Word and Ordinance; for if it be damnable for them to proceed against Conscience, when they do erre or yet doubt, as the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 14. v. 23. How much more then when it is sufficiently and evidently warranted and convinced by the Word of God? Then secondly, the Consciences of our brethren, who acknowledge with us such er­rors II and abuses of the Popish Doctrine and Religion, to whom we should give a very grievous offence, if we dissembling against Conscience would also by our example mis-lead them against Conscience to the like hypocrisie and supersti­tion. Thirdly, the Consciences of the erring themselves, who do not acknowledge the III errours as yet, and whom we would by our example confirm in their Idolatry and abuses, and consequently in their uncharitable excommunications and per­secutions of the true beleevers, and therewith make our selves partakers of their sins, whereas we should rather labour to bring them to knowledge, as much as lies in our power. And although we upon these most urgent and solid reasons must be separate from the Romish Church in the Communion of their exterior Congregations; Yet we are inseparate and undivided in those things wherein they agree with us in the Primitive Apostolicall Christianity, as hath been said heretofore; and remain with them as far united both in the Doctrin of faith and in the duties of Christian charity, as much as we with safety of our Consciences may discharge towards them, or they will but accept of us.

Fourthly, Because not onely particular men and teachers, but also whole Congregations, yea, whole people and nations unanimously agree in the know­ledge and rejecting of such erroneous Popish Doctrin and Worship:That the Pro­testant Chur­ches had good reason, & have been bound in Conscience to reforme them­selves. It doth follow by all this without any contradiction, that they have had good reason, yea have been bound in Conscience and by vertue of their Function to purge their Churches from such Popish leaven, and to reform them according to the word of God; (though the Popes of Rome, or the Romish Church with their Depen­dents will not condescend at all to such Reformation, but Anathematize, Ex­communicate, oppose and destroy it to their utmost power;) seeing it cannot be maintained under any pretence or warrant from the word of God, that all other Churches and Nations of the whole world, necessarily should be subje­cted to the Italian or Romish Church; insomuch that they must be tyed to those palpable abuses they have introduced, nor dare alter or remove them: Whereas yet much more in each particular Church; aswell they that have the charge over it, whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Temporall, as the whole Congregation, is obliged in its Authoritie and Dutie and by Gods precept, to purge themselves from all pernicious leaven in Doctrine, practise and worship, and to conforme themselves, as much as is possible to the word of God, the Doctrine and example of the Primitive Apostolicall Church. Whereunto they are also every where most earnestly admonished as well from the Pro­phets, whose reproving and warning Sermons are mearly altogether directed to this end, as from the Apostles, who labour to anticipate and prevent there­by the future calamities and miseries, Rom. 16. v. 17, 18. 1 Cor. 1. v. 10. & 5. v. 7.13. Gal. 1. v. 7, 8, 9. & 5. v. 1.7.9.10. Phil. 2. v. 2.15. & 3. v. 2. & 4. v. 8, 9. Colos. 2. v. 7, 8.16.18.20.22, 23. Revel. 2. v. 4, 5.14, 15, 16.20. & 3. v. 1, 2, 3. For as every Christian is obliged to clense and purge his own Conscience, from all pollution of sinfull Doctrine and life, and needeth not to expect any other mans consent in that which God hath commanded: Also every congregation ought, and is bound to purge and reforme it selfe according to the word of God, as much as is possible from all pollution and scandall in Doctrine, Life, and Worship, in spight of the whole world. But that Church, which resisteth such Reformation with a violent power and force, discovereth it selfe mani­festly thereby, to be herein not a true-Christian, but rather Anti-christian Church.Although the Reformation of the Prote­stant Churches is not blame­lesse, yet it may not there­fore be rejected and disappro­ved as Hereti­call.

Moreover, though the Reformation may be culpable, either in the manner or in some circumstances; yet the maine worke in it selfe, being grounded upon the Word and Ordinances of God cannot be found fault withall. Since we willingly acknowledge and confesse that also in the Reformation of the Prote­stant Churches within and without Germany, not alwaies the true moderation was used: And do not imagine, that even in our Churches an absolute and per­fect Reformation without any defect and blemish is to be found.

We cannot approve it, that the Reformation in some places was begun with a Tumult and Insurrection of the vulgar people, by demolishing and de­stroying of Images, Altars and Monasteries, and such other violent proceedings: Much lesse, that Armes were taken up against Legall Magistrats, with the intent to Reforme withall.

Neither can we excuse that the Laity under colour of Reformation, hath sei­zed, [Page 65] and transferred ad prophanos Ʋsus the Monasteries and Ecclesiasticall reve­nues, Chap. 11. which should have been rather addicted and dedicated for the mainte­nance of Churches and Schooles, and for the reliefe of widdows and fatherlesse and other poore; and then, if somewhat remaine for the incident and urgent necessity of the Country and Common-wealth.

Nor can we deny but that in the Church-government, since that it is devol­ved from the Bishops for the most part to Lay-men, in many places great de­fects occurre, in the disposition and Administration of Ecclesiasticall Fun­ctions.

Wee complaine also oftentimes, that the wholesome Church-discipline of the Church is quite gone down and decayed, and wish nothing more but that it might flourish and revive againe after the example of the Primitive Church.

Likewise we hartily desire, that in stead of the Reformation and removall of Popish abuses in Fasts, Confessions, Vows, &c. The true Christian Fasting, with other practices of repentance and devotion, especially the Christian Doctrine of the Catechisme might be more diligently and earnestly performed, both for the Instruction of the Youth, and the Idiots, and Ignorants in Bouroughs and villages.

Lastly, We willingly acknowledge, that many superfluous and unnecessary Disputes in the Doctrine it selfe have bin moved by the Divines on both sides, which rather should be referred to the Schools, and discerned from the ne­cessary Universall Doctrine of the Church.

But because of these and such like defects, which are also perceived in the Re­formed Churches, though in one more then in the other: Wee cannot blame the principall worke in it selfe, but must rather acknowledge it to be most ne­cessary and profitable, that the chiefest abuses of Popery both in Doctrin and in Idolatrous or Superstitious Ceremonies be removed, and in stead thereof, the true-saving Doctrine, and wholesome use of the Blessed Sacraments according to Christs Institution restored againe, and so purged from manifold Traditions and Rudiments of men, that the Papists themselves have no ground to pretend why they might not with a safe Conscience have Communion with us in our Religion; or else it must of necessity follow, that they could have had no com­munion with the Primitive Catholicke Church, being that all our outward re­ligion and Worship is absolutly conformable to the first Apostolicall Sim­plicitie, which hath been preserved afterwards for a long time, as Justin Mar­tyr, Tertullian, and other Ancient Fathers informe us.

Die qui dicitur solis, omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eundem lo­cum conventus fit, et commentaria Apostolorum, aut scripta Prophetarum, quoad [Page 66] tempus fert, leguntur: Deinde, lectore quiescente, praesidensoratione populum instru­it ad imitationem tàm pulchrarum rerum & cohortatur. Sub haec consurgimus com­muniter omnes & precationes profundimus; precibus peractis, profertur panis & vi­num & aqua. Praepositus autem quantum pro virili sua potest, preces & gratia­rum actiones fundit & populus faustè acclamat, dicens Amen. Et distributio, communicatio (que) fit eorum, in quibus gratiae sunt actae, cui (que) praesenti, &c. Justi­nus Martyr in Apolog. 2. pro Christianis. Vid. & Tertullianum in Apologet.

CHAP. XI. Whether or how farre the Reformed Churches ought or are bound to judge the Lutherans in their Doctrine and Religion, or to separate themselves from them, or to reforme them?

WHat hath beene said in the precedent Chapter of the Romish Church; That wee may likewise apply to the doctrine and worship which is controverted and disputed, though in fewer points, betwixt the Lutherans, and other reformed Churches. Where we first willingly confesse and give thankes to God, that as wee differ in fewer Articles; yea fully agree in the most of them against the Papists and other Sectaries; we have also much lesse reason to judge the Lutherans, or to separate, and with-draw our selves from them, then from the Papists, because of such differences which are rather fomented by some contentious Divines then by the Church it selfe.

Why the re­formed Chur­ches have hi­therto sought a Reconcile­ment & Vnity with the Luthe­rans.For though we cannot but judge in our Conscience some points of their doctrine and Ceremonies to be ereoneous and false, and if not directly, yet by a necessary consequence repugnant to the word of God, and some Articles of faith; Neverthelesse, if but they, who have not the knowledge yet of such consequence, account their owne opinions agreeable to Scripture, might not impose them or theirs as necessary Articles of faith, but let us enjoy therein our liberty of Conscience; If they also would leave to our freedome such Ceremo­nies of theirs, as they themselves will have held as free indifferent things, and consequently would tolerate and receive us and our teachers as true Christians, or at least as weake brethren in faith, though we cannot assent to their owne peculiar opinions (as some peaceable Divines amongst them Paulus Eberus, David Chytraeus, Christopherus Donaver. Nicolaus Hemmingius, and princi­pally Philippus Melanchton, besides many others of his Followers; yea whole Congregations and Churches, especially in the Kingdom of Poland, and great Dutchy of Lithuania, a great while since have declared themselves.) Wee should then have no reason at all, yea we were rather to be blamed and should be Schismaticks indeed; if we of our owne accord should with-draw and [Page 69] separate our selves from them, because of such different opinions and Ceremo­nies: Of whom we yet acknowledge, and confesse, that, for the rest, if they doe not make their owne opinions to be necessary fundamentall points, they retaine with us the true ground of Christs saving Doctrine, and are exempted in their Religion from a publick and manifest Idolatrie.

And for these reasons have our Churches and Divines at all times most faith­fully, earnestly and zealously sought to procure and settle a Christian reconcile­ment and Unitie, as formerly in Luthers time in the conference at Marpurg, An. 1529, in the Concordia at Wittenberg, Anno 1536. and in later years the Pala­tine, and others in their Declarations for Ecclesiasticall peace, which also were reassumed in the Conference at Leiprig, Anno 1631. As likewise at those pre­sent times many eminent Divines beyond Sea in England, France, and Scot­land, (whose opinions and assistance therein, as that Reverend and worthy man Mr. Iohn Duray hath solicited with a singular industry and zeale to a peaceable Unitie and Reconcilement) faithfully and sincerely wish & advise in their pub­lick Writings such an Unanimitie & Uniformitie amongst the Churches in Ger­many. Whence it sufficiently appeareth, that we for our part are not inclined to judge and to condemne the Lutherans, or to continue in the division and sepa­ration from them, which hath lasted already above a hundred years.

Againe, it is knowne and manifest on the other side that the Lutherans on their part, will hearken and condescend not only to no absolute agreement and reconcilement, but also to no Christian and brotherly toleration or moderation in this unhappy Ecclesiasticall difference: Because the greater part of their Doctors and Divines, upom whom also many Lay-men depend, especially the vulgar sort (though with indiscretion) and defend their zeale, maintain their different and controverted opinions, not only as agreeable with Scripture; but impose them also as necessary grounds and principall Articles of Christian faith, without which men may not be counted true Christians, nor be saved; And so in some manner falsifie therwith the ground-work it self by their owne ad­ditionall opinions, which they lay for a By-ground of salvation: And will not let us effectually injoy our Liberty in such ceremonies, which they themselves call adiaphora free indifferent things, nor consequently receive us or our teachers as fellow-Christians, unlesse wee acknowledge and professe with them the Om­nipresence of Christs body, the carnall eating thereof in the bread, and other such like points of doctrine contained in their formula concordiae; much lesse ad­mit us to the Ministery, but most vehemently condemne us as the worst Here­ticks, who doe ovorthrow the foundation, and exclude us from the Communion of their Churches, yea in many places exclude us from civill society, from digni­ties and offices, from Senates, from priviledges of the Citie, from marriages, and from honourable burials.

Moreover they yet daily and most spightfully pervert, calumniate and slander the Doctrine of our Church, and continually and most unjustly without the least ground against our owne so often reiterated Declarations, charge it with dreadfull and abominable Blasphemies, which neither Luther himselfe [Page 68] nor other his Ancient followers, ever did, and for no other reason but that they might pretend so much more cause for to condemne and reject us.

What is most reprovable in Lutheran Di­vines.And this is, that we finde in the said Lutherans most reprovable and dam­nable, not simply the erroneous Doctrine in it selfe, but that they make it a ne­cessary fundamentall Doctrine, and of their owne particular Opinions make Articles of Faith, and that they therefore so uncharitably, and un-Christian like judge and condemne us.

Why the Re­formed must separate them­selves from the Lutherans.Whereby also every one may evidently see, that we therefore have not onely good reason, but are of necessity constrained to separate our selves in our Reli­gion from those, who will by no means tolerate us, nor receive us as Christi­ans; least we professe and addict our selves against conscience to such Doctrines and acknowledge them as necessary Articles of saving Faith, whereof we have not onely no certaine warrant from the word of God; but are convinced in our consciences of their repugnancy to it: Wherewith we would give a dan­gerous scandall and offence first to our own Conscience, by denying the knowne Truth of God, and then to other fellow Christians, as well to the true-Beleevers, who with us have the knowledge of the Truth, that they might by our exam­ple proceed against conscience, as to the erring, that they might be strengthened and confirmed by our example in their errours.

And here againe we are not those that separate themselves from them, but they are those that Separate and reject us; and yet not because of the manifest Word of God as they pretend, but because of their owne Opinions, Interpre­tations, Inferences, Forma [...]ls, and Expressions. Whereby they put a very dangerous stumbling block and occasion to fall both in our and their owne way; yea in the way of the Universall Christian Church, and though they proceed not against the ground of Faith; yet they are against the ground of CHRISTIAN CHARITIE. Especially, whereas also the Christian Unitie or brotherly toleration, which hath been of our side offered to them at severall times both by word of mouth and in writring; not onely hi­therto hath been utterly refused by them, but also by many mis-interpreted to the worst, reviled, slandered, so that the most pernicious Schism and breach of the Church is but grown thereby more dangerous & lamentable. Which al we ought to beare yet with a Christian Patience, committing it to the Soveraigne and highest Judge; and therefore not omit to seeke and maintaine the Unitie of spirit in Faith and love with them that are peaceably affected.

Some Luthe­ran Divines are principally guilty of the pernicious Schisme and Division be­twixt Evange­licall Chur­ches.By which also without any further inlargement sufficiently appeareth, that the native and genuine cause and fault of the long continued Schism and Divi­sion of all the Protestant Evangelicall Churches; and consequently of all the miseries and calamities from thence arising, principally refideth not in the Re­formed, but in the Lutherans, and especially in their Divines; yet not generally in all, but onely in those who condemne us as Hereticks, and therefore hither­to have refused and stopped without any reasonable ground, the reconciliation we sought and offered to them.

For although they use to pretend for their excuse many damnable doctrines; yea many terrible Blasphemies of the reformed; Chap. 2. yet partly and most of them consist in such slanders and aspersions, which the reformed Churches never professed, but rather many times have expresly and unanimously rejected. So that those doe but aggravate their fault before God and man, who restrain and hinder the Ecclesiasticall peace by false testimonies, or by their own Vnreasonable mis-construction of strange words and doctrine, from which yet they might be easily diverted, if they would but give way to a peaceable Conference. Partly they consist of such controverted points of doctrine, as have been demonstra­ted in the fifth Chapter before, which cannot afford any sufficient cause for the condemning and excommunicating of the reformed, neither for division and separation from them. And suppose wee did erre in such points of do­ctrine; yet this would only exempt us from all hereticall damnable errours, that wee besides the universall undoubted fundamentall doctrine doe not make any wayes our owne particular opinions to be a By-ground, as the Lutherans, nor impose them on any man as necessary unto salvation, except so farre as hee acknowledgeth them himselfe to be agreeable to the word of God, and the sa­ving doctrine, and that hee is obliged thereunto not by our word, but by the word of God.

Wherefore also,Whether the Lutherans may not with a safe consci­ence have communion & fellowship with the reli­gion of the re­formed Con­gregations. although we for our part are of necessitie compelled to se­parate our selves from the Lutherans, as long as they condemne and reject us, because of their different and controverted opinions: yet they cannot pretend any reasonable cause, why they must be separated from our Church and Reli­gion, and should have no communion with us in it; In regard no man on our side is constrained to beleeve or to doe somewhat against his conscience, if hee but standeth firme to the Vniversall fundamentall doctrine, and doth not disturbe the Church with his owne opinion, but laboureth according to the Apostles admonition, to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5. v. 21.26.

To which end also some few yeares agoe it was decreed in a publick Synod of the reformed Churches in France at Charenton, Anno 1631. that the Lutherans desiring to participate of the holy Communion with them, should not be excluded from it, if they did but otherwise behave themselves peaceably, and without scan­dall. For those Lutherans, who refuse not to take the holy Communion with us, doe even testifie thereby, that they condemne not our Church and Religion; And although they adhere to their opinion of the reall and corporall presence, and orall manducation of Christs body, yet so that they do not hold them as ne­cessay articles of faith, but receive us also in our opinion as fellow-members, and Christians. If they were generally all thus minded, the Ecclesiasticall peace were soone concluded, and the way prepared to a totall unitie and re­conciliation: For in this manner wee should not have any further cause to se­parate our selves from their Communion and other godly exercises, but would be ready for peace and Unitie sake to tolerate the other defects, and according to the Apostles exhortation, to walke with them as brethren minding the same [Page 70] thing, by the same rule, whereto we have already attained, Phil. 3. v. 15, 16. Till God may reveale unto us on both sides even what is remaining,Chap. 11. wherein wee disagree. But those that will by no meanes condescend unto this, shall not with all their Sophistry and arts winde themselves out from bearing before God and man the guiltinesse of the long continued most pernicious Schisme and of all the miseries that may hereafter ensue thereupon.

Causes of Re­formation of the Doctrine and Ceremo­nies of the Lutherans.Now what hath been said of the causes of our Separation, that same decla­reth and sheweth unto us the cause of Reformation in all places, where both a generall and particular Reformation was settled.

For where the whole congregation acknowledgeth with one consent the errour and abuse of the Lutheran Doctrine and Ceremonies in the different and controverted points; There no fault can be found with its unanimous and ge­nerall Reformation. Wherein it may not be hindred, though some few pri­vate men dissent from the whole Congregation, and had rather adhere to their Lutheran Opinion, in regard they have the liberty of their Conscience no waies restrained.

But where the Congregation in any City or Province disagreeth, so that a great part of it doth not onely not acknowledge the errour, but adhere so closly to their Lutheran opinions concerning Oral manducation and omni-presence of Christs body, Exorcisme, Images, Hosties and such like things, that they there­fore condemne as Hereticks the other partie which will not allow of them: There these, since they of necessity must Separate themselves from their con­demners, are forced also to a particular Reformation of their religion; to the end that they for their part might discharge it towards God according to his Word and Ordinance with a safe conscience.

Especially when the Christian Magistrate, whom the worke of Reforma­tion after the example of Kings, Asae, Josaphat, Hiskia, Josia, chiefly dependeth upon, giveth assent to the true-beleeving partie. Wherein neither they may be restrained by any Temporall Constitution or Ordinance of their Predecessours, who have no dominion over the Consciences of their Posterity, nor can tye them to any erroneous Doctrine and Religion; which is undeniable amongst Christians on all sides, who do not ground or build their Religion upon Temporall Ordinances, like the Heathen and Mahumetans, but relie only upon the word of God.

And although such Reformation most commonly cannot be settled without greatly offending the erring partie: Yet a more speciall care is to be taken of scandalizing first their owne Conscience, then the Conscience of other true-beleevers, and lastly the Conscience of the erring, least they may be confirmed in their errours, then of offending and scandalizing the affections of the erring, whereby others are carried away with zeale to their errours, though with in­discretion. [Page 71] Which zeale neverthelesse, I hope, shall never prevaile so far with the Lutherans, that they against their legall Magistrats, who have given them the libertie of their Conscience and Religion without any impediment, should therefore tumultuously rise, when they maintaine and use the like libertie for themselves, and them that are of the same confession and Faith; Being the Lutheran Divines and confessours have hitherto not as yet attributed to themselves the power, and as I hope will never do it, to absolve and discharge the Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance towards the Magistrats, who have renounced the Obedience of the Popish See and Supremacy, as is sufficiently e­vident by the examples in France and England.

Besides it would be thought in it selfe an unheard of injustice, if Subjects should not suffer their Magistrats to have as much liberty of conscience and Religion as they themselves enjoy under their protection.

Neverthelesse if the Christian Magistrats might but so much obtaine of the Lutheran Divines and Congregations of their Jurisdiction, that they might not calumniate or condemne the Doctrine of our Church; but receive us also as fel­low-brethren and Christians in our Faith and Confession, unto the Ministery of the Word of God and use of the Holy Sacraments in their Assemblies: I wil­lingly then confesse, that men should not rashly undertake such a particular Re­formation in Ceremonies, whereby a Division may be occasioned; but ra­ther tolerate such defects, because of the Ignorant and weake in Faith, who do little apprehend and discerne the Discrepancy of the Doctrine, and at the al­teration of Ceremonies presently imagine a quite new Religion, whereas they should insist upon the found information of Doctrine, till they at length with­out offence and division, either might be corrected with an unanimous goodly consent, or each one enjoy his owne libertie therein. To which purpose it conduceth also what Augustine saith of such like alterations, Ep. 118. Ipsa mutatio consuetudinis etiam quae adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat: That ma­ny times the alteration doth not profit and edifie as much as the Division doth hurt and destroy.

CHAP. XII. Whether or how far we may judge or condemn the persons in matters of Religion.

BY all this, what hitherto hath been declared of judging the matter it self in different and controverted Doctrine and Religion, and of Separation and Reformation, which ariseth from it, We may easily now understand whether and how far we ought to judge the persons. For as far as we must discern the matter, what is sound and true, or false and erroneous Doctrine or Wor­ship; So far we can and must also extend our judgement to the persons, accor­ding to the Word of God; which of them teacheth true or false Doctrine, to the end that we may know whom and how far we ought to follow, lest they become not to us or others a stumbling block or an occasion to fall; seeing that that judging of the Doctrine cannot be performed without this judging of the persons who maintain the Doctrine: yet so, that we ought not instantly to condemn the erring persons, because of their errour, though it be damnable in it self; but rather alwayes hope for their amendment, as much as is pos­sible.

As First, Those that maintain ignorantly such an errour, which by a ne­cessary consequence is repugnant to the saving fundamental Doctrine, and yet stand steadfastly to the fundamental Doctrine it self, and build not their salvation even upon such an errour, and therefore do not condemn us and our Churches, which maintain the very same ground. Those I say, no doubt, notwithstanding their errour, they may be saved, if they do but labour to testifie also their Faith in Christ, by the works of Christian charity and godly conversation: And that such an errour, which would be damnable unto us that have the knowledge of it, if we should receive it against conscience; yet is not damnable to them by the grace of God, who will judge them according to their Faith and works, and not according to their ignorance.

Secondly, Those also which condemn us, yet if they do it not out of malice, as those false Apostles, Gal. 1. and 3. and 4. but out of humane weaknesse and meer ignorance, either because they are not truely informed of our Doctrine and Faith, or esteem it to be repugnant to the Word of God and the Doctrine of the Primitive Apostolical Church; Those I say, we ought not to condemn, although they condemn us with indiscretion; but rather pray for them, and hope the best of their salvation, as long as they hold fast the ground of Faith and the love of Christ, which we presume, not without reason, the greatest part of them do.

Thirdly, Those likewise who ground and build their salvation upon erro­neous [Page 73] and false Doctrine and Religion (which in some manner all those are en­forced to do, who account them for necessary fundamental Doctrine) and indeed sufficiently testifie that they do not condemn us meerly out of infirmity, but out of an uncharitablenesse and malice, and also retain not the true ground of Faith nor the love of Christ: Those we may judge by the Word of God, as all other men who passe their life in notorious sins and vices without true repentance, that they are in a damnable condition; which is to say, That God could condemn them of right in their blindnesse and malice, and shall undoubtedly condemn them, unlesse they repent: Finally, we may proceed also with them after the rule of Christ and the Apostles: A man that is an Heretick reject (let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publicane, Matth. 18. v. 17.) after the first and se­cond admonition, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself: Yet we ought not therefore utterly to condemn them, but rather still pray for them, hoping God may convert them yet before their last gasp. For although the Apostle saith, 1 John 5. vers. 16. There is a sin unto death, for which we shall not pray: Yet he saith not, that we shall not pray for the sinner, much lesse condemn him unto death, we being not able exactly to know, nor ought to judge whether he hath committed the sin unto death, viz. the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or in other sins is given over to a hardned and an obdurate unbeleef and impeni­tency.

With one word, We must absolutely resigne and commit the judgement of eternal damnation to God alone, being the onely Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy, Jam. 4. v. 12. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? to his own Master he standeth or falleth: yea he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand, Rom. 14. v. 4.

Which we now may easily apply to our often-mentioned twofold Adversa­ries: God forbid that we should condemn all Roman-Catholicks; much lesse all Lutherans in general, or even one single and particular man.

For first, concerning the Papists, Whether and how far the Papists may be saved in their Religion. like as a twofold Doctrine and Religion is maintained amongst them, viz. partly the true Primitive, Catholick, Apostolick Doctrine, wherein they with us, and we with them do agree; partly the new Popish Doctrine and Ceremonies, which they have added in the latter hundred yeers without and against Gods Word: Also there are two sorts of people a­mongst them: The One, who in their Christianity onely and principally cleave to the indubitable, universal, Apostolick Creed, which they with us are baptized unto, so that they seek onely [...] salvation in Jesus Christ the crucified, as their own Mediator and Saviour; and testifie such beleef of theirs in the effect by Christian charity and godly conversation; who also consequently will not condemn us as Hereticks, who are united in spirit with them in such univer­sal saving Faith working through love, much lesse persecute us with hostility: unlesse it were out of meer ignorance, because they have no true informa­tion of our Doctrine and Faith. How should we then condemn them? Much more reason have we to account such Catholicks for true Evangelical, and not for Popish Christians, because their salvation is grounded not upon their own merits and satisfaction, or upon other Popish traditions, and Auxiliary [Page 74] concomitant means; but onely upon the meer grace of God and the precious Redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And that there hath been at all times a great number of such people, and are still at this present even in the midst of Popery; not onely the experience of them that live amongst them, but their own Books before and after Luther's times do testifie it: As Bernardi, Anselmi, Gersonis, Tauleri, Thomae de Kempis, Erasmi, Cassandri, Feri, Cardinalis Contareni, Hosij, Pighij, Coloniensium in An­ti-didagmate & Enchiridio, and of a great many more. Especially their anci­ent Manuals concerning Meditations upon death, which were commonly used a great while before Luther's times; wherein the dying persons from all me­ritorious works and satisfaction, and from all other humane means of salva­tion are onely directed to the precious merit and intercession of the onely Me­diator and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Formulae interrogandi infirmos inter Epistolas Anselmi. Ars benè moriendi Monachi cujusdam Cisterciensis. Hortulus Animae. Georg. Cassander in Append. Opusc. Joh. Roffensis. Hosius in Confess. Petricov. cap. 73. Sacerdotale Roman. Edit. Venet. Ann. 1555. fol. 116. Sacra Institutio baptizandi. Edit. Paris. Ann. 1575. fol. 35. Ordo baptizandi cum modo visitandi. Edit. Venet. Ann. 1575. fol. 34. In which Book the Spanish Inquisitors have ordained in their twofold Indice Expurgatorio Annis 1584. & 1612. to deface and omit these Questions and Answers following:

Sacerdos: Credis non propriis meritis, sed Passionis Domini nostri Jesu Chri­sti virtute & merito ad gloriam pervenire? Respondeat infirmus: Credo.

Sacerdos: Credit quòd Dominus noster Jesus Christus pro nostra salute mortuus sit: & quod ex propriis meritis vel alio modo nullus possit salvari nisi in merito passionis ejus? Respondeat infirmus: Credo.

By the Omission of which words they testifie against themselves; that those amongst them, who examined the dying persons upon this beleef (wherein the principal fundamental Doctrine of salvation consisteth) and died upon it, have been verily addicted to our Evangelical Faith and Doctrine of the Church, and not to their Popish beleef and doctrine.

And although such men have also adhered in their ignorance to some erro­neous opinions, according to the common course of those times, out of want of better information: yet they cannot be condemned or accounted for non-Evangelical, because they fixed their comfort and hope of their salvation not upon such erroneous Doctrines, not upon merits and invocation of Saints, not upon Masses for the souls of the deceased, [...] [...]pon Indulgences, not upon Monastical orders and such other like things; but onely upon Gods meer grace and mercy in Christ Jesus the crucified.

To the Objection that may be made, That they neverthelesse went to Masse, which we count Idolatrie and consequently must condemn all those as meer Idolaters: We answer; That such men went to Masse in the simplicity of their heart, not even according to the new Masse-doctrine, which but in the Councel of Lateran Ann. 1218. and after in the Councel of Trent was cano­nized; but according to the pure ancient and simple beleef of Christs words in the holy Communion, wherein even yet the moderate Papists so far must [Page 75] agree with us that it is Sacrificium commemorativum, A Commemoration and Remembrance of Christs Sacrifice finished upon the Crosse and a spiritual meat of our souls: Wherefore there is no doubt but many religious and pious hearts have at all times understood and eaten it after a spiritual sort, who heard little or nothing of the Scholastical disceptations of Transubstantiation, and had not yet known the depths of Satan, as was said of those in Thyatira, Revel. 2. v. 24. Or have expresly rejected them and beleeved nothing else concerning the Holy Communion, but what next to Augustine and other ancient Fathers and Do­ctors of the Church, Bertramus, or Ratramus in the times of Carolus Calvus, when the disputes of this subject had their first beginning, hath declared in his Book De Corpore & Sanguine Christi, who at all times was accounted for a true Catholick Teacher.

And though some had beleeved the real and corporal presence and oral man­ducation of Christs Body in the Masse; Yet we should have as little reason to condemn them as the Lutherans, if they have but grounded the principal comfort and hope of their salvation, not upon the carnal, but spiritu­al eating of Christs Body, as being the onely Sacrifice and Propitiation for their sins.

Likewise, though they have much declined in the Ceremonies of the Masse from Christs first Institution, and have added thereunto many humane partly superstitious, partly idolatrous Ceremonies: Yet all those cannot presently be accounted for damnable Idolaters, who in those times and places, where the Supper of the Lord was not otherwise to be had, nor the errour made yet so apparently evident, went to the common Masse in their simplicity, because of the remnant of Christs Institution therein, to the end that they might be made partakers of Christs Body and Blood for the quickning of their souls: Like as they used the Holy Baptism for to cleanse and wash them from their sins, not­withstanding the superstitious humane Ceremonies that were added thereunto: Who also, though they kneeled down before the consecrated bread and wine, being a Sacramental token of remembrance and exhibitive signe of Christs Bo­dy and Blood, like as the Lutherans also at the administration of their Com­munion and the Reformed Protestants in England use to do; Yet have not fixed the Adoration and confidence of their hearts on the bread and wine, but on Christ himself sitting on the right hand of his Father in Heaven: And there­fore are much lesse to be esteemed Idolaters, then for their kneeling and bow­ing down before painted [...] carved Crucifixes (which Christ never ordained for signes of rememb [...] [...] instead of adoring Jesus Christ in Heaven: Though we must confesse that all such things have been used in Popery at least not without prejudice and occasion unto Idolatry, and therefore are more safely omitted by us.

And this will not serve for an excuse to those, who now adayes against their conscience go to Masse out of a meer hypocrisie and fear of men; because that it is so vehemently pressed upon us from the Papists meerly for to give assent to their errour and Idolatry, that we must adore the consecrated Hostie in the hand of the Masse-Priest, as Christ himself, and put our hope and confidence in that Masse-Christ, whom he hath formed out of bread with five words, and [Page 76] offereth for us again. Neither may this clear the rest of Papists from Idola­try, who now adayes with such a blinde zeal impose and presse this Adora­tion and Sacrifice of the Bread instead of Christ: Nor those in general who build their salvation upon their Popish Doctrine and commandments of men, which they have added to the true, ancient, Catholick, Divine Doctrine, and obstinately adhere thereunto; without searching and receiving the Truth: especially, when therefore they uncharitably condemn and persecute other Christians, which cleave onely to Gods Commandment and Doctrine. Of whom we may judge in general, that in this manner they are in a damnable condition, yet so that we hope of every one in particular judicio charitatis, that God may convert him yet before his end. Whereas there is no doubt but many thousands even amongst themselves (who in the time of their life have been most vehemently zealous against us) have at length in their last agony learned to acknowledge, that they could finde no certain comfort for their souls in all those auxiliary means of salvation, which they so fiercely maintain­ed, but ought onely to seek their total happinesse and salvation in the meer grace and merey of God, so that, though they lived as Papists, yet at last died Evangelical Christians.

Whether and how far the Lutherans may be saved in their Reli­gion.Whatsoever now hath been said of the Papists; that may we apply so much more to the Lutherans; because they absolutely agree with us in this principal and chief Point of saving fundamental Doctrine, and are other­wise exempted in their Religion from all exteriour Idolatry. Wherefore if they onely build their salvation upon such fundamental Doctrine of Faith in Christ Jesus, and labour withall to testifie their Faith with Christian cha­rity and godly conversation, so that they do not uncharitably condemn nor persecute us, but rather diligently search in the rest of different Points into Gods Truth and Doctrine revealed in his Word, and having attained the knowledge of it, to be ready most willingly to professe and receive it; We can­not then condemn them for their often-mentioned errour which they meerly out of humane weaknesse and ignorance stick unto.

Of what sort of Lutherans are those who live in a dan­gerous condi­tion of their souls.Neverthelesse, this may by no means excuse those who 1. will have their own erroneous, or at least controverted opinions to be most necessary fundamental Doctrines and Articles of Faith, and consequently astrain and binde in some manner both theirs and other Christians salvation thereunto.

2. So that Others do not onely not receive us for fellow Christians, but judge and condemn us as unfaithful Hereticks, who [...] in our consciences allow of such their pretended Articles; Whereby t [...]y [...]er and destroy the Chri­stian Unitie and Ecclesiastical Peace, as much as lieth in their power.

3. Not onely condemn and cut us off from the Communion of the Christian Church, but uncharitably persecute us, though not in lives, yet in honours and goods, by excluding us from the Political Society.

4. Especially, When they do it not meerly out of humane infirmity and ignorance, or out of a false information of our Doctrine and Faith; but partly out of obstinacy and malice: So that they will not suffer nor hearken to a better Instruction of Truth, much lesse search into it themselves in the Word of God: Or although they have partly been informed and heard it, yet [Page 77] stop their eares and hearts before the Truth, out of sinful corrupted affections, out of hatred and envy against men, out of contention, ambition, private in­terest, and the like: Yea against their own conscience, obscure, pervert, and calumniate it with all sort of slanders, detractations and aspersions, or intricate Sophistries.

Of these and like persons we cannot generally out of the Word of God judge any thing else, but that they in this manner live in a very dangerous yea damn­able state; not simply because of the errour it self, but because they partly pervert through such errour the ground of Faith, in regard they make their own particular opinions to be fundamental Doctrines, partly dissolve the bond of Christian charity, in regard they judge and condemn other Christians by reason of them. But he that doth this not out of a meer ignorance and weak­nesse of understanding, but out of malice of heart; not we, but God alone is able to know and discern him: Wherefore we ought not rashly to judge and determine of any certain person.

5. Those also who though they have had a sufficient knowledge of the Truth in their hearts, and yet will not openly professe it out of shame before men, or out of other carnal respects, are almost in a more dangerous case then the erring themselves, because they proceed therein against their own conscience, and make themselves guilty of the Lords Sentence: Whosoever shall deny me be­fore men, or be ashamed of me and of my words, him I will also deny, Matth. 10. v. 3. Mark 8. v. 38.

For not onely he that denieth against his conscience the whole Doctrine of Christ, but also he that denieth but one Point of it, which he hath known out of the Word of God, for mens sake, who oppose and condemn it, he hath part­ly denied thereby Christ, and been ashamed of his words: And whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Matth. 5. vers. 19. For a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, Gal. 5. vers. 8.

They burden also therewith their conscience with the woe and curse which is pronounced against all unrighteous judgement, because against their consci­ence they call evil, good, and good, evil, Isai. 5. vers. 20, 23. and decline after many to wrest Judgement, Exod. 23. vers. 2. For if men be obnoxious to that curse, when they peradventure in temporal judicial matters judge unjust­ly betwixt private persons, or following the multitude incline and assent to un­righteous judgement: How much more he that doth it in matters of Reli­gion, when the Doctrine of [...]ist is disputed and controverted betwixt whole Churches!

There we ought to labour as much as is possible by fair means, to reconcile the different parties, and not rashly to judge and condemn the erring: Yet not so, that we wrest or pervert the Judgement, or assent to the injust partie with words or works in their errour, and contrarywise withdraw and separate us from the righteous party in the profession of the Truth, calling good evil, and light darknesse. Cursed be he that perverteth the judgement of the stranger, fatherlesse, and widow, Deuteron. 27. vers. 19. Should he then not be guilty also of the curse that would wilfully pervert or deny [Page 78] the judgement of the Church, yea the Judgement and Truth of God?

Whereby they also, though in their own persons they might not be inclin­able to condemn and persecute any man, would yet make themselves by their assent, partakers of the condemnation and persecution which proceedeth from others, who according to the prophesie of Christ shall hate and reproach us, separate us from their company, and cast out our name as evil, Luke 6. vers. 22.

To let passe how they scandalize others in their conscience by such dissem­bling and denying, both the true beleevers, from whom they separate them­selves, and the erring, whom they confirm with their example in the errour, whereas they might have induced and perswaded them by a free profession of the known Truth at least to a further inquisition, or also to a brotherly recon­ciliation.

Now although we cannot generally judge any thing else of the obstinate er­ring and of such dissembling persons, but that they in this manner live in a dangerous condition of their souls, and even for this reason we exhort them, as tenderly as they love their own salvation, to the knowledge and profession of Truth, or at least to the mitigation of their uncharitablenesse: Yet we may not therefore instantly and rashly condemn the persons, but rather hope and pray to God he may, if not now by our admonition, yet finally before their last gasp, illuminate and bring the erring unto the knowledge of the Truth, or unto Christian love and reconciliation, and move the dissembling to a sound and wholesome Confession.