Persis oriens India omnes Barbarae nationes uâ—um Christum adorant unam observant regulam veritatis What were all these but such as after were called VValdenses And in the first ages Pius 2. saith ante concilium Nicenuâ—â— parvus respectus babitus fuerat ad Romanam ecclesiars before the Nicen councill little respect was â—ad to th Church of Rome See this learnedly Demonstrated by the learned Voetius and his reason is good Ignatius Ireneus Iustin. Martyr Clâ—m Alexandr Tertullian Cyprian speak not one syllable of popery or popish articles also Lucian Porphyrius Trypheâ— Cellus Sosymus Symmachus Iulian mockers of Reiligon would have spoken against transubstantiation one body in many thousand places worshipping of dead bones the worshipping of a Tree Crosse and dumbe images and bread a Pope who could not erre and they would have challenged and examined miracles and I adde if they scoffed at the Doctrine of these called after VValdenses as the confession beareth then were the Church of Waldenses though not under that name in their time The Jewes objected against the Fathers Tatian Theophilus Athenages Iustin Tertullian Alexand. Cyâ—rian Chrysostome Isiodorus Hispalensis Iulianus Poâ—nerius They objected all they could devise against the Christian Faith but not a word of poynts of popery now controversed Ergo popery hath not beene in the World then an 188. In the Time of Victor many opposed victors Tyranny and as Plessaeus and Doctor Molineus saith were called Schismaticks therefore and excommunicated Neither can Gretserus nor Bellarmine defend this but by lies and raylings Yea from the 4. to the 7. age saith Voetius produce one Martyr professor or Doctor See Augustine de side ad Petrum Ruffinus his exposition of the Creed Gâ—nnadius of the Articles of the Church Theodoret his Epitome Divinorum decretorum Cyrillus his tract de fide and produce one holding the popish Faith Clemens Romanus and Elutheriâ—s in the Epistle to the Bishops of France maketh all Bishops pastors of the Church universall Any who readeth Greâ—serus against Plâ—ssie may see in the 4. age that Baronius and Bellarmine cannot desend that appeale was made to the Pope in the councell of Carthage yea the Popes Legate brought Apiarius to the Councell that his cause might be judged there becausâ— the Pope could not judge it and that the Councell of Chalcedon was per precepta Valentiniani convened and that Canstantinople was equall with Rome That Simplicius Gâ—lasius and Symmachus were Judges in their owne cause and that Hormisda an 518. had no command over the Oâ—ientall Churches as may be seene in Baronius So Pelagius the 1. Ioan. the 3. and Pelagius the 2. were refused the honour of universall Bishops and could not helpe the matter See Gretser and Honorius must be defended as not denying two wills and two natures in Christ. See what saith Bâ—ronius of this The councell of Constantinople would not receive the worshipping of Images The best part of the Western Churches were against it The Churches of France Germany Italy Brittaine The councell of franckford of Paris so did they all refuse the power of the Pope So Occam Gerson Scotus in most poynts were not papists Nor Cajetan Contaren Almâ—in Ioa Major Caranza Therefore said Thuanus the Doctrine of the VValdenses were now and then renewed by 〈◊〉 and Hus and when Hildebrand came in all know what wicked new poynts hee brought in as in the Tomes of the councells may bee seene and Onuphrius sayth quod major pars antea parum in usu fuerit The greatest part of his novelty not heard before or little in use His Tyranny upon the consciences of Church-men forbidding marriage and over the Lords people may be seene in Sleidan In Lampadius and his forme of excommunicating the Emperour as it is written by Beruriedenses and Sigonius also Aventinus Gerochus Reicher spergeâ—sis Orthuinus Gratius and others can tell But ere I speake of this monster head I should not have omitted humble Stephanus the 5. To whom Lodovick the Emperour descending from his Horse fell down upon the Earth thrice before his feete and at the third time saluted him thus blessed be the Lord God who commeth in the Name of the Lord and who hath shined upon us As Theganus saith that Pashalis excuseth himselfe to the Emperour Lod. That hee had leapen to the Popedome without his authority which saith this headship is not supreame as Aimoinus saith who was a murderer of Theodorus The Roman Churches Seale-keeper and of Leâ— for having first put out their Eyes hee then beheaded them say the same Aimoinus Gregory the 4. caused Lodovick the Emperours sons to conspire against the Father and was upon that plot himselfe Sergius the 2. made an act that a Bishop should be convinced of no fault but under sevety and two witnesses Siconulphus a Prince desiring to have this Popes blessing came to Rome and kissed sayth Gretserus after Anastasius his precious feete Anguilbert Archiepisc. Mediolanensis departed out of the Roman Church for the pride of Rome and Simon of Sergius sayth Sigonius It was ordinary for all sayth Anastasius to kisse the seate of Leo the 4. Platina saith hee was guilty of a conspiracy against Gratianus a godly and worthy man to expell the French-men out of the Kingdome and bring in the Grecianeâ— Gretser the Jesuite saith their owne Platina is a Lyer in this Wee all know there was an English Woman-Pope called Ioanna betwixt Leo the 4. and Benedictus the 3. Bellarmine Baronius Gretser Lipsius will have it a fable Platina a popish writter is more to be believed then they all for hee affirmeth it as truth A great schisme arose in the Church because Benedictus the 3. was chosen Pope without the Emperours consent The Emperour did hold the bridle and lead the Horse of Nicolaus the 1. Gretser cannot deny this hee defended and maintained Baldvinus who was excommunicated by the Bishops of France because he ravished Iuditha the daughter of Câ—rolus Calvus Hee pleaded that there was no reason but the decretalls of the popes should be received as the Word of God but because they were not written in the bookes of Church-Canons for by that reason some bookes of the old and New Testament are not to be received as Gods Word Grets said these Epistles were equall with Gods Word and said they had neither these Epistles nor the Scriptutes authority from the holy Spirit but from the Church That the church was foure hundred yeeres ignorant of the authority of the Scriptures that hee himselfe was Jehova eternall and that Gratianus had inserted it in his distinct 96. That hee was God Adrian the 2. approved of Basilius his killing of Michael the Emperour his Father Onuphrius who observeth 26. Schisms of antipopes thinketh Schismatick Popes no popes as Benedict 5. and
Kingly Priestly and Propheticall office be overturned as we were forced in Popery to do we are to separate from the Church in that case It is not true that Master Robinson saith This distinction of fundamentalls and non-fundamentals in injurious to growing in grace whereas we should be led on to perfection as if it were sufficient for a house that the foundation were laid Answ. It followeth not for the knowledge of fundamentalls is onely that wee may know what is a necessary meane of salvation without which none can be saved notwithstanding he who groweth not and is not led on to perfection never laid hold on the foundation Christ nor are we hence taught to seeke no more but so much knowledge of fundamentals as may bring as to heaven that is an abuse of this Doctrine 2. Robinson faith fundamentall truthes are holden and professed by as vile heretickes as ever were since Christs dayes a company of excommunicates may hold teach and defend fundamentall truths yet are they not a true Church of God Answ. Papists hold fundamentalls and so doe Jewes hold all the old Testament and Papists hold both new and old but we know they so hold fundamentalls that by their doctrine they overturne them and though there bee fundamentalls taught in the Popish Church which may save if they were beleeved yet they are not a true and ministeriall Church simply because though they teach that there is one God they teach also there is a thousand Gods whom they adore and though they teach there is one Mediator yet doe they substitute infinite Mediators with and besides Christ so that the truth is not a formall ministeriall and visible active externall calling is in the Church of Rome as it is a visible Church in the which wee can safely remaine though fundamentalls be safe in Rome and the bookes of the old and new Testament be there yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can sucke for fundamentall points falsely exponed cease to be fundamentall points yea as they be ministerially in Rome they be destructive of the foundation though there bee some ministeriall acts valid in that Church for the which the Church of Rome is called a true Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect according to something essentiall to the true Church yet never sine adjecto as if it were a true Church where we can worship God Fundamentalls are safe in Rome materially in themselves so as some may be saved who beleeve these fundamentalls but fundamentalls are not safe in Rome Ecclesiastice Ministeraliter Pastoraliter in a Church way so as by beleeving these from their chaires so exponed they can be saved who doe beleeve them 2. Out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother whose daughters we are Some say the fundamentalls amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted I answer There is a twofold eversion of the foundation 1. One Theologicall Morall and Ecclesiastick as the doctrine of the Councell of Trent which is in a ministeriall way with professed obstinacy against the fundamentall truths rightly exponed and such an eversion of the foundation maketh the Popish Church no Church truely visible whose breasts we can sucke But for Lutheranes their subversion of the foundation by philosophick consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentalls and that not in an Ecclesiasticke and Ministeriall way doth not so evert the fundamentalls as that they bee no visible Church The learned Pareus sheweth that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation the dissention is in one point onely anent the Lords Supper not in the whole doctrine thereof but in a part thereof not necessary for salvation There were divisions betweene Paul and Baâ—nabas betwixt Cyprim an African Bishop and Stephanus Bishop of Rome anent baptisme of hereticks which Cyprian rejected as no baptisme betwixt Basilius Magnus and Eusebius Ceâ—ariensis because Basilius stood for the Emperour Vaâ—ns his power in Church matters so was there dissention betwixt Augustine and Hierâ—nimus anent the ceremonies of the Jewes which Hyeronymus thought might be retained to gaine the Jewes so there was also betwixt Epiphanius and Chrysostome anent the bookes of Origâ—n The Orthodox beleevers agreed with the Novations against the Arrians anent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consubstantialitie of Christ and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentalls sound and so may bee materially a true Church yet because their profession is no profession but adenying of the power of godlinesse they cannot be formally a visible Church but are for scandalls casten out of the visible Church But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first rudiments and foundation of Religion and therefore cannot bee a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remaine in that darknesse are to be cast out But saith he the bare profession of fundamentalls maketh not a Church they must be a company of faithfull people and if they must not be truely faithfull then they must be falsely faithfull for God requireth true and ready obedience in his word according to which wee must define Churches and not according to casuall things Answ. This is a speciall ground that deceiveth the Separatists their ignorance I meane of the visible Church for the visible Church consisteth essentially neither of such as be truely faithfull nor of such as must be falsely faithfull for the ignorant man seeth not that the visible Church includeth neither faith nor unbeliefe in its essence or definition It is true to the end that professors may be members of the invisible Church they must be beleevers must beleeve except they would be condemned eternally but to make them members of the visible Church neither beleeving nor unbeleeving is essentiall but onely a profession ecclesiastically in tear that is not scandalous visibly apparently lewd and flagitious such as was the profession of Simon Magus when he was baptized with the rest of the visible Church Act. 8. And God indeed requireth of us true worship and ready obedience as he saith but not that a visible Church should be defined by true and sincere obedience for essentials onely are taken in a definition and casuall corruptions are only accidentall to Churches and fall out through mens faults and therefore should not be in the definition either of a visible or an invisible Church nor should ready and sincere obedience which is a thing invisible to mens eyes be put in the definition of a visible Church for it is accidentall to a visible Church and nothing invisible can be essentiall to that which essentially is visible the visible Church is essentially visible Anent separation from Rome we hold these Propositions 1. Profession consistetly not onely in a publike ministeriall avowing
his brother and therefore we doubt not but the Church hath jus law to excommunicate the Apostles in case of obstinacie and would have used this power iâ— Judas had lived now when the power of excommunication was in vigor but wee say withall de facto the suâ—position was unpossible in respect that continued and habituall obstinacie and flagitious and atâ—ocious scandals deserving excommunication were inconsistent with that measure of the holy Spirit bestowed upon those Catholick Organs and vessels of mercy but this exempteth the Apostles from act all excommunication de facto but is our brethren exâ—â—pt them a jure from the Law they transforme the Apostles into Popes above all Law which wee cannot doe Apostolick eminencie doth 〈…〉 neither Peter nor Paul to bee above either the 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 Law or the positive Lawes gi 〈…〉 One doth wittily say on these 〈…〉 Matth. 8. 15. The Pope is either a 〈…〉 if hee bee a brother offending 〈…〉 complaine of him to the Church 〈…〉 bee no brother there 's an end 〈…〉 his father and never after this 〈…〉 〈…〉 in a Synod as Apostles doth not 〈…〉 in Apostolick acts could not use Sy 〈…〉 others 1. Because Daniel 9. 2. 〈…〉 understood by books the num 〈…〉 Lord came to Jeremiah the 〈…〉 Paul 1 Cor. 1. 1. and Timothi 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 1 Thess. 1. 1. and 3. The 〈…〉 and yet â— ophâ—ts and Apostles were immedi 〈…〉 which they â—â—ote and spake Answ. 1. Daniel â—â—d the Prophecie of Jeremiah and the Pro 〈◊〉 the books of Moses and the Apostles read the old Testament 〈◊〉 and Paul read â—eathen Poets and citeth them Act. 17. 〈◊〉 Tiâ— 1. 12. and maketh them Scripture 2. But the question is now if as Prophets and immediatly inâ—â—â— Prophets and Apostles they did so consult with Scripture which they reade as they made any thing canoniâ—k Scripture upon 〈◊〉 medium and formall reason because they did read it 〈◊〉 it out of bookes and not because the immediate iâ—â—piration of the holy Ghost taught them what they should 〈◊〉 canonick Scripture Suppone a sentence of a â—eathen 〈◊〉 suppone this that Paul left his cloake at Troâ—s not the â—â—â—wledge of sense not naturall reason not experience none â—â— these can bee a formall medium a formall meane to make scripture but as thus saith Jehovah in his word is the formall reason why the Church beleeveth the Scripture to be the Word â—â— God so the formall reason that maketh Prophets and Apostles to put downe any truth as that which is formally canonicall scripture whether it bee a supernaturall truth as the 〈◊〉 was made flesh or a morall truth as Children obey your 〈◊〉 or a naturall truth as The Oxe knoweth his owner or an experienced truth as make not friendship with an angry 〈◊〉 a truth of heathen moralitie as mee are the off-spring of God or a truth of sense Paul lest his cloâ—ke at Tâ—oas I say the 〈◊〉 formall reason that maketh it divine and Scripturall truth is the immediate inspiration of God therefore though 〈◊〉 learned by bookes that the captivitie should indure seventi yeares yet his light by reading made it not formally Scripture but Daniels putting it in the Canon by the immediat actiâ—r impulsion and inspiration of the holy Spirit and though Matthew did read in Esaiah A Virgin shall conceive and beared Sonne yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament because Esaiah said it but because the holy Ghost did imdiatly suggest it to him as a divine truth for a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a Chapter of orthodox truths all in Scripture words and beleeve them to bee Gods truth yet that Chapter should not formally bee the Scriptur of God because though the Author did write it by the light of faith yet the Propheticall and Apostolicall spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author I know some Schoolâ— Papists have a distinction here They say there bee some sepernaturall truths in Scriptures as predictions of things that tall out by the mediation of contingent causes and the supernaturall mysteries of the Gospell as that Achab shall bee killed in the wars the Messiah shall bee borne c. Christ came to 〈◊〉 sinners and those were written by the immediatly inspiring Spirit others were but historicall and naturall truths of fact as that Paul wrought miracles that hee left his cleake at Troas and these latter are written by an inferior spirit the assisting not the immediatly inspiring Spirit and by this latter spirit say they much of Scripture was written and from this assisting Spirit commeth the traditions of the Church say they and the decrees of Popes and councells and this holy Spirit though infallible may and doth use disputation consultations councells of Doctors reading but wee answer that what counsells determin by an assisting spirit is not Scripture nor yet â—m-ply infallible nor doth Daniel advise with Jeremialis writing what hee shall put downe as Scripture nor Paul with Sosâ—hâ—â—â—â— with Timothy and Silvamus what hee shall write as Canonick Scripture in his Epistles for then as the decrees of the coun 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders and this decree which commeth from the Apostles and Elders assemâ—led with one accord and speaking with joynt suffrages from the holy Ghost v. 7 8 9 10 c. v. 28. as collaterall authors of the decree is the conclusion of Apostles and Elders so also should the prophâ—cie of Daniel at least the first two verses of the ninth chapter bee a part of Daniel and a part of Jeremiâ—hs prophecie and Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians should bee the Epistle of Paul and Sâ—stheâ—es and his Epistles to the Colossians and Thessahâ—ianâ— the Epistles of Paul of Timothy of Silvanus whereas Sosthenes Timothy Silvanus were not immediatly inspired collaterall writers of these Epistles with Paul but onely joyners with him in the salutation The erring and scandalous Churches are in a hard condition if they cannot bee edified by the power of jurisdiction in presbyteries Object But it never or seldome in a century falleth out that a Church is to bee excommunicated and Christ hath provided Lawes for things onely that fall out ordinarily Answ. It is true wee see not how an whole Church can bee formally convented accused excommunicated as one or two brethren may bee in respect all are seldome or never deserted of God to fall into an atrocious scandall and wilful obstinacie yet this freeth them not from the Law as suppose in a Congregation of a thousand if five hundreth bee involved in libertinisme are they freed because they are a multitude from Christs Law or from some positive punishment by analogie answering to excommunication 2. The Eldership of a Congregation being three onely doth not seldome scandalously offend and are they under no power under heaven The people may withdraw from them saith the Synod of New England what then so may I withdraw
they are registred in the bookes of Old Testament bee formally Scripture yet as cited by the Apostles they dâ—e not become Scripture except these saying bee cited tali modo that is by the influence of the immediatly inspiring holy Ghost which influence onely maketh formally any saying to bee Scripture Object 12. If the Apostles did not in a Synod with the Elders dispute and voyce as Apostles it should follow that as Apostles they did plant Churches but after the Churches were planted they ceased to bee Apostles and did all as ordinary Elders which is most incongrâ—oâ—s for then should they descend from an infallible to a fallible spirit Answ. The Apostles did onely use their Apostolick power when there was need of it as God worketh not miracles but in some necessitating exigence of second causes and what they could doe by an ordinary power when the Churches were once constituted they did not attempt to doe by their Apostolick power and though their Apostolick power was in them as a habit yet the exercise thereof was rather under the dominion of an extraordinary and immediate rapt and influence of God then under the mastery of their owne free-will I would aske why the Church of Antioch no doubt most lawfully Act. 15. 2. did send to seeke resolution at the fallible spirit of Elders and also as our brethren teach at the infallible spirit of the Apostles and why did they not from their infallible and Apostolick spirit seeke out and choose seven men to bee Deacons but remitted to the fallible spirit of the multitude who are not infallible or Apostolick in their choise both the nomination and election of these seven men but the Apostles did much honour the Churches of Christ in cooperating with them and in doing most things with their consent that by example they might interdict dominion and assert a ministeriall power and make Christ most Monarch-like in the government of his spirituall Kingdome nor did they put off or interdict themselves nor forfeit their Apostolick power after Churches were constituted but used their Apostolick power at the Commandement of that great King exalted Jesus Christ whose Catholick Ambassadours they were as God immediatly moved them Object 13. Paul exercised the power of the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians and might have preached to Indians and did presâ—h to the scefling Athenians Ergo hee might exercise power of jurisdiction over them and judge those who are without it is no consequence and against the word of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea Paul by this power dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians Act. 17. 22. I perceive that in all things yee are too superstitious yet Paul had no power to excommunicate the Athenians Mr. Mather Answ. I deny not but there is great odds betwixt a concionall rebukinâ— by way of preaching which may bee and is alwayes performed by one and a juridicall rebuking by a power juridicall of the Keyes which is performed onely by a Church-sâ—ciâ—tie now it cannot bee denyed but the rebuking of men because they subverted soules v. 24. is not a meere concionall rebuking which may bee performed by one 1. it is a rebuking v. 24. 2 it is a rebuking performed by many by a whole Synod v. 6. v. 22. 3 It is performed by a politicall societie and body having a dogmaticall power to judge and determine in a doctâ—inall way as our brethren say and consequently as wee say having a juridicall power v. 25. It seemed good unto us being assembled with one accord to send chosen men unto you c. which is undenyably a politicall body an assembled company as v. 6. met about a question which concerneth the Churches of Christ as is cleare v. 2. v. 6. v. 23. c. 16. 4 5. c. 21. 25. compared with v. 22. hence a businesse of doctrine which troubleth the Churches of Antioch c 15. 2. and of Jerusalem v. 5 6 7 8. and Syria and Cilicia v. 23 24. must bee a Church-businesse in respect of the subject 2. The question is a Church-question in the matter of practise it conoâ—rneth the consciences of the Churches in the point of taking and giving offence in a Church-societie as this doth v. 19. That yee trouble not them which amongst the Gentiles are turned unto God and v. 28 29. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 24 25 26 27 c. Rom. 14. 14 15. this was a Church-â—candall or publick offence as touching the matter materia quâ—nt 2 The forme and manner of deciding the controversie was a publick Church-way by the Word of God Act. 15. so 〈◊〉 proveth v. 7 8. 9. and James v. 15 16 c. maketh good 4 The efficient causes and agents in the question are 1. Church 〈◊〉 v. 6. Apostles and Elders 2. Church-officers conveened Church-wayes in a Church-body or societie v. 6. c. 15. and The Apostles and Elders came together in a Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which cur brethren acknowledgeth doth 1 Cor. 5. 4. note a formall Church-assembly to consider of this matter and â— 25. It seemed good to us being assembled with one accord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the very word Church is not wanting though with reverence of others it seemeth not to bee the multitude seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beeing so generall must have its signification from the action and end for which the meeting is intended as before I said as is cleare v. 22. It pleased the Apostles Elders and whole Church 5. The action they performe when they are met in a politicall body is to decide a Church-controversie that troubled many Churches Act. 15. 2. v. 23 24. 6 The end is the peace and edifying of the Churches as that the Churches of the Gentiles bee not troubled with needlesse ceremonies as James saith v. 19. and the good of the Churches v. 29. from which if you keepe your selves yee shall doe well c. 16. 4. And â—s they went through the cities they delivered them the Decrees to 〈◊〉 v. 5. so were the Churches established in the faith Consider 〈◊〉 is the happy end and fruit of this Synod The establishâ—â—â— of the Churches Therefore have our brethren without reason I speake with reverence of their learning and godlinese denied the word Church to bee given to a Synod or a meeting of Elders which to mee is cleare Act. 15. v. 6. The 〈◊〉 sending is the Eldership of Antioch the Church receiâ—â—â— v. 4. is the Eldership at Jerusalem and cannot conveniently bee exponed of the whole and numerous thousands that â—â—eâ—ed at Jerusalem the rebuking cannot then bee meerely â—â—â—â—inall by the power of the keyes of knowledge which is exercised by one nor are the Apostles and Elders here considered as meerely Preachers and Teachers in the Act of teacher for why then should they not bee formally a Church and a Church-assembly as our Brethren say if they bee an assembly meeting for preaching the Word for the exercise of the keyes of Knowledge in the hearing of a multitnde
our opinions learned and holy men yea and whole Churches may looke beside their booke and be deceived and these we take not to be the subject of a sworne confession of faith and here we grant a non liquet on both sides and doe allow some graine weights of reserve to persons and Churches to retract in those things but hence it is badly concluded that we beleeve these non-fundamentals of discipline for which we have certainty of evidence from Gods Word with a reserve and with a loosnesse of assent and credulity to beleeve the contrary to morrow for so the same argument should militate against the certainty of faith in some fundamentals for a person yea any particular Church may erre in denying the resurrection of the dead as some did in the Church of Corinth and Christs Disciples though true beleevers doubted of his rising from the dead John 20. 9. Peter and the disciples doubted of Christ dying for the losed world Mat. 16. 21 22. Luke 24. 25 26. and because any true beleever may fall in that temptation and weaknesse as to deny all the articles of faith taken divisively for they may deny this or this article fundamentall though I doe not thinke a regenerated person can deny the whole systeme and body of fundamentals collectively it shall follow by this argument that regenerated persons and particular Churches are to beleeve some fundamentals with a reserve and keeping roome for light to beleeve the contrary and so if this argument be good wee have no certainty of faith in beleeving any one fundamentall article its alone Nor can Nathan or Samuel have certainty of faith in beleeving their owne prophecies flowing from the immediate inspiration of the Spirit but they are to beleeve them with a capacity to receive the faith of the contradicent prophecies because Nathan had no certainty of faith in commanding David to build the Temple and Samuel had as little certainty in pronouncing Eliah to be the Lords annoynted Another doubt against this is That if any out of weaknesse and meere tendernesse of conscience deny some superstructures which are indeed scripturall truths they are not to be counted hereticks because out of weaknesse not out of obstinacy they erre nor to be censured with excommunication or censures of Church or Magistrate and therefore in these we are to beleeve truths with a reserve and to tolerate the contrary minded if they agree with us in fundamentals Answ. That this may be answered 1. The object of these opinions would be distinguished 2. The persons weak or strong 3. The manner of refusing instruction or of admitting light of meere weaknesse or of obstinacy For the first if the matter be faultlesse or light as eating meats or not eating meats in time when they are meerely indifferent and the person weake and scarce capable of disputation he is to be tolerated and not received into knotty and thorny disputations about things indifferent for so Paul Rom. 14. is to be understood when he will not have the weake taken in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Michael strove with the Angel disputing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the matter concerne an institution of Christ and our necessary practise in a Church and the party be not weake It is a question what maketh obstinacy and what tendernesse and weaknesse Turrecremata saith he who is ready to yeeld to light is not obstinate Scotus grosse ignorance Canus saith affected ignorance maketh obstinacie Malderus saith that grosse ignorance may leave a man ready to yeeld to the information of the Church Alphonsus a Castro saith better he is obstinate who 1. defendeth an opinion against the Scripture or saith he which is his error against the definition of a generall Councell or of the Pope 2. Who being admonished doth not amend 3. Who seeketh not resolution from the learned with a purpose to render himselfe truths captive 4. Who sweareth that he shall adhere to the end to that opinion By the light and knowledge of the holder of the opinion it may be collected whether he seeketh truth and is ready to yeeld himselfe and his understanding thereunto and except the point be fundamentall it can hardly be judged heresie if the point may be holden without any scandall or breach of peace much tolerance is required where error seemeth to be a temptation to holy men but finall tolerance and unlimitted where the party is of great knowledge and hath sway in the minds of many to prevaile to draw others after him is harder Object But hee that serveth God in these is acceptable to God Rom. 14. 18. and if a man judge some doctrine to bee error though it bee no error yet to him that so judgeth it is error if hee suffer death for that hee judgeth truth hee suffereth for righteousnesse being truth in his judgement and therefore libertie of conscience is to bee given to all sects Christ would not forbid a man that preached in his name to preach though hee did not follow him Mark 9. 38. Luk. 9. 50. The best way to hinder Sects is to reâ—ute them by the Scriptures and not to set decrees of Synods to others because that is done already by Christ and his Apostles for Gods judgement shall still bee on you while you establish Christs Jubilee and freedome of consciences Luke 4. 18. Answ. Let none thinke that these bee the words of our brethren but of a certaine Anabaptist and of Arminians and Socinians who object the same for Paul Rom. 14. 18. hee that serveth God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bee understood as the context teacheth us that is that they relate the words going before v. 17. hee who serveth God in righteousnesse in peace in joy of the holy Ghost the meaning is not that hee is acceptable who serveth God in following the inditement of his light and conscience because it is his conscience for then some should please God in sinning against God But it is a point worthy our consideration what tie and obligation an erroneous conscience layeth on men hence with correction these considerations 1. The true cause why an erring conscience obliegeth to abstinence from the fact in the case of error and misrepresentation of conscience is 1. Because conscience is the nearest divine principle of our morall actions and standeth in the roome of God and therefore hee who doth any thing against the very erroneous ditement of conscience is hence convinced to have a perverse will to sinne against the majestie of God because hee who should beleeve usury to bee theft though we should suppose with Calvin and other great Divines usurie to bee in some cases lawfull should yet take usury hath a theâ—teous will in that and doth steale 2. Because the oblieging Law of God is not applyed to our actions at all but by the interveening actuall use of our conscience see Pirerius 2. Consideration In the question whether an erroneous conscience doth obliege