Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	lie_v	writ_n	3,734	5	10.0138	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89317	Coena quasi koinē: the new-inclosures broken down, and the Lords Supper laid forth in common for all Church-members, having a dogmatical faith, and not being scandalous: in a diatribe, and defence thereof: against the apology of some ministers, and godly people, (as their owne mouth praiseth them) asserting the lawfulness of their administring the Lords Supper in a select company: lately set forth by their prolocutor, Mr. Humphrey Saunders. / Written by William Morice of Werrington, in Devon, Esq;	Morice, William, Sir, 1602-1676.	1657 (1657)	Wing M2762; Thomason E895_1	613,130	518

tongue to shew that the tongue should adhere to the hear● and utter the truth thereof so truly we have found their heart hanging on their tongue in this matter and however they would else blanch the businesse yet they have dropt a confession elswhere that it is non-conformity to their discipline which is the ground of their exclusion and here they reply that scandall is not that alone for which they reiect but they must see some measure of true godly feare some degree of graciousnesse in those they admit it is not enough that they have nothing against them to defeat that title which as Church-members they have to Church-fellowship but they require from them a farther proofe and verifying thereof by signall demonstrations of sound grace And though we shall grant as they say That it is a smoakie house where ordinarily the smeak breaks out yet it doth not follow that they make break into every house to examine whether it be sullied with smoak or not but rathertarry and tye up their judgement till the smoak break out and rather suspend their censures through charity then men by precipitation which is noverca justitiae and seeing they pretend to judge of men by their actions what need is there of other examination when they may be sufficiently read in those real characters and till they can charge them with offences in particular instanced and evidenced in their circumstances they should supersede the notion that they here give them of offending Brethren Besides Though Smoak shall break out of an house there may be other wayes to rectifie it then by pulling down the chimney admonition or reproof may be a means to amend what was a miss and perchance the fault might be in the present ill-laying of the wood or some violent storm as few chimnies but smoak by such accidents as a strong tentation and sudden passion may overbear or transport a man contrary to his constant course and frame of spirit But though they read not as they write nor sing as they prick as it is said of the French but fit the Notes according to the Ears and to the interest of the occasion yet let them say or unsay it we know that very many of those whom they reject or lay aside are not justly aspersible with notorious crimes which onely constitute scandals and very few or none that we know have been duly or judicially convicted for such and therefore not onely speculatively to esteem them criminous but practically to deport themselves toward them as such seems to ly● within the precincts and bounds of temerarious judgement To stave off and evade the charge of rash judgment illis robur aes triplex Circapectus crat they make a Threefold Defence saying 1. That they judge not mens hearts Nor 2. The●r final estate but present condition 3. They make judgements by their actions If we should gratifie them with a concession of the Hypothesis yet the brush will not white the Wall nor wash out the stain we may allow their Ple● In 22 q. 60. art 3. Ubi supr Baldwin l. 4. c. 12. Cas 7. p. 1177 Lessius l. 2. c. 29. dub 2. p. 296. Azor. par 3. l. 13. c. 11 pa. 1150. Filiucius tract 40. c. 1. sect 2. p. 386. and yet they will fail of their issue and a Writ of Errour lye against their judgement temerarious judgement taken generally being assensus ●ve certus ●ve incertus vel etiam dubitatio de malo proximi quae oritur ex levibus indiciis atque adeo insufficientibus as Sylvius delivers it from whom the School and Cas●ists dissent not and thereof Aquinas and Baldwin Lessius Azorius Filiucius out of him make Three degrees 1. In ipere dubitare de bonitate alterius 2. Certò aestimare ejus malitiam 3. Procedere ad aliquem judicialiter condemnandum And those may be light and insufficient reasons to warrant the 3 degree which may justly prompt us to the 2 and those that may induce us to the 1 may not justifie the 2 therefore though they neither judgemens hearts nor final estate yet if they make judgement of the present condition by such actions Ames cas cons l. 5 c. 11. p. 295. as are an insufficient foundation for such a superstructure it will be rash judgement formally although it be true judgement as a true assertion may be a lye as Ames observeth But to interpose our exceptions to their pleadings in particular First concerning the judging of their final estate I think that it is such a fault as covetousness was to Luther contrary to his nature he was never tempted with it so I think few men do offend in this or presume to judge of Gods eternal counsel but only according to mens present justice not to censure others abselutely but conditionally as they shall repent or go on in their trespasses none being ignorant that God can raise children to Abraham out of stones and perfect the new Creation as he did the first out of nothing and unless therefore they could also create something out of nothing this part of their answer will little fa●isfie or conduce to their excuse 2. Though they deny it yet they do judge the heart if they judge the man and his estate for the heart is the man and makes the estate as Apollodorus his heart told him in his dream when he seemed to be in the boyling choldron that it was he that did him all the mischief If they shall think to salve that sore by the second part of Physick which th●y prevented not by the first and shall say they mean that they judge not the heart immediatly or by intuition but mediately by the actions and by discourse and judge not the intentions when the actions they cannot Then Secondly If the actions cannot give result and bottom to such a judgement if more be put in the Conclusion then flowes from the Premises and the branches sprout farther than the root can bear them the heart is judged without or beyond the actions but seeing every mans heart is conscious of that which Augustine saith Totam vitam humanam circumlatraripeccatis In Psal 129. our justice consisting not in perfection of virtues but remission of sins upon which place of Augustine Vives well n●teth boni sumus non quod bene vivimus sed quod commissorum scelerum nobis fit à Deo gratia for as our corruptions are as the Historian said of the Germans triumphati potius quam victi so also consequently all our righteousness here is in ficri non facto esse being neither pure but mixt as those we call pure Elements have much impurity onely the coelestial bodies are fully purified nor perfect for there sometimes want parts as alwayes degrees and the best men are imperfect not only in latitudine entis or in genere but in specie also as the learned distinguish and aliter hic non potes esse perfectus nisi scias hic

those Tares to be Emblems of wicked and scandalous men Ad zizania reseruntur omnia scandala saith Hierom scandala tum doctrinae tum vitae as Piscator agreeing in sense with Beza the children of the wicked one that is Hereticks Schismaticks Hypocrites wicked and profane men living in the Church as the late Annotations out of Theophylact Euthymius Augustine when beyond all those we have better testimony from the Word and Truth Christ himselfe interpreting this parable who expoundeth the Tares to be the children of the wicked one and them which doe iniquity which is too comprehensive to be restrained onely to hypocrites and seeing that which the Angell-reapers shall gather at the last great harvest is the same that the servants discerned to be tares and would precipitously have pluckt up that being expressly said to be scandals in the originall and the same word is retained by the vulgar and Tremelius and Offendicula whereby others render it is the same in sense though not in sound those Tares must be concluded to be scandals and though they come near Christians bearing the name and owning the profession and therein indeed like believers yet they may be distinguished from sincere Christians otherwise they could not be scandals and though they may be denominated hypocrites in a large and generall notion because their actions give the lye unto their profession In Ecclesia Christi ficte intrantes promittentes non facientes voventes non reddentes renunciantes malo iterum idem facientes as Augustine yet the falsity of that profession and the difference thereof from their actions was as discernable as the Tares from the Wheat But it seemes the Apologists will allow none to be in the Church save such onely who appeare to be godly and will cast out all whom they dscern not to be sincere he that had imbibed the Philosophy of Pythagoras would suspect the souls of the Donatists had made a transmigration into their bodies for had they with Aethalides been dispenc'd with for drinking of Lethe they might have said with Pythageras remembring when he was first Aethalides and after Euphorbus Cognovi clypeum l●vae gestamina nostrae and have owned the Shield of this answer for the same with that of the Donatists Contra Donat. post Collat. c. 8 p. 123. tom 7. or very like it who being prest by the Catholicks with arguments drawn from those similitudes chose to answer to that of the net gathering of every kind malos in Ecclesia usque in finem seculi permixtos esse confessi sunt sed occultos cos esse dixerunt quoniam sic à sacerdotibus ignorantur quemadmodum pisces intra retia cum adhuc in mari sunt à piscatoribus non videntur to whom Augustine the then speaker of the Lords house his Church replies C. 10. Propterea ergo arcae comparata ost ut etiam manifesti malicum bonis in ea pronunciarentur futuri neque enim palea quae in area est permixta frumentis etiam ipsa sub fluctibus latet quae sic omnium oculis est conspicua ut potiùs occulta sint in ea frumenta cum sit ipsa manifesta As also in that Conference where were 306 orthodox Bishops Brevical Col. lat 3. die tom 7 p. 118. Quamvis debeat vigilare Ecclesiastica disciplina ad eos non solum verbis sed etiam excommunicationibus degradationibus corripiendos Contr. Donat. post Collat. c. 10. and no fewer than 296 of the Donatists it was asserted that i● was not destructive to discipline nor incompatible with the watchfulnesse therof for correption of evill men not onely by words but also by excommunications although mali non solum in ea latentes nesciantur sed plerunque propter pacem unitatis etia neogniti toleremur and therefore this glosse being in the judgment of the ancient Church so corruptive of the text Augustine tells them Quanto melius seipsos corrigant quam Euangelia sancta pervertunt ad vanum suae mentis errorem eloquia dominica detorquere conantur Though the beauty of holiness which like the Sun gilds those that look toward him though with squint eyes may give some specious advantages to those Declamations which are made against mixt communions as spots to that beauty yet this is rather paint or colour laid on than any true beauty and as they say the use of the artificiall fucus despoils the native candor so reall spots are contracted by those assayes to cleanse the imaginary and by those separations to make the Church more pure it becomes nimio candore deformis propter venustatem invenusta and the face of the Church more blemished by being made not onely lean and hollow and withered but also defective in many integrall parts and were they all onely parts superfluous yet is there more peril in their removall than their remaining as Chirurgions tell us that sometimes the cutting off of a Mole as an alloy to beauty hath occasioned the cutting off of life It is a grave censure given by Calvin that Augustinus redivious cum sub studio perfectionis imperfectionem null●m tolerare possumus in corpore aut in membris Ecclesiae tunc diabolum nos tumefacere superbia hypocrisi seducere moneamur What was the judgement of the ancient Church in this case of mixt communion may be seen by the verdict of Augustine who in the Controversies with the Donatists as well as in the contests with the Pelagians was the Foreman to say for them and that judgment as it was never reverst in after Ages by any Writ of Error so it is as direct to our issue as can be conceived for we have heard expressly that evill men are to be permixt with good in the Church till the great day of judgement and in one congregation in una Congregatione and not onely in hearing the same word of God idem verbum Dei simul audiunt but also communione sacramentorum they receive the same sacraments paria sacramenta tractantes simul Dei sacramenta percipiunt not onely participating of the one Sacrament of Baptisme but also of the other of the Supper of the Lord De verb. apost serm 23. tom 7. p. 76. Cont. Donat. post coll c. 20 p. 125. tom 7 quid si communicares cum illo malo mensam Domini and omnes ad unum altare accedebant and they did eat panem Domini and drink calicem Domini and those evil men are not latent or undetected hypocrites but known to be evill etiam cogniti and manifest evil manifesti mali and this is as full and as express as can be wished or imagined so that as the Fathers in a Councill against the Pelagians formed their Canons out of the very words of Augustine so we in this controversie need say no more than he hath said before us for us and as he that to avoyd the shot of an enemy took up his son in his

but doubtingly For whereas it may be answered that it is enough to act with the judgment of Charity and to go as far as that can lead and direct I shall reply That Charity is very incompetent to hold the Beam when things are to be waighed out in the Scales of Justice and with à suum cuique tribuere Charity presumeth all are good that are not manifestly evil interprets all doubtful things concerning persons in the better part and judgeth aliorum bona certa meliora certa mala minora bona dubia certa dubia mala nulla which though it exalt the excellency of the virtue absolutely yet it shews it is not respectively fit to be a just Judge which must be impartial and by what signs soever he may seek to make judgment the possibility of being deceived will render him still pendulous and doubtful whether those signs be certain or his disquisition and deliberation sufficient and besides if any shall say that they admit none that are manifestly wicked but such onely as being closely and secretly such cannot be discerned to be hypocrites I shall answer them as Augustine did Cresconius Contra Cresc l. 2. c. 23 24 26. Tom. 7. p. 47.49 Cur conaberis occultum excipere peccatorem quem Scriptura non excipit non ait oleum manifesti peccatoris sed absolute oleum peccatoris Nec qui Baptizatur à mortuo manifesto sed absolute à mortuo ita nec occultus excipitur quo evertitur omne quod loquer's so in like manner they are unregenerate absolutely such to whom the priviledges of the godly are to be denyed and not occult unregenerate men onely 3. Why is the one Sacrament more the priviledge of the godly As cited by Bede on 1 Cor. 10. and often by Chamier v. g. Tom. 4. S. 11. c. 5. Sect. 27. or more makes those Saints to whom it is exhibited then the other Are they not both alike equally Seals of the Covenant of Grace and is not the Eucharist the renewing of that Covenant which was formerly made by us or others for us in Baptisme Et institutio paria et significatio similia et finis facit aequalia It is no ways to be doubted saith Augustine that every one of the faithful doth partake of the body and blood of Christ when by Baptisme he is made a member of Christ They administer the Sacrament of Baptisme to Infants of whose sanctity they can have no prognosticks and of whose Parents holiness they have no Diagnostick signs to tell me that other qualifications are more requisite to the one Sacrament then the other is nihil ad rhombum that is not now our subject matter but whether if the Sacrament of the Eucharist be imparted to any that give not satisfactory testimony of grace the priviledges of the godly be prostituted and if so why then it should not hold alike in the other Sacrament of Baptisme also truly as all the Rivers run into the Sea from whence chiefly they are derived so let the Learned perpend Whether these conclusions that seem to tend and lead thereunto Advers Anabapt l. 6. c. 9 p. 229. did not first flow from the principles of Anabaptisme that great Abysse of modern Heresies though perchance as Rivers they may seem at first to run a quite contrary course from the Sea and to move so silently that none can discern their motion thitherward Post doctrinam de caena domini scrupulosè quaerunt Anabaptistae saith Bullinger quorum causâ instituta sit et quibus danda est ac multa de separatione dicunt atque hac ratione cae●am domini amabilem et gaudio plenam horribilem tristem faciunt ac aditum ad eam adeo coarctant ut pii quoque homines ab ea abhorreant et eam potius fugiant quàm accedant And as a straight Line drawn out in length is weak and cannot be strengthned but by being re-doubled and bowed back again whereby it draws neer to the nature of a circular Line which is more strong by the support which each part yieldeth to another so let it also be considered by the Senate of the Learned for these points need rather Oedipus then Davus whether the Apologists can be true and firm to their principle of admitting none to the one Sacrament as being the proper priviledge of the godly without satisfactory tokens of godliness unless they also suspend Infants from the other until they grow into a capacity of giving such marks and demonstrations and also whether they can exclude the Parents from the one Sacrament without rejecting their Children from the other since the Parents Faith is the ground of claim to the Child and if a Dogmatical Faith and External Profession cannot entitle the Parent to the Eucharist whether can it give the Child a right to Baptisme since quod facit tale debet esse magis tale But for my part were I convinced of the truth of these principles of the Apologists I should have strong tentations to turn Anabaptist and doubt I could not else be true to them or maintain them This may also pertinently serve to blank or founder their Hackney Argument that the seal is to set a blank and false testimony that is given by a promiscuous admission for when the Sacrament the seal of Faith is administred to those that are not true Believers the seal is set to testifie and confirm that truth of sacred Writ If thou believe thou shalt be saved which is the compendium and abstract of the Covenant This promise is made to unbelievers though it be the object of Faith but the thing promised which is the appropriate object of Hope is not to be acquired by any that performs not the condition Besides not onely by the rule of contraries nor alone by an equal accommodation of that rule in interpreting the Laws Praeceptum faciens includit praeceptum non faciens Mark 16.16 and therefore consequently the promise made to doing implies the threat against not doing but even in terms it is exprest that as he that believes shall be saved so he that believeth not shall be damned and therefore the Sacraments being seals of the Covenant as they confirm and ascertain the mercy to the faithful partakers so do they the judgement to the unfaithful receiver and therefore never is the seal set to a blank to whomsoever applied for somewhat of holy writ is still sealed either salvation or damnation according to the performance of the condition or not as the same Deed or Writing sealed and delivered may according to Covenants contain a grant and confirmation of a right and estate upon condition of some services and upon default thereof that right and estate to be forfeited and a mulct or penalty to be then incurred and he to whom the Original is sealed may seal back his counterpart and oblige himself to observe the condition before he have performed it and though perchance afterward he break

Augustine was as Tertullian to Cyprian Da magistrum but in other places Augustine asserts the contrary and as I know not of any other that so thought except Origen perchance seem to doe so so I deny that such misprision was the source of the other Truth which was bottomed upon pregnant Arguments collected from the Text and wherein those that doe conceive them to erre doe but as the Aethiopians who sentence candor for deformity The Ancients not consonant to this opinion are set down by Mr. Gallaspy in his Aarons Rod. Resp But sure his Rod is not Virgula divina it hath detected no hid treasure In 3. Aquin. in Evangel tom 3. these testimonies were long since laid open and discovered by the Schoolmen who profligate them and by Barradius and others neither is his like Aarons Rod in this particular but as the Magicians Rod having brought forth things not true and real but counterfeit hîc dormitabat Homerus We have brought them elsewhere to the Test Suarez 3. q. 73. art 5. disp 41. sect 3. Vasquez in 〈…〉 q. 81. art 〈…〉 disp 217. c. Ibid. c. 1. pag. 481. 482 Sylvius in 3. q. 81. 〈◊〉 p. 331. and we hope have sufficiently answered them and more we could say especially to that of Dionysius whom not onely all his Commentators saith Suarez interpret to hold Iudas to have communicated but Vasquez and Sylvius copiously vindicate and bring him off to our side as the former also turneth the edge of Rupertus his testimony against them who is alleaged by Mr. Gallaspy though omitted by the Apologists Rupertus saith he similiter scilicet solùm refert utrámque sententiam nullam tamen earum ut propriam pronunciat qui solùm contèndit ut is qui velit sententiam Hilarii defendere simul etiam asserere debeat nemini nisi de crimine convicto confesso communionem denegandam esse and were their judgement and practice such we should not quarrel them but indeed to adde more in this point the work would not be worth our lamp onely whereas the Apologists citing foure Testimonies onely out of Mr. Gallaspy for as I take it he mentions not Theophylact viz. Hilary Clement Dionysius and Innocent they tell us they have examined some of them by their own Books but though we cannot reconcile this with what they say a few lines before That Theophylact is in their own hands others they have transcribed upon the forenamed Authors authority yet we should be glad to be assured such ancient Authors did finde place among their Books if the one half of them were not counterfeit But sure Dionysius his Testimony is none of those they have examined otherwise they would not cite it under the name of his Commentator Pachymeres and for Innocent we are informed by Sylvius Ita propendet in unam partem ut alteram non rejiciat But Theophylact is in their hands In 3. q. 81. art 2. p. 331. Habeo Themistoclem Atheniensem he that shall survey divers of their quotations will be facil to suspect they cannot say of many of their Authors as they doe of Theophylact and it was incautely said so of him alone for as Exceptio roborat legem in rebus non exceptis so mentioning him to be in their hands and no others it may perchance be construed they could not say the same of others otherwise they would have said it of the rest of their Classicke Authors also But what saith Th●ophylact Some say Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples when Iudas was gone forth and doubtless they were Godly and eminent Divines in or before Theophylact 's time for he judgeth them worthy of credit and makes Christs practice according to their interpretation a rule to beleevers to doe the like and put evill men from the Sacrament Resp 1. It seems rather those some that said so were not viri nominis in the Hebrew idiom but sine nomine turba Or ignota capita after the Romane Periphrasis unless perhaps he meant it of Hilary whom straying from the common opinion of the Fathers he named not for honours sake as those which think that in the 16. of Luke to be an History supposed our Saviour named not the rich man because he spake in his dispraise and though Hilary be but one person and Theophylact speakes in the plural number yet such Enallage's of number are as current as common But if they were any of his own who lived in the tenth Century or thereabout for there is some difference about the precise time it is lesse to their credit that being the infelix seculum as Genebrard infelix indoctum as Bellarmine obscurum as Baronius exhaust and destitute of learned and ingenious Men and Writers and whatsoever these some were as omnes urgentur ignoti longâ nocte so it seems their authority weighed not much with Theophylact nor so as to incline the beame of his judgement to that opinion for however here he determine not the question on either side but leaves it in the middest yet elsewhere upon that of Matth. 26.27 drink ye all of this he seems to affirme that Iudas was admitted though he have a singular opinion that he onely drank of the Cup and reserved the Bread and though here as they say he make an inference from the Hypothesis yet that is ordinary among such as yet lay no great weight on the Thesis and whereas he infers that therefore we must put evil men from the Sacrament either he understands close and undiscovered evil men such as the Apologists say Iudas was and then he checks with them that say hypocrites may be admitted it being not in mens power to discern or exclude such or else known evil men and then the exclusion of such cannot be inferred from the expulsion of Iudas who was not such so as by the vouching of Theophylact I conceive they have gotten nothing but to let us know he is in their hands Benè habet Presbyter creatus est Campianus ab Antonio Archiepiscopo Pragensi as once said Whitaker They next array and empanel a jury of twelve the most eminent of our modern learned Writers hardly to be matched which oppose or leave doubtfull Judas his receiving and upon their verdict they give judgement in despight of all Writs of Error for who say they would not erre with such A strange line drop'd from their pens that so much avile all humane authority si ego id dixissem But indeed Pauperis est numerare pecus And though they say they could double the number besides learned Papists not a few Credat Iudaeus Apella Non ego I am confident they would have then made them legible had they been Classical for however some are nomina quibus assurgo and such as nunquam sine laude loquenda Yet they have drawn very low for others of them Pastor qui proprias congregat oves quas relinquit agnoscit alienas for me

operation and as St. Ambrose said to Theodosius of David Thou seest his sinne not his repentance so we see not whether men lapse into an offence by inadvertency surreption sudden motion nor how violent and importunate was the tentation whereby they succumbed nor how imperfect was the consent which might be much refracted by the reluctancy of the minde Aristotle himself distinguisheth between the sinnes of incontinent and intemperate persons the one offends with some reluctancy the other runs into evil with a full carriere Twisse vindic part 4. p. 192. and the incontinent he saith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath a principle of natural goodness that makes him prone to repent and capable of melioration And even a regenerate man is a mixt person made up of the flesh as well as the spirit he is as the twilight where light and darkness are mixt and blended together and though the path of the just be as the shining light which shineth more and more till perfect day yet till the second rise and coming of the Sunne of righteousness it suffers some alloy of darkness The flesh and the spirit are still at warre one with the other and though sometimes and in some things the one or the other prevail yet the one never worketh without the renitency and reaction of the other so that as the persons so the actions are mixed and there is never an efficacious willing of the one without a remisse volition of the contrary object the act is voluntary but the things are done nolentèr volentèr and the act is more remisse through the mixture of what is involuntary Rom. 7.15 with what is voluntary in the precedent deliberation And as the reluctancy of the flesh and the influence and working of Concupiscence in all spiritual motions and actions of just men distils a sinfulness into the same and thereby stains impairs and extenuates them so far as that though it prevail not to pervert the substance of just actions yet it enfeebleth and impedeth them from attaining to that height and strain of perfection whereby they should be able to justifie before God so the retraction and reluctancy of the spirit in evil actions where that spirit is which none can know but he that feels for who else knows the spirit of a man though it make them not cease to become sins nor can give them form yet it remitteth and mitigateth the guilt and gives them some qualification so as such men so offending though they are not without spot unrebukable yet these may be the spots of his children and they may be good men that commit some evils The quintessence to be limbeck'd and distilled from those resolutions is this That it is as difficult to discern and doubtful to judge of the states of men as dangerous to erre in such judgment it is a judgment never easie nor always infallible for the spirit of man which is in him to judge of his estate and more difficult and dangerous for another that knows not the things of a man In doubts that concern things nothing but the weight of reason must turn the scale but in doubts concerning persons the poyse of Charity must incline the beam toward the better part if not positively and speculatively to esteem them to be good yet negatively and practically not to conclude them evil but ad hîc nunc to handle them as if they were good When we judge of things the good or evil thereof is not attended nor are they prejudiced whatsoever we may chance to judge of them but the good or evil of him that judgeth is looked after as he shall make true or false judgment Truth being the proper good of the Understanding as Falshood is the Evil thereof Aquin. 22. q. 60. ar 4. and therefore every one ought to endeavour to make true judgment of things But in judging of men the good or evill of him that is judged is principally respected who is honoured if esteemed good and vilified if judged to be evil and therefore we ought to take heed that we judge him good rather than evil unless evident and morally certain reasons perswade the contrary And as for him that so judgeth though perhaps falsly that judgment is no evil to his intellect as neither doth it pertain to the perfection thereof in it self to know the truth of all singular contingent things but it rather belongeth to and argueth good affection It is safer therefore to offend by excesse of charity than through defect and I had rather erre ten times upon the score of hope than once upon the account of supercilious rash judgment It is a good rule of the School In judicandis aliis eorum bona certa meliora certa mala minora bona dubia certa dubia mala nulla judicemus They had need be pregnant and vehement proofs if not plain demonstrations that shall warrant one to judge another to be a wicked man for if to doubt it which is when the mind is pendulous and suspended in the middest without inclining to either part or to suspect it which is the concitation of the mind to an assent or to opine it which is an assent but wavering and infirm and with fear of the contrary upon light signs and arguments be sinful much more is it fully and firmly to judge him to be such and they may also be light Arguments to judge him to be evil which yet may be sufficient to doubt or suspect or opine him to be so because the former assent requires surer grounds especially when this judgment must be a sentence externally and juridically pronounced as in this case it is or ought to be when a man is thereby debarred the Sacrament In doubtful things the safer part is to be chosen but Tutius est reddere rationem propter charitatem quàm crudelitatem It is clearly more safe to judge men good than to sentence them to be evil for to erre in the former is no practical moral error nor injurious to any but onely speculative and in things contingent an evil of no moment but to offend in the latter is a practicall error through an inordination and inconformity of such judgment with righteousness which is a greater evil to him that judgeth as being a wrong done to another and a robbing him of his proper goods his good name being a depositum laid up in the mindes of other men Honesta fama alterum patrimonium fama pari passu cum vita ambulat which he ought not to be deprived of but upon reasons very sufficient in the estimation of Prudence otherwise the forfeiture of reputation being a punishment he shall be punished without cause and without such reasons perswading the assent though the judgment perhaps may be materially true yet it is formally false judgment true in it self yet false in him that makes it The Lawyers say Jura sunt promptiora ad absolvendum quàm ad condemnandum and they adde

blasphemous of all hereticks even the Gnosticks and the wildest and most desperate even the Circumcellions might have pleaded and pretended to In such a notion conscience is become the greatest malefactor or Sanctuary for malefactors in the world and a tender conscience playes the part of Davus in the Comedy and I wish it acted not in Tragedies too It is the Saviour which inordinate men have set forth in the likeness of their sinfull flesh who must justifie them and beare and answer for all their irregularities But as it was the law of Pittacus That he which offended in his drunkenness should suffer double punishment one for his offence and another for his drunkenness so it seems as rationall that he that perpetrates any fault by an erroneous conscience which is a spirituall drunkenness should incurre a twofold penalty one for his error another for the fault but however if it d ee not aggravate the evill yet error in the conscience cannot make the matter commence good For every vincible error is voluntary and he acts imprudently that follows it and he that is imprudent is not good and that an action be good the cause ought to be integrous but the cause cannot be intire although the object be apprehended as good but it is also necessary that in the understanding there be an integrous reason of the apprehension of it as good that is that it be judged good in the understanding and that in no manner it may be judged or ought to be judged evill which cannot be as long as the error is voluntary because vincible But because Jam tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet And as in the Taliecotion rules when the man dies whose flesh was cut off to be fitted and fastned on another to supply and repair a mutilated member forthwith the new part corrupts and perisheth and as in Burgravius his pretended Lampe composed and kindled of the blood of a man when he expires the Lampe also goes out so therefore as Moncaeus undertook to purge Aaron from Idolatry because the golden Calf and popish Images of God made to that pattern must stand or fall together so the Apologists seek to reverse the judgement against the Pharisee by a Writ of Error doubting it seems if he be attainted as principal that they may be indited as accessory they tell us therefore that Esay 65.5 Touch me not for I am holier than thou is spoken by the people to the Prophets who had reproved them for their corrupt worship and this the best think but they quote onely Musculus for this interpretation who though a good one is but one Expositor neither Des nominis hujus bonorem that he should be as Scaliger said of Aristotle Unus super omnes singulis qui omnes fuit Yet I shall not deny that there are some others that go in consort with that sense but it hath little verisimilitude that persons so abominably should conceit themselves so much holier than the Prophets as to be in danger of being polluted by their contact and it carries farre more probability that this referred unto and was directed to the Gentiles as Sanctius a Lapide Sa Menechius Tirinus c. whom those Jewes contemned though themselves were more contaminated which interpretation suits aptly with the context the Prophet foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles in the first verse as Sanctius saith is the common judgement of Interpreters and then upbraiding the Jewes in the following verses who notwithstanding their odicus defilements had such proud opinions of their own sanctity and detestable thoughts of those Gentiles But however it were as we should not fail of our end so neither did we miss our direct way for the paper did not quote nor referre unto this place of Isaiah to prove this was the supercitious humor of Pharisee Many indeed both ancient and modern conceive that the Pharisee was the mark against whom that sh●t was directed but it seems the Pharisee is not of so ancient descent and extraction for the great learned Scaliger affirmes that the Hasidees had their originall but from the times of Ezra and the Pharisees were the issue of those Hasidees Dogmatists who reduced their formerly free and voluntary observations unto Canons and necessary injunctions Ipsi impuri cum essent alios ase ut impuros arcebant sicut Samaritas Geographus Arabs clamasse ait ne attingas Grotius Annot. in locum and thereupon called themselves Peruschim separated both from the other Hasidim and from the vulgar And besides it is observable that those here inveighed against are charged to eat Swines flesh which to the Pharisee was abominable but like enough it is saith Sanctius they were guilty to do the same quod postea feccrunt hypocrita illi qui cum bonamente pudorem deposucre et ingredi praetorium noluerunt ne gentilium consuetudine contaminati c. But though these were not formal and profest Pharisees who thought their holiness would contract a stain by a society with those whom they looked upon as sinners and that which they hold forth were the more genuine sense yet it cannot set us at any loss if we find this doctrine from thence however to result that they are fastuost arrogant●sque hypocritae to whom not onely the sincere Prophets but also Germana ecclesiae membra praeipsis fordent as Junius delivers i● Late Annotat. so whether they were Pharisees or not yet the Pharisees were like them and Interpreters take notice of it upon the place and though it be not colligible from this text Origen Tertullian Epiphanius Ambrose Scaliger Drusius Pagnin Montanus c. yet it is otherwise evident that the Pharisees thought their sanctity in danger of being defiled by any commerce with or contact of these whom they thought not so holy as themselves and therefore had their name as the learned carrie it by vote from Perushim because of that separation they made from the vulgar tanquam egregii Judaeorum saith Augustine and they were called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Separatists That they held it piacular to eat with sinners appears Matt 9.14 Luke 19.7 It was one of their Canons He that eats a Samaritans bread be as he that eats Swines flesh and it was one of those six approbries to be avoided by the Disciples of the wise viz. eating with the vulgar populus terrae That they held the touch of a sinner pollutive is manifest Luke 7.39 Camero ad Matt. 19.3 p. 175. Hall pharis and Christ Purchas pilgri l. 2 c. 8. Sect. 3. And therefore when they came from the market they washt because having there to do with divers sorts of people they might unawares be polluted they baptized themselves as the word is Mark c. 7.4 which implies washing the whole body upon this account it seems the more zealous did constantly wash themselves before dinner and this occasioned the wonder of the Pharisee toward our Saviour for not