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 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 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
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 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 Vniversal 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 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
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 Vbiquity 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversal 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 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 Vnderstanding 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
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 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 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. 2a. 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 Oblateâ— 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 â—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
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 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 tâ—â—y â—â—â—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 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 â—â—â—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