because of the apostasie of the whole Church and judgements upon them for their apostasie v. 38. And because of all this we make and write a sure covenant saith the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in toto hoe vertit Arias montanus nos excidentes fidelitatem Iudaei excudentes faedus fidele Iunius pro toto hoc pepigimus constitutionem now sinnes back-slidings and judgements may be and often are in all the Christian Churches 2. To sweare to the true religion the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawfull oath as to sweare to any thing that is lawfull and to lay a new band on our soules to performe holy duties where we feare a breach and finde by experience there hath beene a breach is also a dutie of morall and perpetuall equity therefore such a sworne covenant is lawfull I say not from this place that it is necessary that all subscribe with their hands a covenant because I thinke onely the Princes Levites Priests and heads of families did subscribe the covenant Nehem. 9. 38. but Nehem. 10. 28 29. The whole people all who had separated themselves from the Lands sinne and their strange wives even their wives their sonnes their daughters every one having knowledge and having understanding V. 29. They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entered into a curse and into an oath to walke in Gods Law If it be replied that there was in Israel no written covenant drawne up by a man and put in a mans stile language method and frame they did sweare to keepe Moses his Law I answer when we sweare a covenant our faith doth not relie upon words characters stile of language or humane method or any humane respects but upon the truth of God in that platforme and suppose we should swear and subscribe the Old and New Testament translated into our vulgar Language we doe not sweare to the translation characters and humane expression but to the matter contained in the translation and that because Iehovah our Lord hath spoken it in his Word And if this be a good argument why we cannot sweare a platforme then should none sweare a covenant at all or make any holy vow but those who understand the originall Languages in Hebrew and Greeke and yet the characters and imprinting is humane even in the original so all religious covenants and oathes should be unlawfull 4. Argum. What a Church or person is to suffer for or to believe and obliged to render account of to every one that asketh account of us that we may sweare and seale with our hands because what we are to suffer death for and the losse of temporall life for which we owe a reckoning to God by vertue of the â—ixt Commandement that is a matter of truth which we professe before God and men and our dying for the truth is a sort of reall oath that we are before God professing that truth is to be preferred to our life But we are to suffer if God call us even death for the true Religion Revel 2. 13. Act. 7. 57 58. Luk. 21. 15 16. Phil. 1. 20 21. â—nd the truth and we are obliged to believe and to give account thereof before all men and a reason of our faith and hope 1 Pet â— 15. Ergo we may sweare it Argum. 5. If an oath to the true Religion and forme of wholesome Doctine be a speciall remedy against backâ—iding and a meane to keepe off false and heretical doctrine then is such an oath lawfull but the former is true Ergo The Proposition is cleare Gods people say Nehem. 9. 38. Because of all this that is because they had done wickedly and were tempted still to doe more therefore they write and seale a Covenant and if false teachers teach Circumcision must be if weâ— would be saved then the Church may according to Acts 15. condemâ—e that false doctrine by the VVord of God and set downe Canons which the Churches are to observe and what they are to observe as warranted by Gods VVord layeth on bands upon the Conscience and what layeth on such a band that wee may binde our selves by oath to performe it being a speciall remedy lawfull against backsliding from the truth 6. Arg. Our brethren have their grounds and reasons against the swearing of confession common to them with the Arminians and Socinians and their Arguments are all one for Arminians censure the Belgick confession and the Palaâ—ines Catechisme and propound thirteene questions against it as the third question is An quaecunque dogmata in confessione Catâ—chisme tractantur talia sunt ut cuilibet Christiano ad salutem creditu necessaria sint And their seventh question is If such confessions may be called secundaria fidei norma a secundary rule of faith also all Confessions say they declare That Confessions serve not to teach what we ought to beleeve but what the Authors of these Confessions did beleeve Hence they reject all the determinations of the Orthodox Councels condemning the heresies of Arrius Eutiches Macedonius Apollinaris Sabelliâ— Samosateâ—us Pelagius and all the Oxthodox Confessions of the reformed Churches Secondly also upon these grounds they alledge in their Apologie There be few things to be beleeves that every sect may be the true Church so they beleeve some few Articles not controverted amongst Christians such as these Thâ— there is a God and that the Word of God is true c. Thirdly they will not condemne the Macedonians Arrians Anti-trinitarâ—â— Pelagians or others of fundamentall herefies Fourthly that one Church of Christians may be made up of Papists Protestants Anabaptists Macedonians Sabellians c. and all sects so they leade a good life according to the few Articles necessary to salvation may be saved and all may be saved of any sect or Religion Fifthly that to sweare Declarations Confessions Canons of Orthodox Councels is to take away the liberty of prophesying and growing in the knowledge of the Word of God and the praying for grace and light of the holy Spirit for the right meaning of Gods Word Sixthly that Athanasius spake amisse when he said of the Creed that it was to be beleeved of every one who is to bee saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same is the doctrine of the Socinians who doe in all these oppose all Confessions of Faith and all Orthodox Decisions Canons and determinations of Sinods So Socinus rejecteth all Synods all Confessions and Decisions even of the Church universall So Smalcius calâ—eth it a rejecting of the Word of God And Theol. Nicoâ—aides saith That it is enough to know things absolutely necessary for salvation and that the Churches determination cannot remove errours and heresies Our brethens first Argument against a Nationall Covenant â— If the doctrine contained in your platforme of Confession â—warve from the Scriptures then the imposing thereof is so farre unlawfull if the doctrine be according to Scripture the platforme is â—eedlesse the
Scripture being sufficient Ans. 1. This is the argument of Arminians Episcopius saith and expresly Smalcius Qui vnlt sensum scripturae ab ilâ—s confessionibus peti tacitè deserit scripta Apostolica traditiones humanas commendat And therefore such decisions are â—ay the Remonstrantes Pestes Ecclesiarum regni Anâ—christi idest tyrannidis fulcra tibicines Secondly this Arâ—ument may be as well propounded against the preaching of the Word all printed Sermons Commentaries and interpretation of Scripture as against a Confession For if the doctrine in Serâ—ons bee not agreeable to Scripture then in so farre as Ministers commend and command it to their hearers it is unlawfâ—ll if it be agreeable to the Scripture it is needlesse the Scriptures saith the Socinian Smalcius are sufficient Our brethren answer Preaching is an ordinance of God but a â—atforme of confession is not an ordinance of God Answ. A platforme as it is conceived in such a stile meâ—hod and characters and words is a humane ordinance Tali â—rie ordine and so is preaching but we sweare to no plat-â—orme in that consideration but a platforme according to the truth contained in it in which sense onely it is sworne unto is the Word of God as are systemes of Divinity â—ermons printed and Preached and so though preaching be an Ordinanced God as it is Rom. 10. 14. yet according to the words expression dialect method or doctrine it is an humane ordinance and so the Argument is against preaching as against our platforme Our Brethrens second Argument is The Platforme abridgeth Christian liberty to try all things and so though it be some means of unity yet it is a dangerous hinderance of some verity binding men to rest upon their former apprehensions and knowledge without libery to better their judgements Ans. 1. This in stile of language and truth of words is the very argument of Arminianâ— So in their Preface and in their Apology it selfe they say All liberty of prophecing and disputing against the Orthodox faith is taken away if men be tied and obliged to decisions and confessions of Churches and Synods Yea to make an end of controversies saith Episcopius otherwayes then by perswading is to bring a tyranny into the Church of Jesus Christ and wonderfully to bind if not to take away liberty of consciences So in their Apology they say confessions and decisions of Synods imposed by Oath and to be firmely believed arâ— contrary to the prayers of Saints where they pray that God would teach them his starutes and reveale his Law and Testimonies â—â— them and open their Eyes to behold the wonders of Gods Law But the truth is though these of Berea did well to try Pauls Doctrine if it was consonant to the Scriptures or not Yet Pauls Doctrine was the determination apostolick of Gods Spirit to the which they were firmely to adhere and their judgements are to be bettered in graduali revelatione creditorum â—â—â— revelatione plurium credendorum in cleare revelation of things revealed For so the children of God are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 2 Pet. 3. 14. After Christ is once revealed but not in believing in a new Christ or in believing of poynts contrary to the confession of faith The Argument presupposeth the Doctrine of the Arminians that there be a number of points in our confession of which we have no certainty of faith that they are Gods truth but are things controverted and being not fundamentall poynts may be holden or we may forsake them as false after better information Which indeed maketh our faith of Gods Word â—o full perswasion but as the learned professors of Leyden say a faith of an houre or a month or a yeare which we may â—ast away the next yeare And this is to deny all confessions and points of truth with pretence that the Spirit hath revealed new truth but how are these new revealed truths the Revelation whereof wee obtaine by prayer rather workes of the spirit of truth then the former poynts which wee retract No man by this can be rooted and built in the faith of any thing except in the faith of things simply fundamentall By which meanes all poynts at least many of them betwixt us and Papists Arminiaâ— Macedonians Sabellians Arrians Anabapâ—tiste are matters reconcileable and either side may be holden without hazard of salvation Neither is this definition of confessions any tyranny Because confessions are to be believed in so far as they are agreable to Gods Word and lay upon us an obligation secondary onely yet are they not so loose as that we may leap from poynts of faith and make the doctrine of faith arena gladiatoria a fencing field for Gamesters and Fencers The materiall object of our faith and the secondary ground and foundation thereof may be very well and is Gods Word primary is preaching confessions Creeds Symbols which are not serie ordine Scripturae and yet have wee certainty of Divine faith in these things because the formall object is because God so saith in hiâ— Scripture and wee believe these with certainty of Divine Faith under this reduplication because the Lord hath spoken these quoad sensum in true meaning though not in illâ scrie ordine But more of this hereafter CHAP. 6. SECT 6. Touching Officers and their election OUr Author laboureth to prove that Pastors and Doctors are different Officers which wee will not much improves but if the meaning be that they are inconsistent in one man person wee are against him 1. Because the Apostles in their owne persons and in feeding the flock 2 Tim. 3. doth both under the name of Overseers and Bishops and exercised both as they could according as they did finde the auditory 2. Because the formall objects the informing of the judgement and exhorting are not so different as that they should be imcompatible for if God give them gifts both for the Doctors Chaire and the pastors Pulpit as hee often doth what should hinder but the Church may call one and the same man to both the Pastor and the Doctors Chaire as hee is able to overtake both Author 1. Reas. 1 Cor. 12. 8. To one is given a word of wisdomâ— for direction of practice to another a word of knowledge for direction of judgement Ans. This proveth they be different gifts and Offices yet not that they are incompatible in one person as one may have both gifts given unto him as is cleare by experience 2 Reas. Author ib. Hee speaketh of diverse members of the Church as of diverse members of the naturall body v. 4. 5. All the members have not one Office it is the action of the Tongue to speak not to see Ans. The comparison holdeth not in all The eye cannot heare the eare cannot see yet the pastor may both see as pastor and heare and delate to the Church as the Churches eare the manners of
all fundamentalls 3. Totally and finally But wee are not to beleeve Papists who say things are fundamentall materially in themselves as all points necessary to bee beleeved but things are not formally fundamentall but such things onely as the Church dâ—fineth to be fundamentall But 1. the foundation of our Faith is Gods Word and Gods Word is necessary to be beleeved to salvation whether the Church define it or no to abstaine from Idolatry is necessary to be beleeved though Aaron and the Church of Israel say the contrary neither doth Gods Word borrow authority from men 2. If the Church may make points to be fundamentall by their definition whereas before they were not fundamentall then may the Church make articles of faith Sure I am Paipsts as Gerson Occam Almaine Suarez yea and a very Bellarmine is against this Yea and by that same reason they may make fundamentall points to bee no fundamentall points and they may turne the Apostles Creed into no faith at all for ejusdem est potestos creare annihilare 3. There cannot be a greater power in the Church to define Articles of faith then is in God himselfe but the very authority of God doth not define a matter to bee an article of faith except the necessitie of the matter so require for God hath determined in his word that Paul left his cloake at Treas but that Paul left his cloake at Troas is not I hope an article of faith or a fundamentall point of salvation 4. What can the Church doe saith Vincentius Lyrinens but declare that that is to be beleeved which before in it selfe was to bee beleeved and Bellarmine saith Councells maketh nothing to be of infallible verity and so doth Scotus say Verity before heresies erat de fide was a matter of faith though it was not declared to be so by the Church Determinatio non facit vertatem saith Oâ—cam The Churches determination maketh no truth 3. The evidence of knowledge of fundamentals is gravely to bee considered Hence these distinctions 1. One may beleeve that Christ is the Sonne of God by a Divine faith as Peter doth Matth. 16. 17. and yet doubt of the necessary consequences fundamentall Ergo Christ must bee delivered into the hands of sinners and bee crucified as the same Peter doubted of this for as one may fall in a grievous sinne though regenerated and faile in act and yet remaine in grace in habitu the seed of God remaining in him so may Peter and the Apostles doubt of a fundamentall point of Christs rising from the dead John 20. v 8 9. in an act of weakenesse and yet have saving faith in Christ as it is like many of of the Saints at Corinth denyed an article of their Faith the rising againe of the dead one act of unbeleefe maketh not an infidell 2. Dist. A simple Papist and a Lutheran not well educated doth beleeve upon the same former ground that Christ is true man hath an habitual faith of this article that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of David yet holdeth transubstantiation or consubstantiatiâ— that Christs body is in many sundry places in heaven and earth on this side of the Sea beyond Sea yet the connâ—xion betwixt Christs humanitie and this monster of transubstantiation not being possible all the error may be meerely philosophick that the extention of quantitative parts without or beyond part is not the essence of a quantitative body while as the rude man beleeveth firmely that Christ is true man and so beleeveth contradictory things by good consequence therefore the qualitie of the conscience of the beleever is to be looked into since fundamentall heresie is essentially in the mind and pertinacy and selfe-conviction doth inseparably follow it 1. There is a conscience simply doubting of fundamentall points this may be with a habit of sound faith 2. A scrupulous conscience which from light grounds is brangled about some fundamentall points and this is often in sound beleevers who may and doe beleeve but with a scruple 3. A conscience beleeving opinions and conjecturing and guessing as in Atheists this is damnable but where obstinacy is as defending with pertinacie transubstantiation and that it is lawfull to adore bread this pertinacious defending of Idolatry doth inferre necessarily that the faith of the article of Christs humanitie is but false and counterfeit and not saving 3. Dist. There is a certitude of adherence formall and a certitude of adherence virtuall A certitude of adherence formall is when one doth adhere firmly to the faith of fundamentalls A certitude of adherence virtuall is when with the formall adherence to some fundamentall points there is an ignorance of other fundamentall points and yet withall a gracious disposition and habit to beleeve other fundamentalls when they shall bee clearely revealed out of the word so Luke 24. Christ exponed the resurrection and the articles of Christs sufferings and glorification vers 25 26 27. to the Disciples who doubted of these before and yet had saving faith of other fundamentall points Matth. 16. 17. 18. 4. Hence there be two sorts of fundamentalls some principally and chiefely so called even the elements and beginning of the doctrine of Christ as Credenda things to be beleeved in the Creed the object of our faith and pâ—tenda things that we aske of God expressed in the Lords Prayer the object of our hope specially 2. Agenda things to be done contained in the decalogue the object of our love to God and our brethren Others are so secundarily fundamentall or lesse fundamentalls as deduced from these yea there be some artcles of the Creed principally fundamentall these all are explicitely to be beleeved noted by Vigilius Martyr and Pareus as that Christ died and rose againe c. Other Articles are but modi articulorum fundamentalium and expositions and evident determinations of cleare articles As Christs incarnation and taking on our flesh is explained by this conceived of the holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary the death and suffering of Christ is exponed by subordinate articles as that he suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucisied c. and these lesser fundamentalls are to be beleeved necessitate praecepti because God commandeth them but happily non necessitate medii It is possible many bee in glory who beleeve not explicitely but onely in the disposition of the mind as some are baptized in voto in their desire onely these lesser fundamentalls it is enough they have the faith of non-repugnancy or negative adherence to these so as they would not deny them if they had beene proponed to them in a distinct and cleare way 5. The faith of fundamentalls is implicit three wayes 1. In respect of the degree of beleeving 2. In respect of the object 3. In respect of the subject or our adherence to things beleeved In respect of degrees the faith is implicite and weake three wayes as Calvin may teach 1. Because we are
officiall power of preaching and binding and loosing should be made as stable and firme from defection as the Church of elect believers against whom the gates of hell cannot prevaile now besides that this is most untrue since visible Churches doe fall away as these seven Churches in Asia the Church of Corinth Ephesus Galatia Thessalonica may prove when as it is impossible that the elect Believers in Christ can fall away it shall also give good warrant to Papists to make such use of this place as they doe that the Church may erre in points of conversation and life but cannot fall from the rock nor be overcome by the powers of Hell in the definition of Articles of Faith So Gretser Bellarmine Suarez Gregor de Valent. Cardi. Hosius Turrecremata reason from this place and the connexion must be good if the Ministeriall power not only be given to the Church as to the Object that is for the good and salvation of the Church but also to the Church as to the Subject who hath all the power of the Keys and may use it also because they are believers and builded upon the rock Christ nothing hindereth but Ministeriall power should be as stable and free from being overcome with the ports of Hell as the Christian state of perseverance in grace Now we see these who have Ministeriall power abuse it and fall from the rock and perish eternally which we cannot say of these who by Faith are builded upon the Rock Christ Iesus 3. These to whom Christ giveth the Keys doe represent the person of Christ and who despiseth them despiseth Christ and he that honoureth them honoureth Christ which is evidently spoken of the Ministers of Christ Matthew 10. 40. And is said here Matthew 16. 19. Whatsoever then yee shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Thus Christ bindeth and looseth in Heaven when these to whom the Keys are given binde and loose and so they are to be looked unto as co-workers with God Now Scripture never maketh all believers Ambassadours in Christs roome Where doe we reade that the despising of all believers commanding in Christs Name is a despising of Christ and that in obeying them we obey Christ Nor are all Ambassadors Pastores c. 5. These to whom the Keys are given doe authoritatively forgive and retaine sins and their acts of forgiveing and retaining are valid in Heaven according as the party repenteth and believeth or according as they remain impenitent as our Divines teach against the Papists in their Doctrine of Sacramentall absolution But the Church or company of believers wanting their Officers by no Scripture can authoritatively forgive and retaine siâ—s Robinson Smith and others answer that believers out of Office may forgive as Mat. 18. 21. Peter said How oft shall my brother offend me and I forgive him Lu. 17. 3. 4. 2 Cor. 2. 10. But I answer the place 2 Cor. 2. 10. is controverted and we doubt not but of that same nature with the power of Excommunicating 1 Cor. 5. 4. But for private forgiving it is not the Church-forgiving here meant because 1. The private forgiving is a duty of charity commanded in the Law of Nature to all even out of Church-state and obligeth the Excommunicate who though they be cast out of the Church are not exempted from the Law that bindeth all Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Mat. 5. 44. 45. but the Church-forgiving is an Act of obedience to a positive Church-Law of Christ 2. private Christians are to forgive their Enemies whether they repent or not even as Christ forgave those who crucified him Col 3. 13. Luk. 23. 34. and when the party repenteth not this forgivenesse is not ratified in Heaven yet are we obliged to forgive and to commit vengeance to God but the authoritative forgiveing is a thing that the Church is not obliged unto absoiutely nor may they or can they forgive except the Offender repent and if they see that he repenteth not they cannot lawfully forgive but being in Gods roome must take vengeance on all disobedience and their retaining of sin and forgiveing is valid in Heaven because they are in Gods place Now any forgiving or retaining of sin but these two together with Gods forgiving and retaining we know not But Peters forgiving his offending brother seventy times seven times is common to all private Christians even out of Church-state and so the instance given is not to the purpose 6. To these only are the Keys given who having Pauls pastorall spirit may convene and deliver to Sathan but the Church of believers without Officers not having Pauls pastorall spirit which is a spirit officiall and authoritative to preach excommunicate and administrate the seales of the Covenant may not convene and doe this Ergo c. indeed Francis Johnson sayth it is holden now by some of the Separation that people out of Office may execute all the workes and duties of the ministery in Baptisme the Lords Supper censures c. which I thinke followeth from the grounds of our brethren to wit that believers without Office are a compleat Church having the whole power of the Keys if administration of the Sacraments be not a speciall part of the Keys and the opening of Heaven and forgiving of sins we know not what belongeth to the power of binding and loosing yea this is not only contrary to Scripture but also to their own confession and is the Doctrine of Arminians and Socinians Cartwright sayth the Sanedrin Mat. 18. to these who have skill in the Rabbines especially in the Iewes Talmâ—d was a selected Judicatory and that to this Christ alludeth Mat. 18. learned Beza sayth much from Scripture for this that the Church here signifieth not the multitude Parcus also is most cleare on this place Calvin hath reason to say he alludeth to Iewish Synedrie see also VVeems Iâ— it needlesse to cite Iunius Zanchius Peter Martyr VVillet Whittaker Tilen Becan and all our Divines of the reformed Churches for when he hath spoken of the Church representative Mat. 18. 16 17. and speaketh to these to whom the Sermon was made v. 1. at the same time came the Disciples to Jesus they were then Apostles in Office and called to preach and Baptize though not yet sent to the whole world saying who is the greatest in the Kingdom of God Now to these Christ sayth 18. to the Apostles Verily I say to you whatsoever you shall bind on Earth and this place is to be expounded by Mat. 16. 19. Where the Keys are given in a more restricted manner to Peter only though as representing the whole Apostles and Church-rulers and we have better reason to expound this place Mat. 18. by the place foregoing Mat. 16. then they have to expound the place Mat. 16. by this place Mat. 18. because these â—amâ— Keys that binde and loose in the one place remit and retaine finnes in
not that his calling was â—â—t from the Church whereof hee was a member that is from the Roman Church and from God and that his calling to cast downe Babylon was not from the Church of Rome and his gifts being extraordinary 2. His Spirit heroick and supernaturally couragious and so extraordinary 3. His Faith in his Doctrine greate that hee should so bee blessed with successe in his Ministery extraordinary his calling in these considerations may well bee called extraordinary though not immediate or apostolick 10. Then wee may well acknowledge a middle calling betwixt an ordinary and every way immediate calling and an extraordinary and immediate calling for the calling of Luther was neither the one nor the other in proper sense but a middle betwixt two and yet not an immediate calling See Sadaecl and 〈◊〉 11. The question if such a pastor bee called lawfully is a question of Fact not a question of Law as this if such an one be baptized and there be an invincible ignorance in a question of Fact which excuseth And therefore wee may heare a gifted pastor taken and supposed by the Church to have the Churches calling though indeed he received no calling from the Church at his entry 1. Conelus To shew that our Church was a visible Church before Luther arose and that our Reformers were lawfully called oâ— God and hâ— Church is a question of Fact and cannot be proved by the Word of God Because the Word of God is not a Chronicle of these who were the true Church and truly called to the Ministery since the Apostles departed this life 2. Because these must be proved by Sense and the Testimony of humane writtings who can erre 2. Câ—nclus Yet may it be gathered from humane writers that the visible Church of Protestants this day hath beene since the Apostles dayes I meane the determinate persons may be knowen by humane reasons and signes as 1. If Orthodox Doctors are knowen to have lived in all ages since the Apostles it is likely that there was a visible Church which approved of these Doctors and if we teach that same Doctrine in substance that these Doctors did then hath our Church this determinate Church beene since the Apostles time But Orthodox Doctors are knowen to have lived in all â—ges as men of approved learning and soundnesse in the Faith Ergo our present Church visible hath continued since the Apostles time The proposition is probable for these Fathers would not be so renowned if the Church about theÌ„ had not approved their Doctriâ— It is probable I say because the writters against them have beene suppressed false Teachers have beeve spoken of and renowned and true Prophets ill reported of Mat. 5. 11 12. I prove the assumption for there lived in the first age Iohn the Baptist the Apostles and Polycarpus the Scholler of Iohn as they say and Ignatius And in the 2. age Iustinus Clemens Alexandrinus Ireneus Melito Sardensis Theophilus In the 3. age Tertullian Cyprian Dyonisius Alexandrin Methodiâ—s Origen It is likely they opposed purgatory prayer for the dead reliques and the Popes supremacy which in their seede did arise in this age In the 4. age were Eusebius Caesariensis Basilius Athanasius Magnus Gregorius Nissenus Nazian Macarius Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem Arnobius Lactantius Epâ—phanius Optatus Melivitanus Hilarius Ambrose Prudentius Hieronymus Ammonius Ephrem Faeustinus I thinke they opposed the infallibility of councells invocation of Saints and the monastick life springing up in this age In the 5. age were Anastasius Chrysostome Augustine Alexandrinus Theodoretus Leo Socrates Vigilianus Cassianus Prosper Elutherius Marcus eremita Marius Victorius Wee conceive these opposed the corrupt Doctrine anent freewill sinne originall justification by works mens merits In the 6. age were Fulgentius Cassiadorus Fortunatus Olympiodorus Gregorius Magâ—â—s Maxâ—ntius These opposed the heresies of this age as the Doctrine of worshipping Images Indulgences Satisfactions Crossing Pilgrimages Service in an unknowen Tongue Offerings for the dead worshipping of Reliques of Saints necessity absolute of Baptisme the making the Sacrament a Sacrifice for the dead In the 7. age being a time of Darknesse very few Isiodorus and few others here the holiest opposed the Popes stile and place of being universall Bishop and the abominable Sacrifice of the Masse In the 8. arose Beda Paulus Diaconus Joann Damascen a superstitious Monke Carolus Magus Albinus In this age came in Transubstantiation the Sacrament of penance and confirmation It was an evill time In the 9. age were Rabanus Haymo Reâ—igius Hinaemarus Pashasius then extreme unction orders and marriage were made Sacraments In the 10. age was Theophylact Smaragdus Giselbertus In the 11. Anselme Algerus In the 12. Schoole Doctors such as Peter Cluniarensis Alexander Alensis Thomas Aquinas Scotus at length Luther and Melanthon came but from these we build no infallible argument to prove our Church to be the true Church 2. The very visible Church that now is was in the Waldenses 1. One of their owne writters Rainerus saith quod duraverit à tempore Sylvestri alii dicunt quod à tempore apostolorum a Novator set out by the Jesuite Gretserus Petrus Pilichdorffius saith they arose eight hundereth yeeres after Silvester in the time of Innocentius the 2. In the City of Walden in the borders of France one arose who professed voluntary poverty and because they were against preaching of the Gospell he and his followers were excommunicated but he is found a lier by popish writters who lived long before Innocentius the 2. and make mention of them The articles of Iohn Hus saith Aeneas Silvius cum confessionibus Calvinianorum consonant and Silvius is not our friend I grant Gretser denieth this that the Faith of such as are called Calvinists agreeth with the articles of Hus because hee will have them grosser Flaccius saith these Waldenses called Leonistae their Doctrine was spread per Lâ—mbardiam Alsatiam totum tractum Rhenanum Belgicam Saxoniam Pomeraniam Borussiam Poloniam Luciniam Sueviam Silesiam Bâ—hâ—miam Moraviam Calabriam Siciliam Carolus Lotharingus the Cardinall complaineth as also Hegesippus that for sixteene ages since Christ the first onely was of God and of the Church was a Virgin And none made these complaints but these who were Waldenses So also complaineth Lactantius and Isiodorus pelusâ—ota Why did Costerus taking on him to prove the succession of the Roman Church for 1400 yeeres leaves 300. years blanck where hee cannot finde his Mother Church and yet Nicephorus saith Simon Zelotes preached the Gospell in Maurâ—tania Aphrorum regione even to Brittaine that is to the end of the Earth yea Balaeus Flemingus Siropâ—s say that Ioseph of â—rimathea preached in Briâ—taine and Tertullian in the second century which was his owne time saith the like See the Centuriasts yea and Barontus and Origen about an 206. saith the same and Ierome an 407. Gattia Britannia Africa
ignorant of some lesse fundamentalls 2. Because we see in a mirror and imperfectly 3. In respect of beleeving upon a false ground as for miracles In respect of the object the certaintie is most sure as sure as that God cannot lie In respect of our adherence of understanding and affections in this respect the knowledge of fundamentalls must bee certaine 1. By a negative certitude which excludeth doubting and so Pastor and people must have a certitude of fundamentalls as Rom. 14 5. Col. 1. 9. Heb. 5. 12. but for a positive certitude there is not that measure required in a teacher that is in a scholler for all the body cannot be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 17. yet is a Christian certitude and fulnesse of perswasion required even of all Christians Colos. 2. 2. Colos. 3. 16. highest and greatest in its kind though many may bee saved with lesse yet a distinct knowledge of fundamentalls in all is not necessary by a necessitie of the meanes necessitate medii as Beza and Doctor Ames teach There is a faith of fundamentalls implicite in respect of the will and affections which Papists make a wide faith as the Jâ—uâ—e Becanus thinke to beleeve these two fundamentalls 1. That there is a God 2. That this God hath a providence conâ—â—â—ning mens salvation though other particulars be not knowne Or implicite faith is saith Estius when any is ready to beleeve what the Church shall teach which faith Suarez saith though it include ignorance yet keepeth men from the danger of errors because it doth submit the mind to the nearest rule of teaching to wit to the Church the knowledge of fundamentalls in this sense doth not save but condemne Thomas saith better then he 6. Dist. They are not alike who beleeve fundamentall hereâ—ies 2. And who defend them 3. And who teach them and obtrude them upon the consciences of others For the first many beleeve fundamentall errors who are ignorant of them and doe thinke that they firmely adhere to Christian Religion Oâ—cam termeth such haereticos nescientes ignorant heretickes as the Marcionites and the Manicheans and these the Church should tolerate while they bee instructed It is true the Jesuite Meratius saith When many things are proposed to the understanding for one and the same formall reason to wit for divine authoritie the understanding cannot imbrace one but it must imbrace all nor â—â—ject one but it must reject all which is true of a formall malitious rejecting the Manichean beleeveth nothing because God saith it and hath faith sound and saving in nothing but it is not true of an actuall or virtuall contempt in one or two fundamentalls because beleevers out of weakenesse ignorance and through strength of tentation may doubt of one fundamentall as the Disciples doubted of the resurrection Joh. 20. 9. and yet in habite beleeve all other fundamentalls but the Church is to correct such as professe fundamentall heresies and to cast out of the Church seducers and deceivers 7. Dist. It is one thing to hate a fundamentall point as that Christ is consubstantiall with the Father as the Arians doe and another thing by consequence to subvert a fundamentall point as Papists by consequence deny Christ to bee true man while they hold the wonder of Transubstantiation yet doe not they hate this conclusion formally that Christ is true man 8. Dist. Though it were true which Doctor Christo. Potter saith If we put by the Points wherein Christians differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the articles wherein they all gnerallaly agree we should finde in these propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient io bring a man to everlasting salvation I say though this were true yet will it not follow that these few fundamentalls received by all Christians Papists Lutherans Arians Verstians Sabellians Maccdonians Nestorians Eutychanes Socinians Anabaptists Treithitae Antitrinitarii for all these be Christians and validely baptized doe essentially constitute a true Church and a true Religion Because all Christians agree that the old and New Testament is the truth and Word of God and the whole faith of Christian Religion is to bee found in the Old Testament acknowledged both by Jewes and Christians for that is not the Word of God indeed in the Old Testament which the Jewes say is the Word of God in the Old Testament Yea the old and new Testament and these few uncâ—nâ—â—averted points received universally by all Christians are not Gods Word as all these Christians expone them but the dreames and fancies of the Jewes saying that the old Testament teacheth that Christ the Messiah is not yet come in the flesh the Treithitae say there be three Gods yet are the Treithitae Christians in the sense of Doctor Potter so that one principall as that There is one God and Christ is God and man and God is noely to be adored not one of these are uncontraverted in respect every society of Sectaries have contrary expositions upon these common fundamentalls and so contrary Religions Who doubteth but all Christians will subscribe and sweare with us Protestants the Apostolicke Creed but will it follow that all Christians are of one true Religion and doe beleeve the same fundamentalls now these fundamentalls are the object of faith according as they signifie things To us and to the Treithitae this first Article I beleeve in God as I conceive doth not signifie one and the same thing now joyne this I beleeve in God with holy obedience as wee expone it and as the Treithitae expone it it could never bee a step to everlasting salvation for it should have this meaning I beleeve there is one only true God and that there be also three Gods and what kind of obedience joyned with a faith made up of contradictions can bee availeable to salvation 3. One generall Catechise and confession of faith made up of the commonly received and agreed upon fundamentalls would not make us nearer peace though all Christians should sweare and subscribe this common Christian Catechise no more then if they should sweare and subscribe the old and new Testament as all Christians will doe and this day doth 9. Disl Though the knowledge of fundamentalls be necessary to salvation yet it cannot easily be defined what measure of knowledge of fundamentalls and what determinate number of fundamentalls doth constitute a true visible Church and a sound beleever as the learned Voetius saith Hence 1. They are saved who soundly beleeve all fundamentalls materially though they cannot distinctly know them under the reduplication of fundamentalls nor define what are fundamentalls what not 2. Though a Church retaine the fundamentalls yet if wee beforced to avow and beleeve as truth doctrines everting the foundation of faith against the article of one God if we must worship as many Gods as there bee hosties if Christs
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
free act 2. because it is a supernaturall worke of God and so they are not under the stroake of the Magistrates sword for freewill in supernaturall acts is alike uncogible and free from all externall violence in both those who are baptized professors within the bosome of the visible Church and in Pagans and the truth is neither the Magistrate nor the Church can censine opinions even erronious in fundamentall points as they are opinions for no societie no humane authoritie can either judge of or punish the internall acts of the mind because as such they are indeed offensive to God but not offensive or scandalous to either Church or Commonwealth and so without the Spheare of all humane coercive power nor is Titus Tit. 1. To rebuke gainesiyers v. 9. that they may be sound in the faith v. 13. but in so farre as that faith is visible and as it commeth out of perverse mouthes which must be stopped v. 11. Also punishments either civill or ecclesiasticall do no other wayes worke upon the mind and heart but by a morall swasory influence for it is a palpable contradiction that freewil can physically be compelled therefore here saith Philip Gamacheus there is no need of an Emperours sword but of a Fishers Angle Let it goe then which is taught as a truth in this point by Covarruvias e Gregori de Valent. Gamacheus Tannerus Malderus that Princes have neither from the Law of nature or from any divine Law a coercive power over the faith of Pagans nor is Scotus in this to bee heard that the same divine law obliegeth all Princes and the Churches that did lie upon Israel to destroy the Cansanites Yet may it bee lawfull in some cases indirectly to force them in their false worship as Molina saith against Alphonsus a Castro if they kill their innocent children to their false Gods because it is lawfull to defend the innocent neither is that to bee regarded as a sufficient reason that these Infants doe not consent that they should bee defended because as Malderus saith it is lawfull to hinder a man who is willing to kill himselfe from unjust violence against his owne liâ— 2. It is lawfull as saith Aegidius Conin k Lorca Aquinas and Cajetanus to compell Pagans to desist from violent impeding of Pastors to preach the Gospell to some amongst them who are willing to heare because in that they are injurious to the salvation of those who are appointed to bee saved and doe manifestly hinder the Gospels progresse which the Church is so farre as is in her power to propagate even as her prayer is let thy kingdome come 2. Nor doe we thinke that Princes may compell Pagans who are under their dominions to the faith without foregoing information of their conscience or that simply they may compell them to embrace the faith except that here Princes have greater libertie indirectly to force them because they being now living as wee suppose in a visible Church they may infect the Church and therefore here should bee an indirect hindering of the exercise of their false religion in so farre as it is infectious to the Church of God ne pars sincera trahatur for to this by a certaine proportion the power of excommunication given to the Church by Christ may lead us 1 Cor. 5. 6. and if wee must live by Lawes and not by examples Paul the fourth his suffering of the Jewes Synagogues at Rome and their ancient feasts which faith Malderus of themselves are not evill is no law to us yea but to Christians it is a falling from Christ and his grace nor is Rome who tolerateth Jewith religion nor the edict of Honorius and Theodosius our warrant 3. Nor can wee beleeve that no other sinnes in opinion concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline except onely such as are against those points which are called fundamentall and the received principles of Christianitie should bee censurable by the Church or punishable by the Magistrate 1. Because Jesus Christ Mat. 18. ordaineth that every sin against our brother or a Church 1 Cor. 10. 31 32. in which the delinquent shall continue with obstinate refusall to heare the Church should bee censured with excommunication But there bee divers opinions concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline which are not against points fundamentall which being professed are sinnes against our brother and the Churches Ergo many opinions not against points fundamentall if professed are censurable by the Church and punishable by the Magistrate I prove the proposition because Christ Matth 18. maketh no distinction and exception of any sinne but saith universally v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thy brother trespasse against thee c. and wee can make no exception against an indefinit and Catholick statute and ordinance of Jesus Christ. I prove the assumption because there bee many scandalous points of Arminianisme Pelagianisme of Poperic anent Church government traditions the power and â—fficacie of grace circumciâ—ion forbidding of marriages and of meates which are doctrines of devills comming from such as have consciences burnt with an hot Iron 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. many points of Anabaptisme Antinomianisme Socinianisme and of divers other sects are not points fundamentall because many no doubt are glorified who lived and beleeved in Christ and died â—gnorant of either opinions either on the one side or the other yet being professed preached and maintained especially wilfully and obstinately do wonderfully scandalize our brethren and the Churches Nor can I say that such as beleeve that marriage of Churchmen is unlawfull and defend it as many holy and learned men in Popery did and died in that error if otherwise they beleeve in Christ and the like I say of Chastising the body and abstaining from such and such meates which yet are doctrines of devills and offensive to our brethren 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. can bee points fundamentall so as the holding of these must bee inconsistent with saving faith Some doe yet maintain that circumcision is lawfull and yet beleeve all points fundamentall shall wee say that such are damned and wee read Gal. 5. 2. Behâ—ld I Paul say unto you that if yee bee circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing 2. Opinions in points not fundamentall are either sinnes forbidden by Gods Law or they are not sinnes the latter can by no reason bee asserted because God hath in his word determined all controversies not fundamentall as well as fundamentall therefore it is necessary necessitate praecepti by vertue of a divine precept that â—ee beleeve that to bee true what God saith in his Word therefore the not beleeving of it must bee a sinne and a transgression of a Divine Law 2. If it bee no sinne it must bee because the mind is under no Law of God except in so far as the minde is ruled and led
morall respect of a savour of some Pharisaicall ostentation that you pray to be seene of men and so the circumstance now is morall and is to be regulated by the Word whereas the circumstance that is meerely physicall is not as it is such in any capacity to receive scripturall regulation nothing is required but a physicall convenience for the action Now for fundamentall superstructures for things about the foundation in so farre as they have warrant in the Word to me they oblige to faith and practises in so farre as the Lord intimateth to us in his Word either expressely or by good consequence that they are lawfull Now I may adde to these that there be some things adjacent circumvenient circumstantiall to these fundamentals superstructions and others that I named wherein mutuall tolerance is commendable Nor doe we thinke any Church Reformation so perfect as that reformers have not left it in some capacity more or lesse of receiving increase and latitude of Reformation but truely I doe not see the consequence that therefore in all points not fundamentall the conscience must be of that compliable latitude of Kid-leather to take in and let out so as none of these superstructures or non-fundamentals are to be beleeved but with a reserve that you take them to day as Gods truths and are in capacity to beleeve their contradicents to be Gods truth to morrow And for the place Phil. 3. 14. 15. The sense given by Zanchius pleaseth me We that are reputed perfect let us all think and mind this truth that I write to contend for the price of the high-calling of God and if any mind any other thing contrary to or diverse from my doctrine God in his owne time shall reveale it to him Zanchius saith Deus id quoque revelabit suo tempore nempe an falsum sit vel verum God shall reveale it to him in his owne time whether it be true or false to which part I doe not subscribe that God shall reveale to any other minded then Paul whether his doctrine be true or false for that may inferre a possibility that Paul taught in this point or in the matter of ceremonies something false but the meaning is God shall make him know by the revelation of truth that what I have taught is true and he addeth as Zanchius Estius Cornelius à Lapide Sâ—lmeron yea our owne Calvine Marlorat and others upon this condition that they walke with us in peace and concord according to the 〈◊〉 the Gospel and that these words are a condition I beleeve because Christ saith John 7. 17. If any man will doe his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe But I see nothing here that reacheth the conclusion that we deny it will beare this indeed if any man be otherwise minded and thinke that Paul hath not delivered sound doctrine either concerning our pressing forward toward the prise of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ or concerning ceremonies that is if any man beleeve untruths contrary to Pauls doctrine let him beleeve these untruths leaving roome to Gods light to bow downe under truths feet when God shall reveale that Pauls doctrine is true and that his thoughts diverse from Pauls doctrine was misapprehensions and errours but there is nothing here that if any beleeve true non-fundamentals he is to beleeve them with a reserve that if God with a new light shall appear to discover these truths to be untruths he shall change his mind Now the supposition is vaine and as unpossible as to say God can contradict and belie his owne truth nor is there any word of toleration of Sects in the text Yea but say they Paul professeth to walke according to the rule to which they 〈◊〉 all attained with those who are contrary minded Ergo we are to tolerate and to keepe peaceable communion with those who are contrary minded in opinions and disagree from us Answ. Marke I pray you that Paul doth not say he will walke with them and keepe communion with them simply but onely 1. while God shall reveale their error and by his light make them see that Pauls doctrine is true 2. So in other things they be of one minde with Paul as perfect men should be and so I thinke Paul doth indeed condemne separation and breach of love for diversity of opinions in some things and we doubt not but if the servant of the Lord should with gentlenesse instruct malicious opposers of the truth and wait on them to see if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. farre rather should Paul walke with those that are perfect according to the same rule though they be of another mind but it followeth not that those who are of another mind from Paul should 1 obstinately continue in that mind after that God hath by writings and dispute convinced them of their error 2. It followeth not that their obâ—tinate continuance in their error should alwayes be tolerated and never censured especially if it be such an error as causeth divisions and offences Rom. 16. 17. for then such should be avoided saith Paul in that same place 3. It followeth not that we are to beleeve no superstructures or non-fundamentals but with a reserve it is observable that Paul speaketh here of those who beleeve errors and doctrines contrary to Pauls doctrine Now consider then the force of the argument those who beleeve errors contrary to Pauls doctrine have no certainty of faith that what they beleeve is true and therefore must beleeve with a reserve leaving roome to new light therefore those who beleeve any true superstructures and any non-fundamentals have also no certainty of faith but must beleeve with a reserve that when light shall appeare they shall beleeve the contradicent of what they now beleeve there is no force in this connexion It is just like the question betwixt us and the Papists whether a man can be certaine with any divine and infallible certainty that he is in the state of grace and salvation Papists say hypocrites beleeve that they are in the state of grace and yet they have no certainty thereof Ergo say they the regenerate beleeving that they are in the state of grace can have no certainty This is a very ill consequence for a sleeping man is not certaine whether he be dreaming or waking Ergo a waking man knoweth not whether he be waking or not So a distracted man hath no certainty that he is as wise as seven men who can render a reason therefore a man sober in his wits knoweth not that he is in his sober wits these be poore and loose consequences It is true when we beleeve some alterable circumstances of some things rather about then in doctrine and discipline which are disputable and to us both sides have great probability we have not certainty of faith and possible here in