the principal points of faith and in the right sense and brotherlie charitie was to pious antiquitie abundantly sufficient D. Potter sec 3. p. 69. Abundantly sufficient to saluation The main positiue truths wherin al Protestants and Catholiks agree are abundantly sufficient to saluation Chillingw c. 7. p. 408. They that beleue Sufficient to vnitie al things plainly deliuered in Scripture beleue al things fundamental and are at sufficiēt vnitie in matters of faith Lord Canterburie in his Relation sec 38. p. 372. The Church can teach the See Vsherin serm before K. Iames p. 16. 28. foundation and men were happie if they would learn it and the Church more happie would she teach nothing but that as Only fundamentals necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation For certainely nothing but that is necessarie And for not fundamentals the same D. Potter sec Frith in Fox pag. 944. There are manie things in Scriptures which we are not bound to beleue as an article of faith 4. p. 96. saith Al necessarie or fundamental truth is conteined in Scripture making Necessarie and Fundamental al one And sec 3. p 71. speaking of not fundamentals saith By their own Confession the doctrins debated are unnecessarie Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface n. 32. Those are not fundamental points which are not necessarie c. 4. p 219. By fundamental articles we mean al those that are necessarie Ibid. p. 220. By fundamental we mean al and only that which is necessarie L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. speaking of not fundamentals saith The Church maie err in Superstructures and deductions and othey By and vnnecessarie truths Behold how absolutly and with out al exception of sufficient or insufficient proposal of not fundamental points they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and abundantly sufficient to saving faith to a true Church and to salvation that nothing but the Foundation is necessarie that by Fundamental they mean al and only that which is necessarie and that not fundamental points are not necessarie are By and vnnecessarie truths And why should they say thus absolutly and without anie exception that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to faith Church and saluatiō and not be absolutly vnderstood so vnles they would not be vnderstood as they speak but vse mental reservation even in matters of faith which al men condemn and iustly for it giueth occasion of error in faith 3. But that they mean that Fundamental points are sufficient to saving faith true Church and saluation absolutly and in al cases and Not fundamentals vnnecessarie to those ends even in case of sufficient Proposal is evident by divers other doctrins of theirs For as wee shal see her after they teach that some obstinat heretiks obstinat Papists and obstinat Lutherans have saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and obstinacie is not but where there is sufficient Proposal of truth or it is the fault of the obstinat that there is not such Proposal Besids they teach that fundamental points make vp the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the Bodie of Christian religion that in them consists the unitie of sauing faith that they properly constitute a Church essentially constitute a true Church that a true Church is al one with a Church not erring in fundamentals Breach in not fundamentals is no breach in necessarie faith D. Potter sec 7. p. 76. The Dogmatical foundation of the Church Fund make vp our faith are thos grand and Capital Doctrins which make vp our faith in Christ. P. 78. By Fundamental points of faith we mean those prime and capital doctrins of our religion which make vp the Holie Make vp the Cath faith Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentially constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Ib. p. 102. In thos Essentially constitute a true Church fundamental truths consists the vnitie offaith and of the Catholik Church Item p. 73. 74. By fundamental dostrins we mean such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And sec 3. p. 60. In which Protestants In them cōsists the life and substāce of Religion iudge the life and substance of religion to be comprised And finally sec 5. p 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the fundation Chillingworth c. 3. p. 159. calleth fundamentals The Doctrins which integrate and Integrate the bodie of Religion make vp the Bodie of Christian Religion And ib. p 140. saith Not fundamental id est no essential parts of Christianitie Lord Canter burie in his Relat. sec 38. p. 355. Errors in things not absolutly necessarie thos are his not fundamentals Soe also Vsher in his Serm. befor k. Iames. is no breach vpon the one sauing faith which is necessarie And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine Truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith But surely if fundamental points make up our faith in Christ comprehend the life and substance of Religion make up the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion if in them consisteth the vnitie of sauing faith if they properly and essentially constitute a true Church and a true Christian if a true Church be al one with one not erring in the foundation and if not fundamental points be no essential parts of Christianitie nor breach in them be anie breach in necessarie sauing faith our faith in Christ the Catholik faith the entire bodie of Christian Religion vnitie of sauing faith and the essence of a true Church and of a true Christian shal As long as the essential parts are the thing is remaine as long as fundamentals are beleued though Not fundamentals euen sufficiently proposed be not beleued nor breach in these can make anie breach in the essence or vnitie of a true Church or of sauing faith The same also followeth out of 3. their doctrin That we maie not forsake the communion in Sacraments of a Church that erreth in not fundamentals vnles she impose the profession of them Chillingworth c. 5 p. 307. That it is not lawful to separate See him p. 281. from anie Churches communion for errors not apperteining to the substance of No separation for not fundamentals faith is not vniuersally true but with this exception vnles that Church requires the beleif and profession of them So that if she sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed but require not the beleif of them we maie not separate from her Communion Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. speaking of not fundamentals saith absolutely In necessariis in or about things necessarie there ought not to be contention to a separation And sec 28. p. 139. The whole Church cannot vniuersally err in absolute fundamental doctrins and therfore there can be no iust cause to make a scisme from the whole Church So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed there were no iust cause of
simply Fundamental sect 10. p. 31. Nothing is simply Fundamental becaus the Church declares it sect 25. p. 162. Prouided it be not in anie point simply Fundamental Potter in Chillingworth p. 7. Simply and indispensably necessarie Precisely necessarie An other is Prime foundations and Prime not Prime L. Canterb sect 33 p. 256. 258. The Church is infallible in the Prime foundations of faith An other is To some and not to al. L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 37. What perteines to Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Chillingworth c. 3. p. 184. That maie be fundamental to one which to an other is not so Potter sec 7 p. 103. Some truth is fundamental in some persons in certaine respects which is Not to some others An other distinction is That some are fundamental Remedielesly Remedielesly others not Chillingworth c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund but pardonable by ignorance or which are Remedielesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation An other Some are ether in themselues or by accident fundamental Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. An other is some are Reductiue Fundamental others not so Reductiuely White in L. Canterb. sect 37. p. 317. Popish errors are Fundamental Reductiue p. 321. Some errors of that Church were fundamental Reductiue But what signifieth this multiplicitie of ambiguous distinctions but their ignorance or vncertainetie what is truly Fundamental and their minde to delude their Aduersarie and to confound their Reader Wheras one distinction Truly Not truly would haue sufficed For Fundamental is of one only Nature and what hath that nature is truly Fundamētal what hath it not is not truly Fundamental and this multiplicitie of Fundamentals discouereth clearely ignorance and vncertainetie what is the true Nature or Essence of Fundamental And thus we haue seene how vncertaine Protestants are What Not-fundamentals points be to wit Whether points of faith or but opinions Whether errors in them be damnable or no Whether separation ought to be made for them or no Whether they make difference in Religion or no And whether the Nature of fundamental be one or manifold Now let vs see how vncertaine also they be which are Fundamental points Which Not-fundamental THAT PROTESTANTS are vncertaine vvhich are Fundamental and vvhich Not-fundamental SIXT CHAPTER 1. IN the former Chapter I shewed how vncertaine Protestants are what a Not-fundamental point is but now saie one thing now the contrarie as it serueth for their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church that sinfully erreth in Not fundamentals For then they are no points of faith but disputable opinions light matters for which no separation ought to be made or to iustifie their separation from a Church which they confes erreth but in Not-fundamentals For then they are matters of faith and errors in them horrible and of themselues damnable and iust cause of separation or schisme Now I wil shew their like vncertaintie which are the points that are Fundamental and which Not-fundamental and that as it serueth to their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church or to condem a Church they make the self same points to be Fundamental or Not fundamental 2. And as for their vncertaintie Impossible for Protestants to giue an exact catalogue of Fundamentals or ignorance which are al the Fundamental points themselues profes it For thus Chillingworth c. 3. p. 166. we know not precisely iust how much is fundamental p. 134. It is impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Which he repeateth p. 135. and c. 4. p. 201. c. 6. p 367. and in Answer to the Preface p. 26. And c. 7. p. 408. Protestants do not agree touching what points are fundamental Lord Canterb. sec 38. p. 325. To set bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Iust thus far you must beleue in euerie particular or incurdamnation is no work for my pen. And ibid. 372. The Church cannot teach iust how far euerie man must beleue as it relates to the possibilitie or impossibilitie of his saluation in euerie particular And if it be impossible for them to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals it is impossible for them to tel exactly which are Fundamentals and which Not-fundamentals 3. But at other times they vndertake to giue vs an exact Catalogue of fundamētals For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds conteining the Fundamētals of Christianitie The Creed as it is explained is a sufficiēt Catalogue of Fundamentals This is Doctor Potters assertiō The Creed of Apostles as it is explained in latter Creeds of the Catholik Church is esteemed a sufficient Summarie or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquitie The like he hath p. 413 Behold a sufficient Catalogue of Fundamentals And ibid p. 206. The Apostles Creed is a perfect The Creed is a sufficient Summarie of Fundamentals Summarie of the Fundamentals of the Christian faith c. 1. p. 41. The Creed is a sufficient or more then a sufficient Summarie of thos points of faith which were of necessitie to be beleued actually and explicitly And thes are his Fundamentals And c. 3. p. 133. This is the minimum quod sic wherin in men capable of faith God wil be pleased and he that knoweth minimum quod sic and the lowest degree of faith doth he not know Maximum quod sic and the highest degree And ibid. p. 150. They Out of Scripture we maie learne which are Fundamentals which not maie learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not so And if they can learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not why can they not gather out of Scripture a Catalogue of Fundamentals C. 7. p. 408. You ouerreach in saying Protestants cannot agree touching what points are fundamental Doctor Potter sect 7 p. 78. Those prime and Capital doctrines of our Religion which make vp the Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentialy constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Thes fundamentals are al conteined in the rule of faith which The Apostles creed is a catalogue of Fundamentals rule hath been summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed and hath been receaued by Orthodox Christians of al Ages and places as an absolute Summarie of the Christian faith And after he had proued this saith p. 94. Now our Mistaker Feild l. 3. c. 4. nameth which they account fundamentals hath his Catalogue of fundamentals Behold againe a Catalogue of fundamentals Sect. 3. p. 60. The things wherin Protestants doe iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised are summarily deliuered in the Symbols or Creeds And what are those in which the life and substance of Religion is comprised but Fundamentals And ibid. p. 61. To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed The Creed is
separate themselues from the external cōmunion of the whole Church separate themselues from an essential part of her Roote of the Protestants errors For external communion is as essential to the visible Church as is profession of faith And al thes errors rise of not considering or remembring wel the former definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and themselues and confirmed by reason In al which Communion is put as an essētial part of that true Church which Scripture Fathers Reason and somtimes also Protestans propose Protestants forsake the external communion of the visible Church vnto vs. 5. And herevpon it is evident that Chillingworth in confessing c. 5. cit p. 273. That as for the external communion of the visible Church we haue without scrupule formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it And p. 274. Though Luther forsooke the external communion of the Cath. Church it wil not follow he was a Scismatike Plainely confesseth that Luther and Protestants are true Scismatiks and by forsaking the external communion of the * Chilling p 263. The visible Ch. signifieth the whole Church whole visible or Catholik Church ether made a new visible Church or are in no visible Church at al For the external communion of the whole visible Church was an essential parte of her as wel as profession of faith And none can leaue an essential parte of the whole visible Church but he must leaue the VVho is out of the whole visible Ch. is in none whole visible Church which is to make a formal schisme For he cannot leaue the whole visible Church but he must be in no visible Church seing the whole visible Church includeth al visible Churches or he must be in a new substantial visible Church which must be of his VVhy no iust cause to goe out of the whole visible Church owne making And hence it is euidēt why there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole visible Church becaus there can be no iust cause to put onesself out of al visible Churches and to be in no visible Church at al. There maie be iust cause of separation from the communion of some particular Church becaus she maie inuincibly err in some points of faith and exact profession of her VVhy may be iust cause to goe out of a particular Church errors for a condition of her communion And nether is it necessarie to saluation or to a member of the true Church to be in communion of euerie particular Church nor the going out of anie particular Church if there be iust cause for it is the going out of the whole true Church But the whole true Church is not fallible vincibly or inuincibly in anie point of faith by reason of Christs promise and the holie Ghostsassistance So that for pretence of errors there can be no iust cause to go out of her cōmunion And the going out of her is the going out of al Churches whatsoeuer becaus L. Canterb. p. 311. out of the Cath. Church there is no saluation the whole Church includeth al and who is out of al is in none And there cannot be imagined anie iust cause to goe out of al Churches and to be in none at al And hereby we Infallibilitie and necessitie to be in the whole Church proue out the other see how the infallibilitie of the whole Church and necessitie of being in the whole Church do mutually infer each the other For if she were not infallible in matters of faith but sinfully Canterb. p. 240. Al the members of the militant Church can not err So Mortō Imp. c. 15. sec 3. and 4. taught errors one might iustly goe out of her And becaus there can be no iust cause to goe out of the whole Church for then we should be in none at al it must needs be that she is infallible in matters of faith 6. Wherfore when Chillingworth Potter sec 2. p. 47. Canterb. p. 143. c. 5. p. 264. 271. 274. 284. and Protestants commonly define Schisme to be a Causeles separation from the communion of the Church they voluntarily Protestants false definition of Schisme ad that particle Causeles nether do they finde it in anie definition of Fathers who neuer admit anie iust cause of separatiō from the whole Church but Protestants merely ad it to excuse themselues from Schisme becaus they haue some pretence of cause for separation See also supra n. 5. but no colour al at to denie their separation from the whole Caluin Ep. 141. discessionē a toto mūdo facere concti sumus Church yea they plainly confés it as is to be seen l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and 3. Out of which it is euident that ether they are in no Church becaus there is none besid the whole or in a new made Church Let them shew that anie Father euer put that particle Causeles in the definition of Schisme or saied that there can be iust cause of separation from the communion of the whole visible Church or they must confés that according as the Protestants Schismatiks as the Fathers vse that word Fathers vse the word Scisme they are guiltie of Scisme in separating themselues from the external communion of the whole visible Church and so in iudgment of the Fathers as they vse the word are Scismatiks And if they be not Scismatiks as themselues please to vse the word it little importeth let them equiuocate as they please and vse words without matter 7. Let not therfore Chillingworth c. 5. cit p. 272. advise men to look that their cause of separation from anie Churches communion be iust becaus it is as much as their soule is worth but let him look that he make no separation at al from the communion of the whole Church becaus hereof no cause can be iust For as I saied to goe out of the whole Church is S. Augustin puts schisme merely in separation frō the whole to be in no Church at al. Herevpon S. Augustin l. 2. contra Petil. c. 16. saied I obiect to thee the sin of Scisme which thou wilt denie but I wil streigt proue For thou doest not comunicate with al nations which proof were none if there could be iust cause of not communicating with al Nations but he Schisme simply not to communicate with the whole Church should haue added that causelesly he he did not communicate And lib. de vnitate c. 4. whosoeuer beleue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c. yet so dissent from bis Bodie which is the Church as Schisme not to communicate with the whole their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Which were not manfest if there C. 3. n. 3. 6. l. ◠could be iust cause of
not communicating with the whole And euident it is out of what we related before out of Saint Augustin that he meaneth of communion in Sactaments and publik praier And therfore vntruely saied Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 33. That Protestants cōmunicate as Saint Augustin meant with the Catholik Church in what parte or place of the world soeuer For they communicate not at al with her in Sacraments and publik praier And so according to Saint Augustins doctrin manifestly are out of the Catholik Church Besids Doctor Potter speaketh not consequently when sec 2 p. 66. he faieth we do not communicate with Rome in her publik Liturgie in that our communion is dissolued And yet sec 3. p. 74. Her cōmunion we forsake not no more then the Bodie of Christ For how doth he not forsake the communion of Rome who doth not communicate with her in Liturgie and whose communion in that is dissolued But to returne to Saint Augustin he epist 48. affirmeth we are certaine that none can iustly separate himself from the communion None can iustly separate of al Nations Item None can haue iust cause to separate their cōmunion from the communion of al Nations lib. 2. contra Parmen cap. 11. There is no iust necessitie to break vnitie And l. 3. c. 4. No iust cause to forsake the Church The world doth securely iugde that they are not good who separate themselues from the world in what parte of land soeuer And ib. c. 5. Let vs hold it firme and sure that no good men can deuide No good men can separate themselues from the Church lib. 3. de Baptis c. 16. It is charitie which they haue not who are cut from the communion of the Catholik Church And epist 152. whosoeuer is separated from this Catholik Church albeit he think he liues lawdably by this only wickdnes that he is separated from the vnitie of Christ he hath not life but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him Lo to be separated from the Catholik Church is to be sepated from the vnitie of Christ And what iust cause can there be to be separated from the vnitie of Christ And epist 48. Relateth that certaine Donatists thought faith would suffice without communion Donatists saied we thought it made no matter where we held Christs faith So that it is an error of Donatists to think that faith wil suffice without communion Finally S. Cyprian l. de vnitate Let none think that good men can leaue the Church 8. Protestants also sometimes confés that there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole Church For Caluin 4. inst it c. 1. § 10. saieth Departure from the Church of God is denial of Christ which were not true if there were iust cause of departure And lib. de Neces Reform Eccles p. 68. being vrged that there is no iust cause for which we maie Vsher serm to House of Com. No cause why We should make a rent in the Church of God break the vnitie of the Church he doth not answer that there can be iust cause hereof but as supposing that denieth that they are out of the communion of the Church And againe But we are put back with this only engin That no cause excuseth departure from the Church But we denie that we do so Surely if he had thought that there could be iust cause to break the vnitie of the whole Church or to goe out of her communion he would here haue saied it But he did not then dreame that there could be a iust or causeful separation from the cōmunion of the whole Church which some Protestants since haue found out Lord Canterburie p. 139. There can be no iust cause to make à Schisme from the whole Church Item p. 192. D. Potter sec 3. p. 74. There nether was nor can be anie iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from no iust cause to goe from the whole Church Christ himself Chillingworth sect 5. p. 170. and 272. alloweth thes words of D. Potter and addeth p. 298. It is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church That is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself And surely he ceaseth being a member of the Church who separateth himself from the communion of the whole VVho leaueth to be of the whole Church leaueth to be of anie Church visible Church Becaus communion as I haue proued is an essential parte of the visible Church And he can be no member of the visible Church who wanteth an essential parte of it And to depart from the communion of the visible Church is not as Chillingworth speaketh p. 269. 283. 298. 302. te depart frō some opiniōs or practises of the Church But it is to depart from some point of faith or from communicating with the Church in vse of Sacraments Liturgie and publick worship of God as is euident and himself confesseth ib. p. 265. and we related his words c. 13. nu 4. In which to communicate is most substantial to the Church For Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God are a principal external end of the Church And namely Sacraments are put in the definition of the Church by Protestants Wherfore to be associated C. 12. nu 5. l. 2. and communicate in them is most substantial to her who is a Societie in vse of them and in profession of Christs faith And therfore to depart from her communion in them is clearely to depart from the societie 9. And here is to be Noted that Protestants make not a distinctiō of fundamētal and not fundamental Cōmunion Protestants cannot make distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental communion as they did of fundamental and Not fundamētal articles For separating themselues from communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God they separated themselues most fundamentally in communion and condemning the communion in thes of the Church frō which they separated they must condemne the fundamental communion and so saie she is substantially no Church Whervpon it must needs follow that ether they must make a new Church substantially different from the whole visible Church or els be in no Church at al. For as I haue saied There can be no Church besids the whole Church Wheras deuiding articles into fundamental and Not fundamental and saying that the Church from which they separated themselues retained the fundamental articles which cōstitute a Chureh and that they feparated themselues from her only in Not fundamental points they had some colour to saie that they stil remained in the substāce of the Church frō which they made separation And therfore an Argumēt taken from Protestants separation in communion from the whole Church is more forcible against them then taken from their separation in faith from the whole visible Church For her faith they leaft but partly but her Communion they leaft
THE SECOND BOOKE I. THat there are points of faith beside thes principal articles which are to be preached to al and beleued of al. II. That sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie III. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth saluation IV. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth true sauing faith V. Diuers errors of Protestants about the substance and vnitie of sauing faith refuted VI. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the substance of the Church VII That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the vnitie of the Church VIII That to denie anie point of Christs doctrin suffieiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and Deitie IX That Communion with heretical Churches or which sinfully denie anie point of faith is damnable X. That their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks XI Though the Protestants distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles were true yet it would not suffice for their purpos for want of vnion in fundamental points XII That their distinction would not suffice for their want of communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God XIII Protestants errors about communion refuted XIV The Protestant and Cath. doctrin about matters here handled and their Defenders compared and brefly shewed that it is true Charitie to tel sinful errants in anie point of faith or in communion that they are in a damnable state A RAISONABLE REQVEST to him that wil seriously answer this Treatise to saie directly and plainly yea or no to thes questions following and constantly to stand to his ansuwer in his whole Replie Whether Protestants in their distinction 1. into fundamental and not fundamental points doe intend to distinguish true points of faith and meane that not fundamental points are true points of faith or no Whether sinful error in anie true 2. point of faith or of Gods revealed word can stand with saving faith a true member of the Church and salvation or no Whether there be not sinful error 3. when anie point of faith is sufficiently proposed to a man or for his fault not so proposed and yet not beleued of him or no Whether fundamental points be sufficient 4. to saving faith true Church and salvation even when not fundamental points or not principal points are sufficiently proposed and not beleved or sinfully not beleved or no Whether not fundamental or not 5. principal points be not necessarie to a saving faith true Church and salvation when they are as sufficiently proposed as points of faith ought to be or would be so proposed if it were not our fault or no Whether it be sufficient to proue 6. some to have saving faith to be true members of the Church and in the waie of salvation that they beleve al the fundamental points and it be not also necessarie to prove that they do not sinfully err in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault or no Whether if it be necessarie to saving 7. faith true members of the Church and to salvation not to err sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which should be so proposed if it Were not the vnbelevers fault it be not damnably to deceaue soules to teach that al who beleve the fundamental points haue saving faith are in the Church and in waie of salvation or no Whether sinful error against anie 8. point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the Errants avoidable fault be formal heresie and al such Errants formal heretiks or no or if it be not heresie what sin it is Whether al formal heresie be not 9. damnable sin and al formal heretiks in state of damnation or no Whether the Grecian Lutheran and 10. such other Churches as Calvinists grant to err in some points of faith haue not had thos points sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault or no Whether when Calvinists saie that Grecians Lutherans or such erring 11. Churches have à saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of salvation they meane even such of them as err vincibly and sinfully or only such as err invincibly Whether if they allow saving faith 12 true Church and salvation to such only as err inuincibly in not fundamental points they can pretend to haue more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks haue nor no Whether Communion in Sacraments 13. and in publik worship of God be not essential to a true visible Church and for want therof pure Scismatiks be out of the substance of the visible Church or no Whether they who forsake the 14. Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and in publik worship of God doe not substantially forsake the whole visible Church or no Whether there can be iust cause to 15. forsake the Communion of the whole Church in her Sacraments and publiks worship of God and to institute à new Communion which none before had or no Whether when Luther and his 16. Fellowes forsook the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments and in her publik worship of God they did not forsake the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and publik worship of God and instituted a new Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God which nether themselues had before nor anie other Christian Church or no Whether if Communion in Sacraments 27 and in publik worship of God be essential to the visible Church Luther and his fellowes when they instituted a new Communion in such things which was not before did not institute a new Church which was not before 18. Whether Churches which differ both in Communion and in al the formal essential parts of the visible Church as in profession of faith in Sacraments and Ministers of the word and of Sacraments as the Roman and Protestants Churches differt can be one and the same substantial Church or no If the Roman and Protestant Churches be substantially different 19. Churches how can both be true Churches Protestants receaue the keyes of heauen and Lawful Mission from a fals Church or shew the continuance of their Church by the continuance of the Roman Whether al Protestant Churches 20. erring in some points of faith as Protestants confes they doe doe not err sinfully in such points as having them sufficiently proposed to them or might have if it were not their avoidable fault Whether it be not charitie to tel 21. al that sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed to them if it were not their avoidable fault and therby are formal heretiks or which sinfully err in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God and therby are formal
not to be regarded at al as when we obiect to Caluinists their difference from Lutherans in such points as they account not fundamentals Whitaker controu 1. q. 4. c. 3. calleth them smal matters K. Iames in his Monitorie Epistle Things indifferent and tittles D. Andrews Resp ad Apol Bellarm. c. 14. Matters of no great moment The Apologie of the Church of England No great matters Caluin Admonit vltima p. 832. Matters of nothing Martyr in Locis Classe 4. c. 10. paragr 65. Matters not to be much respected Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 89. No parte of faith but curious Nicities Thus meanely nay contemptously they speak of Not-fundamētal points when they wil maintaine anie Church which they confes to err in Not-fundamental points or saluation to be had in such a Church or their own Communion with her And surely If Not-fundamental points were such as hitherto they haue described euident it were that euen obstinat error in them could not destroie sauing faith true Church or hope of saluation nor hinder Communion with anie Church obstinatly erring in such points 7. But at other times Not-fundamental At other times not fundamentals are points of faith points are points of faith with them are weightie matters as on which dependeth mens saluation and errors against them damnable as we L. 2. c. 1. shal see at large hereafter And thus highly they esteeme of Not-fundamental points especialy when they would iustifie their separation from the Roman Church which they confes to be a true Church and to hold the fundamental points and yet say her errors are horrible and damnable and iust cause of separation from her But let vs heare them first freeing the Roman Church from fundamental errors and after condemning her for damnable errors and such as are iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The most necessarie and Rome holdeth that which constitutes a Church fundamental truthes which constitute a Church are on both sides Catholik and Protestants vnquestioned p. 60. The things wherin the Protestants do iudge the life and substance of Religion to be The life and substance of Religion comprised their aduersaries Papists themselues do auow and receaue them as wel as they And p. 58. In the prime The fundamental truths grounds or principles of Religion we haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word fundamental I hope she Roman Church erred not fundamentally c. 3. p. 164. The Erreth not in fundamentals only and main reason why we beleue you not to err in fundamentals is your holding the doctrins of faith in Christ and repentance c. 7. p. 401. we approue those See also c. 3. p. 163. fundamental and simply necessarie truths which you reteine by which some good soules among you maie be saued p. 404. We hope she reteines those truths which are simply absolutly and indispensably Holdeth what is necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heauen Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 299. Romanists as they are Christians that is as they beleue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself I dare not proceed so roughly Holdeth the foundation as the denie or weaken the foundation which is Christ euen among them and which is and remaineth holie euen in the midst of their superstitions And sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion is the same And the same it could not be if the Roman differed in fundamental points And sec 35. p. 285. and sec 36. p. 314. 315. affirmeth that ignorant soules in the Roman Church are safe and that Ignorants in the Roman Church are safe their simplicitie of beleuing maketh them safe yea safest And sec 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence not in the things which constitute a Church Thus these men plainly confes that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental but only not fundamental More confessions of Protestants that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamental points maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 2. paragr 3. 8. And neuertheles thes same men saie her errors are horrible and Yet holdeth Rome horrible errors damnable and iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The Roman Church is extreamly defiled with horrible errors and corruptions Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. Errors of the Roman Church of Errors of themselues damnable themselues damnable c. 1. p. 34. Poperie in itself destroies saluation Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 296. He that beleues as that Roman Church beleues Guiltie of schisme is guiltie of the Scisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and of al her damnable opinions too And p. Damnable opinions 298. And therfore in this present case there is peril great peril of damnable both Schisme and Heresie and other Peril of Schisme sin by liuing and dying in the Roman faith tainted with so manie superstitions as this daie it is Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in them selues may induce on obligation to forsake your communion And they al three though they confessed that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental yet afford saluation to these only of the Roman Church who ether are inuincibly ignorant of her errors or repent themselues of them as is to be seene in Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 76. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 267. 285. 283. c. 7. p. 398. Lord Canterburie sec 34. and 35. So not fundamental errors which before they so much sleighted sometimes are horrible errors damnable opinions of themselues damnable and destructiue of saluation and iust cause of separation 9. Finally their ignorance and vncertaintie what Fundamental or Not Fundamental points are appeareth by their manifold and ambiguous distinctions of them Their first distinction is of Fundamental properly ond improperly Doctor Potter Properly sect 7. p. 75. Fundamental properly is that which Christians are oblidged to beleue by an expres and actual faith Lord Canterb. sec 10. p. 38. Catholik Maximes are properly Fundamental An other distinction is Formally not Formally Formally L. Canterb. sect 38. p. 334. Deductions are not formally fundamental for al men An other is In some sense In some sense Potter sect 7. p. 74. whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamental An other Absolutly not Absolutly Absolutly L. Cannterb sect 18. p. 139. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals p. 140. The Church cannot err in doctrins absolutly Fundamētal sect 25. p. 162. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals P. 165. In absolute foundations Chillingworth c. 5. p. 282. We hope your errors are not absolutly vnpardonable An other distinction is Simply Fundamental not Simply Simply L. Canterb. sect 9. p. 24. It was a question not
one That it is 3. true heresie to denie anie point of faith sufficiently proposed That sinful 4. denial of anie such point of faith destroieth true sauing faith and saluation the substance and vnitie of the true Church That communion in 5. Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to a true Church That though there were such distinction 6. in points of faith as Protestants make yet that would not saue some of their Churches which err euen in fundamental articles and want al communion in Sacraments and in publik worship of God and that seing 7. the Protestants faith doth not essentially embrace al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed but only some parte of it nor is opposit to heresie in al points nor is one in al Gods word but onely in some part that it is not 8. true sauing faith And seing their Church doth not profés Gods entire word nor is one at most more then in fundamental points nor is at al one in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God it cannot be the true Church of God And seing it did 9 leaue the communion of the whole visible Church and therby leaft the whole visible Church and leauing the whole leaft al visible Churches and leauing al that it can be in no visible Church vnles at their separation there were some new visible Church made These points I saie Catholiks constantly teach 8. Wheras Protestants most vnconstantly teach almost al that we haue rehearsed of their doctrin For sometimes they teach that their Not fundamental points a C. 1. n. 5. 6. 7. are points of faith Sometimes they b C. 5. n. 8. are not Sometimes sinful denial of them is c C. 2. n. 4. l. ◠heresie Sometimes it is d C. 2. n 5. not Sometimes sinful denial of them is a sufficient e c. 6. n. 8. cause of separation Sometimes it is f c. 2. n. 3. 6. 5. n 5. not Sometimes Protestants can giue a Catalogue g c. 6. n. 2. of fundamentals Sometime they cannot h c. 6 n. 3. 4. Sometimes the Roman Church is a i c 2. n. 6 c. 7. n. 3. 4. true Church in essence Sometimes she is k c 6 n. 5. c. 5. n. 7. not Sometimes her errors are l c. 5 n. 7. c. 6. n 5. fundamental Sometimes they are m c 5. n. 7. not Sometimes n c. 2. n. 5. heretiks are in the Church Sometimes they are o c. 7. n. 12. 13. l. 2. not Sometimes heretiks p c 6. n. 4. 5. maie be saued Sometimes they q c 1. n. 12. c. 10. n. 4 5. cannot Sometimes a true Church r c. 7. n. 2. 3. 4. can err in fundamentals Sometimes it ſ c 7. nu 5. 6. 7. cannot Sometimes al t c 3 n. 5. 6. 7. l. 2. points of faith are necessarie to sauing faith Sometimes they are u c. 2. n. 2 not Sometimes denial of anie point sufficiently proposed x c. 4. n. 6. 7. l. 2. destroieth true faith Sometimes it doth y c. 2. n. 3. not Sometimes sinful denial of anie point of faith z c. 6. n. 4. 5. l. 2. destroieth the substance of the Church Sometimes it doth a c. 3. nu 2. l. 2. not Sometimes diuision in anie point of faith b c. 7. n. 10. l. 2. destroieth the vnitie of the Church Sometimes it doth c c. 5. nu 2. l. 2. not Sometimes there is d c. 13. n. 4. l. 2. iust cause of separation from the whole visible Church Sometimes there is e c. 12. nu 8. l. 2. not Sometimes cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is f c. 12. n. 5. l. 2. essential to the Church Sometimes it is g c. 11. n. 1. l. 2. not Sometimes to leaue the communion of the Church is to h c 12. n. 5. l 2. leaue the Church Sometimes it is i c. 12 n. 4. 5. l 2. not Sometimes wilful error in faith k c. 11. n. 5. l 2. is iust cause to forsake a Church Sometimes it is l c 9 nu 6. c. 2. n. 3. not 9. Surely it must be a verie il cause that driueth such wittie and Learned men thus often and thus plainely to contradict themselues about one question of their fundamental and Not fundamental points For it is nether want of wit nor of learning that maketh them in this sort to contradict themselues but whiles they wil ioine truth with falshood faith with heresie Gods Church with a false Church they cannot doe otherwise For the euidence of truth of faith and of Gods Church forceth them to saie one thing and falshood heresie and their false Church maketh them to saie the quite contrarie Wherfore we must no more expect of heretiks to speake agreably to themselues then of Drunken men to goe streight For heretiks be as the Prophet speaketh drunk and not with wine heresie is a spiritual drunkenes Esaiae 51. which maketh men to reele betweene truth and falshood as drunkenes maketh Caluin Cōfutat Hollandi Spiritus vertiginis quo minatur Deus se verbi sui cōtemptores potaturum brutam omnium ebriosorū amentiam superat men reele from one side to an other It maie be that Catholik writers in some greate work and writing vpon different matters maie contradict themselues by forgetfulnes but that wittie and learned men in so smal works and in one kinde of matter should so often and so plainely contradict themselues cannot proceed but of the nature of the matter which they would mainteine and of Athal orat 2. cōt Arian Qui incidūt in heresim mentis vertigine laborant C. 19. their spiritual drunkenes or that spirit of giddines which as the aforesaied Prophet saieth our Lord hath mingled in the midst of Egipt and made Egipt to err in al her worke as a drunken and vomiting man erreth 10. And finally out of al hitherto saied I conclude that it is not against Charitie to tell Churches sinfully erring of their damnable state charitie but rather most agreable to Christian faith and true charitie to admonish al Churches or persons that they are in a damnable state who err sinfully ether becaus they wil not beleue some point of Christian faith or part of Gods word sufficiently proposed to them or through their fault haue it not sufficiently proposed For as Protestants confessed cap. 10. The difference is not great betweene him Sinfulmant of sufficient proposing excuseth not that is wilfully blinde and him that knowingly gainsaieth the truth and who were it not for their owne auoidable fault might and should see truth and do not their error is damnable And if anie be negligent in seeking truth vnwilling to finde it or might see it and wil not his case without repentance is desperate Wherfore thus I argue in forme 11. It is
to such as beleue as they profes her errors not pernitious to them who beleue them And is not this plainly to teach that a Church sinfully erring in some points of faith hath sauing faith is a true Church and in waie of saluation 8. Nether wil it help them to saie as sometimes they doe that when L. Canterb. p. 35. 285. D. Potter sec 3. p. 46. Chillingw p. 282. 398. 400. 32. they confes the Roman Church to be a true Church to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation by Roman Church they mean only those who vpon inuincible ignorance follow her Religion First becaus this is said voluntarily without anie ground giuen in the places where they confes this of the Roman Church By Roman Church can not be meāt only inuincibly ignorants Where if they meant only of the ignorants in the Roman Church why did they not name them rather then the Roman Church 9. Secondly becaus they saie thus 2. only when we out of their grant that the Roman Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and true waie of saluation doe clearly infer that the Protestants Church is no true Church hath no sauing faith nor waie of saluation And haue no other cause to expound themselues thus but Becaus otherwise they should condemn their Church and religion Thirdly 3. becaus this is to profes that they equiuocate in a matter of religion becaus nether we nor themselues commonly doe by Roman Church vnderstand only those who in her are invincibly ignorant And if Chillingworth saie c. 7. p. 399. By Roman Church to vnderstand the ignorant members of it is a verie unusual Senecdoche much more vnusual is it by Roman Church to vnderstand them alone And yet as the same man saieth c. 2. p. 57. Men should speak properly when they write of Controuersies in Religion And as Caluin addeth Plaine dealing is to be vsed in al things but cheifly in matters of faith And if Protestants when they saie The Roman Church is a true Church had only meant the inuincibly ignorants in her it had been easie for them to haue said so and therby giuen no occasion to mistake their meaning Fourthly it is against 4. their own descriptions of the Roman VVhat Protestāts mean by Roman Church Church Morton in his imposture c. 14. sec 12. The Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope and his subordinats as of a head and a bodie And c. 4. No people can be called the Church of Rome except they be Professors of the faith of Rome The like he hath c. 2. p. 13. Feild in Apendice parte 3. The Roman Church that now is is the multitude of such only as magnifie admire and adore the plenitude of Papal power or at least are content to be vnder the yoak of it stil White in defence of his Waie c. 33. The Church of Rome is the Papacie Sutclif l. 1. de Ecclesia c. 6. We must first tel what we and our Aduersaries meane by the Church of Rome I saie that the Church of Rome is a multitude vnder one Head the Bishop of Rome and agreeing in the publik doctrin of the Bishop of Rome and the external worship and Rites of that Church Rainolds l. 2. de Idolalatria c. 1. By the name of the Roman Church I meane al thos who defile themselues with the superstition of Rome and communion of the Pope Whitaker controu 2 q. 5. c. 5. p. 506. I esteeme the Papistical Church not by number of men but of Professors And they cannot be truly called Professors but who vnderstand and beleue what they profes Al which definitions or descriptions of the Roman Church or Church of Rome ether only or cheifly agree to them who wittingly embrace her doctrin and communion 10. Fiftly this exposition of the 5. Roman Church is against the profession of the English Protestant Church For as Rouse writeth in his Catholik charitie c. 2. The Roman Church according to the Church of England is to be vnderstood of the Pope and his adherents And in the margin citeth the Homelie on Whitsontide And c. 3. The Church of Rome beeing vnderstood as before according to the words of the Church of England to be the Pope and his adherents c. And doubtles the adherents to the Pope are not only inuincible ignorants but ether only 6. or chiefly the intelligents Sixtly becaus thēselues sometimes declare that when they saie the Roman Church is a true Church they meane euen thos who wittingly follow her doctrin For Doctor Potter sec 1. p. The curst Dame of Rome is a member of the Cath. Church 10. hauing called her the curst Dame of Rome who takes vpon her to reuel in the house of God who hath manie waies plaid the Harlot and in that regard deserued See Vsher Serm. before x Iames p. 26. a bil of diuorce from Christ and detestation from Christians saith in the next page Yet for those Catholik verities which she retaines we yeeld her a member of the Catholik Is not this plainly to confes that the most obstinat parte of the Roman Church is not yet diuorced from Christ and is stil a member of the Catholik Church Moreouer sec 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledg saith he the Church of Rome a member of the bodie of Christ and this cleares vs from imputation of Scisme whose propertie it is to cut of from the bodie of Christ and hope of saluation the Church from which it separates And the same defendeth Chillingworth c. 5. p. 266. But they separated themselues from the Pope and his adherents Therfore those they must account mēbers of the bodie of Christ and in hope of saluation or they cleare not themselues from scisme Montague also l. orig Eccles parte poster p. 408. saith The Bishop of Rome is a parte and a Cheif of the vniuersal representatiue Church And if the Pope be a parte surely al Papists are 7. Seuenthly if they did allow no Papists to be of the Church or in waie of saluation but only the inuincibly ignorants they could pretend no more charitie to Papists then we haue to Protestants For as Chillingworth Ib. p. 400. Material heretiks you do not exclude from possibilitie of saluation writeth c. 7. p. 398. Ignorant Protestants maie be saued by the cōfession of Papists The same he hath c. 5. p. 308. And c. 1. p. 34. According to the grownds of your own Religion Protestants maie die in their supposed error ether with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they doe so maie be saued which is true if he mean of inuincible ignorance but such are no true or formal Protestants such are rather Protestantibus credentes then Protestantes becaus wittingly they hold no point of true Protestancie but the Capital points of Christianitie which are the Capital points of Papacie But howsoeuer they can equiuocate in the name of Roman Church becaus they
Morton in his imposture p. 372. obstinacie of error in teachers affected ignorance and obduration of people c. may be iudged necessarie causes of separation from anie particular Churches And Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 296. He that beleues as that Rom. Church beleues is guiltie of the Schisme which that Church hath caused by her corruptions and of al her damnable opinions to And yet often times he saieth that the Rom. Church hath not erred fundamentally is a true Church in essence and her Religion the same with that of Protestants And Caluin hath diuers treatises in his Opuscules See him also in Ioan. 10. v. 1. for to proue that it is not lawful to communicate with a false Church And al are false Churches which voluntarily err against anie point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed C. 6. as before is proued 6. Hence appeareth that vntruly saied Chillingworth c. 5. p. 281. Nether Anie church voluntarily erring is to be forsaken for sin nor for errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she do not impose and inioine them Which he hath also p. 209. 307. and Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. and Potter sec 2. p. 39 if See c. 2. n. 1. l. 1 and Caluin contversipel p. 357. they meane as doubtles they doe of sinful errors or of errors in matters of faith sufficiently proposed For euerie such Church is a false Church and beside the authorities of Scripture Fathers and confessions of Protestāts before rehearsed the verie remaining in her is a real profession that shee is a true Church and that saluation maie be had in her Which to profés of a false Church is damnable And hence also appeareth that it is C. 2. nu 10. l. 1. damnable for anie Protestant to communicate with anie Protestant Church becaus they confés that al their Churches err in some points of faith And they must also confés that they sinfully err in points sufficiently proposed to them or els condemn themselues especially if they be Ministers of the word of damnable negligence of their dutie towards God and their Churches in not shewing sufficiently to their Churches their errors At least their Churches might be sufficiētly informed of their errors if they would which is al one as if they were sufficiently informed None can to liue in a Church and not cōmunicate with her As themselues confessed c. 3. n. 6. 7. Hence also is refuted what Lord Canterburie saieth sec 35. p. 296. It is one thing to liue in a Schismatical Church and not communicate with it in the Schisme or in anie false worship that attends it For so Elias liued among the ten Tribes and was not Schismatical For to liue in a Schismatical Church To liue among Schismatical people is not liue in a Schismatical Church is to liue in a Schismatical communion And Elias liued not in a Schismatical communion but only liued among men that were Schismatical And this error proceedeth of not distinguishing betweene men and a Church One maie liue in companie of men who are Schismatiks but not in a Schismatical Church for that is to liue in a Schismatical societie or communion 8. And thus haue we sufficiently proued that there be no fundamental or not fundamental points of faith in the Protestants sense that is none sufficient alone to sauing faith to constitute a Church or to saluation nor none not necessarie ether actually or virtually to the constitution of a Church to sauing faith and saluation But that this distinction in this sense bringeth in formal heresie destroieth true faith true Church and saluation and is the verie ground of Atheisme denying Gods veracitie and giuing C. 3. n. 5. 6. him the lie euen according to the confession of some Protestants Now we wil shew that this their distinction in their sēse hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks as they pretend it hath That the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in the Protestants sense hath no ground in Scripture Fathers reason or doctrin of Catholiks TENTH CHAPTER 1. DOctor Potter sec 7. p. 70. saieth The distinction betweene doctrins fundamental and not fundamental hath ground in reason and Scripture True but not in his sense His reason is becaus as in humane sciences there be principles and conclusions drawne out of them So in Religion there be degrees of truth For some of it self is the obiect of faith some but by accident or secundarily And it is the common doctrin of Schoolmen and Casuists that there is a certaine measure and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith or by a general and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted This reason indeed proueth that this distinction in some sense is good that some points of faith are more principal then others some more necessarie to be proposed to al then others and simply more necessarie to be actually beleued of al then others about al which there is no controuersie But it doth not proue that there are anie points of faith sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation though others be proposed and not beleued or anie Not necessarie to be actually beleued of al if they be sufficiently proposed to al or not virtually to be beleued of al whether they be sufficiently proposed or no which is al the question Nay it insinuateth clearely that al points of faith are to be VVho hau no virtua or general faith beleued virtually and not to be denied or contradicted and surely they doe not beleue them virtually who denie them when they are sufficiently proposed or are in fault that they are not sufficiently proposed to them Let him shew therfore how Papists or Lutherans whom he accounteth Note this true Churches haue a virtual general or negatiue faith of the Sacramentaries truths and doe not denie or contradict them or els this his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points wil so little help him to defend the saied Churches to be true Churches as it wil rather condemne them and him also for defending them or let him shew how anie who denie or contradict some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them as Papists and Lutherans denie and contradict the points of Caluinists faith so sufficiently proposed to them as Caluinists can propose them haue such a virtual general or negatiue faith wherby they doe not denie or contradict thos points or let him confes that whosouer denie or contradict anie point of faith sufficiētly proposed haue not so much faith as is sufficient to saluatiō His ground out of Scripture is becaus saieth he sec 7. p. 76. The dogmatical ground of the Church are thos grand and capital doctrines which make vp our faith in Christ that is that common faith Tit. 1. 4. which is alike
pretious in al 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc Hebr. 5. 12. cals the first principles of the Oracle of God And 2. Tim. 1. 13. forme of sound words Thes are his fundamentals the materials laied vpon this foundation whether they be sound or vnsound are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. superstructions which are conclusions ether in truth or appearance And thes if they be sound are his not fundamental points I answer First that the grand and capital doctrins maie wel be the ground of the Church and yet The foundation maketh not vp the building not make vp the common faith of Christians For more is required to a building then the ground or foundation Secondly they maie make vp al the common faith of Christians which is absolutly necessarie to be beleued actually of al and yet not make vp al the faith which absolutly is necessarie so be beleued virtually and implicitly of al and cōditionally also actually of al if it be sufficiently proposed vnto them So that thes places proue not his fundamentals which are so sufficiēt to sauing faith Church and saluation as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly beleued for to haue sauing faith Church and saluation And for his Not fundamentals I saie that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to proue them First becaus the place is verie obscure and hard to be vnderstood Superstructions are not Protestants not fundamentals S. Aug. epist 48. Quis nō impudētissime nititur aliquid in allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura as Saint Augustin witnesseth l. de fide operibus c. 15. and 16. quest 1. ad Dulcitium and Enarrat in Psal 80. And Morton tom 2. Apolog. l. 5. cap. 44. saieth It is metaphorical and entangled with manie difficulties And the place itself doth euidently shewit And an obscure and difficult place can giue no sufficient ground of so maine a point as this is That there be some points of faith which are not necessarie to saluation to be beleued virtually or implicitly or also actually if they be sufficienily proposed Wil D. Potter venture his owne or other mens saluatiō in so great a matter vpon an obscure or difficult text We with Saint Augustin lib. de vnitate demaund aliquid No expres text nor necessarie consequence for Protestants not fundamentals manifestum quod interprete non eget And you giue vs a place for Not fundamentals in your sense which no interpretation can make cleare 3. Moreouer how can you think it certaine that Saint Paul here by superstructions meaneth anie doctrin at al seing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68. and Enarrat in Psal 38. 80. and S. Gregorie l. 4. Dialog c. 39. expound it only of works nor you conuince the contrarie Finally admit that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrins how is it certaine that he meaneth doctrins of faith and not rather humane doctrins inuented by men becaus he calleth them our work and points of faith are not our work Admit also that by superstructures he meaneth some points of faith how proueth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation when they are sufficiently proposed seing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal nor saieth that such superstructures are not necessarie not yet calleth them superstructures in respect of faith or Church but in respect of the foundation as walls and roofe may be called superstructures in respect of the foundatiō and yet are necessarie parts of the house And so secondarie points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points on which they relie as vpon their foundation and yet be necessarie parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church 4. So that this superstruction of Protestants not fundamentals want foundation D. Potter wanteth sufficient foundation for his not foundamentals in his sense and is a not fundamental foundation for diuers causes First becaus the place is obscure and so vnfit to found anie infallible certaintie especially of this so weightie a point Secondly becaus it is not certaine that the Apostle by superstructions meaneth doctrines and not only works Thirdly becaus though he called some doctrins superstructions it is not certaine that he meant doctrins of faith or if he meant doctrins of faith that he called them superstructions in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation and not in respect only of other points of faith on which they are built And we denie not but in respect of themselues some points of faith maie be termed fundamental other not fundamental Fourthly becaus though we graunt that Saint Paul called some points of faith superstructions in respect of the Church or of saluation how proueth D. Potter that he meant so euen when they are sufficiently proposed we denie not but some points maie be termed superstructiōs in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation becaus they are not so absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation to be actually beleued as some other points are But this wil not proue that they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be actually beleued if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie virtually to be beleued howfoeuer 5. Admit that he called them superstructions euen when Superstructions may be essential they are sufficiently proposed how proueth Do. Porter that he meant they were not then essential to sauing faith Church or saluation Is nothing that is laied vpon the foundation essential or necessarie to the building And in this is the controuersie whether anie articles which maie be termed superstructions be essential to sauing faith Church or saluation or no we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foundation and yet essential to the house So on euerie hand falleth down Doctor Potters ground out of Scripture for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense which is that to haue sauing faith Church and saluation See 6. 2. they need not be beleued actually though they be proposed sufficiently not at al virtually For if he only would that some points of faith How some points of faith may be called not fundamental are so not fundamētal to sauing faith Church or saluation as they need not be actually beleued vnles they be sufficiently proposed and are not absolutly necessarie as some others are there would be no question But this kinde of not fundamentals wil not help him to iustifie his Churches erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or his communion with such Churches 5. Other Protestants would proue that Perkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches maie err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed becaus the Galathiās were turned to an other Ghospel and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection and neuertheles Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God But this argument if it
true Church as perseuerance in the doctrin of the Apostles is And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper and publik praiers And saieth we must be such if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the Corinthiās and one saied he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas The Apostle reprouing them faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided As if it should follow that Christ were deuided if his mystical Bodie the Church were deuided Besids al the places of Scripture C. 7 nu 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue that the Church of Christ is absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments For such a deuided Church is not absolutly one but in parte or in some sort only The same also is euident out of our Creed where we profés to beleue the Catholik Church the cōmuniō of Saints Where communion of Saints is ether an explication of Cath. Church as * Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 3. Confessio Scotica art 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Kemnit loc de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach or a thing necessarily required to it For it makes no distinct article 3. The Fathers also as Moulins confessed * c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before by the Church vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such cōmunion as is opposit to Scismatiks Churches orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in communion and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks So that they make vnion in communion which excludeth Schismatiks who are deuided in cōmunion as essential a part of the Church of which they meane as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith which excludeth heretiks And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola cōmunione litigant See him 4. cōt Crescon c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers that they exclude as wel Schismatiks out of the Church who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments as heretiks who want soundnes in faith And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth Men cannot s. August puts cōmunion in Sacraments of the essence of Religion be ioined into anie name of Religion true or false vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments So that there can be nether true nor false Religion without communion in Sacraments And epist 118. saieth God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments 4. Reason also conuinceth that Reason also cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the true Church of Christ For his Church is Confessio Anglicaart 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVittenbergica c. de Eccles a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments as al men conceaue and define And it implieth contradiction that there should be a Societie without cōmunion in matters essentially belonging to the societie as Sacramēts belong to Christs Church For if there be no communion in vse of Sacraments there is no societie in vse of Sacraments And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments no Church For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments And Protestants who profés to giue none but essential Notes of the Church giue right vse of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments are deuided in an essential parte and consequently essentially Moreouer without communion 2. in Sacraments and publik VVithout communion the Church differs not from schismatiks worship of God the Church should not differ essentially from a Schismatical Church And it implieth contradiction that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church Furthermore 3. vse of Sacraments and publik worship of God was the external end for which the Church was instituted and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end Besids the 4. true Church is the mystical Bodie of Christ and therfore as al the members of a natural bodie communicate one with an other so must the members of the true Church Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion Therfore a Church so deuided is no Church of Christs institution Finally al the arguments 6. wherwith before we proued the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God For a Church so deuided in not simply one 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants For Confessio Protestants confés that the Church is a societie in Sacraments Argentinensis c. 12. saieth God would haue his to haue external societie together for which cause he gaue them Sacraments Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper that we remember of what bodie we be members and therfore agree with al brethren Mulhusina art 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church to testifie faith and fraternal charitie Consensus Poloniae The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist to be the band of publik congregation and the band of mutual charitie among the members So Potter sec 7. p. 98. of the Church Caluin 4. instit c. 1. Caluin in Ioan. 9. Pessimū in Ecclesia maxime noxium malū est schisma § 7. The Church by participation of the Supper doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie See him also ibid. § 8. Whitaker also controuer 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church giuen by Bellarm. thus far Protestants put communion in Sacraments in definition of the Church The Church is a companie of men ioint together in profession of the same faith and communion of Sacramēts vnder lawful Pastors Where cōiunction in Communion of Sacraments is put as an essential parte of the Church And VVhere is not lawful vse of Sacraments the Church is not ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church So as where they are not the Church is not Moulins lib. 1. contra Perō c. 26. That is the true Church which is ioined together by profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments And cap. 25. The question which is the true Church is touching the entire bodie The questiō about the Church is about the entire bodie Orthodox and ioint in communion of the Orthodox Church ioint in