whole includeth al or were in an essentially new made Church as their communion in Sacraments and in their publik service amoung themselves was substantially new and not before ether among themselues or among anie other Christians For a new essential part of a Church which was not before must needs make a new essential Church which was not before 7. And becaus Protestants hold Protestants hold some part of the Churches faith but no part of her communion manie of the points of faith which they held before their separation but hold no part of the Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God which they held before with the visible Church but haue made a quite new Communion among themselues in Sacraments and publik seruice which Communion nether they nor anie Christians before them had therfore they cannot distinguish Cōmunion into fundamental and not fundamental as they do points of faith nor can saie they hold the fundamētal parte of their former Communion and therby pretend that they hold the substance of the same visible Church as they saie they hold the fundamental part of the faith they had before and by holding the fundamental parte of the faith of the visible Church pretend they hold stil the same substance of the visible Church Wherupon our argument taken from their whole leauing the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and publik worship of God which is essential to the Church is far more forcible to proue that they haue left the verie substance of the whole Church and so are in no substantial Church or in an other substantially new made then that which is taken from their leauing in parte the faith of the whole visible Church though in truth both arguments be forcible enough as we shal see P. 2. c. 6. 7. And Protestants knowing wel that they haue no pretence to anie parte of the external Communion of the whole visible Church from which they departed neuer proue themselues to be of the true Church becaus they reteine al or the fundamētal parte of the Communion of the visible Church but Protestants speak not of communion but against their wil. only becaus they reteine the fundamental points of faith And speak as seldom of Communion as they maie or if they saie they haue Communion with the whole Church they equiuocate and by Communion vnderstand charitie Which nether is that See c. 11. Communion which is essential to the visible Church nor is anie other then they are bound to haue to infidels and al that are out of the Church to wit to praie for them Protestants haue no other communion with other Christians then with infidels wish and do them good And I think they wil be ashamed to saie they haue no other kinde of Communion with the members of the Church then they haue with infidels See l. 2. c. 11. 12. 8. Lastly I propose to the Reader a summ of the Protestants vncertainties or contradictions touched in this Treatise that therby he maie visibly see that they are not certaine what to saie but merely make vse of what serueth them for the time and so that al they saie is but shifts for a time For whiles they are racked by the Protestants confes truth whiles they are upon the rack euidence of truth they confès that al points of faith sufficiently proposed are necessarie to a sauing faith to true Church and to saluation that sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie destroieth saluation faith Church and vnitie thereof That Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the Church and that for want therof Scismatiks are out of the Church and in state of damnation But when they look back vpon the Churches which they manteine and see how they sinfully denie some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed to them and are deuided partly in matters of faith and wholy in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God they are forced to denie al that before they confessed of sauing faith true Church and true Communion And the reason of this their inconstancie is becaus they would ioine sauing faith with their faith true Church with their Church true Communion with their Communion Which is as impossible as to ioine truth with lies life with death heauen with hel And whosoeuer seeketh to ioine such together must needs be as the Scripture spreaketh vir duplex animo inconstans Iacob 1. est in omnibus viis suis Wheras Catholiks their faith Church and Communion being true faith true Church true Communion easily and without anie contradiction at al ioine them together and shew by the verie definitions of true faith true Church true communion giuen by Scripture and Fathers confirmed by reason and approued by Protestants themselues that their faith their Church their communion is true And if Protestants would with indifferencie consider this quite contrarie proceeding of Catholik and Protestant Writers they would easily see that they constantly defend truth thes vnconstantly make shifts for to to vphold vntruths for a time But at length as the Apostle saieth their 2. Tim. 3. follie wil be made manifest to al. And as Saint Cyprian affirmeth This is true Epist 55. madnes not to think or know that lies do not long deceaue At length shifts wil appeare to be but shifts and that which needeth them to be vntruth 9. And finally out of al which I haue saied I conclude that it is no way against charitie but rather according to true Christian faith and Charitie to warne sinful errants of their danger charitie to tel al Churches and persons which err in anie point of Christian faith or in communion in Sacraments sufficiently proposed or who sinfully err against anie point of faith or communion in Sacraments that whiles they doe so they are in state of damnation that being so warned of their error they may correct it and auoid damnation And at last is breifly shewed that Protestant Churches sinfully err both in points of faith and in communion of Sacraments A CATALOGVE OF THE Chapters of the first Book I. VVHAT Protestants teach of fundamental and not fundamental points and in what they differ therin from Catholiks II. That Protestants teach that some points of faith are so vnfundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith true Church or saluation though they be sufficiently proposed III. Why Protestants distingush articles by thes metaphorical termes Fundamental Not fundamental rather then by thes proper termes Necessarie Not necessarie IV. That Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinctoin of Fundamental and Not fundamental points V. That Protestants are vncertaine what a Not fundamental point is VI. That Protestants are vncertaine which are fundamental points which are Not fundamental VII That Protestants are vncertaine whether a true Church can err in fundamental points or no. OF
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
falsitie or word of man or not the whole reuealed word of God are not the true Church Secondly becaus as we proued before C. 2. 4. there are no fundamental points in Field l. 2. de Ecclesia c. 3. freedom froÌ„ pertinatious error is euer found in the true Church Fulks ouerthrow of the answer to Char Preface p. 114. the Protestants sense that is such as are sufficient to be beleued though other points of faith be sufficiently proposed nor anie Not fundamental in their sense that is such as are not necessarie to be actually beleued when they are sufficiently proposed and virtually though they be not proposed But al points of faith whatsoeuer are fundamental or essential Al points of faith essential to a true Church to a true Church and are to be beleued ether actually and explicitly if they be sufficiently proposed or at the least virtually and implicitly if they be not sufficiently proposed For as is said before the whole reuealed word which conteineth as wel Not-fundamentals as fundamentals is the true obiect of faith And no companie but such as professeth al Christs doctrin can be a true Church of Christ And therfore none who denie anie points of his doctrin sufficiently proposed can be his true Church absolutly but only his Church in parte as in parte onely they profès his doctrin And this D. Potter insinuateth when sec 7. p. 74. he saieth That Not fundamentals do Not fundamentals belong to the essence of a Church not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to the saluation of a Christian For if they doe anie waie truly belong whether See Chilling p. 209. 291. primarily or secondarily to the essence of a Church a Church cannot be without them altogether becaus nothing can be without that which any way belongs to its essence And they maie be faied to belong secundarily to the essence of a Church becaus How Not-fundamentals may belong secundarily a Church maie be without actual beleif of them to wir if they be not sufficiently proposed 7. Reason also conuinceth that what is simply and absolutly a true Al points Christs doctrin howsoeuer must be professed at least virtually or implicitly Church of Christ must at least virtually and implicitly profès al his doctrin Becaus if it doe no waie profés his whole doctrin but only some parte of his doctrin it is not simply and absolutly his Church but in parte only his Church and in parto not his Church as in parte it professeth his doctrin and in part reiecteth it And they nether virtually not implicitly profès his whole doctrin who sinfully reiect anie part of it when it is sufficiently proposed to be his Secondly becaus to reiect anie parte of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to be his doctrin is to reiect Christs veracitie for it is as much as to saie he is not to be beleued in that and is an act of infidelitie as Protestants before C. 3. §. 5. 6. l. 2. confessed And how can they be a true Church of Christ who in anie point reiect Christ veracitie and commit an act of infidelitie Besids as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 10. p. 36. whatsoeuer is fundamental in the faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the vnitie of faith But Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith as before D. C. 3. § 5. 6. l 2. Potter and Chilling worth confessed Therfore c. 8. And out of thes definitions of a true Church which we haue brought out of holie Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason it appeareth First how vntrue it is which Canterburie saieth sec 16. p. 62. The Catholik Church which wee beleue in our Creed is Catholik Church includeth not al ChristiaÌ„s the societie of al Christians or which Moulins saieth l. 1. coÌ„tra Peron c. 2. The Scripture taketh the name of the Church sometimes for the vniuersal companie of al those who profès themselues Christians and to beleue in Iesus Christ Secondly how vntrue it is which the same Lord Canterburie hath sec 36. p. 314. No man can be saied simply to be out of the visible Chureh that is baptized and holds the foundation Or sec 20. p. 129. That Church which receaues the Scripture as a rule of faith and both the Sacraments as seales of grace can not but be a true Church in essence Or which D. Potter saieth sec 5. p. 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation Or as Chilling worth saieth Tertul. praescrip c. 41. haeretici paceÌ„ passim cum omnibus miscent c. 5. p. 283. Protestants grant their communion to al who hold with them not al things but things necessarie Or which generally al Protestants saie That the Catholik Church is the multitude of al Christians through the whole world who agree in profession of the principal articles of Christian faith howsoeuer they denie other points of faith sufficiently proposed to them nor communicate together at al in Sacraments or publik worship of God For beside that these things are saied without al apparent proof ether of Scripture Fathers or reason but merely to include themselues and such others as they please within the bounds of the true Catholik Church they are clearely conuinced out of the aforesaid definitions of the Church taken out of Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason For nether do al Christians or al that profès themselues Christians perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles but onely in a part of it nor are they al Orthodox or sound in faith or vnited in communion nor do they al profès the pure sincere vncorrupt and entire word of God and therfore according to the definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason they are not al members of the true Church 9. And with les apparence can they be saied to be the Catholik C. 6. n. 3. l. 2. Church For Catholik as before I said out of Saint Augustin and other Fathers halteth in nothing and manie of thos Christians who hold the principal articles halt in manie other points of faith And besids al such Christians communicate not together and coÌ„demn one an other as is euident in the Roman the Grecian the Lutheran the Caluinist and such other Churches And communion is as wel essential to the true Catholik Church C. 13. S. Austin Epist 48. l. de vnit c. 6 Collat. 3. diei c. 3. de Pastoribê° c. 13. Field l. 3. de Eccles c. 43. as puritie in faith as hereafter shal be proued Nay Catholik rather signifieth communion then puritie in faith What monstrous Catholik Church then must that be which consisteth of al thos Christians who agree only in the principal points of Christian faith A monstruous Church of Protestants but in al other points how sufficiently soeuer proposed to them disagree and condemn one
dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholik Sec. 7. p. 74. saieth of Not fundamental points They are disputable in themselues and happily by plaine Scripture indeterminable And sec 6. p. 54. affirmeth that controuersies among VVhitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 8. our contentions are for faith for Religiō Protestants are only in disputable opinions not clearly defined in Scripture And yet their Controuersies arc at least in not fundamental points Chillingworth in his preface num 30. The disputes of Protestants about not fundamentals are touching such things Not fundamentals are obscure matters as maie with probabilitie be disputed on both sides and calleth Protestants men of different opinions touching obscure controuersed questions of Religion Nu. 32. Those truths wil be fundamental which are euidently deliuered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to al men Those not fundamental which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure can be necessarie to be vnderstood or not mistaken c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental Not euidētly deducibleout of Scripture which are therehence out of Scripture deducible but probably not euidently And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points in which Protestants dissent matters not plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture c. 5. p. 306. As for our continuing in their Churches erring not fundamentaly Communion the iustification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beleife and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion And 307. It is not No separation for not fundamental errors lawful to separate from anie Churches Communion for errors not perteining to the substance of faith vnles that Church require the beleif and profession of them Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 147. termeth not fundamental points Disputable doctrin and points of curious speculation and errors in the same light Sec. 25. p. 165. Curious truths Sec. 38. p. 361. opinions which flutter about faith Curious truths And sec 38. p. 357. he affirmeth that in not fundamentals Nether general Councels nor the whole Church hath infallible certaintie And ibid. p. 358. No infallibilitie in not fundamētal points That in them it is no matter if Councels err And ibid. It it not requisite that for them we should haue an infallible assurance And sec 32. p. 226. when they know it the error if the error of a general Councel be not manifestly against fundamental veritie I would haue al wise men consider whither external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded So that obedience may be External obedience to known error in not fūdamētals yeelded against not fundamental veritie And sec 26. p. 205. Bihops subiect to Kings in spiritual causes too so the foundations of faith and manners be not shaken 4. Thirdly they teach that not fundamentals points are no points of faith This followeth euidently out of what we euen now related For if they be but opinions obscure and doubtful matters wherof we can haue no infallible certaintie or assurance not clearely defined in scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture they cannot saie they are points of faith vnles they wil turne faith into opinion and make that a point of faith which nether is clearely defined in Scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture But besids this some times they expresly teach that not fundamentals are no points of faith Not fundamentals no points of faith or of Religion Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 40. calleth not fundamental points Things beside or without the faith Sec. 5. p. 89. How Christ is in the Symbols and how in heauen and earth is no parte of faith Sec. 6. p. 54. Our Protestant Controuersies are none of them in the substance of faith but only in disputable opinions Lord Canterburie sec 39. p. 387. Superstructures are doctrins about the faith not the faith itselfe vnles they be immediat consequences And p. 388. Suppose vncertaintie in some of thes superstructures it can neuer be thence concluded that there is no infallible certaintie of the faith itself p. 341. This Athanasius Creed and the Apostles and no more is the Catholik faith Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals opinions which flutter about faith And p. 376. saieth Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion For the Christian Religion is the same to both And yet these Churches Not fundamētals make not differēce in Religion differ at least in not fundamental points and so Not-fundamental points are no points of Religion Chillingworth c. 3. p. 129. But you Papists are al agreed that only those things wherin you doe agree are matters Not matters of faith in which Protestants differ of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seing al of them agree with explicit faith in al thos things which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus Consubstantiation vbiquitie and such are not matters of faith And in answer to the preface when his aduersarie had saied That men of different Religions as Papists and Protestants maie be saued is a ground of atheisme he wil not admit Papists and Protestants to be men of different Religions but saieth p. 14. By men of different Religions he must meane Christians of diuers opinions and communions or els he Differēce in not fundamentals should not hinder communion speaketh not to the point And c. 4. p. 209. The diuersitie of opinions which is among the seueral sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their vnitie in communion So that the seueral sects of Christians differ but in opinions and yet doubtles they differ in not Optatus l. 2. vbi vultis ibi est Ecclesia non est vbi non vultis fundamentals Lord Canterburie also sec 39. p. 376. Potter sec 3. p. 58. White in Defens of his way c. 38. and others say that the Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same and yet grant that they differ in not fundamental points Whence it must needs follow that not fundamental points are no points of Religion For if they be points of Religion who differ in them differ in Religion 5. Fourthly they teach that no opposition to not fundamētal points Error in not Fundamentals is not heresie is true heresie as we shewed before c. 2. and it followeth out of what euen now we rehearsed For if not fundamental points be no points of faith opposition to them cannot be heresie For heresie is an error against faith And as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 26. p. 198. Heresie properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith 6. Lastly Protestants not content to teach that not fundamental points Not fundamentals are matters of nothing are but opinions no points of faith doubtful matters and such like sometimes speak contemptuously of them as if they were
an others beleif and communion Is such a Chaos or hydra the Church instituted by Christ the holie Church professed in our Creed the Spouse of Christ the howse and Kingdom of God Certainely a Church consisting of al Christians or of al that profès themselues Christians or of al that hold the principal points of Christian doctrin but denie other points of his doctrin sufficiētly proposed to be his and communicate not together in Sacraments but condemn one an other was neuer gathered or instituted by Christ neuer mentioned by the Fathers Protestants equiuocate in the name of the Church but is a mere Monster of a Church merely feigned by some Protestāts for to include themselues and sinfully erring Christians within the pale of the Church But we care not whom they include in a Church of their owne inuention or making It sufficeth vs that no such can be in the true Church of Christs making and which the Scripture Fathers reason and Protestants also when they only consider the nature of the true Church describe and propose vnto vs. And that sinfully to err in anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed destroieth the nature and substance of such a Church which Protestants would neuer denie if necessitie of defending sinfully erring Churches did not force them to it Propertie of the vniuersal Church not to err at al. It is the propertie of the vniuersal Church onely promised to her by Christ not to err at al ether voluntarily or involuntarily ether vincibly or inuincibly in anie thing which she Essential not to err vincibly or sinfully professeth as matter of faith but it is essential both to the vniuersal and to euerie particular true Church not to err sinfully voluntarily or vincibly in anie matter of faith whatsoeuer So that it implieth contradiction to err in that manner and yet to be a true Church substantially And hauing thus proued that sinful error in anie point of faith or of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed destroieth the nature or substance of a true Church of Christ Let vs also proue that such error destroieth the true vnitie of a true Church That sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the true vnitie of the Church of Christ SEAVENTH CHAPTER 1. THat sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the true vnitie of Christs Church followeth euidently out of what I haue before proued that such error destroieth the substance of his true Church For if it destroie the substance of the true Church it must needs destroie her vnitie which floweth from her substance and dependeth of it But we wil proue it also in particular out of Scripture Fathers reason and confession also of Protestants 2. Ar for holie Scripture it not only absolutly saieth that the Church is one but also that it is so one as thos are which are wholy one and altogether Cyprian de vnit Aug. tract 6. in Ioan. Optatus l 1. 2. vndeuided Cantic 6. v. 8. Christ saith My doue is one Which place both Fathers teach and Protestants confès to be meant of the The true Church is absolutly one true Church Ioan. 10. v. 16. Christ saieth of his Church There shal be made one flock and one shepheard Rom. Perkins in symbal VVitak Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9. 12. v. 5. we manie are one bodie in Christ But a doue a flock a bodie are wholy one vndeuided at al. Therfore such is the true Church of Christ Besids the Scripture calleth the Church the Galat. 3. v. 28. omnes vos vnum estis in Christo Kingdom of God and addeth Mat. 12. that euerie Kingdom deuided it self shal perish Wherfore seing the true Church cannot perish it is not deuided in itself But who are sinfully deuided in points of faith are not wholy Not deuided one but truly manie and deuided in themselues And Ioan. 11. Iesus should die to gather into one the children of God that were dispersed The like is Ioan. 17. and Actor 2. 3. The holie Fathers also teach that the true Church is wholy one and vndeuided in points of faith Saint Cyprian lib. de vnitate saieth The Church is people ioined together in solid One in solid vnitie vnitie of a bodie by the glue of concord and addeth vnitie cannot be cut nor anie bodie separated by diuision of ioints But solid vnitie of a bodie and such as cannot be cut or deuided is perfect and entire vnitie 4. Saint Augustin in Psal 54. after he had recounted manie things in which the Donatists were one with the Catholik Church addeth They The Church is wholy one were there with me but not wholy with me in manie things with me in few not with me But by thes few in which they are not with me the manie in which they Not in parte only are with me profit them not Lo how he exacteth that men must be wholy one with the Catholik Church and professeth that it profits them nothing to be with her in manie matters if they be not in al. And yet the Donatists wherof he speaketh were Donatists were one in the creed and Sacraments Sic etiā Optatus l. 3. 5. with Catholiks in fundamētal points as appeareth by thes his words Epist 48. Yee are with vs in baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in Spirit of vnitie in bond of peace finaly in the verie Catholik Church ye are not with vs. And lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 8. and 13. saieth That an heretik is in parte ioined to the Church And yet no L. 1. Cātholicus non es foris estis In Catholica non estis l. 3. pars vestra Catholica non est heretik is truly in the Church Saint Optatus also lib. 4. saieth of the same Donatists Ye see that we are not wholy separated one from the other So that by the iudgment of the Fathers it is not enough to be in parte ioined to her See S. Leo epist 4. c. 2. 5. Hereupon the Fathers saie The The Church is one Church is one So the Nicen Creed Saint Cyprian Epist 46. and 64. S. Praeter vnā altera non est Optatus lib. 1. 2. Saint Augustin de vnitate c. 2. lib. 1. contra Crescon c. 29. and others cōmonly Sometimes One only they saie She is one only So Saint Augustin lib. 3. contra Petilian c. 5. and epistle 120. Saint Hilarie l. 7. de Trinitate Not manie Sometimes she is not manie So Optatus lib. 1. S. Augustin lib. de vnitate c. 16. and in collat 3. diei c. 10. Sometimes that she cannot be deuided Cannot be deuided So Saint Cyprian epist 47. and Saint Hierom in Psal 51. And out of this whole and entire vnitie of the Church Saint Cyprian epist 76. inferreth If the Church be with Nouatian it was not with Cornelius And yet Nouatian was not deuided from Cornelius in