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
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
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
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
whole Church So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed there were no iust cause of separation D. Potter sec 2. p. 39. Amongst wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vuitie of faith or charitie Ib. vnitie in thes matters is verie contingent in the Church now greater now lesser neuer absolute in al particles of faith what more cleare then that according to thes men we must not separate from anie Church for error in not fundamètal points though thes be sufficiently proposed but only for errors in fundamental points or for imposing not fundamental errors and consequently a Church sinfully erring in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed but not imposing them upon others is a true Church and we maie not separate from her but must communicate with such an erring Church which we maie not doe if she be not a true Church 4. This same followeth evidently 4. out of divers common tenets or principles of Protestants as first That al are of the Church who hold the fundamental points as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. and 7. secondly that puritie in fundamental points is a certaine note of a true Church ib. c. 7. Thirdly that to prove one to hold al the fundamental points without proving that he erreth not sinfully in other points is à sufficient proof that he is of the true Church Fourthly that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold not al things but al things necessarie as speaketh Chillingworth c. 5. Morton Appeale l. 4. c. 2. Protestāts cōmunicate with al who fundamentally profes the faith of Christ p. 283. who p. 220. professeth that by Necessarie he vnderstandeth fundamental Fiftly that only fundamental points are of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation Sixtly that they haue more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks haue For if al be of the Church who hold the Foundation If puritie in fundamentals be a sure Note of a true Church If Holding the foundation be a sure proof that one is of the true Church If only fundamental points be of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation and that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold the foundation euidently it followeth that such as hold the foundation but sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are of the true Church Besids if Protestants allow not sauing faith Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they shew no more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks doe For we allow al to Protestants haue no more charitie then Catholiks haue sauing faith to be in the Church in waie of saluation for so much as belongeth to faith who hold the fundamental points and inuincibly err in not fundamentals becaus nether are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed as is euident and Cath. allow saluation to inuincibly errants in not fundamentals confessed by Chillingworth c. 7. p. 139. and 400. If therfore they wil seem more charitable then we are they must allow saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals ether sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault not so proposed For to such we nether allow sauing faith But not to vincibly errants in them true Church nor saluation And as long as Protestants hold their common doctrins hitherto related in vaine they denie that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed But now let vs see both their doctrin and deeds towards heretiks Papists and Lutherans and other erring Churches which wil euidently conuince that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as they account to err sinfully in not fundamental points of faith 5. And to omit that sometimes 5. they teach that not fundamental points are no points of faith as we shal see c. 5. Whence it wil euidently follow that beleif of them is not necessarie to sauing faith or true Church though they be sufficiently proposed they teach partly that obstinat error in not fundamental points is no true heresie nor such obstinat errants true heretiks partly that al heresie is not damnable For thus Perkins in Galat 5. v. 20. Heresie is an error in the Heresie onely in fund points foundation of Religion which saith he I add to distinguish it from errors about lesser parts of Religion Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 40. True and properly called heresie is in defect where a true and fundamental article is denied or not beleued See Field l. 3. c. 3. Eliensis Tortura Torti p. 80. and wittenbergenses praefat ad Acta cum Patriar Constant Moulins contra Peron l. 1. c. 7. I would not haue an error called heresie if it be in some smal matter and not in the foundation of faith The Casimirian Caluinists in their Admonition c. 4. p. 131. An heretik is he who dissenteth from the Creed and foundation of holie Scripture c. 7. p. 244. Not al that err in the doctrin of Christ but such as are in Beza ad defens Castal p. 495. Haereticos esse definio non omnes qui sunt Apostatae a veritate aberrantes error which openly repugneth to the foundation of Religion or from which followeth the euersion of some parts of the foundation be heretiks Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 82. The Creed is a distinctiue Note or character seuering orthodox beleuers from Infidels and heretiks So that who beleue the Creed are orthodox beleuers and no heretiks what other points soeuer they denie And sec 4. p. 127. These errors of the Donatists about Rebaptization were not in them selues heretical Yet were they in a point of faith sufficiently proposed to them L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. If the Church err in the foundation she Becomes Heretical Chillingworth c. 4. p. 209. There are no damnable heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to thes prime verities And p. 215. There can be no damnable heresie vnles it contradict some necessarie truth And c. 5. p. 271. Heresie we conceaue an obstinat defence of anie error against anie necessarie article of the Christian faith And by necessarie truth or necessarie article he professeth to vnderstand fundamental Here n. 2. as is before shewed So that no error against anie point of faith is heresie or at least not damnable heresie except it be against some fundamental point And if it be not damnable it maie stand with sauing faith and saluation Naie they expresly teach that heretiks against not fundamental points maie be saued and that heretical Churches are true Churches and yet heretiks cannot be without obstinacie nor obstinacie without sufficient Proposal of the contrarie truth D. Andrews Respon ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 5. Catholik and Heretik are not contrarie Hookerl 3. p. 128. Heretiks are not vtterly cut of from the
erring Church is lawful 11. Finally sometime Protestants 8. seeme plainly to confes that sauing faith true Church and saluation can stand with sinful error in some points of faith For thus write the Diuines of Casimire in their admonit c. 7. p. 246. we offer ourselues to mainteine Brotherhood with Lutherans from which thes diuines exclude vs euen this dissention in doctrin remaining Chillingworth c. 1. p. 38. To oppose that which he might know to be the word of God were he void Sinfully to oppose Gods word no mortal sin ofpreiudice is a fault I confes but a fault which is incident to good and honest men very often Loe to oppose that which one maie know to be Gods word were it not his fault is no damnable sin but such as is incident to good and honest men Is not this to excuse sinful opposition of Gods word from damnable sin and to saie that saluation maie stand with sinful opposition of Gods word And c. 3. p. 139. He only in fact affirmes that God doth deceaue or is deceaued who denies something which himself knowes or beleues to be Gods reuealed word And vpon this doctrin be excuseth p. 39. and 40. al Protestants from damnably erring becaus they do not oppose what they know God hath testified and saith p. No dishonour to Gods veracitie 40. They only err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified And c. 3. p. 135. Without anie the lest dishonour to Gods veracitie I maie doubt or denie some truth reuealed by him if I nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by him Is not this plainly to saie that they only err damnably who oppose what they know or beleue to be reuealed and so they err not damnably who oppose that which is sufficiently proposed to them but nether beleue nor know it to be Gods word Is not this to excuse al opposers of Gods word vpon sinful or affected ignorance from damnable sin or anie dishonour to Gods veracitie For thes nether know nor beleue it to be Gods word And to saie that error in faith vpon sinful or affected ignorance maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 285. Protestants saie that the errors of the Roman Church are so manie and some so great as weaken the foundation that it is verie Saluation maie stand with vnbeleif of truth manifested hard to goe that waie to heauen especially to thē that haue had the truth manifested Lo euen thos Papists who haue had the truth manifested maie goe to heauen though verie hardly Is not this to saie that sauing faith and saluation maie stand with vnbeleif of truth manifested Ib. p. 282. The possibilitie of Papists saluation I think cannot be denied with holding known corruptions to the ignorants especially becaus they hold the foundation but a secure waie they cannot goe who hold with such corruptions when they know them Behold againe a possible waie though not secure euen for those Papists who hold corruptions when they know them Is not this to grant sauing faith and possibilitie of saluation where not only truth is sufficiently proposed but also known corruptions are followed And p. 299. I doe for my parte acknowledg a possibilitie of saluation Saluation maie stand with witting association to gros superstitions in the Roman Church but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselues wittingly and knowingly to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church Behold againe possibilitie of saluation granted euen to thos Romanists who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church And haue not they truth sufficiently proposed to them who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to gros superstitions Nether hindereth it that he granteth not possibilitie of saluation to Romanists as they associate themselues wittingly to gros superstitions For it sufficeth vs that he granteth possibilitie of saluation to thos same Romanists who so associate themselues to superstitions for to proue that they grant that possibilitie of saluation maie be in the same men with witting and known association to gros superstitions which is more then I needed to proue For it sufficed me to proue that Protestants teach that sauing faith and saluation may stand with sinful denial of some reuealed truths sufficiently proposed And here saluation is granted euen to thos who associate themselues to known gros superstitions which is far more and far worse For he that doth associate himself to gros superstitions only sufficiently proued doth not associate himself to known superstitions but only which might be known of him But who doth wittingly and knowingly associate himself to gros superstitions doth associate himself to known gros superstitions Finally sec 32. p. 226. when they know it if the error be not manifestly against fundamental External obedience to known error veritie I would haue al wise men consider whether external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded Lo external obedience to be yeelded to known error in not fundamentals Be it therfore certaine that howsoeuer Chillingworth or Doctor Potter saie that al diuine reuelations without question or exception are necessarie to be beleued or not reiected when they are sufficiently proposed or that other Protestants denie they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamental not necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed and denie that sauing faith true Church and saluation can stand with sinful error in some points of faith Protestants do plainly teach so and must teach so as long as they defend such Churches as they doe and communicate with such and hold their foresaid common Tenets and Principles and some saie more to wit that sauing faith true Church and saluation maie stand not only with sinful error of some points of faith sufficiently proposed but also with profession or association to known gros superstitions And I haue been the longer in prouing that Protestants hold the foresaid doctrin that sauing faith true Church and saluation may stand with sinful ertor in some points of faith partly becaus sometimes they denie that they hold it partly becaus to haue discouered it is half to haue refuted it it being so detestable as indeed it is Now let vs see why Protestants make or vse the distinction of points of faith rather by thes Metaphorical and ambiguous termes Fundamental Not fundamental then by thes proper and cleare termes Necessarie Not necessarie For it is not without cause that they chose improper and obscure termes rather then proper and cleare VVhy Protestants distinguish points of faith by the Metaphorical termes Fundamental Not Fundamental rather then by proper termes Necessarie Not-Necessarie THIRD CHAPTER PRotestants confes and it cannot Chillingw c.
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
though not primarily called Not fundamental becaus they are not of such absolute necessitie and doe not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to saluation of a Christian Behold not fundamental points belong to the vnitie of faith though not primarily And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith as it is infidelitie to denie them true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Mark whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded out of Scripture is not only a matter of faith but also is so How al reuealed truthes are fūdamentals fundamental to faith as it cannot be denied without infidelitie And in the like sorte p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he beleue al such points of faith as wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God So that al reuealed truthes are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they maie be conuinced that they come from God And surely they maie then be so conuinced when they are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith require 7. Chilling worth in answer to the Preface p. 10. repeateth and defendeth the aforesaied words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession al reuealed truths are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they can be conuinced to come from God as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed can And Maniepoints of faith besids fundamentals ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth not fundamētal points to be called points of faith And saieth c. 4. p. 209. There be manie more points of faith then there be articles of simple beleif necessarie to be explicitly beleued Where by articles necessarie to be explicitly beleued he meaneth fundamentals For thus he expresseth himself ibib p. 220. By fundamental we meane al and onely that which is necessarie And c. 5. p. 285. By al points of faith you meane saieth he al fundamental points only or al simply and absolutly So that fundamental points Fundamētal points are not simply al points of faith are not simply al points of faith Ibid. p. 294. I would faine understand why one error in faith especially if Not fundamental should not consist with holines of this Spouse this Church as wel as manie and great Sinns So there be errors Not fundamentals deliuered by the same authoritie that fundamentals in faith and yet not fundamental And c. 4. p. 193. saieth that Not fundamental points are to be beleued becaus they are ioined with others that are necessarie to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which deliuered thes And if they be to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which See him ib. p. 218. deliuered fundamentals surely they are matters of faith And we shal shew hereafter c. 3. he oftentimes saieth that it is damnable to denie anie reuealed truth sufficiently proposed c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund and so in their nature damnable and thes are errors against his not fundamentals or such as are not only meritoriously but remidilesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation And thes are errors against his fundamentals And so errors against not fundamentals are of their nature damnable 8. Lord Canterburiesec 38. p. 325. Manie things besids fundamentals which are defide Bellarmin is forced to grant this There are manie things defide which are not absolutly necessarie to saluation Therfore there is a latitude in the faith Where by points absolutly necessarie he meaneth fundamētals So there be manie things defide besids fundamentals And sec 10. p. 37. Al which perteines to supernatural Perteine to diuine faith diuine and infallible Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth that apoint of diuine truth though by sundrie consequences deduced from the principles is yet a point of faith P. 163. The promises reach not to this that the Church shal neuererr no not in the lightest matters of faith So that al matters of faith are not the weightiest Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental and yet to some mens saluation they are necessarie 9. Thus plainly doe thes men sometimes confes that such as they terme Not fundamental points are matters of faith and when they are sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith and to saluation and that it is infidelitie to denie them and errors in them of their nature damnable How contrarie is this to that which before they saied that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith matters of opinion in which modest opposition is tolerable and for which no separation of communion ought to be made And thus hauing shewed that al reuealed truths whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed for such are matters of faith now let vs shew that al obstinat or sinful error against such truths is formal heresie and al such opposers formal heretiks THAT SINFVL DENIAL of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is true heresie SECOND CHAPTER 1. IT seemeth so euident that al sinful opposition or denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which for the opposers fault is not sufficiently proposed is true heresie L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith as it cāscarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe Christiās conceaue by the name of heresie but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith or what by an heretik See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer Yet wil I endeauour to make it more manifest 2. And first out of the definitions or descriptions of heresie or heretiks giuen in holie Scripture Rom. vltima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren mark them that make dissentions and scandales contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them 2. Thessal 3. we Heresie contrarie to doctrin learned denounce vnto ye Brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselues from euerie Brother walking inordinatly and not according to Contrarieto Tradition the tradition which they haue receaued from vs And Gal. 1. Albeit we or an Contrarie to Saint Pauls preaching Angel from heauen euangelize to ye besids that which we haue euangelized to ye be he anathema In al which places an heretik or heresie is described not by opposition
And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for In oppositiō to anie point of faith sufficiently conuinced the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith as whereof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is ostbinate an heretik and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beauen Feild l. 2. de Eccles c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error may be found among Heretiks And l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they that obstinatly persist in error cōtrarie to the Churches faith Behold how obstinat opposition to the doctrin of the Scripture of the word of God of the Catholik visible Church or of anie point of which maie be conuinced to belong to the doctrin of Christ is true proper and damnable heresie The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth al whosoeuer shal affirme that the 39. articles are in anie parte superstitious or erroneous And yet I hope they wil not say that euerie parte of their 39. articles is fundamental in their sense Wherfor they may be iustly excommunicated out of the Church who affirme some not fundamental point to be erroneous And art 33. who are excōmunicated are cut from the vnitie of the Church Wherfore when Protestants wil haue Sup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinat opposition to some principal or capital point of faith to be true and proper heresie they speak nether with Scripture Fathers nor with themselues Nether haue they anie authoritie of Scripture Father Al sin against faith is ether heresie or infidelitie or other reason to limit heresie to obstinat opposition of fundamental points but onely least they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretiks whom they cannot denie but err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed to them and consequently err obstinatly and sinfully And if we ask them what sin they call sinful error in anie point of faith if not Heresie they can not tel But now hauing seen that euerie sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the errants fault is true heresie Let vs see that eueric such error is damnable becaus sometimes Protestants wil confes that al such error is heresie but denie that al heresie is damnable as is euident by what we haue rehearsed of their doctrin in the second Chapter l. 1. n. 2. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 278. putteth fundamental heresles and others Some herasies though not fundamental which saieth he doe not plainly destroie saluation nor of themselues damne no man That sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable THIRD CHAPTER 1. THat al sinful opposition or denial VVhitak cont 2. q 4. c 2. non omnes errores circa fidem sunt lathales sicut noc omnes morbi of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the opposers fault is damnable followeth out of that we haue proued that al such opposition is true heresie For that al true heresie is damnable is euident out of holie Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Protestants For the Apostle Galat. 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or heresies Heresie numbred by the Apostle Among dam nable sinns among those sinns of which he saieth who doe such things shal not obteine the Kingdom of God And maketh no more distinction of heresie then he doth of the other sinns And Galat. 1. V. 8. saieth generally If anie Euangelize beside that which ye haue receaued be he accursed And Tit. 3. v. 10. Auoid a man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition knowing that he who is such a one is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his Heretiks condemned by their own iudgment owne iudgment But what hindereth to obteine the Kingdom of God what deserueth a Curese and condemneth a man in his owne iudgment is doubtles damnable Our Sauiour also Ioan. 10. calleth heretiks Theeues and Robbers And Apocal. vltim v. 19. it is saied Ifanie shal diminish of the words of this Book of this prophesie God shal take awaie his parte out of the Book of life And if it be damnable to diminish a word of Gods Book much more damnable is it to diminish some point of his faith or doctrin The same also followeth out of thos places of Scripture which we shal cite hereafter C. 9. n. 2. which commaund vs to flie the companie of heretiks 2. Holie Fathers also teach the same Tertullian de praescript c. 2. Heresies are to destroie faith and do Heresie brings damnation bring euerlasting death And c. 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians And surely it is damnable to be no Heretiks no Christians Christian Saint Cyprian Epist 73. Nether faith nor Church are common to vs with heretiks And he addeth that both by the testimonie of the Ghospel and Apostle heretiks are called Anti-Christs Are Anti-Christs The like hesaieth Epist 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de vnitate and Firmilian Epist 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon c. 10. saieth to the Donatists Ye haue no Christian Church l. 3. de Baptis c. 19. Al heretiks and False Christians Schismatiks are false Christians L. 21. de Ciuitate c. 25. An heretik is worse then an Infidel And in Enchiridioc VVorse then infidels 5. Christ in name only is found with anie heretiks Saint Gregorie Nazian Orat. 21. Driue awaie heretiks as the staine and destruction of the Church and the poison of truth And Saint Athanase in his Creed whosoeuer wil be saued before al things he must hold the Catholik faith which vnles he keep whole and inuiolate without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly But heretiks hold not the Catholik faith whole and inuiolate Therfore c. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. 39. Hold most firmely and doubt not at al that not only Pagans but also al Iewes Heretiks and Schismatiks who Al that die heretiks are damned end this life out of the Catholik Church shal goe into euerlasting fire prouided for the Deuil and his Angels Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expresly saieth that the lesterror in matter or faith destroieth faith That he S. Paul might shew that anie litle thing wrongly mingled The lest mixture corrupteth faith doth corrupt the whole he said the Ghospel was ouerthrown For as he who in the Kings coine doth clip but a litle of the stamp maketh the whole of no value so who destroieth the lest particle of sound faith is wholy corrupted Where then are they who condemn vs becaus we contend with Heretiks and say there is no difference betwixt vs and them but that al our discord is for ambition to dominere Let
so that ether they do see it and wil not or were it not for their owne voluntarie and auoidable fault might and should see it and doe not let al such errors be as damnable as you please to make them P. 21. If anie Papist or Protestant be betraied into or kept in anie error by anie sin of his wil such error is as the cause of it damnable P. 23. There is as matters now stand Alike necessitie to beleue not fūdamentals as fundamentals as great necessitie of beleuing thos truths of Scripture which are Not fundamental as thos that are And p. 24. he citeth Doctor Potter saying If anie be negligent in seeking truth vnwilling to finde it ether doth see it and wil not or Negligence in seeking truth is damnable might see it and wil not his case is dangerous and without repentance desperat And Chillingworth addeth He secureth none that in matter of Religion are None sinfully erroneous is secure sinfully that is willingly erroneous And c. 3. p. 138. You infer out of Doctor Potters words that al errors are alike damnable Al error alike damnable if the preposal be alike if the manner of propounding the contrarie truths be not different which for ought I know al Protestants and al that haue sense must graunt And ibid. p. 161. we are obliged vnder paine of damnation to beleue al wherof we may be fufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church And p. 137. namely he saieth of a Not fundamental See also p. 41. point It maie by accident become fundamental becaus it maie be so proposed that the denial of it wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And al that is so sufficiently proposed as matters of faith ought to be are proposed in such sort Ibid pag. 134. Among the conditions of saluation which Christ requireth one is that we beleue what he has reuealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue beene reuealed by him And 158. If the cause of the error be some voluntarie and auoidable fault the error is in itself finful and consequētly in its owne nature dawnable And c. 5. p. 280. Capital danger may arise from errors though not fundamental Seep 278. 7. Lord Canterburie sec 37. p. 320. It is true that error in points not fundamental maie be damnable to some men though they hold it not against their conscience As namely when they hold an error in some dangerous points which grate vpon the foundation and yet wil nether seek the meanes to know the truth nor accept and beleue truth when it is known especially being men able to iudge And p. 342. I agree that he which hopes for saluatiō must beleue the Catholik faith whole and entire in euerie point And sec 35. p. 289. saieth A matter of faith and so A matter of faith is a matter of saluation of saluation too As if euerie matter of faith were also matter of saluation And both he p. 24. 31. 139. 140. 162. 165. Chillingworth p. 14. 277. 279. 281. 285. And Potter sec 5. p. 19. sec 7. p. 58. 78. speak of absolutly or simply fundamental or necessarie points which insinuateth that there are others truly fundamētal or truly necessarie besids thos which are absolutely such The Author of the Preface to K. Iames before Iuels workes In things necessarie onely necessitate Precepti not onely witting and willing disobedience but also wilful and affected ignorance doth condemn 8. In which Confessions of the Points to be noted Protestants I would haue the Reader to mark wel thes points First that al 1. errors fundamental or Not fundamental are alike damnable if the contrarie truth be alike proposed Secondly that a Not fundamental 2. point sufficiently proposed is so fundamental to faith and saluation as to contradict it is infidelitie and to giue 3. God the Lie Thirdly that who beleueth not anie one diuine truth sufficiently proposed is an heretik and excludes himself out of heauen Fourthly that who is negligent to 4. seek truth or vnwilling to finde it is without repentance desperat Fiftly 5. that who were it not for their auoidable faults might and should see truth and do not their error is damnable and that they secure none who is sinfully erroneous And if they would constantly stand to thes points there would be litle cōtrouersie about fundamental and not fundamental Protestants some times grant al the question Magna est veritas praeualet points For this is to grant plainly that no points of faith are so fundamental as they are sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation if other points be sufficiently proposed and not beleued or for the not beleuers fault not so proposed nor anie so not fundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be beleued actually if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie to be virtually beleued whether they be so proposed or no. And al the question betwixt Catholiks and Protestants is whether anie points of faith be thus fundamental and anie thus Not-fundamental or no. But becaus Protestants can not denie but that some Churches which they mainteine haue had the truth against which they err sufficiently proposed to them or if it were not their auoidable fault might and should see the truth therfor when they are to defend such Churches they forget this doctrin But now hauing proued that to err sinfully in anie matter of faith is both heresie and destroieth saluation let vs also proue that it destroieth true sauing faith That vincible and sinful error against anie point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. THat vincible and sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith is euident out of this that al such error is true heresie as is before C. 2. proued and heresie is opposit to sauing faith as is euident out of the definitions of heresie related before c. 2. out of Scripture Fathers and Protestants and also out of the testimonies of holie Fathers c. 3. n. 2. that heresie is the destruction of faith the poison of faith that heretiks haue nether faith nor Church common with Catholiks haue Christ only in name that heretiks are no true Christians are false Christians are Christians only in name are worse then Infidels are Anti Christs Which euidently shew that heresie is opposit to sauing faith and heretiks to Catholiks For if they be no Christians much les are they Catholiks And Protestants sometimes giue the same iudgment of them For thus Luther in caput 7. Math. tom 7. Heretiks are not Christians Protestants saie that heretiks are no Christians Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 6. They are Anti-Christs and diuels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostataes Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 2. the name of
and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficiētly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed differ substātially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and cōsequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundamētal points of his doctrin as in fūdamental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she
fundamētal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundamētals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profès the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profès but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profès they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them
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
HItherto Gentle Reader haue we refuted the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental How fals the Protestants distinction is points in the Protestants sense and clearely shewed that in their sense it introduceth formal heresie destroieth true sauing faith Catholik Church and saluation conteineth Infidelitie and denieth Gods veracitie and so is the verie ground of Atheisme We haue also shewed that this distinctiō How vnsufficient for their purpose euen in the Protestants sense sufficeth them not for that purpose for which they deuised it which was to mainteine some such Churches as are sinfully Rouse of Cath. Charitie c. 9. deuided in points of faith becaus some of them are deuided euen in fundamental points and al are wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God which diuision as wel destroieth the Church as diuision in fundamental points doth 2. Now it resteth out of that which hath been saied to compare the faith and Church of Catholiks and of Protestants together and also the certaintie or vncertaintie of their defenders that thou maist the better iudge whether of thes seueral faithes or Churches is of God and which of their Defenders defend their doctrin for truth or conscience sake whether to make a shift for a Time 3. The Catholiks faith essentially Difference betweene their faithes embraceth al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed The * c. 5. n. 2. Protestants faith essentially embraceth 1. only the fundamental points The 2. Catholiks faith can stand with no heresie or sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed Protestants faith can stand with anie heresie or sinful denial of anie point C. 2. n 2. l. 1. of faith which is not fundamental how sufficiently so euer it be proposed which is as Protestants sometimes C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. confés infidelitie and a giuing the Lie to God Catholikes faith is 3. perfectly and entirely one and the same in euerie one beleuing actually euerie parte of Gods word sufficiently proposed and virtually euerie parte whatsoeuer Protestants faith is necessarily C. 5. n 2. l. 2. one only in fundamental points and maie be various or deuided in al other points how sufficiently soeuer they be proposed which vnitie is merely in parte and is true multiplicitie Catholik faith is approued 4. of Protestants to conteine C. 5. n. 7. l. 1. al that is essential to true faith Protestants C. 5. n. 7. faith is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 4. Likewise the Catholik Church Differēce betweene their Churches embraceth only thos who actually beleiue euerie point of faith sufficiently 1. proposed to them and virtually what other points of faith soeuer Protestants Church embraceth sometimes al that are Christians C. 6. n. 8. l. 2. or al that profés Christs name what heretiks so euer they be Sometimes al that beleiue the fundamētal points howsoeuer they sinfully denie other points sufficiently proposed which is to include Infidels and Giuers of C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. the Lie to God The Catholik Church is perfectly and entirely one both in 2. profession of faith and in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Protestants Church is at most one in profession of fundamental C. 5. n. 2. l. 2. points and various in al other points And no waie one but wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Which is to be one in a smal parte and to be simply and truly manie The 3. Catholik Church is approued of Protestants to be a true a C. 2. nu 3. c. 7. nu 9. Church a member of the Catholik Church A member of the Bodie of Christ Her Religion a possible waie of saluation a 4. safe b c. 7. n. 3. 7. c. 2. n. 3. waie for them that beleue as they profés and safest for the ignorants and euen thos who are most obstinat in her members of the Catholik Church The Protestāts Church is condemned of al Catholiks for a false Church guiltie both of heresie and schisme and to haue no possible waie of saluation but assured waie of damnation to al that wittingly liue and die in her 5. Seing therfore by the testimonie of holie Scripture Fathers and Reason and Confession of Protestants the faith and Church of God is both one and holie iudge whether of thes two faiths or Churches be more one or more holie whether Cath faith more one then Protestants that faith be not more one which admitteth no voluntarie diuision in anie point of faith whatsoeuer then that which admitteth voluntarie diuision in al points of faith besids thos which are fundamental And whether that faith be not more holie which admitteth And more holie no sinful denial of Gods word whatsoeuer then that which admitteth sinful denial of al his word besids that which is fundamental how sufficiently soeuer it be proposed which kinde of denial is * C. 3. nu 5. l. 2. Infidelitie and a giuing of the lie to God And whether that faith be not more secure And more secure which is approued of its Aduersaries to conteine al that is * c. 5. n. 5. l 1. essential to true faith then that which is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 6. Likewise whether that Church Catholik Church more one then Protestants be not more one which is entirely one both in profession of al points of faith and in communion of Sacraments then that which requireth no more vnitie but in fundamental points which euerie one is actually to beleue and admitteth sinful diuision in al other points and whole diuision in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God And whether And more holie that be not more holie which admitteth no heresie in points of faith nor no schisme in diuision of communion then that which admitts al heresies except in fundamental points and al schime in diuision of communion And whether that Church be not the And more safe safer waie to saluation which is approued of its Aduersaries for * c. 7. n 3. 6. 2 n. 3. l. 1. safe then that which is approued only of its followers and vtterly condemned by al aduersaries 7. And as for the Defenders Catholiks constant in in their doctrin of thes different faiths and Churches it is euident that Catholiks constantly and resolutly condemne the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental articles in the Protestants 1. sense and auouch that there are no certaine points so sufficient to sauing faith to a Church or to saluation that others maie be denied or not beleued though they be sufficiently proposed None so Not fundamental as they must not necessarily be beleued of a Church and for saluation if they be sufficiently proposed That there be more points of 2. faith then thos which must be actually beleued of euerie
such as beleue the fundamētal points but sinfully err in not fundamental points or which is al one who err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed to them or which for their fault are not so proposed to them haue sauing faith are in the true Church and waie of saluation they cal Charitie and becaus we afford nether sauing faith true Church nor saluation to anie such saie they haue more charitie then we haue But this their charitie towards sinful errants in some points of saith is not solid and But it is fals charitie and ungrounded grounded in anie word of God which auoucheth such sinful errants to haue sauing faith to be in the true Church and in waie of saluation as so main a point ought to be but is only apparent charitie grounded in humane pittie or compassion if not in flatterie of such errants and is directly opposit to the word of God as shal hereafter appeare and to true charitie as damnably deceauing them by telling them that they haue sauing faith who The manifold impieties of this doctrin destroie al sauing faith that they are in the true Church who destroie the forme and vnitie of the true Church and that they are in state of saluation who damnably sin against faith who excuse al heresies in not fundamental points from damnable sin who bring in libertinisme to beleue or not beleue not fundamental points who allow communion in Sacraments with al heretiks in not fundamētal points who denie Gods veracitie and as Protestants themselues sometimes See c. 10 n. 5. 6. confes commit Infidelitie and giue God the Lie Such charitie it is as God willing I shal clearely shew to afford sauing faith true Church and sauation to thos who sinfully err in not fundamental points or which is al one who err in not fundamental points of faith sufficiently proposed or when it is their fault that they are not so proposed Wherfore this fals charitable doctrin is to be detested and impugned not as a simple heresie or error in faith but as a ground And a ground of Heresie Infidelitie and Atheisme of heresies scisme infidelitie and atheisme And it is in itselfe so horrible to Christian eares as the verie defenders of it though in verie deed and effect they do defend and must defend it as long as they wil defend such erring Churches as they do and communicate with them and hold other their common Tenets and principles yet are ashamed to auouch it in exprès words yea in words sometimes disclaime from it 5. wherfore in this Treatise first VVhat is handled in this Treatise of al I set down plainely the true difference betwixt Catholiks and Protestants toutching this distinction of Fundamental and not fundamental points of faith in what sense it is good and admitted by Catholiks in what it is naught and meant by Protestants Next I prove by Protesstants cleare words and deeds and by diuers their common Tenets and Principles that they hold that vincible and sinful error in not fundamental points or error in them sufficiently proposed maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation After I shew why Protestants make distinction of points of faith rather by thes Metaphorical and obscure termes Fundamental not fundamental then by proper and cleare termes Necessarie not necessarie Then that Protestants are not certaine what a not Fundamental point is nor vhich be fundamental points which not nor whether a true Church can err in fundamental points or no but now saie one thing now the contrarie as it maketh to their present purpos Which evidently sheweth that this their doctrin of the sufficiencie of Fundamentals and vnnecessarienes of not fundamentals is but a shift for the present and not firmely beleved even of them who teach it and neuertheles do build vpon it their defense of persons and Churches sinfully erring in some points of faith and of their own communion with such in Sacraments and publik worship of God Which is to build their own and other mens salvation vpon a ground not only most fals and which they are ashamed to avoutch in plaine termes but also which themselues dot not firmely beleue 6. And having shewed in the first booke this vncertaintie of Protestants touching their Fundamental and not fundamental points in the second I proceed to certaineties And first of al becaus Protestants sometimes saie that not Fundamental points ar not points of faith I prove that there are manie points of faith beside the Principal or Capital points which are thos that are called Fundamental Next I prove that sinfully to denie anie point of faith or parte of Gods word what sover sufficiently proposed is formal heresie then that euerie heresie is dānable and destroieth salvation also that al such sinful denial destroieth true saving faith true Church and their vnitie and also Gods veracitie and consequently his Deitie Moreouer that Communion in Sacraments or publik service with anie Church that sinfully denieth anie point of faith is damnable And al thes points I proue by euident Testimonies of holie Scripture and Fathers and confirme them by reason and confession of Protestants Which is the sufficientest kinde of proof that Protestants can desire After this I shew that this distinction of Fundamental and Not-fundamental points in the Protestants sense hath no grownd in Scripture Fathers reason or doctrin of Catholiks as some Protestants pretend but that the whole grownd therof is mere necessitie to have some colorable shift to defend by it Churches vincibly and sinfully erring in some points of faith And also that though this distinction were admitted in their sense yet it would not suffice to defend such Churches as Protestants endeauour to defend by it becaus they are devided not only in not fundamental but also in fundamental points and most manifestly and vndeniably in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Which Communion I prove by Scripture Fathers reason and confession of Protestāts to be essential to a true Church and what Churches are devided in this Communion to be essentially deuided And hence infer that it is VVhen error in faith is sinful not enough to a true Church or member thereof or to the way of salvation that one beleue al the fundamental points But that it is also absolutely necessarie that he doe not sinfully err in anie point of faith or in communion and hee erreh sinfully who erreth when the point of faith or cōmunion is sufficiently proposed to him or for his fault is not so proposed to him And that Luther and his followers who devided themselves Chilling c. 5. p. 273. as is evident also confesse by Protestants from the whole visible Church in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God devided themselues essentially and from the essence of the whole visible Luther in leauing the communion of the whole Church leaft her substance Church And so were in no visible Church at al becaus the