Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	believe_v	faith_n	infallibility_n	5,890	5	11.4885	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60520	Of the distinction of fvndamental and not fvndamental points of faith devided into two bookes, in the first is shewed the Protestants opinion touching that distinction, and their uncertaintie therin : in the second is shewed and proued the Catholick doctrin touching the same / by C.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1645 (1645)	Wing S4157; ESTC R26924	132,384	353

separate themselues from the external coÌ„munion of the whole Church separate themselues from an essential part of her Roote of the Protestants errors For external communion is as essential to the visible Church as is profession of faith And al thes errors rise of not considering or remembring wel the former definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and themselues and confirmed by reason In al which Communion is put as an esseÌ„tial part of that true Church which Scripture Fathers Reason and somtimes also Protestans propose Protestants forsake the external communion of the visible Church vnto vs. 5. And herevpon it is evident that Chillingworth in confessing c. 5. cit p. 273. That as for the external communion of the visible Church we haue without scrupule formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it And p. 274. Though Luther forsooke the external communion of the Cath. Church it wil not follow he was a Scismatike Plainely confesseth that Luther and Protestants are true Scismatiks and by forsaking the external communion of the * Chilling p 263. The visible Ch. signifieth the whole Church whole visible or Catholik Church ether made a new visible Church or are in no visible Church at al For the external communion of the whole visible Church was an essential parte of her as wel as profession of faith And none can leaue an essential parte of the whole visible Church but he must leaue the VVho is out of the whole visible Ch. is in none whole visible Church which is to make a formal schisme For he cannot leaue the whole visible Church but he must be in no visible Church seing the whole visible Church includeth al visible Churches or he must be in a new substantial visible Church which must be of his VVhy no iust cause to goe out of the whole visible Church owne making And hence it is euideÌ„t why there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole visible Church becaus there can be no iust cause to put onesself out of al visible Churches and to be in no visible Church at al. There maie be iust cause of separation from the communion of some particular Church becaus she maie inuincibly err in some points of faith and exact profession of her VVhy may be iust cause to goe out of a particular Church errors for a condition of her communion And nether is it necessarie to saluation or to a member of the true Church to be in communion of euerie particular Church nor the going out of anie particular Church if there be iust cause for it is the going out of the whole true Church But the whole true Church is not fallible vincibly or inuincibly in anie point of faith by reason of Christs promise and the holie Ghostsassistance So that for pretence of errors there can be no iust cause to go out of her coÌ„munion And the going out of her is the going out of al Churches whatsoeuer becaus L. Canterb. p. 311. out of the Cath. Church there is no saluation the whole Church includeth al and who is out of al is in none And there cannot be imagined anie iust cause to goe out of al Churches and to be in none at al And hereby we Infallibilitie and necessitie to be in the whole Church proue out the other see how the infallibilitie of the whole Church and necessitie of being in the whole Church do mutually infer each the other For if she were not infallible in matters of faith but sinfully Canterb. p. 240. Al the members of the militant Church can not err So MortoÌ„ Imp. c. 15. sec 3. and 4. taught errors one might iustly goe out of her And becaus there can be no iust cause to goe out of the whole Church for then we should be in none at al it must needs be that she is infallible in matters of faith 6. Wherfore when Chillingworth Potter sec 2. p. 47. Canterb. p. 143. c. 5. p. 264. 271. 274. 284. and Protestants commonly define Schisme to be a Causeles separation from the communion of the Church they voluntarily Protestants false definition of Schisme ad that particle Causeles nether do they finde it in anie definition of Fathers who neuer admit anie iust cause of separatioÌ„ from the whole Church but Protestants merely ad it to excuse themselues from Schisme becaus they haue some pretence of cause for separation See also supra n. 5. but no colour al at to denie their separation from the whole Caluin Ep. 141. discessioneÌ„ a toto muÌ„do facere concti sumus Church yea they plainly confÃ©s it as is to be seen l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and 3. Out of which it is euident that ether they are in no Church becaus there is none besid the whole or in a new made Church Let them shew that anie Father euer put that particle Causeles in the definition of Schisme or saied that there can be iust cause of separation from the communion of the whole visible Church or they must confÃ©s that according as the Protestants Schismatiks as the Fathers vse that word Fathers vse the word Scisme they are guiltie of Scisme in separating themselues from the external communion of the whole visible Church and so in iudgment of the Fathers as they vse the word are Scismatiks And if they be not Scismatiks as themselues please to vse the word it little importeth let them equiuocate as they please and vse words without matter 7. Let not therfore Chillingworth c. 5. cit p. 272. advise men to look that their cause of separation from anie Churches communion be iust becaus it is as much as their soule is worth but let him look that he make no separation at al from the communion of the whole Church becaus hereof no cause can be iust For as I saied to goe out of the whole Church is S. Augustin puts schisme merely in separation froÌ„ the whole to be in no Church at al. Herevpon S. Augustin l. 2. contra Petil. c. 16. saied I obiect to thee the sin of Scisme which thou wilt denie but I wil streigt proue For thou doest not comunicate with al nations which proof were none if there could be iust cause of not communicating with al Nations but he Schisme simply not to communicate with the whole Church should haue added that causelesly he he did not communicate And lib. de vnitate c. 4. whosoeuer beleue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c. yet so dissent from bis Bodie which is the Church as Schisme not to communicate with the whole their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Which were not manfest if there C. 3. n. 3. 6. l. â— could be iust cause of

OF THE DISTINCTION OF FVNDAMENTAL AND NOT FVNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH DEVIDED INTO TVVO BOOKES In the first is shewed the Protestants opinion touching that distinction and their vncertaintie therin In the second is shewed and proued the Catholik doctrin touching the same By C. R. Doctor of Diuinitie Ephes 4. One God one Faith one Baptisme AN. M. DC XLV IN this Treatise is refuted the general doctrin of Protestants concerning the distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points of faith in their sense but particularly the doctrin of the Late English Protestant Writers touching the same namely W. Laude Lord of Canterburie in his Relation of Conference c. D. Potter in his Answer to charitie mistaken wherof I cite the first edition for want of the second and of Mr Chillingworth in his Answer to Mercie and Truth wherby is refuted the most material parte of their said Books This Treatise was made some yeares agoe but not printed in hope that thes tumults in England wold haue bene ended before this time but seing no end of them is now published THE PREFACE to the Reader VVHERIN ARE SET dovvne the contents of this Treatise 1. 1. PRotestants do teach See infra c. 2. n. 3 c. 12 n. 2. that only the principal or capital points of Christian faith are of the substance of sauing faith true Church and waie of saluation and alone truly and indeed Protestants make onely fundameÌ„tal points necessarie necessarie to them and that al other points of faith are at most of the perfectioÌ„ of sauing faith true Church and waie of saluation and maie be not beleued though they bee sufficiently proposed without los of the substance of sauing faith true Church or saluation And in this sense they call the principal points Fundamental that is alone substantial and truly necessarie to sauing faith to true Church and to saluation and call al other points Not Fundamental that is nether substantial nor truly necessarie to sauing faith true Church or saluation howsoeuer they be proposed And hereupon they teach that al who beleue the principal points of faith howsoeuer they sinfully beleue not other points though they be sufficienty proposed to them haue sauing faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and that who be deuided in secondarie points though sufficiently proposed are not deuided in the substance of sauing faith of the true Church or of the waie of salvation 2. And the cheif ground though they pretend Scripture of this doctrin Their ground therof that alone the principal points of faith are of the substance and truly necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation is that the principal points are termed Fundamental or the foundation by Fathers and Catholiks as if the wals and roof were not of the substance or necessarie to a howse becaus they are not fundamental Their end or the foundation of it But the end for which they teach this doctrin is to mainteine by it that such persons or Churches as they cannot denie but sinfully err in some points of faith ether sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault haue neuertheles a sauing faith are true Churches and in waie of saluation nor deuided from them in the substance of faith of true Church or way of saluation So that mere necessitie of mainteining Churches sinfully erring in some points of faith drew them to this sinful and pernitious doctrin that the principal points of faith are wholy sufficient and al other points howsoeuer proposed wholy vnnecessarie to the substance of sauing faith true Church and saluation And this is in truth their doctrin concerning fundamental and not fundamental points of faith and their ground and end of it wherof the ground is sillie the end sinful and the doctrin pernitious and Antichristian as quite ouerthrowing al Christian faith as hereafter shal clearely appeare and so abhominable as the verie authors of it are ashamed to exprÃ¨s it in plaine termes yea sometimes forced to denie it inwords 3. For albeit they teach expresly and absolutely and without al exception or limitation of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not fundamentals that fundamentals are sufficient and abundantly sufficient and Not fundamentals are vnnecessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation They are ashamed expresly to auouch their doctrin yet they are ashamed to saie so expresly with this addition euen then when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or when it is the Vnbeleuers faults that they are not so proposed or when one sinfully erreth in not fundamentals Yea sometimes they denie they teach so and affirme the contrarie Yet that in effect and in deed they teach so and meane so we wil Yet are forced to it proue out of their common Tenets and Principles and their plaine words and deeds Nether in truth would 1. this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points afford them anie colour of mainteining such erring Churches as they endeauour to mainteine by it vnles they meant that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals vnnecessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or it is the Vnbeleuers fault that they are not so proposed becaus it is euident that such Churches err in some points of faith which ether are sufficiently proposed to them or would be if it were not their fault and so doe sinfully err in such points Nether also 2. would there otherwise be anie controuersie about the sufficiencie of fundamentals and vnnecessarines of Not fundamentals to sauing faith true Church and saluation betwixt Catholiks and Protestants becaus Catholiks grant that fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamentals vnnecessarie to be actually beleued to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation when not fundamentals nether are sufficiently proposed nor it is the Vnbeleuers fault that they are not so proposed Nether finally 3. would such Churches as they seek to mainteine by this distinction giue them anie thanks if they would afford sauing faith true Church and saluation only to such of them as inuincibly err in some not fundamental points not sufficiently proposed to them or which not for their fault are not so proposed and would denie sauing faith true Church and saluation to al that err sinfully in anie point of faith Wherfore as long as by this distinction they seek to mainteine erring Churches or communicate with such Churches without excepting thos who sinfully err in not fundamental points and also hold such common Tenets and Principles as they hold in vaine they denie that they teach that fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers fault 4. And this their doctrin that Protestants cal their doctrin of defending sinfully errants in faith charitie

such as beleue the fundameÌ„tal 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 fundameÌ„tal 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 exprÃ¨s 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 daÌ„nable 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 ProtestaÌ„ts 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 coÌ„munion 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

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 Ã 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 Ã 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

Scismaticks that they are in state of damnation Whether who denie some points of 22. Gods word proposed as sufficiently as Gods word needeth to be or which would be proposed if it were not their avoidable fault do not implicitly denie God to be true in al his words or no Whether who implicitly denie God 23. to be true in al his words be not implicitly Atheists or no Who wil goe close to the matter and bewraye no distrust ether of the truthe of his cause or of his own certaintie therof wil make no difficultie to answer to al thes questions directly and clearly yea or no without making anie distinction where there is no equiuocal terme nor make anie shift to delude the plaine sense of the words OF THE DISTINCTION OF FVNDAMENTAL AND NOT FVNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH THE STATE OF THE question and difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants about Fundamental and Not Fundamental points of faith truly and clearly set dovvn FIRST CHAPTER THE true stating of the question Prima causa victoriae diligenter causam pro qua dicturus es dicere Cicero betwixt Catholiks and Protestants is half the ending of it and if it bewel obserued the question wil be soon ended and if it be not obserued the dispute wil be both fruitles and endles For otherwise the Disputants wil talk of different matters and the one not denie what the other affirmeth but some different thing Wherfore that the Reader maie plainely perceiue wherin standeth the point of controuersie between Catholiks and Protestants concerning Fundamental and not fundamental points he must wel note that Catholiks do not simply Glossa d 19. c. ita Dominus Super illo articulo fidei Tu es Christê° c. fundata est Ecclesia denie the distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental points of faith but only denie it in the Protestants sense For that they grant some points of faith to be Fundamental others not fundamental is euident both by their own sayings and Protestants confession For the Councel of Trent sess 3. and the Catechisme of the same Councel c. 1. and Catholik Diuines commonly call some points the Peron Epistle to K. Iames obser 3. Bellarm. l 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. foundation or fundamental points and consequently must needs grant that other points are not the foundation or not fundamental And this D. Potter sec 7. p. 79. proueth at large out of Catholik writers and the like hath L. Canterburie sec 38. and Chillingworth p. 159. And D. White None denie the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in Defence of his way c. 17. saieth I know none of our aduersaries that denieth this distinction of Fundamental and not fundamental points And Chillingworth in answer to the Preface L. Cant. p. 213. In your sense fundamental p. 16. In our sense of the word Fundamental I hope she Roman Church erred not fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did Which is plainly to confÃ¨s that Catholiks grant that there are fundamental points and that the difference betwixt them and Protestants is about the sense So that the difference is not whether there be fundamental and not fundamental points of faith for this both Catholiks and Protestants grant but whether fundamental and not fundamental points of faith be such as Protestants would haue them to be or no. And if anie Catholiks in words denie that there are anie not fundamental points of faith in deed they denie no more then that there anie such not fundamental points as Protestants teach 2. For al Catholiks grant that there is great difference among points of D. Potter sec 2. p. 47. sec 5 p. 5. sec 7. p. 74. L. Cant. p. 73. Chillingw p. 263. 283. faith For some points are simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued in al ordinarie courses of al men that can beleue actually for to haue sauing faith to be members of the Church and to be in waie of saluatioÌ„ and therfore are to be preached to al kinds of men And thes are also sufficient to be beleued actually to haue a sauing faith to be a member of the Church and in waie of saluation in some case to wit when the ignorance of other points is inuincible or not faultie becaus they are not sufficiently proposed nor the Not-beleuers of them are in anie fault that they are not so proposed Such are the principal points of faith as the Passion of Christ and the like There are other points of faith which nether are sufficient in anie case to a sauing faith member of the Church or waie Bellarm. l 3. de Eccles c. 14. of saluation nor simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued but only conditionally in case they be sufficiently proposed or â—â—ould be so proposed if it were not the not beleuers auoidable fault For otherwise a virtual or intentional beleif of them wil suffice to a sauing faith member of the Church and waie of saluation Such is that Abraham had twoe sonns and the like And the points of the first sorte maie wel be Why some points may be called fundamenlal called Fundamental not only becaus they be absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the foundation is absolutly necessarie to a house but also becaus other points of faith relievpon them as other parts of a howse relie vpon the foundation And points of the second sorte maie why others not fundamental be termed Not fundamental becaus they are not simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued for to haue sauing faith to be a member of the Church and in waie of saluation as fundamental parts of a temporal building are simply and absolutly necessarie to it nor other points relie on them as other parts of a building relie on the foundation But whether some points of faith maie be called Fundamental which is a verbal question and others not fundamental is no great matter For it is but a question of words The real question and that of great weight is whether the which a real the principal points of faith whether they alone maie be called Fundamental or no be so sufficient to sauing faith to a member the Church and waie of saluation as the actual beleif of them wil suffice to the said ends though other points of faith be sinfully vnbeleued or which cometh al to one though other points be sufficiently proposed and not beleued or would be sufficiently proposed if it were not the vnbeleuers auoidable fault And whether les principal points of faith whether they maie be termed Not fundamental points or no be so vnnecessarie to sauing faith meÌ„ber of the Churc and waie of saluatioÌ„ as they maie be sinfully vnbeleued and yet there maie be sauing faith member of the Church or state of saluation or which cometh al to one maie be not beleued nether virtually nor actually though they

be sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers fault without los of sauing faith member of the Church or state of saluation For such fundamental and not fundameÌ„tal points Protestants affirme to be and Catholiks vtterly denie there are anie such but saie that no points of faith are so fundamental as they are sufficient to sauing faith to a member of the Church and state of saluation when anie other points of faith are sinfully vnbeleued or not beleued when they are sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers auoidable fault Nor anie points of faith so not fundamental as they are not really necessarie to sauing faith member of the Church and state of saluation when they are as sufficiently proposed as points of faith need to be or wold be so proposed if it were not the vnbeleuers auoidable fault Protestants end in this their distinction 3. And the end why Protestants deuised this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in their forsaid sense or rather wrested this distinction vnto their foresaid sense is for to defend some Churches or persons to haue sauing faith to be true Churches and in waie of saluation who sinfully err in some points of faith ether becaus they wil not beleue them though they be sufficiently proposed or are in fault that they are not so proposed For as is sÃ¡id Not Fundamentals in case of sufficient proposal are necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation Therfore Protestants take this distinction In what sense Protestants vnderstaÌ„d fundamental and not fuÌ„damental in a quite different sense from Catholiks and by fundamental points mean such as saie they are not only absolutly necessarie but also absolutly sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation to be beleued euen when other points are sufficiently proposed and not beleued And by Not fundamental points mean such as are absolutly Not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation to be actually beleued euen when they are sufficiently proposed or the Not-beleuers are in fault that they are not so proposed And that Protestants made or vnderstand this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in this sense for to defend therby such as sinfully err in some points of faith is euident by itself and by thes words of Rouse in his Treatise of Cath. Charitie c. 9. This distinction was first framed to giue leaue for difference in measure of faith For this measure of The points in question for fundamentals faith he admitteth concerning points sufficiently proposed Wherfore al the question betwixt Catholiks and Protestants about Fundamental and not fundamental points is Whether there be anie such fundamental points as the beleif of them is sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation euen when ignorance or error in other points is vincible and sinful or which is al one when other points are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith need to be or should be if it were not the Not-beleuers fault and yet are not beleued And whether there be anie such Not fundamental And for not fundamentals points of faith as the actual beleif of them is not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation when they are sufficiently proposed and virtual or intentional beleif of them be necessarie whether they be proposed or no or which cometh al to one whether not fundamental points be such as vincible and sinful ignorance or error in them maie stand with saing sauing faith true Church and saluation For such sufficiencie of fundamental points and such vnnecessarines of not fundameÌ„tal points to sauing faith true Church and saluation Protestants affirme and Catholiks vtterly condemn 4. Protestants cal this distinction Protestants charitie in their sense Charitie or as Rouse termeth it Catholik Charitie becaus it affordeth sauing faith true Church and saluation vniuersally to al that beleue the Capital or principal points of faith howsoeuer sinfully they beleue not other points But first this But both vngrounded and fals Charitie is not grounded in anie Word of God but rather is quite contrarie to it as shal hereafter appeare but only in some humane pittie or rather fond flatterie of themselues and of others who sinfully err in some points of saith and therfore is but seeming and in truth fals and deceiptful charitie Secondly it is quite opposite to true charitie becaus it damnably deceaueth those who sinfully err in not fundamental or secondarie points of faith telling them that though they beleiue them not when they are sufficiently proposed or when it is their fault that they are not so proposed yet they haue sauing faith are in the true Church and in way of saluation Which is in truth to destroie the substance and vnitie of sauing faith of true Church and of saluation to excuse al heresies in secondarie points of faith from mortal or damnable sin to bring an indifference or libertinisme in beleif or not beleif of Secondarie points of faith to giue leaue to Scisme and to communion with heretiks to reiect Gods veracitie in secondarie points of faith and See c. 8. n. 5. c. 10. n. 5. 6. L. Epist to the King so to laie a ground of atheifme and finally as Protestants sometimes conuinced by euidencie of truth contes is infidelitie and the giuing of the Lie to God Wherfore in vaine do some who teach this doctrin complaine that Atheisme and irreligion getteth strength seing that to teach that some points of faith are sufficient to sauing faith true Church or saluation and others not necessarie though thes be sufficiently proposed or it be the not beleuers fault that they are not so proposed is plaine Atheisme and Irreligion And therfore as I said in the Preface this doctrin is not to be detested and impugned as a single or simple error in faith but as a ground of al heresies in secondarie points of faith of Scisme of Infidelitie and Atheisme For as long as they mainteine such to be true Churches to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation which sinfully err in some points of faith or which comes al to one which beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault not so proposed to theÌ„ or communicate in Sacraments and publik Liturgie with such Churches in vaine they denie that they hold this doctrin For their said maintenance or communion with such Churches is a real profession of this doctrin and wil force them to confes that they hold it But now let vs prove that Protestants both by words and deeds teach this doctrin becaus they sometimes considering the horror of it do denie that they teach it But this their Denial wil prove no more then that they contradict themselues as is vsual for hereticks to doe and that the doctrin is so horrible as themselues sometimes are ashamed of it I enquire not here who is a sufficient what is not here enquired Proposer of points

of faith to wit whether Sripture or Church or both nor which is a sufficient proposal of points of faith nor what points of faith are sufficiently proposed Neverthles manie and weightie what is here proued points are here handled For first is confuted that most fals and Atheistical 1. doctrin that the principal or fundamental points of faith are absolutly sufficient to sauing faith to a member of the true Church and to saluation So as if one beleve that hee need not care for so much as is to haue saving faith to be a member of the true Church and in waie of salvation whether he beleve anie other points or no. Becaus as is here proued nether are they sufficient to saving faith in case that the les principal or not fundamental points be sufficiently proposed or would be so proposed if it were not the Vnbelevers fault and are not beleved Nether though they were sufficient even in that case to saving faith were they sufficient to a member of the true Church or to salvation Becaus Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is as necessarie to a member of the true Church and to salvation as faith 2. is Secondly is here confuted the like fals and Atheistical doctrin That the les principal or not Fundamental points of faith are absolutly vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a meÌ„ber of the true Church and to saluation euen in case they be sufficiently proposed or would be so proposed if it were not the Vnbeleuers auoidable fault For it is here shewed that the beleif of anie point of faith whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed is necessarie to sauing faith to a member of the true Church and to saluation Thirdly 3. here is confuted that like fals and Atheistical doctrin That al who beleue the principal fundamental points of faith are of the true Church and that a true Church and a Church beleuing al the fundamental points is al one For who beleue not a les principal or not fundamental point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed to them if it were not their auoidable fault are true heretiks and such Churches true heretical Churches and giue God the lie in thos points though they beleue the principal or fundamental points Fourthly it is shewed to be a vaine proof That one is of the same Church 4. with the Roman becaus he beleueth al the Fundamental points of faith which the Roman Church beleueth Becaus virtual beleif of al points of faith whatsoeuer and actual beleif of al points sufficiently proposed and also Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is necessarie to be of the same Church with the Roman Fiftly is shewed that sauing faith cannot 5. stand with sin in matter of faith Sixtly is shewed that it is not only 6. the greatnes of the matters in points of faith which bindeth vs to beleve it but especially the authoritie of the Reuealer which beeing equal in greather and lesser points equally bindeth vs to beleve them al when they are proposed Seventhly is shewed though breifly and by the way that 7. Protestants generally speaking err sinfully in not beleuing some points of faith Becaus besids al other proofs their own Ministers confes that al their Churches err in some points of faith and that they sinfully err appeareth becaus ether they haue had them sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault That Protestants teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and Not Fundamental points vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation euen vvhen Not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed SECOND CHAPTER 1 CHillingworth in his answer to Chillingw confesseth al points sufficieÌ„tly propofed to be necessarie Mercie and truth c. 4. p. 196. saith The main question in this busines is not what diuine Reuelations are necessarie to be beleued or not reiected when they are sufficiently proposed For al without question al without exception are so And in his answer to the Preface p. 11. affirmeth that D. Potter auoucheth the same True it is that some times they saie al diuine Reuelations sufficieÌ„tly proposed are necessarie being forced therto by the euidencie of truth and their confessions we shal c. 3. n. 5. 67. produce hereafter for confirmation of this truth but true also it is that often times they denie that al such truthes are necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation and they are forced to denie it for to defend such to be true Churches to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation which they cannot with anie probabilitie denie but that they beleue not and reiect some diuine reuelatioÌ„s sufficieÌ„tly proposed to them or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed And their confession of this truth sometimes doth not proue that other times they denie it not but only that they contradict themselues herin which is vsual for heretiks to doe Besids Chillingworth doth not Chillingw speaketh reserued by not setting down the whole question here expres to what end al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed be necessarie to wit to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation which is that which he knew Catholiks affirme and charge Protestants with the denial therof but reseruedly saith that al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed are necessarie to be beleued not telling to what they are necessarie which he maie meane that they are necessarie to some other end as to auoid such a fault as c. 1. p. 38. he saith is incident to good and honest men Which kinds of fault maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation And if he had meant that al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed are necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation why did he not exprÃ¨s it euen then when he endeauoured to cleare himself of the contraric imputation 2. But whatsoeuer he meant I wil proue clearly by Protestants words and deeds by their direct and indirect sayings by their common Tenets or Principles that indeed they mean that al diuine Reuelations though sufficiently proposed are not necessarie 1. to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation For first they saie absolutly and without anie exception of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not Fundamentals that Fundamentals are sufficient nay abundantly sufficient to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation And also absolutely that not fundamentals are vnnecessarie and not necessarie VVhat is faith enough for Protestants D. Andrewes Respon ad Apologiam Bellarmini c. 1. what is in the Creeds and in the fowr Councels is faith enough for vs. D. Whitaker controu Sufficient 2. q. 5. c. 18. wee saie it is sufficient to the Church if truth be kept in the See Caluin 4. c. 2. Â§ 1. and c. 1. Â§. 12. cheif and principal articles of faith The Confession of Swissers in the Preface Mutual consent in

the principal points of faith and in the right sense and brotherlie charitie was to pious antiquitie abundantly sufficient D. Potter sec 3. p. 69. Abundantly sufficient to saluation The main positiue truths wherin al Protestants and Catholiks agree are abundantly sufficient to saluation Chillingw c. 7. p. 408. They that beleue Sufficient to vnitie al things plainly deliuered in Scripture beleue al things fundamental and are at sufficieÌ„t vnitie in matters of faith Lord Canterburie in his Relation sec 38. p. 372. The Church can teach the See Vsherin serm before K. Iames p. 16. 28. foundation and men were happie if they would learn it and the Church more happie would she teach nothing but that as Only fundamentals necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation For certainely nothing but that is necessarie And for not fundamentals the same D. Potter sec Frith in Fox pag. 944. There are manie things in Scriptures which we are not bound to beleue as an article of faith 4. p. 96. saith Al necessarie or fundamental truth is conteined in Scripture making Necessarie and Fundamental al one And sec 3. p 71. speaking of not fundamentals saith By their own Confession the doctrins debated are unnecessarie Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface n. 32. Those are not fundamental points which are not necessarie c. 4. p 219. By fundamental articles we mean al those that are necessarie Ibid. p. 220. By fundamental we mean al and only that which is necessarie L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. speaking of not fundamentals saith The Church maie err in Superstructures and deductions and othey By and vnnecessarie truths Behold how absolutly and with out al exception of sufficient or insufficient proposal of not fundamental points they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and abundantly sufficient to saving faith to a true Church and to salvation that nothing but the Foundation is necessarie that by Fundamental they mean al and only that which is necessarie and that not fundamental points are not necessarie are By and vnnecessarie truths And why should they say thus absolutly and without anie exception that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to faith Church and saluatioÌ„ and not be absolutly vnderstood so vnles they would not be vnderstood as they speak but vse mental reservation even in matters of faith which al men condemn and iustly for it giueth occasion of error in faith 3. But that they mean that Fundamental points are sufficient to saving faith true Church and saluation absolutly and in al cases and Not fundamentals vnnecessarie to those ends even in case of sufficient Proposal is evident by divers other doctrins of theirs For as wee shal see her after they teach that some obstinat heretiks obstinat Papists and obstinat Lutherans have saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and obstinacie is not but where there is sufficient Proposal of truth or it is the fault of the obstinat that there is not such Proposal Besids they teach that fundamental points make vp the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the Bodie of Christian religion that in them consists the unitie of sauing faith that they properly constitute a Church essentially constitute a true Church that a true Church is al one with a Church not erring in fundamentals Breach in not fundamentals is no breach in necessarie faith D. Potter sec 7. p. 76. The Dogmatical foundation of the Church Fund make vp our faith are thos grand and Capital Doctrins which make vp our faith in Christ. P. 78. By Fundamental points of faith we mean those prime and capital doctrins of our religion which make vp the Holie Make vp the Cath faith Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentially constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Ib. p. 102. In thos Essentially constitute a true Church fundamental truths consists the vnitie offaith and of the Catholik Church Item p. 73. 74. By fundamental dostrins we mean such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And sec 3. p. 60. In which Protestants In them coÌ„sists the life and substaÌ„ce of Religion iudge the life and substance of religion to be comprised And finally sec 5. p 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the fundation Chillingworth c. 3. p. 159. calleth fundamentals The Doctrins which integrate and Integrate the bodie of Religion make vp the Bodie of Christian Religion And ib. p 140. saith Not fundamental id est no essential parts of Christianitie Lord Canter burie in his Relat. sec 38. p. 355. Errors in things not absolutly necessarie thos are his not fundamentals Soe also Vsher in his Serm. befor k. Iames. is no breach vpon the one sauing faith which is necessarie And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine Truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith But surely if fundamental points make up our faith in Christ comprehend the life and substance of Religion make up the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion if in them consisteth the vnitie of sauing faith if they properly and essentially constitute a true Church and a true Christian if a true Church be al one with one not erring in the foundation and if not fundamental points be no essential parts of Christianitie nor breach in them be anie breach in necessarie sauing faith our faith in Christ the Catholik faith the entire bodie of Christian Religion vnitie of sauing faith and the essence of a true Church and of a true Christian shal As long as the essential parts are the thing is remaine as long as fundamentals are beleued though Not fundamentals euen sufficiently proposed be not beleued nor breach in these can make anie breach in the essence or vnitie of a true Church or of sauing faith The same also followeth out of 3. their doctrin That we maie not forsake the communion in Sacraments of a Church that erreth in not fundamentals vnles she impose the profession of them Chillingworth c. 5 p. 307. That it is not lawful to separate See him p. 281. from anie Churches communion for errors not apperteining to the substance of No separation for not fundamentals faith is not vniuersally true but with this exception vnles that Church requires the beleif and profession of them So that if she sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed but require not the beleif of them we maie not separate from her Communion Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. speaking of not fundamentals saith absolutely In necessariis in or about things necessarie there ought not to be contention to a separation And sec 28. p. 139. The whole Church cannot vniuersally err in absolute fundamental doctrins and therfore there can be no iust cause to make a scisme from the

visible Church of Christ Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 18. If an Heretik must be excluded from saluation that is becaus he ouerthroweth some foundation For vnles he shake or ouerthrow some Heretiks in not fundameÌ„tals may be saued foundation he maie be saued And controuer 4. q. 5. c. 3. Al Heretiks are within the Church Alsted de natura Eccles c. 9. I saie absolutly heretiks are of the Church except those who ouerthrow the foundamental articles Morton in his Imposture c. 15. p. 413. Nether do Protestants yeeld more saftie to anie of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoeuer heretiks whose beleif doth not vndermine the fundamental doctrin of faith Doct. Pottersec 4. p. 111. Euen in an heretical Church saluation maie be had Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 141. saith An heretical Church maie be a Church of Christ stil And surely one maie be saued in a Church of Christ More Assertions of ProtestaÌ„ts that heretiks are in the Church and maie be saued are to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 3. And generally Protestants compare heresie to a sicknes which destroieth not a man as maie be seen in Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Moulins in his Buckler sec 92. Lord Canterburie epist to the King Chilling worth c. 5. p. 265. 269. c. 6. p. 335. and others And seing the sin of heresie cannot be without obstinacie as L. Canterb. p. 315. D. Potter sec 4. p. 120. Chillingw p. 271. is euident and Protestants confes nor obstinacie but where there is sufficient proposal of the truth or sinful want of such proposal manifest it is that Protestants do think that sinful and obstinat error in some points of faith can stand with sauing faith Church and saluation 6. The same is also cleare by what Protestants saie the Ro. Church is a true Church they profes of Papists or of the Roman Church For Protestants commonly profes that the RomaÌ„ Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and is in state of saluation as maie be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 2. Here I wil add the like profession of some later English Protestants Lord Canterb. sec 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence Sec. 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence nor in things which constitute a Church Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a Member of the Catholik Church Ib. p. 285. Manie Protestants indeed confes there is saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church p. 282. The possibilitie of saluatioÌ„ in the Roman Church I think cannot be denied Sec. 38. p. 338. Saluation in Rom. faith That the Ladie might be saued in the Roman faith or Church I confes Doctor Potter sec 1. p. 11. we yeeld her Roman Church a member of the Catholik Church sec 3. p. 74 75. we acknowledg her a member of the bodie of Christ Ib. p. 78. we beleue their Roman religion Rom. Religion safe safe that is by Gods great mercie not damnable to some such as beleue what they profes And p. 62. Protestants yeeld them the substance of a Christian Church The like he hath p. 66. 81. Chillingworth in answer to the preface p. 15. and 16. saith of the Roman Church She was before Luther a parte of the whole Catholik Church c. 1. p. 42. Though D. Potter doth not take it il that you beleue yourselues maie be saued in your Religion yet c. c. 2. p. 85. The Roman Church is a parte of the Catholik Church c. 3. p. 163. Our hope is that the truths she retaines and the practise of them maie proue an antidote to her against the errors she mainteines in such persons as in simplicitie of heart follow this Absolon Thes points of Christianitie Antidote against al errors which haue in them the nature of an antidote against the poison of al sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted stil retaines therfore we hope she errs not fundamentally but stil remaines a parte of the Church And these errors though to them that beleue them we hope wil not be pernitious yet c. c. 5. p. 282. we hope your errors are not absolutely vnpardonable p. 285. our and your saluation not desperatly inconsistent c. 7. p. 401. D. Potter saieth indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the bodie of Christ and the hope of saluation frrees vs from the imputation of Scisme Behold the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence hath the things which constitute a Church is a member of the Catholik Church a member of the bodie of Christ is not cut from the bodie of Christ nor hope of saluation retaines thos points of Christianitie which haue in them the nature of an antidote against al sinns and errors possibilitie of saluation in her cannot be denied men maie be saued in the Roman faith and Church her Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue them 7. And neuertheles thes same men And yet saie she erreth sinfully and obstinatly saie that the same Roman Church is obstinat and conuicted of her errors and obstinacie cannot be but where the truth is sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers See Caluin 4. Instit c. 2. Â§. 6. fault Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 26. The Protestants expresly accuse this Roman Church and haue conuicted her to as Ro. Church conuicted they think of manie gros and dangerous errors p. 14. She is senseles of her errors Senseles of her errors and careles to seek anie remedie And sec 3. p. 65. The first Reformers saw Rome in loue with her errors so as she would not be cured Chillingworth c. 6. p. 373. saieth The Roman Church is accused and conuicted of manie damnable errors Incorrigibla And c. 3. p. 163. is most incorrigible c. 5. p. 280. Mainteines errors with obstinacie Obstinat And ib. p. 295. would not be reformed is obstinat in her corruptions And p. 303. Papists are obstinat in their common superstition Lord Canterburie sec 20. p. 133. You thrust vs from you becaus we called for truth sec 21. p. 144. They are resolued to alter nothing King VVil alter nothing Iames in answer to C. Peron Their purpose is constantly to mainteine al they hold Morton in his imposture p. 404. To heresie and Idolatrie your Church ioineth obstinacie So that a Church conuicted of errors in faith which is obstinat and senseles of them which is incorrigible resolued to alter nothing but to hold constantly al she holds is notwithstanding al this a true Church in substance a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ reteines al things that constitute a Church hath possibilitie of saluation her religion is safe

to such as beleue as they profes her errors not pernitious to them who beleue them And is not this plainly to teach that a Church sinfully erring in some points of faith hath sauing faith is a true Church and in waie of saluation 8. Nether wil it help them to saie as sometimes they doe that when L. Canterb. p. 35. 285. D. Potter sec 3. p. 46. Chillingw p. 282. 398. 400. 32. they confes the Roman Church to be a true Church to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation by Roman Church they mean only those who vpon inuincible ignorance follow her Religion First becaus this is said voluntarily without anie ground giuen in the places where they confes this of the Roman Church By Roman Church can not be meaÌ„t only inuincibly ignorants Where if they meant only of the ignorants in the Roman Church why did they not name them rather then the Roman Church 9. Secondly becaus they saie thus 2. only when we out of their grant that the Roman Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and true waie of saluation doe clearly infer that the Protestants Church is no true Church hath no sauing faith nor waie of saluation And haue no other cause to expound themselues thus but Becaus otherwise they should condemn their Church and religion Thirdly 3. becaus this is to profes that they equiuocate in a matter of religion becaus nether we nor themselues commonly doe by Roman Church vnderstand only those who in her are invincibly ignorant And if Chillingworth saie c. 7. p. 399. By Roman Church to vnderstand the ignorant members of it is a verie unusual Senecdoche much more vnusual is it by Roman Church to vnderstand them alone And yet as the same man saieth c. 2. p. 57. Men should speak properly when they write of Controuersies in Religion And as Caluin addeth Plaine dealing is to be vsed in al things but cheifly in matters of faith And if Protestants when they saie The Roman Church is a true Church had only meant the inuincibly ignorants in her it had been easie for them to haue said so and therby giuen no occasion to mistake their meaning Fourthly it is against 4. their own descriptions of the Roman VVhat ProtestaÌ„ts mean by Roman Church Church Morton in his imposture c. 14. sec 12. The Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope and his subordinats as of a head and a bodie And c. 4. No people can be called the Church of Rome except they be Professors of the faith of Rome The like he hath c. 2. p. 13. Feild in Apendice parte 3. The Roman Church that now is is the multitude of such only as magnifie admire and adore the plenitude of Papal power or at least are content to be vnder the yoak of it stil White in defence of his Waie c. 33. The Church of Rome is the Papacie Sutclif l. 1. de Ecclesia c. 6. We must first tel what we and our Aduersaries meane by the Church of Rome I saie that the Church of Rome is a multitude vnder one Head the Bishop of Rome and agreeing in the publik doctrin of the Bishop of Rome and the external worship and Rites of that Church Rainolds l. 2. de Idolalatria c. 1. By the name of the Roman Church I meane al thos who defile themselues with the superstition of Rome and communion of the Pope Whitaker controu 2 q. 5. c. 5. p. 506. I esteeme the Papistical Church not by number of men but of Professors And they cannot be truly called Professors but who vnderstand and beleue what they profes Al which definitions or descriptions of the Roman Church or Church of Rome ether only or cheifly agree to them who wittingly embrace her doctrin and communion 10. Fiftly this exposition of the 5. Roman Church is against the profession of the English Protestant Church For as Rouse writeth in his Catholik charitie c. 2. The Roman Church according to the Church of England is to be vnderstood of the Pope and his adherents And in the margin citeth the Homelie on Whitsontide And c. 3. The Church of Rome beeing vnderstood as before according to the words of the Church of England to be the Pope and his adherents c. And doubtles the adherents to the Pope are not only inuincible ignorants but ether only 6. or chiefly the intelligents Sixtly becaus theÌ„selues sometimes declare that when they saie the Roman Church is a true Church they meane euen thos who wittingly follow her doctrin For Doctor Potter sec 1. p. The curst Dame of Rome is a member of the Cath. Church 10. hauing called her the curst Dame of Rome who takes vpon her to reuel in the house of God who hath manie waies plaid the Harlot and in that regard deserued See Vsher Serm. before x Iames p. 26. a bil of diuorce from Christ and detestation from Christians saith in the next page Yet for those Catholik verities which she retaines we yeeld her a member of the Catholik Is not this plainly to confes that the most obstinat parte of the Roman Church is not yet diuorced from Christ and is stil a member of the Catholik Church Moreouer sec 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledg saith he the Church of Rome a member of the bodie of Christ and this cleares vs from imputation of Scisme whose propertie it is to cut of from the bodie of Christ and hope of saluation the Church from which it separates And the same defendeth Chillingworth c. 5. p. 266. But they separated themselues from the Pope and his adherents Therfore those they must account meÌ„bers of the bodie of Christ and in hope of saluation or they cleare not themselues from scisme Montague also l. orig Eccles parte poster p. 408. saith The Bishop of Rome is a parte and a Cheif of the vniuersal representatiue Church And if the Pope be a parte surely al Papists are 7. Seuenthly if they did allow no Papists to be of the Church or in waie of saluation but only the inuincibly ignorants they could pretend no more charitie to Papists then we haue to Protestants For as Chillingworth Ib. p. 400. Material heretiks you do not exclude from possibilitie of saluation writeth c. 7. p. 398. Ignorant Protestants maie be saued by the coÌ„fession of Papists The same he hath c. 5. p. 308. And c. 1. p. 34. According to the grownds of your own Religion Protestants maie die in their supposed error ether with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they doe so maie be saued which is true if he mean of inuincible ignorance but such are no true or formal Protestants such are rather Protestantibus credentes then Protestantes becaus wittingly they hold no point of true Protestancie but the Capital points of Christianitie which are the Capital points of Papacie But howsoeuer they can equiuocate in the name of Roman Church becaus they

can take that for different kinds of men ignorants and intelligents and saie that when they affirme the Roman Church to be a true Church and a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ they mean only the inuincibly ignorants and not those who wittingly follow her doctrin how can they equiuocate in the name of Roman faith or Roman Religion which is not of two kinds as its Professors are but one only and includeth the pretended errors of Rome as is euident by that Epitheton Roman when they saie men maie be saued in the Roman faith or Roman Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes that her religion hath antidotes against al errors or sinns that her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue Perkins initio problematis them and withal profes as Chillingworth doth c. 6. p. 375. By your Religion I vnderstand that wherin you al what is the Rom. Religion agree or profes to agree the doctrin of the Councel of Trent Is not this to confes that euen those who wittingly follow the Roman faith or Religion which is the doctrin of the Councel of Trent maie be saued if they beleue as they profes 9. An other thing which conuinceth 8. the Caluinists that they hold that a true Church sauing faith and state of saluation maie stand with sinful errors in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or with faultie want of such proposal is their mainteining that the Lutherans are a true Church haue sauing faith and maie be saued who yet sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or at the least which would be so proposed to them if it were not their fault which is al one touching sin For as Doctor Potter saith sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great between him that is wilfully blinde and him that knowingly gainsaith the truth See also Chillingworth c. 7. p. 404. That Caluinists grant the Lutherans to be their Brothers in Christ is euident by the Apologie of the Church of England and generally by their deeds and writings Here I wil only set down the Profession of Chillingworth in his Preface n. 39. See D Potter sec 3. p. 89. I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie and from al error destructiue of saluatioÌ„ or in itself damnable and the Decree of the French Protestants in their Synod at Charenton an 1631. in thes words The Synod declareth that seing the Churches of the Confession of Ausbourg Lutherans do Caluinists coÌ„municate in Sacraments with erring Lutherans agree vith the other Reformed Churches in the Principles and fundamental points of their Religion the faithful of that Confession who with the spirit of charitie and truly peaceable doe come to the publik Assemblies of the Churches of this Kingdom and desire their Communication maie without making abiuration be receaued to the supper of the Lord. Behold Lutherans admitted of Caluinists to their Communion without making abiuration which is to confes that they hold errors worthie to be abiured And the reason why they are admitted with their errors is not becaus they sin not in them or they are not sufficiently proposed to them but becaus they are not fundamental errors Nether is it likelie that Lutherans that liue in France among Caluinists should not haue their errors sufficiently proposed vnto them For this were to condemn the Caluinists of want both of zele to their Religion and also of charitie to their erring Brethren or at the least they might haue their errors sufficiently proposed to them if it were not their fault Besids Caluin contra Hessusium p. 843. Withaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. and other Caluinists generally affirme that Lutherans are obstinat in their errors But that which conuinceth that Caluinists account as Brothers euen such Lutherans as are obstinat in their errors sufficiently shewed to them is that Note this Zuinglius and his fellowes in their Conference at Marpurg with Luther and his Mates desired to be held for Brethren of the same Church by Luther and his And the same requested Beza and his companions of Smidelin and his fellowes in their Conference at Montbelgard though to their faces they mainteined their errors See Hospinian parte 2. historiae Sacrament An 1529. 1386. Had not Luther his errors sufficiently shewed to him by Zuinglius and Smidelin by Beza or at the least might they not haue had if it had not been their fault And yet Zuinglius and Beza accounted them for Brethren of the same Church and desired to be accounted such of them but could not obteine it 10. Moreouer Protestants generally Al Protestants err in some points of faith confes that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith And that they err sinfully is euident For ether they haue thos points in which they err sufficiently proposed to them by their Ministers or might haue if it be not ether their fault or their Ministers fault Caluin 4 Instit c. 1. Â§ 12. Ether we must leaue no Church at al or we must pardon errors in those things which maie be vnknown without breach of the summ of religion Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. It is not needful that al should think the same if such vnitie be required there would be no Church at al. Bucer in his dispute at Cambridg p. 481. There is no Church on earth which erreth not in faith as wel as in manners Morton Apologie l. 1. c. 68. Only Papists chaleng priuiledg of not erring Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. It is a great vanitie to hope or expect that al learned men in this life should absolutly consent in al peeces and particles of diuine truth p. 39. vnitie in points not fundamental is verie contingent in the Church neuer absolute in al particles of truth Item Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith or charitie Sec. 5. p. 22. The Church maie not hope to triumph ouer al error til it be in heauen Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 360. This that al agree in al points of faith cannot be hoped for til the Church be Triumphant Chilling worth c. 5. p. 279. The visible Church is free indeed from al error abso-Lutly destructiue and vnpardonable but See whites way p. 110. Montacute part poster orig p. 408. not free from al error which in itselfe is damnable Thus plainly they confes that al Protestants Churches err in some points of faith that they must pardon errors which are not against fundameÌ„tal points or haue no Church at al that each discord in Religion dissolues not vnitie in faith And if Ministers haue sufficiently proposed thes errors to their Churches or would so do if it were not their Churches fault ether they haue no true Church or it maie be a true Church which sinfully erreth in some points of faith and communion with such an

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 theÌ„ 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.

a sufficient Summarie of fundamentals a sufficient Summarie of holsome doctrin they Papists haue added manie more And what difference is there betwixt a Summarie and a Catalogue 4. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 371. The foundation is sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds And if it be sufficiently known why cannot Protestants giue vs an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Sect. 37. p. 319. If he meane different in the foundation itself the Creed then c. Lo here the Creed is the foundation Sec. 38. cit p. 334. The Protestants haue as infallible assurance as you can haue of al points which they account fundamental yea and of al which were so accounted by the Primitiue Church and these are but the The Creed and some deductions from it Creed and some few and those immediate deductions from it Lo Potestants know al points which they account fundamental and why then can they not giue an exact Catalogue of them Sec. 10. p. 28. The Creed is a common is a Deductions cannot be fundamentals constant foundation Deductions from it cannot be fundamental The English Deputies in the Synod of Dort sess 15. The fundamental heads of Religion are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and the Sacraments Behold Christian Reader how these men sometimes cannot giue an exact Catalogue of fundamentals sometime they can Sometimes al the fundamentals are conteined in the Apostles Creed sometimes in the Apostles Creed and in some few and immediat deductions from it At other times deductions from the Creed cannot be fundamental Sometimes al fundamentals are comprised in the Symbols and Creeds and at other times al the fundamentals are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and Sacraments Who wil see more of the Protestants vncertaintie which articles are to be accounted fundamental maie read lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. num 1. and 2. 5. In like manner they are vncertaine whether the pretended truthes against which they saie the Roman Church erreth be fundamental or no. For as we saw in the former Chapter nu 7. sometimes they saie she holdeth the foundation the fundamental The errors which Rome holds are not fundamental truths erreth not in fundamentals and holdeth al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation And the same followeth euidently out of that they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence and saie that she and the Protestant Church and their Religions be al one in substance For nether could she be a true See their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence if she erred in anie fundamental point nether can thes Churches or Religions be alone in substance which differ in fundamental points But at other times they auow that the errors of the Roman Church are fundamental and in themselues damnable and consequently opposit to some fundamental points of faith For thus Whitaker controu 2. q. 6. c. 3. The Roman Church Errors of Rome fundamental and damnable hath taken away manie fundamental Articles of faith and corrupted faith in the principal points Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he D. Potter saie that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments or where does he saie you wanted nothing fundamental or necessarie to saluation Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence that yours errors are confessed not to be fundamental it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you p. 289. Your Church did fal into substantial corruptions And p. 305. A fals hood it is that the. Doctor iudges the Roman Rom. errors in theÌ„selues fundamental errors not to be in themselues fundamental or damnable p. 308. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we beleue the points of difference not fundamental or necessarie you haue beene often told that it is a calumnie And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence that we confes the Roman Are damnable heresies Church free from damnable heresie and yeelding you saluation no Protestant is guiltie of it And p. 34. 282. 278. 293. Poperie in it self destroies saluation and 400. saieth The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselues damnable And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie which he saieth is without question to err in necessarie matters In like sort Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 275. al. 257. Transubstantiation taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion Sec. 37. p. 320. The Church of Rome hath in the expositions both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them And yet ibid. p. 319. saieth The Creed is the foundation Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large That he neuer saied that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-fundamental Sec. 38. p. 325. You haue manie dangerous errors about the verie foundation in that which you cal the Roman faith And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day doth not beleue the Scripture and Creeds in the sense in which the ancient Primitiue Church receaued them And addeth as before the Creed is the foundation Thus vncertaine thes men be whether the pretended errors of the Roman Church be fundamental or no. But sometimes they are sometimes they are not as it serueth for their present purpose 9. Perhaps some to saue thes contradictions See Chillingw c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec 7. p. 71 of Protestants that the Roman Church holds al the fundamentals and holds them not al hath fundamental errors and hath not wil saie that fundamental points are of two kinds Some are fundamental not only by reason of their reuelation from God and their sufficient proposal to vs but also of their owne nature fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the passion of Christ and such like capital articles others not of their owne nature but merely because they are reuealed from God and sufficiently proposed to vs are fundamental to faith Church and saluation as that Saint Paul had a cloack c. And that when Protestants confes that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamentals or erreth not in fundamentals they meane of fundamentals of the first kinde when they saie she erreth in fundamentals they meane of the latter kinde and so do not contradict themselues becaus they do not affirme and denie the same kinde of fundamentals True it is that there is this difference betweene points of faith that some are fundamental to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation both of their nature and by reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs as the mysteries of the Trinitie the passion of Christ and such like others are fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation only by reason of Gods reuelation sufficiently proposed as that Abraham had two Sonns and such like But this wil not suffice

that there are true points of faith besids those which are principal or capital For this is the ground of al our discourse following 2. First whatsoeuer is clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs is a matter of faith Manie matters of faith in Scripture besid fundamentals and ought to be beleued But there be manie things besids the principal and capital articles that are clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs as that Saint Paul had a cloak Saint Timothe was sicklie and the like Therfore they also are matters of faith and ought to be beleued 3. Secondly matters of faith are not Matters of faith are to be measured by the formal obiect of faith to be measured only by the greatnes of the material obiect which is beleued but especially by the formal obiect of faith for which it beleues which is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs. For euerie habit reacheth to whatsoeuer hath is formal obiect But manie smal matters haue the like diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed as that of S. Pauls clooke and Timothes sicknes Therfore they are alike matters of faith 3. Thirdly the holie Scripture In faith are both great and lesser matters Mat. 5. and 22. saieth plainly that there are greatest and least commandements and that there are Iots or Tittles of the Law And why not likwise great and les matters of beleif If anie obiect that though there be great and litle things commanded to be done yet litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of losse of Gods fauour or of saluation so though litle matters of saith be reuealed and ought to be beleued when they are sufficiently proposed as testifyed by God yet are we not bound to beleiue them vnder paine Difference betwene matters to be done and to be beleued of damnation I answer that litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of los of Gods freindship or of saluation becaus smal matters of their nature do not break freindship For he were an vnreasonable freind who for trifles would break freindship and the end of the law is charitie but al litle matters testified by God and sufficiently proposed to vs oblidge vs to beleue them becaus in not beleuing them differeÌ„ce betwixt Faith and charitie touching smal matters we account God not worthie to be beleued in such matters which is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie For who in things equally testifyed by God and equally proposed See Chillin infra c. 4. n. 3. Potter sec 5. p. 3. The principal ground on which faith relies is diuine reuelation So also p. 10. to vs as from God beleueth somethings and not others beleueth nothing for Gods authoritie but becaus himself iudgeth somethings more liklie to be true then others For if he beleued anie for Gods authoritie he would beleue al which Gods authoritie equally proposed doth equally testifie Wherfore we maie keep charitie with God though we obserue not litle matters commanded by him becaus breach of litle maters is not opposit to charitie but only to perfection of charitie But we cannot keep faith with God if we beleue not smal matters testified by him and sufficiently proposed to vs becaê° not beleif of theÌ„ is opposit to Gods veracitie which is the formal obiect of diuine faith and implicitly saieth God is not worthie of beleef in such matters For where is the lest vntruth there is not diuine or prime veracitie so his veracitie is denied by the lest vntruth but not his charitie by the lest sin Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalips threatned to put him out of the book of life who putteth out one word of that prophesie but no where threatneth the like to whosoeuer shal not keep the lest thing he commandeth 5. Holie Fathers also testifie that al things reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs are matters of faith in that as we shal see hereafter c. 2. they account obstinat error in al such matters to be formal heresie and al such obstinat errants formal heretiks And as Saint Basil saied we should rather loose our liues Theodoret l. 4. c. 17. then fuffer one syllable of Gods Word to perish 6. Protestants likewise sometimes confes and must needs confes that al that is clearely testified by God and sufficiently proposed or that those points which they cal vnfundamental if they be sufficiently proposed are matters of faith and of Religion Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Shal it not be a true Church if it think not sincerely of al heads of Religion if it corrupt anie point of Religion God forbid Not fundamentals are heads parts and points of faith and Religion yea it maie be a Church though it think not sincerely of some parts of faith and Religion so they be not fundamental Loe not fundamentals are heads points and parts of faith and Religion And controu 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 527. It is not necessarie that faithful men agree in al things which are of faith so they agree in the highest the cheifest and the necessarie Behold againe vnfundamental points matters of faith Matters of faith Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. calleth them diuine truthes and p. 39. intending to declare his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points saieth Points of Religion are wel distinguished Points of Religion by Thomas and Stapleton Some saie they are primitiue articles others are Secundarie So that Secondarie or Not fundamentals are points of Religion as wel as primitiue or fundamentals And sec 7. p. 71. Being to proue his distinction into fundamental and not fundamental saieth There be diuers degrees of truths and errors in Religion and commendeth Aquinas for Of the obiect of faith So also Chilling c. 4. p. 193. deuiding the obiect of faith into that which is so by itself and that which is by accident and secondarily The first be to that wherby a man is made blessed the latter that which is reuealed whatsoeuer it be as that Abraham had two sonns Loe whatsoeuer is reuealed is a truth of Religion and of the obiect of faith P. 73. There is a certaine measure Are reuealed and to be beleued The like he hath sec 6. p. 58. See white in his Def. c. 17. and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued and these are his fundamentals but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith Behold vnfundamental points belong to faith though not to the highest measure therof and are to be beleued with a virtual faith And p. 73. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued Other points of truth are Belong to the vnitie of faith

And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for In oppositioÌ„ 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 coÌ„trarie 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 excoÌ„municated 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

them heare what Paul saieth that they had ouerthrown the Ghospel who had brought in neuer so litle noueltie Which words are more cleare then to be eluded by Chillingworths Answer c. 6. p. 381. that Saint Chrysostom by Faith meaneth only Fundamental points of faith For Saint Chrysost expresly speaketh of litle things and lest particles of faith and neuer so litle nouelties Besids his exposition is voluntarie not proued out of one word of Saint Chrysostom And his reason becaus by Faith is oftentimes meant onely Fundamental points is Sophistical For it is a particularibus and dissimilibus For Faith is neuer taken for anie part of it but when that is some way declared by the speaker or writer Becaus al words are to be meant according to their proprietie and latitude vnles the contrarie be declared els we could not be certaine how words were to be taken Which were to destroie the end of speech and writing Far more testimonies of Fathers might be brought to this purpos but whom these suffice not none wil suffice 3. Reason also conuinceth that al herefie is damnable For it is a sin in a weightie matter to wit against faith Moreouer heresie is a sinful Not beleif or Disbeleif of some diuine truth sufficiently proposed to come from God which is in effect not to beleue God in that truth or to denie Gods veracitie and to giue God See here n. 5. 6. the Lie as Chillingworth speaketh or as Doctor Potter saieth An act of Infidelitie And an act of infidelitie or to giue God the Lie and to denie Gods veracitie is doubtles most damnable And as the same Potter saieth sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great betweene him that is wilfully Note this Sinful ignorance excuseth not froÌ„ heresie or sin See also Chilling c. 7. p. 404. blinde and him that knowingly gainesaieth the truth but knowingly to gaine saie diuine truth is most damnable and a sin against the Holie Ghost Nether is there anie ground in holie Scripture Fathers or Reason to denie al heresie to be damnable But some Protestants denie it merely becaus they cannot denie but that some of their Churches and Brethren culpably hold some heresies whom they are ashamed to confes to be in state of damnation 4. Protestants likewise sometimes confes that al heresie is damnable Luther in Explicat Symboli Tom. 7. fol. 124. No heretik is saued vnles No heretik saued he returne to the Church and in al things think doe and teach the same And l. de Caluin Act. 24. Detestabiles iubet haberi haereticos Spiritus Dei Bezadepun haer p. 21. non potest non esse grauissimuÌ„ haereseos crimeÌ„ see p. 119. See Iuel p. 43. 314. votis Tom. 2. fol. 272. If anie denie Marie to be a Virgin or doe not beleue anie other singular article of faith he is damned King Iames Resp and Peron p. 384. Damneth al who saieth he haue departed from the faith of the Catholik Church and are become heretiks Apologie of the Church of England Heresie is a forsaking of saluation and departure from the bodie and Spirit of Christ Idem we pronounce al them damned who haue a wiked opinion of anie point of Christian Religion French Protestants in their cene I excommunicate al Heretiks Feild Append. p. 23. we doe not admit anie sectaries into the communion of the true Catholik Church White in Preface to his way In questions of faith whosoeuer erreth looseth no les then his soule therby Hooker of iustific Â§ 11. Heresie is heretically mainteined by such as obstinatly hold it after holesome admonition Of thes I make no doubt but their condemnation without an actual repentance is ineuitable Whitaker Praefat in controu One heresie is One heresie damneth sufficient to damnation And controu 2. q. 4. c. 2. No heretiks can be saued And ibid. q. 5. c. 2. we confes that heretiks are to be fled Hooker l. 3. p. 129. Heresies which are not actually repented of exclude quite and cleane from saluatioÌ„ More of the like Confessions of Protestants maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. to which I wil ad the Confessions of late English Writers 5. Doctor Potter sect 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks their condition Condition of heretiks damnable is damnable Sec. 7. p. 74. It is true that whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of whatsoeuer is reuealed is fundamental Scripture is in some sorte fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recoÌ„mended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted Infidelitie to denie anie point sufficiently proposed without infidelitie And p. 110. Where there is no such impediment of incapacitie and the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an heretik and See Andrews cont Apol. Bellar. c. 6. p. 132. heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat. 5. v. 20. p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith Fundamental to faith and saluation and to saluation of euerie Christian member that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is obstinat an heretik and finally such a FundameÌ„tal to saluation to beleue al sufficiently proposed one as excludes himself out of heauen And p. III. 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 Sec. 4. p. 99. Heresie is a greiuous crime where it is true And as Chillingworth saieth in Answer to the Preface p. 8. He giues them only hope of pardon of errors who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to finde the truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not beene so 6. Chillingworth in Answer to To disbeleue what is sufficieÌ„tly proposed is to giue God the Lie the Preface p. 10. and 11. To denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God is to giue God the Lie P. 18. If this proposal be so sufficient as the partie to whom it is made should and but for his own fault would haue been A damnable fault conuinced of the diuine veritie of the doctrin proposed a fault I confes it is and without repentance damnable if al circumstances considered the proposal be sufficient To maie and wil not see truth is damnable See Morton Impo p. 372. P. 19. When God hath interposed his testimonie on one side or other

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 definitioÌ„s 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 sufficieÌ„tly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficieÌ„tly proposed differ substaÌ„tially 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 coÌ„teined 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 coÌ„sequently 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 fundameÌ„tal points of his doctrin as in fuÌ„damental 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

fundameÌ„tal 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 fundameÌ„tals 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 profÃ¨s the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profÃ¨s 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 profÃ¨s 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

nor anie certaine mark to know them But Catholiks who Catholiks know who are of their Church and Protestants not measure not the vnitie of the Church by fundamental points only but by beleif of al points of faith sufficiently proposed to them clearely see who are of the true Church who are not and with whom they maie communicate with whom not 10. Protestants also sometimes Protestants sometimes confes the vnitie of the Church in matters of faith to be entire The Church is one confÃ¨s that the true Church is wholy one and vndeuided in profession of faith For first they saie simply and absolutly that the Church is one So the confession of Auspurg art 7. The Apologie of the Church of England and Protestants generally Also that it is one only So confessio Heluetica One onely c. 17. Belgica art 27. Perkins vpon the Creed art de Eccles Iames Respons ad Peron p. 384. Beza de pun haeret p. 25. Sadeel praefat ad artic Abiurat likewise that the Church is not manie Luther l. contra Papatum Not manie tom 7. p. 461. Christ knoweth not two kinds of vnlike Churches but one only Church Melancton in Hospin parte 2. hist fol. 81. we spake sharply to them in this point that we maruailed with what conscience they Sacramentaries could hold vs for Brethren whom they thought to err in doctrin And fol. 82. Luther spake grauely to them saying he much maruailed how they could haue him for a brother if they thought their doctrin true Caluin 4. instit c. 1. paragr 4. we cannot haue two or three Churches but Christ must be deuided See him Ioan. 10. v. 17. Musculus loco de Eccles sec 2. The true Church of Christ is not manifold but one only And Whitaker controuer 2. q. 1. c. 10. taketh it so il that we should saie They put two Churches as he saieth It is a mere slaunder And ibid. q. 3. c. 3. auoucheth That it is impossible the Church should consist of them who profÃ¨s coÌ„trarie faiths Serauia de gradibus Ministrorum c. 2. The Church is one which cannot be cut The Church can not be deuided or deuided Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 284. T is true There is but one true faith and but one true Church Ib p. 310. It is as necessarie to beleue one God our father as one Church our Mother P. 366. There is but one Baptisme as welas but one Church Sec. 23. p. 147. Christgaue his natural bodie to be rent and torne Elien in Tortura p. 398. Ecclesia vnum corpus vpon the Cros that his mystical bodie might be one Chillingworth in Answer to the preface p. 7. D. Potter tels him His labour is lost in prouing the vnitie of the Catholik Church wherof there is no doubt or controuersie D. Potter sec 2. p. 22. No Protestant denies the Catholik Church to be one Confessio Heluet. c. 17. The Church is not deuided or seuered in itself But how can thos Churches be simply and absolutly saied to be one only one not manie not two or three not deuided which are not one Vnitie in some points is but vnitie secunduÌ„ quid and is true multiplicitie are manie are deuided in profession of points of faith sufficiently proposed Doth not want of vnitie or diuision in profession of such points make want of vnitie or substantial diuision in Churches Why should Luther or Melancthon maruaile that Sacramentaries would account them brethren and yet condemn their doctrin if men holding obstinatly false doctrin maie be brethren of the same Church 11. Moreouer sometimes they Diuision in Religion is a Note of a false Church confÃ¨s that diuision in faith or ReligioÌ„ is a certaine note of a false Church Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu 63. Negatiuely this Note of vnitie hath ful force For if this vnitie in faith be anie waie wanting the true forme of a true Church wil be wanting Alsted l. de Notis Eccles c. 10. Dissention in Religion is a certaine Note of a false and Anti-Christian Church Wesphalus in Caluin in consens de re Sacramentaria p. 756. It is proper to heretiks to disagree to which Caluin Be it so what is that to vs But where is want of vnitie in not fundamental points of faith there is want of vnitie in faith and where there is dissention in Not fundamental points there is dissention in Religion For Not fundamental points are points of faith and Religion as is before proued Therfore L. 2. c. 1. want of vnitie or dissention in them is a certaine signe of a false Church 12. Furthermore sometimes they teach absolutly without making distinction of heresie in fundamental or Not fundamental points that heresie is a departure from the Church and Al heretiks are out of the Church that heretiks are out of the Church Apologie of the Church of England parte 1. Heresie is a departure from the Bodie and Spirit of Christ Whitaker controu 2. qu. 1. cap. 12. No heretiks though secret belong to the Church of God Item An heretik cannot be a member of the Church Ibid. c. 4. That Bellarmin proueth heretiks Apostataes and Schismatiks not to be members of the true Church maketh not against vs. For none of vs euer saied so And q. 5. c. 18. It cannot hold an heretical opinion and yet be a Church And c. 6. It is false that heretical and schismatical Churches are true Churches Morton lib. 1. Apolog. c. 3. Heretiks are not truly but in name only of the Church not indeed but equiuocally Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 26. The true Church is opposit to heretiks and Schismatiks Sutcliff l. 1. de Eccles c. 16. No societie of heretiks doth deserue the name of a Church And yet as we proued before al are heretiks who obstinatly C. 2. l. 2. denie anie point of Christs faith sufficiently proposed Therfore voluntarie breach in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the vnitie of the true Church 13. King Iames also Respons ad The Church wil suffer no light corruption in faith Peron p. 388. Durstone but lightly corrupt the faith approued through the world It was easie for a Child to discouer the new Master by his Noueltie And the Theef of truth being found al the pastors of the whole world if need were were moued and being moued did not rest til they had remoued the il and prouided for the securitie of the sheep of Christ Lo how the Church would not suffer Puritie of doctrin supreme law in the Church anie who euen but lightly corrupted Christs faith And ibid. p. 385. He knowes that the supreame law in the howse of God is puritie of heauenly doctrin And if this be the supreme law in Gods howse none that teacheth impure doctrin is to be suffered in Gods howse 14. And out of that which we haue proued here and before appeareth See c. 2. l. 1. how

opposit to faith Therfore it is infidelitie The Maior is euident and the Minor proued l. 2. c. 4. But infidelitie denieth Christs veracitie ether directly as in thos who profÃ¨s not to beleue in Christ or indirectly as in thos who beleue not what he clearely taught and is sufficiently proposed to them for his doctrin Besids he that denieth some or al the fundamental points of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to him denieth Christs veracitie and hath not sauing faith And why not he also who denieth some or al Not fundamental points of his doctrin sufficiently proposed seeing Christs authoritie as equally testifieth thes as thos Why is not his authoritie equally denied in al points which he equally testifieth What doth the greatnes of the matter ad to the greatnes of Christs authoritie or what doth the smallnes of the matter diminish of his authoritie seeing it is not the greatnes of the matter for which we ought to beleue it but merely Christs authoritie 5. This also is confirmed out of what we related out of the holie Fathers that al who denie anie point of Christs faith sufficiently proposed are heretiks and that al heretiks are no Christians haue no faith but are infidels For surely whosoeuer are no Christians haue no faith and are infidels doe in effect and at the least implicitly and indirectly denie Christs veracitie And Protestants add here to as we shewed before c. 4. that Heretiks are Apostates AntiChrists and Diuels and surely such at least in effect and indirectly denie Christs veracitie Moreouer S. Augustin as we rehearsed before affirmeth that Christ is in name only with anie heretiks And so heretiks profÃ¨s Christ in name only and in effect denie his veracitie 6. And this truth is so manifest as Protestants sometimes confÃ¨s it For thus Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 74. It is true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture VVhat is sufficiently proposed is fundameÌ„tal to faith 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 And it is infidelitie to denie it that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Lo that to denie whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is fundamental to faith so that faith cannot be without beleif of euerie such thing becaus faith cannot be without al that which is fundamental to it And also that it is infidelitie to denie anie such thing and infidelitie denieth diuine veracitie Chillingworth also in Answer to the Preface p. 11. For a man to denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God is to giue God And to giue God the lie the lie And to giue God the lie surely is to denie his veracitie By which is refuted what he saith c. 3. p. 135 without anie the lest dishonor to Gods veracitie I maie doubt of or denie some truth reuealed by him If I nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by him And p. 136. He only in fact affirmes that God doth deceaue or is deceaued who denies some things which himself knowes or beleues to be reuealed by God which he oftentimes repeateth For if to denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God be to giue God the lie he dishonoreth Gods veracitie and in effect affirmes that he doth deceaue or is deceaued who denieth or disbeleueth a point of faith sufficiently presented in his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God though he nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by God For merely to denie or disbeleue a point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding is as he said truly to giue God the lie whether he know or beleue it to be reuealed by God or no. And otherwise affected ignoraÌ„ce that God hath reuealed a point which is sufficiently presented or proposed to our vnderstanding as reuealed by God should be no dishonour to Gods veracitie nor a giuing the lie in effect to him And hence it is euident that albeit onely the principal points of Gods reuealed word be so in the couenant betweene him and men as it is necessarie in al ordinarie course to be actually beleued of al that can so beleue yet Gods whole reuealed word is so included in the same couenant as it is also necessarie to be beleued at least virtually becaus who doth nether actually nor virtually beleue his whole reuealed word doth not beleue him to be the prime veritie or true in al his words And surely they doe nether actually nor virtually beleue al Gods reuealed word who wil not beleue some parte of it when it is sufficiently proposed to them for Gods word 7. And out of al that hitherto I haue said it appeareth I hope sufficiently that to teach that some points of Christian saith are not necessarie to sauing faith to a member of Christs Church and to saluation to be actually beleued when they are sufficiently proposed and virtually and in purpose of minde whether they be proposed or no is damnably to deceaue soules is to excuse manie damnable heresies from damnable sin is to introduce an indifference or libertinisme in Christian Religion for beleuing or not beleuing the most points of Christian faith is to destroie the verie substance and vnitie of Christian faith is to destroie the substance and vnitie of Christs Church and to destroie Gods veracitie to introduce infidelitie the giuing of the lie to God and atheisme Now wil I also shew that to communicate in Sacraments and publik Liturgie with anie such as sinfully err in anie point of Christian faith is damnable and that to defend such communion to be lawful is damnably to deceaue soules THAT COMMVNION in Sacraments vvith anie heretical Church or Church erring sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable NINTH CHAPTER 1. ONE great motiue for Protestants to teach that there are some Not fundamental points of faith in their sense that is not at al necessarie to a true Church is to mainteine their communion in Sacraments and Liturgie with Churches and sinfully erring in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed to them For though perhaps euerie Protestant wil not confÃ¨s himself to err in anie point of faith yet they confÃ©s as we haue seene before lib. 1. c. 2. nu 10. that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith And if they saie thos errors haue not been sufficiently shewed to their Churches they condemn themselues of great negligence of their dutie of want of sufficient zeale of Gods honour and of his truth and of want of charitie to their Churches At least their Churches might be rightly informed if they would and therfore doe err sinfully and vincibly To thes therfore I wil proue that their

Morton in his imposture p. 372. obstinacie of error in teachers affected ignorance and obduration of people c. may be iudged necessarie causes of separation from anie particular Churches And Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 296. He that beleues as that Rom. Church beleues is guiltie of the Schisme which that Church hath caused by her corruptions and of al her damnable opinions to And yet often times he saieth that the Rom. Church hath not erred fundamentally is a true Church in essence and her Religion the same with that of Protestants And Caluin hath diuers treatises in his Opuscules See him also in Ioan. 10. v. 1. for to proue that it is not lawful to communicate with a false Church And al are false Churches which voluntarily err against anie point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed C. 6. as before is proued 6. Hence appeareth that vntruly saied Chillingworth c. 5. p. 281. Nether Anie church voluntarily erring is to be forsaken for sin nor for errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she do not impose and inioine them Which he hath also p. 209. 307. and Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. and Potter sec 2. p. 39 if See c. 2. n. 1. l. 1 and Caluin contversipel p. 357. they meane as doubtles they doe of sinful errors or of errors in matters of faith sufficiently proposed For euerie such Church is a false Church and beside the authorities of Scripture Fathers and confessions of ProtestaÌ„ts before rehearsed the verie remaining in her is a real profession that shee is a true Church and that saluation maie be had in her Which to profÃ©s of a false Church is damnable And hence also appeareth that it is C. 2. nu 10. l. 1. damnable for anie Protestant to communicate with anie Protestant Church becaus they confÃ©s that al their Churches err in some points of faith And they must also confÃ©s that they sinfully err in points sufficiently proposed to them or els condemn themselues especially if they be Ministers of the word of damnable negligence of their dutie towards God and their Churches in not shewing sufficiently to their Churches their errors At least their Churches might be sufficieÌ„tly informed of their errors if they would which is al one as if they were sufficiently informed None can to liue in a Church and not coÌ„municate with her As themselues confessed c. 3. n. 6. 7. Hence also is refuted what Lord Canterburie saieth sec 35. p. 296. It is one thing to liue in a Schismatical Church and not communicate with it in the Schisme or in anie false worship that attends it For so Elias liued among the ten Tribes and was not Schismatical For to liue in a Schismatical Church To liue among Schismatical people is not liue in a Schismatical Church is to liue in a Schismatical communion And Elias liued not in a Schismatical communion but only liued among men that were Schismatical And this error proceedeth of not distinguishing betweene men and a Church One maie liue in companie of men who are Schismatiks but not in a Schismatical Church for that is to liue in a Schismatical societie or communion 8. And thus haue we sufficiently proued that there be no fundamental or not fundamental points of faith in the Protestants sense that is none sufficient alone to sauing faith to constitute a Church or to saluation nor none not necessarie ether actually or virtually to the constitution of a Church to sauing faith and saluation But that this distinction in this sense bringeth in formal heresie destroieth true faith true Church and saluation and is the verie ground of Atheisme denying Gods veracitie and giuing C. 3. n. 5. 6. him the lie euen according to the confession of some Protestants Now we wil shew that this their distinction in their seÌ„se hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks as they pretend it hath That the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in the Protestants sense hath no ground in Scripture Fathers reason or doctrin of Catholiks TENTH CHAPTER 1. DOctor Potter sec 7. p. 70. saieth The distinction betweene doctrins fundamental and not fundamental hath ground in reason and Scripture True but not in his sense His reason is becaus as in humane sciences there be principles and conclusions drawne out of them So in Religion there be degrees of truth For some of it self is the obiect of faith some but by accident or secundarily And it is the common doctrin of Schoolmen and Casuists that there is a certaine measure and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith or by a general and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted This reason indeed proueth that this distinction in some sense is good that some points of faith are more principal then others some more necessarie to be proposed to al then others and simply more necessarie to be actually beleued of al then others about al which there is no controuersie But it doth not proue that there are anie points of faith sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation though others be proposed and not beleued or anie Not necessarie to be actually beleued of al if they be sufficiently proposed to al or not virtually to be beleued of al whether they be sufficiently proposed or no which is al the question Nay it insinuateth clearely that al points of faith are to be VVho hau no virtua or general faith beleued virtually and not to be denied or contradicted and surely they doe not beleue them virtually who denie them when they are sufficiently proposed or are in fault that they are not sufficiently proposed to them Let him shew therfore how Papists or Lutherans whom he accounteth Note this true Churches haue a virtual general or negatiue faith of the Sacramentaries truths and doe not denie or contradict them or els this his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points wil so little help him to defend the saied Churches to be true Churches as it wil rather condemne them and him also for defending them or let him shew how anie who denie or contradict some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them as Papists and Lutherans denie and contradict the points of Caluinists faith so sufficiently proposed to them as Caluinists can propose them haue such a virtual general or negatiue faith wherby they doe not denie or contradict thos points or let him confes that whosouer denie or contradict anie point of faith sufficieÌ„tly proposed haue not so much faith as is sufficient to saluatioÌ„ His ground out of Scripture is becaus saieth he sec 7. p. 76. The dogmatical ground of the Church are thos grand and capital doctrines which make vp our faith in Christ that is that common faith Tit. 1. 4. which is alike

were good would proue more then Protestants commonly do teach For it would proue that true Churches maie err euen in fundamental points which Protestants commonly denie For doubtles such were the aforesaied errors Secondly it is euident out of Saint Paul himself 1. Cor. 15. vers 12. That only some of the CorinthiaÌ„s denied the Resurrection For his words are Some among ye saie there is no Resurrection of the dead And the same Protestants confÃ©s of the Galathians For thus Sadeel Resp ad Arthurum c. 5 There was a Church among the Galathians which is denominated of the better parte Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 18. Some of the Galathians fel from pure faith not al. And. c. 19. The Galathians that failed were no Church Morton l. 2. Apologi c. 39. Not al the Corinthians or Galathians but verie few were drowned in thos errors And as Saint Augustin saieth l. de Anima c. 17. and els where often The holie Scripture vseth signifie by a part the whole and by the whole a part 6. Doctor Potter sec 7. cit p. 79. Catholiks calling the Creed the foundation is not for D. Potters purpos 89. seqq citeth diuers Fathers and Catholikes calling the Creed the foundation But this maketh not to his purpose which is that the Creed alone is essential to a true Church and so sufficient to saluation as nothing See c. 5. n. 2. l. 2. els need be virtually or implicitly beleued or also actually and explicitly if it be sufficiently proposed and in this sense no Catholik calleth How the Creed may be called the foundation the Creed the foundation In other senses the Creed maie wel be called the foundation ether becaus it conteineth al the most principal and most capital articles or becaus al other points of faith depend on it or becaus it must be actually beleued of al nether sufficeth it that it be only virtually beleued Nether wil it follow that the Creed alone is essential or sufficient to a Church becaus it alone is the foundation therof better then it wil follow that the foundation alone is essential or sufficient to a house becaus VVhat is alone the foundation is not alone essential or necessarie it alone is the foundation At most wil follow that it is the cheif essential parte of the Church on which the rest essential parts depend becaus it alone is the foundation which we willingly graunt And vpon such weak foundations as thes depend D. Potters proofes that the Creed alone is essential to the Church And that who beleveth the Creed hath sauing faith is in the true Church and in true waie of saluation though he beleue not or disbeleue other points of faith sufficiently proposed Hence it L. Cant. p. 29. Deductions are necessarie to some but not fundamental appeareth also why as I saied before they rather saie some articles alone are fundamental or the foundation then that some alone are necessarie becaus some articles are in some sense the only foundation of the Church and of saluation but in no Some articles be the foundation but not alone necessarie sense are only necessarie For al poins of faith are two waies necessarie First absolutly necessarie to be virtually and implicitly beleued Secondly conditionally to be beleued also actually if they be sufficiently proposed Thus we haue seene that Doctor Potter hath not so much as anie probable ground much les certaine and infallible as he ought to haue for so weightie a matter for the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in his sense ether in Scripture Fathers reason or Catholiks doctrin Now let vs shew that though we granted him his distinctioÌ„ in his sense yet it would not suffice to mainteine the Protestants Churches for mainteining wherof it was deuised as Rouse confessed sup c. 1. and is most certaine THAT THOVGH THE Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles vvere admitted in their sense it vvould not suffice to their purpose ELEVENTH CHAPTER 1. THat though the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles were admitted euen in their owne seÌ„se yet it would not suffice to their purpose is euident For the cheif end for which they deuised this distinction is their sense was therby to defend that Protestant Churches though they be sinfully deuided in matters of faith yet be true Churches and haue sauing faith and meanes of saluation becaus forsooth they differ but in not fundamental points and such points are no waie essential nor necessarie to a true Church nor to sauing faith or saluation For Lutheran Protestants are deuided from Caluinists not only in not fundamental or not principal points of faith but also in fundamental and principal points nor only in points of faith but also in communion of Liturgie and publik service both which diuisions destroie a true Church 2. That diuision in fundamental points destroieth a Church is the common doctrin of Protestants as is before shewed lib. 1. c. 7. nu 5. 6. 7. Nether can they denie it becaus by fundamental they profÃ©s to vnderstand essential And euident it is that diuision in essential parts destroieth the whole becaus the whole is nothing but al its essential parts ioined together And that Lutherans are deuided from Caluinists in fundamental points both Lutherans and Caluinists profÃ©s 3. For thus Luther disput contra Louanienses Tom. 2. fol. 203. In earnest we iudge to be heretiks and out of the Church of God Zuinglians and al Sacramentaries who denie the bodie Luther condemnes the Sacramentaries and Blood of Christ to be receaued with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist And this sentence he pronounced against the Sacramentaries anno 1545. as Hospinian 2. parte histor writeth in that yeare and died the next yeare 18. Feb. as he testifieth anno 1546. And in anno 1544. he relateth thes words of Luther I who am now neare Luthers glorie before God to condeÌ„ne Sacramentaries my deatb wil carrie with me this testimonie and this glorie to the Tribunal of Iesus Christ that with al my heart I haue damned and auoided the Swarmers enemies of the Sacraments Carolstadius Zuinglius Oecolampadius and their disciples and we stil damn them in Sermons And their lying and blasphemous heresie And tom 7. in defen verb. Cenae fol. 381. he thus speaketh I wil cal God and the whole world to witnes that I do not think with Sacramentaries nor euer did think nor for euer God willing wil think And fol. 382. Cursed for euer be that charitie and concord with He curseth agreement with them Sacramentaries The one partie must needs be set on by the diuel we wil auoid them to the last breath we wil reproue and damn them for Idolaters corrupters of Gods word blasphemers and deceauors And there calleth them masked Diuels who bring in the diuel in steed of God And that he should recal this iudgment of the Sacramentaries before his death is feigned by

by itself nor by anie vndoubted acts therof as the soule of man is visible by her vndoubted vital acts Thirdly becaus if communion in charitie were an essential 3. parte of the visible Church none that want charitie should be true meÌ„bers of the visible Church And so wicked men should be nether of the inuisible nor visible Church Which is contrarie August art 7. 8. Saxon art 12. Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 13. whitak coÌ„t 2. q. 5. c. 3. to the Confessions of faith of Protestants And Chillingworth cap. 5. p. 255. When his Aduersarie had saied That al the meÌ„bers of the visible Church are by charitie vnited into one mystical Bodie replieth thus which is manifestly vntrue for manie of them haue no charitie How then can vnion in charitie be that communion which is essential to the visible Church seing they that want charitie maie be true members of the visible Church who cannot be vnited in charitie which they haue not True it is that who break the coÌ„munion of the Church as Schismatiks doe haue not charitie and charitie hindereth that breach But yet not al that want charitie break communion And one thing it is to want charitie an other to make Schisme in the Church And charitie is lost by Schisme but not only by Schisme Besids what charitie haue 4. Protestants to al the members of the vniuersal Church but such as they must haue to Iewes Turks Infidels and generally to al that are out of the Church that is to praie for them and wish and doe them good A singular coÌ„munion surely with the members of the vniuersal Church which they haue common to al Infidels and men whatsoeuer Is there no communion peculiar to the meÌ„bers of the vniuersal Church which they haue among themselues and one to an other more theÌ„ they haue to Infidels If ProtestaÌ„ts had indeed true charitie ether toward God or the vniuersal Church they would not separate themselues from her communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God For as S. Aug. lib. 1. de Sermone Domini c. 3. If they had charitie they would not teare in peeces the Bodie of Christ which is the Church But they doe external acts against charitie and vainely pretend inward charitie And it is contrarie to charitie both towards themselues and others to forsake the communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God of the vniuersal Church For so as is before shewed they put themselues Protestant inference absurd out of al Churches and become in none And out of al that hath bene saied hitherto of faith and Communion appeareath euidently how fondly Protestants infer themselues or other Churches or persons whom they please to be true Churches or true members of the Church or in the way of saluation onely becaus they beleue al the fundamental points For that is not enough to a true Church or to a true member therof or to the way of saluation But they should add also that they doe not sinfully err in anieother point of faith or in Communion Becaus if they sinfully err in anie point of faith they are Heretiks and if they sinfully err in Communion they are Schismatiks and so no true Churches nor true meÌ„bers of the Church nor in the way of saluation But becaus Protestants despaire to proue that such Churches or persons as they mainteine doe not err sinfully at al in faith or communion they speak not of this and damnably deceaue thos that beleue onely fundameÌ„tal points But now out of that which we haue saied of the Communion of the Church let vs refel the Protestants errors concerning it Protestants errors about communion refuted outof vvhat vvas saied in the former Chapter THIRTEENTH CHAPTER 1. OVt of that which we have saied of Communion are clearly refuted the errors of Protestants touching the same their first and radical error and the foundation of the rest is that * King Iames resp ad Peron p. 384 Communion is not essential to a true Church or to a true member of the Church For Communion is put in the definitions of the Church taken out of Scripture and giuen by Fathers and Protestants themselues and therfore essential to a true Church and to euerie true member of it If anie aske how then can a true meÌ„ber of the Church be without Communion as if he be in a Desert or be by force hindered from Communion I answer that natural or material things cannot be without natural or material existence of euerie essential parte of them But Moral things may haue their partes but morally moral things such as a member of the Church is depending of mans wil maie be when some essential parte is only morally and by effectual wil. And so Communion of a man in a Desert or held by force morally maie be For it is in his wil to be done when he can and ought to communicate and neuer leaueth to be til he haue a wil the contrarie as Schismatiks have And it is essential and sufficient to a true member of the Church when he cannot actually communicate with the Church to profÃ©s to haue this wil to communicate whensoeuer he can and ought 2. An other error of Protestans is that to leave the external communion of the Church is not to leave the Church as one maie leave the custome of the Colledg yet not the Colledg so Chillingworth c. 5. p. 265. 269. For Communion To leaue an essential parte is to leaue the whole is essential to the Church and to leaue an essential parte of a thing is to leave the thing itself wheras the custome of a Colledg is accidental to a Colledg and to leave the accident of a thing is not to leave the thing it self 3. An other error is which D. Potter hath sec 3. p. 74. that they forsake not the Communion of the Church of Rome no more then the Bodie of Christ For to refuse to communicate with her in vse of Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship is to forsake her communion And he that meanes otherwise by Communion speaks a new language as indeed Ã new doctrin needs Ã new language or equivocation to vphold it Wherfore Chillingworth c. 5. p. 261. saieth It needs no proof that Luther and his followers forsook the external communion of the Roman Church 4. An other error which Chillingworth hath c. 5. p. 270. is that the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reforme themselues and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the external communion of the other parts which would not reforme As a man maie renounce a vice of a societie and yet be stil of the Societie And p. 271. It is certainly false that no twoe men or Churches deuided in external communion can be both true parts of the Cath. Church This I saie is easily refuted For to omit that blasphemie that the whole Church can be corrupted whosoever voluÌ„tarily

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 distinctioÌ„ 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. confÃ©s 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 DiffereÌ„ce 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 profÃ©s Christs name what heretiks so euer they be Sometimes al that beleiue the fundameÌ„tal 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 profÃ©s and safest for the ignorants and euen thos who are most obstinat in her members of the Catholik Church The ProtestaÌ„ts 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

charitie to admonish them that they are in a damnable state who Becaus they err damnably See Chilling c. 6. p. 359. err damnably committ an act of Infidelitie and giue God the Lie But al that err against points of faith sufficiently proposed to them do so and the like case is of al who for their fault haue not such points sufficiently Al sinful erraÌ„ts in faith are damnable proposed to them Therfore it is charitie to admonish al who err against points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or who for their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed to theÌ„ that they are in damnable state The Maior is euident and the Minor proued and confessed also by Protestants c. 10. 12. Secondly it is true charitie to admonish alformal heretiks that they Becaus they are true heretiks are in state of damnation But al that beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed are formal heretiks Therfore it is charitie to tel al such that they are in state of damnation The Maior is proued c. 9. and the Minor c. 10. 13. Thirdly it is true charitie to Becaus they destroie faith tel al that destroie true sauing faith and the vnitie therof that they are in state of damnation But al that beleue not fome points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or through their fault haue not them so proposed to them doe so Therfore it is true charitie to tel them that they are in state of damnation The Maior is euident for with out faith it is impossible to please God And the Minor is proued cap. 11. 14. Fourthly it is true charitie to Becaus they destroie the Church tel al such as destroie the nature or substance of Christs true Church that they are in damnable state but al such as beleue not some points of faith sufficieÌ„tly proposed to them or through their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed doe so Therfore c. The Maior is euident and the Minor is proued c. 13. 15. Fiftly it is true charitie to tel al Becaus they destroie the vnitie of the Church See L. Lauda sec 35 p. 284 such as destroie the vnitie of Christs Church that they are in state of damnation But al such as beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or through their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed doe so Therfore it is true charitie to tel al such that they are in state of damnanation The Maior is euident And the Minor is proued c. 14. 16. Sixtly it is true charitie to tel al Becaus they profÃ©s a false Church such as by deeds profÃ©s a fals Church to be a true Church that they are in damnable state But al that communicate in Sacraments or Liturgie with a fals Church doe so Therfore it is true charitie to tel them that they are in a damnable state The Maior and Minor are proued c. 15. 17. Seauenthly it is true charitie to Becaus they put theÌ„selues out of al Churches tel such as put theÌ„selues out of euerie true Church That they are in a damnable state But al such as ether put themselues out of the communion in Sacraments and Liturgie of the whole Church as did Luther and his first followers or doe themselues liue out of that communion as thos doe that yet follow him doe so Therfore it is charitie to tel al such that they are in a damnable state The Maior is euident and the Minor proued c. 18. and 19. 18. Eightly becaus the contrarie doctrin to wit that it is not charitie Abhominable that sinful error in faith is not damnable to warne a man that is in stare of damnation as al are that sinfully erragainst anie point of faith or communion is so abhominable as no Christian I think wil dare to auouch it in plaine and expres termes 19. And that Protestant Churches Protestants Churches sinfully err in points of faith sinfully err against points of faith sufficiently proposed or through their fault haue not them sufficiently proposed is likewise manifest For that al Protestants Churches err in points of faith is confessed by Protestants themselues cap. 2. And that thos points are sufficiently proposed to them or that it is their fault that they are not so proposed is likewise euident Besids the Protestants Church went out of the whole Churches Communion in Sacraments and And in CoÌ„munion Liturgie and began a new Communion of their owne And so is in no Church or is a new Church c. 19. 20. Innumerable more and most euident proofes might be brought that Protestants Churches sinfully err against points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed to them But I wil not goe out of the compas of what hath been saied in this Treatise Who wil see at large the errors of Protestants sufficiently disproued euen by the expres word of God maie read the Collation of the Catholik and Protestant doctrin by the expres word of God Which hath beene twentie yeares agoe published and not yet answered by anie Protestant Which is an euident argument that they can not answer it with anie probabilitie seing they haue no pretense but the word of God FINIS Errata Pag. 43. lin 10. with sauing dele sauing P. 95. lin wherof lege wherfore P. 115. lin 20. the lege to P. 138. lin 8. faict lege faith P. 159. lin 16. be to lege to be P. 210. marg what lege why P. 252. lin 26. after not add beleue not P. 261. lin 14. dele and.

dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholik Sec. 7. p. 74. saieth of Not fundamental points They are disputable in themselues and happily by plaine Scripture indeterminable And sec 6. p. 54. affirmeth that controuersies among VVhitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 8. our contentions are for faith for ReligioÌ„ Protestants are only in disputable opinions not clearly defined in Scripture And yet their Controuersies arc at least in not fundamental points Chillingworth in his preface num 30. The disputes of Protestants about not fundamentals are touching such things Not fundamentals are obscure matters as maie with probabilitie be disputed on both sides and calleth Protestants men of different opinions touching obscure controuersed questions of Religion Nu. 32. Those truths wil be fundamental which are euidently deliuered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to al men Those not fundamental which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure can be necessarie to be vnderstood or not mistaken c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental Not euideÌ„tly deducibleout of Scripture which are therehence out of Scripture deducible but probably not euidently And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points in which Protestants dissent matters not plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture c. 5. p. 306. As for our continuing in their Churches erring not fundamentaly Communion the iustification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beleife and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion And 307. It is not No separation for not fundamental errors lawful to separate from anie Churches Communion for errors not perteining to the substance of faith vnles that Church require the beleif and profession of them Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 147. termeth not fundamental points Disputable doctrin and points of curious speculation and errors in the same light Sec. 25. p. 165. Curious truths Sec. 38. p. 361. opinions which flutter about faith Curious truths And sec 38. p. 357. he affirmeth that in not fundamentals Nether general Councels nor the whole Church hath infallible certaintie And ibid. p. 358. No infallibilitie in not fundameÌ„tal points That in them it is no matter if Councels err And ibid. It it not requisite that for them we should haue an infallible assurance And sec 32. p. 226. when they know it the error if the error of a general Councel be not manifestly against fundamental veritie I would haue al wise men consider whither external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded So that obedience may be External obedience to known error in not fuÌ„dameÌ„tals yeelded against not fundamental veritie And sec 26. p. 205. Bihops subiect to Kings in spiritual causes too so the foundations of faith and manners be not shaken 4. Thirdly they teach that not fundamentals points are no points of faith This followeth euidently out of what we euen now related For if they be but opinions obscure and doubtful matters wherof we can haue no infallible certaintie or assurance not clearely defined in scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture they cannot saie they are points of faith vnles they wil turne faith into opinion and make that a point of faith which nether is clearely defined in Scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture But besids this some times they expresly teach that not fundamentals are no points of faith Not fundamentals no points of faith or of Religion Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 40. calleth not fundamental points Things beside or without the faith Sec. 5. p. 89. How Christ is in the Symbols and how in heauen and earth is no parte of faith Sec. 6. p. 54. Our Protestant Controuersies are none of them in the substance of faith but only in disputable opinions Lord Canterburie sec 39. p. 387. Superstructures are doctrins about the faith not the faith itselfe vnles they be immediat consequences And p. 388. Suppose vncertaintie in some of thes superstructures it can neuer be thence concluded that there is no infallible certaintie of the faith itself p. 341. This Athanasius Creed and the Apostles and no more is the Catholik faith Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals opinions which flutter about faith And p. 376. saieth Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion For the Christian Religion is the same to both And yet these Churches Not fundameÌ„tals make not differeÌ„ce in Religion differ at least in not fundamental points and so Not-fundamental points are no points of Religion Chillingworth c. 3. p. 129. But you Papists are al agreed that only those things wherin you doe agree are matters Not matters of faith in which Protestants differ of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seing al of them agree with explicit faith in al thos things which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus Consubstantiation vbiquitie and such are not matters of faith And in answer to the preface when his aduersarie had saied That men of different Religions as Papists and Protestants maie be saued is a ground of atheisme he wil not admit Papists and Protestants to be men of different Religions but saieth p. 14. By men of different Religions he must meane Christians of diuers opinions and communions or els he DiffereÌ„ce in not fundamentals should not hinder communion speaketh not to the point And c. 4. p. 209. The diuersitie of opinions which is among the seueral sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their vnitie in communion So that the seueral sects of Christians differ but in opinions and yet doubtles they differ in not Optatus l. 2. vbi vultis ibi est Ecclesia non est vbi non vultis fundamentals Lord Canterburie also sec 39. p. 376. Potter sec 3. p. 58. White in Defens of his way c. 38. and others say that the Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same and yet grant that they differ in not fundamental points Whence it must needs follow that not fundamental points are no points of Religion For if they be points of Religion who differ in them differ in Religion 5. Fourthly they teach that no opposition to not fundameÌ„tal points Error in not Fundamentals is not heresie is true heresie as we shewed before c. 2. and it followeth out of what euen now we rehearsed For if not fundamental points be no points of faith opposition to them cannot be heresie For heresie is an error against faith And as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 26. p. 198. Heresie properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith 6. Lastly Protestants not content to teach that not fundamental points Not fundamentals are matters of nothing are but opinions no points of faith doubtful matters and such like sometimes speak contemptuously of them as if they were

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 FundameÌ„tal 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 fundameÌ„tals For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds conteining the FundameÌ„tals of Christianitie The Creed as it is explained is a sufficieÌ„t Catalogue of Fundamentals This is Doctor Potters assertioÌ„ 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

P. 285. 314. 316. IgnoraÌ„ts in the Roman Church are safe Ignorant soules in her are safe yea safest 4. D. Potter sec 5. p. 21. The faith of the Church cannot be totally corrupted Faith of the Churc maie be partly corrupted in the essentials in the essentials of it or abolished yet maie it be fowly infected Which insinuateth that it can be partly corrupted in the essentials and fowly infected in some of them And p. 20. The Church maie err and dangerously too And as we shewed in former Chapter n. 5. he affirmeth that the Roman Church erreth in the foundation and neuertheles saieth sec 1. p. 11. we yeeld her a member of the Catholik Church Sec. 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledg her a member of the bodie of Christ and Propertie of Schismatiks this cleares vs from the imputation of schisme whose propertie it is to cut of from the bodie of Christ and hope of saluation the Church from which it separates p. 58. Protestants reformation did not change the substance of Religion Ibid. The vital partes kept out the poison p. 62. Protestants yeeld them the name and substance of a Christian Church And p. 78. we beleue their Religion a safe waie to some such as beleue as they profes And p 81. we were neuer disioined from her in thos main essential truthes which giue the name and essence of a Church Chillingworth also as is before shewed c. 6. n. 5. auoucheth that the Roman A true Chu maie fal into substantial corruptions Church wanteth something fundamental to saluation is fallen into substantial corruptions and c. 5. p. 256. 283. Is guitie of Idolatrie and impietie And neuertheles c. 2. p. 85. She is a parte of the Catholik Church p. 88. Is a parte of the present Church c 7. p. 401. Not cut from the bodie of Christ c. 5. p. 284. A member of the bodie of Christ Thus plainly doe they sometimes teach that a true Church in substance and essence a parte of the Catholik Church a member of Christ can err in fundamental points namely in impietie idolatrie turning to an other Ghospel and denial of the Resurrection of the Dead And the same must al other Sic Morton Appeale l 4. c. 1. sect 5. Protestants saie who teach that the doctrin and worship commonly professed and practized in the Roman Church is idolatrous and antichristian and yet saie that ignorant Papists are in the Church and may be saued And thus they teach when they wil mainteine some Church which they confes to err in some fundamental points as the Caluinists affirme that the Lutherans doe For as Luther lib. de Captiu fol. 64. Zuinglius lib. de Relig. c. de Euchar. Melancthon in Protestants accoÌ„modate their doctrin to times Hospin parte 2. fol. 90. and others confes they accommodate their doctrins to times and occasions 5. But at other times they teach The Church cannot err in anie fundamental point that a true Church remaining a true Church can not err in anie fundamental point Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 17. If anie fundamental point be taken awaie the Church presently falleth And c. 18. If anie fundamental principle of faith be ouerthrown or shaken it can be no more truly called a Church Ibid. Articles are called fundamental becaus our faith relieth vpon them as a house doth vpon the foundation The same saie manie other Protestants as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protest c. 1. nu 5. to whom I wil ad some later writers Lord Canterburie sec 37. p. 319. If it denie this foundation it cannot remaine a differing Church sed transit in non Ecclesiam but passes awaie into no Church The like he saieth sec 2. p. 162. and sec 33. p. 240. of the whole Church 6. Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 17. The whole militant Church can not possibly err in anie necessarie point of faith p. 18. A true Church is al one with a Church not erring in the foundation Sec. 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik doctrins as principally and essentially FundameÌ„tal is Essential perteine to the faith such as properly coÌ„stitute a Church And no Church can be without that which essentially perteineth to faith and doth constitute a Church And sec 5. p. 16. and 21 and sec 6 p. 66. maketh fundamental and essential al one 7 Likewise Chillingworth c. 3. p. Not fundamental not essential 140. saieth Not fundamental id est No essential parts of Christianitie c. 2. p. 105. To saie that the Church whiles it is CoÌ„tradictioÌ„ to saie the true Church can err in fundamentals the true Church maie err in fundamentals implies contradiction and is alone to saie The Church whiles it is the Church maie not be the Church c. 3. p. 131. If they Protestants differ in points fundamental they are not members of the same Church one with an other Ibid. p. 177. That the true Church alwaies shal be the mainteiner and teacher of al necessarie truth yee know we graunt and must graunt For it is of the essence of the Essence of the Church to maintaine fundamentals Church to be so And anie companie of men were no more a Church without it then anie thing can be a man and not be reasonable Item p. 162. To the verie being of a Church it is repugnant that it should err in fundamentals For if it should do so it would want the verie essence of a Church And c. 5. p. 291. A Church remaining a Church cannot fall into fundamental error becaus when it does so it is no longer a Church And thus haue we seene the miserable vncertaintie of Protestants what a fundamental point is and also what a not-fundamental point is Which are fundamental points which are not-fundamental points And whether a true Church remaining a true Church can err in fundemental points or no. And yet vpon this vncertaintie do they build their maintening of Churches that err in points of faith their hope of saluation in them and their Communion with them and their separation from the Roman Church But now leauing their vncertainties let vs set down some certaintie and first that there are true points of faith besids the principal or capital articles which are thos which Protestants cal fundamental End of the first Booke THE SECOND BOOKE THAT THERE BE TRVE points of faith besids the principal or capital Articles FIRST CHAPTER 1. IN the fift Chapter of the former booke we shewed how Protestants sometimes to wit when they wil mainteine Churches erring sinfully in Not-fundamental points or saluation in them their communion with them affirme that Not-fundamental points are no points of faith that opposition against them is no heresie and for which there should be no separation in communion that denial of them destroieth nether sauing faith Church nor saluation Al which God willing we shal refute hereafter But first we wil shew

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 fuÌ„damentals 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 consequeÌ„tly 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 saluatioÌ„ 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 fundameÌ„tal 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 coÌ„trouersie 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

Catholik is opposit to Heretiks Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 7. Ether we must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must denie theÌ„ the name of Christians And surely who are no Christians but Anti-Christs diuels infidels and Apostataes and opposit to Catholiks haue not sauing faith And though Estius in primaÌ„ Ioan. 4. and 3. distinst 23. paragr 13. think that what truth heretiks beleue they beleue it with The questioÌ„ is of sauing faith diuine faith yet he denieth that their faith is Catholik or simply faith becaus it is not entire faith nor euer said that it is a sauing faith as Protestants saie and is the main question betweene vs and them 2. Secondly I proue it out of Heretiks make shipwrack of faith Scripture 1. Timoth. 1. v. 20. where certaine heretiks are saied to haue made Shipwrack of faith And c. 4. v. 1. In the latter daies some shal depart from faith harkning to spirits of error and doctrins of Diuels And Epist 2. c. 2. v. 18. he saieth of other heretiks They haue fallen from truth and ouerturned the faith of some But who haue made Shipwrack of faith haue departed from faith haue fallen from truth and whos faith is ouerturned haue not sauing faith 3. Thirdly I proue that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently Formal obiect of faith is diuine reuelatioÌ„ sufficieÌ„tly proposed proposed destroieth true sauing faith becaus it destroieth the true formal obiect of diuine faith For the formal obiect of diuine faith is whole diuine truth reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 1. that it is from God But voluntarie error against diuine truth reuealed and sufficiently proposed taketh awaie this formal obiect Therfore it taketh awaie diuine faith For what taketh awaie the formal obiect of anie habit or power taketh awaie the habit itself The Minor is euident The Maior also is cleare For what other can be saied to be the formal obiect of faith And it is confessed by Protestants For thus Lord Canterburie sec See Vsher Serm. before K. Iames p. 39 Morton Appeal l. 1. c. 1. see 1. 38. p. 344. we beleue them for the same formal reason in al namely becaus they are reuealed from and by God and sufficieÌ„tly applied in his word and by the Churches ministration And Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 3. The formal obiect of faith is diuine reuelation The same he hath p. 8. and 10. And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. Faith is an assent to diuine reuelation vpon the authoritie of the reuealer And hereupon the same Chillingworth p. 23. saieth He that doth not beleue al the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted He that beleueth not al Scripture truly beleueth none books of Scripture can hardly beleue anie nether haue we reason to beleue he doth so And the same I say of vndoubted points of Christs doctrin 4. Fourthly I proue that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true-sauing faith becaus it destroieth the true vnitie therof For true diuine faith is wholy one and the same in al true Beleuers But who sinfully beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed which others beleue haue not wholy one and the same faith Therefore c. The Minor is euident The Maior I proue out of Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Scripture saieth that faith is wholy one Protestants The Scripture Ephes 4. saieth One God one Faith one Baptisme Where not only faith is saied to be one but also it is saied to be one as God and baptisme are which are wholy one And this same proue al L. CaÌ„t. p. 36. whatsoever is fundameÌ„tal in the faith is fuÌ„damental to the Church which is one by the vnitie of faith thos places of Scripture which teach that the Church is one which hereafter we shal cite For seeing the profession of faith is part of the forme of the Church she could not be wholy one if her forme were not altogether one 5. The Fathers also teach the same Likwise Fathers For thus-Saint Ireneus l. 1. c. 4. She who is the vniuersal Church hath one and the same faith in al the world Saint Cyprian l. de vnitate God is one and Christ is one and his Church is one and faith is one vnitie cannot be deuided nor one See s. Chrystom in Gal. 1. to 4. col 812. Bodie separated by disunion of the ioints Saint Hilarie l. 11. de Trinitate Who doubteth but it is beside faith which is beside one faith And lib. contra Constantium What is beside one faith is not faith but persidiousnes Saint Optatus Vna sides ab haereticoruÌ„ erroribus separatur l. 5. If you giue an other faith giue also an other God Saint Leo serm 4 de Natiuitate If it be not one it is not faith And thes Fathers saie simply ad absolutely that faith is one without anie restriction to fundameÌ„tal points And it is both voluntarie and Sophistical to limit that to a parte which is spoken absolutly when the speaker giues no occasion of such limitation Reason also coÌ„uinceth that faith is wholy one in euery true beleuer For as we saied before the formal obiect of true N. 3. faith is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed but this is wholy one and the same in al beleuers and consequently also faith which as al other habits taketh its vnitie and distinction from its formal obiect 6. Protestants also sometimes confÃ¨s And Protestants also that faith is wholy and entirely one and vndeuided Luther in caput 7. Math. Tom. 5. fol. 74. Faith must be round that is in al articles beleuing Faith beleues little matters howsoeuer litle matters For who doth not rightly beleue one article doth not rightly beleue in al as Saint I ames saieth who offendeth in one is made guiltie of al. And in tria Symbola Tom. 7. fol. 141. Christian faith must be entire and perfect Entire euerie waye euerie waie For albeit it maie be weak and faint yet must it needs be entire and true In caput 7. Deutron tom 3. fol. 56. Faith suffereth nothing and the word beareth with nothing but the word must be perfectly pure and the doctrin alwaies wholy Holsome And tom 1. German Epist ad Albertum He doth not satiffie if in other things he confes Christ and his word For who denieth Christ in one article or word denieth him in al seing there is one only Christ the same in al his words Wittenbergenses in Refutat Orthodoxi Consensus p. 73. As he who keepeth al the Law but offendeth in one is witnes Saint I ames guiltie of al So who beleueth not one word of Christ though he seeme to beleue the other articles of the Creed yet beleueth nothing and is damned as incredulous Scusselburg l. 1. Theolog. Caluin art 1. Most truly wrote Saint Chrysostom in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole

consisteth only in certaine principal articles And if the essence of faith consist not in them only nether doth the vnitie of it consist in them only but whosoeuer are deuided in anie points of faith sufficiently proposed are deuided in the verie substance and substantial vnitie of faith And sith the substance of faith is but one the one of the parties deuided hath no true sauing faith 4. Their second error is That as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same Potter sec 3. p. 58. Reformation did not change the substance of Religion So also white Defens c. 38. The substaÌ„ce of Rom. Religion different from the substaÌ„ce of Protestants For the substance of the Roman ReligioÌ„ as of al true Christian Religion is profession of al Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to vs and essentially includeth Romish doctrin as is euident by that Epitheton Roman See sup n. 2. Perkins Gal s. v. 9. Politicus qui nullius est Religionis dicit nos Pontificias non differre in substaÌ„tia And the substance of the Protestant Religion are only certaine principal articles of his doctrin Therfore the substance of both of them is not the same Besids who differ in not fundamentals sufficieÌ„tly proposed differ in some essential point of faith becaus as is now rehearsed out of ProtestaÌ„ts such points are fundamental to faith and haue the formal obiect of faith which is diuine reuelation But the Roman and Protestant Religion differ at least in Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed Therfore they differ in some essential points and in some formal obiect of faith and consequently are not the same And this Lord Canterburie seemeth to confes when p. 125. he saieth The time was that you and we were al of one beleef As if now we were not And p. 285. There are no meane differences that are beetweene vs. 5. The third error is that they haue not left the Church of Rome in her essence as speaketh Lord Canterburie The essence of the Rom and Protest Church is different sec 25. p. 192. Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. 66. and others commonly For sith they haue left the Church of Rome in profession of some not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they haue left her in her essence becaus her essence includeth al points of faith sufficiently proposed And therefore who leaueth the Church of Rome in profession of some points of faith sufficiently proposed leaueth her in her essence Besids Protestants saie as is related l. 1. c. 6. num 5. That the Church of Rome erreth in fundamental points holdeth errors of themselues damnable hath corrupted faith in the principal points is fallen into substantial corruptions How then can they saie They haue not left her in her essence Since they saie That she herself hath not the essence of the Church Moreouer seeing the Protestant Church differeth Protest and Ro. Church differ in al the formal partes of a Church from the Roman in al the formal essential parts of a Church to wit in profession of faith and that in great matters as in sacrifice Sacraments parte of Gods written word and such like and in communion of Sacraments and finally in officers of the Church or ministers of the word and Sacraments how can they think that their Church differeth not in essence from ours or that they haue not left our Church in her essence hauing left her in al her formal parts Finally they haue left her in her communion of Sacraments which is an essential part of her 6. Their fourth error is that Chillingw p. 273. 132. L. Cant. p. 192. they haue not left the Church of Rome but only her corruptioÌ„s For thos points are essential points of the Church of Rome and held of her as such becaus they are part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed to her 7. Their fift error is that they haue Potter sec 1. p. 7. not left the Church of Rome anie farther then she hath left herself to wit in some Change in faith is not reformation but a new formation of the Church points of faith For if she had sinfully left herself in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed she had left her owne essence and so had destroied herself And so Protestants must haue left her altogether as she had left herself altogether in destroing herself by going from some points of faith sufficiently proposed to her 8. Their sixt error is that there are some things which separate from the Church in parte only and not simply as saieth Lord Canterburie sec 10. p. VVhat separates froÌ„ the Church in part separates simply 26. For if he meane as he doth of points of faith sufficiently proposed nothing can separate from the Church in part but it separateth simply Becaus as is often saied euerie such point is of the essence of the Church separates simply from her For as Aristotle wel saieth the essences of things consist in indiuisibili and are like numbers which are changed by anie addition or substraction whatsoeuer And it is the whole word of God whose profession is of the essence of the true Church and therfore who separates from a true Church in profession of anie part of Gods word separates from her simply VVho separates from a part of gods word separates wholy from his Church And one thing it is to separate simply or in part from the word of God an other to separate simply or in part from the true Church of God Heretiks separate not simply from the word of God becaus they beleiue some part of it But they separate themselues simply from the true Church of God of whos essence it is to profÃ¨s the whole reuealed word of God And Heretiks separating from profession of the whole word of God separate from this essence of the Church of God and consequently separate simply from her For to separate from her essence is to separate from her simply 9. But al thes points wil be yet more cleare by what we shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God And both by what we haue saied of the essence and vnitie of true sauing faith and shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God it wil easily appeare to be true what Aristotle saieth that A true definition solues al difficulties out of a true definition al difficulties maie be solued which arise about the thing defined For if ProtestaÌ„ts would constantly agree with us as sometimes See sup c. 3. n. 5. 6. being conuicted by euidencie of truth they doe that true sauing faith is essentially beleif of al Gods what is true diuine faith reuealed word sufficiently proposed they would neuer denie but al and euerie part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed is essential to sauing faith and denial of anie part of such word of God is denial of sauing faith

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 profÃ¨s 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 profÃ¨s al his doctrin Becaus if it doe no waie profÃ©s 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 profÃ¨s 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. Â§. 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. Â§ 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 profÃ¨s 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 profÃ¨s 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 profÃ¨s 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

true Church as perseuerance in the doctrin of the Apostles is And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper and publik praiers And saieth we must be such if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the CorinthiaÌ„s and one saied he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas The Apostle reprouing them faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided As if it should follow that Christ were deuided if his mystical Bodie the Church were deuided Besids al the places of Scripture C. 7 nu 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue that the Church of Christ is absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments For such a deuided Church is not absolutly one but in parte or in some sort only The same also is euident out of our Creed where we profÃ©s to beleue the Catholik Church the coÌ„munioÌ„ of Saints Where communion of Saints is ether an explication of Cath. Church as * Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 3. Confessio Scotica art 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Kemnit loc de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach or a thing necessarily required to it For it makes no distinct article 3. The Fathers also as Moulins confessed * c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before by the Church vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such coÌ„munion as is opposit to Scismatiks Churches orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in communion and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks So that they make vnion in communion which excludeth Schismatiks who are deuided in coÌ„munion as essential a part of the Church of which they meane as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith which excludeth heretiks And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola coÌ„munione litigant See him 4. coÌ„t Crescon c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers that they exclude as wel Schismatiks out of the Church who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments as heretiks who want soundnes in faith And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth Men cannot s. August puts coÌ„munion in Sacraments of the essence of Religion be ioined into anie name of Religion true or false vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments So that there can be nether true nor false Religion without communion in Sacraments And epist 118. saieth God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments 4. Reason also conuinceth that Reason also coÌ„munion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the true Church of Christ For his Church is Confessio Anglicaart 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVittenbergica c. de Eccles a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments as al men conceaue and define And it implieth contradiction that there should be a Societie without coÌ„munion in matters essentially belonging to the societie as SacrameÌ„ts belong to Christs Church For if there be no communion in vse of Sacraments there is no societie in vse of Sacraments And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments no Church For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments And Protestants who profÃ©s to giue none but essential Notes of the Church giue right vse of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments are deuided in an essential parte and consequently essentially Moreouer without communion 2. in Sacraments and publik VVithout communion the Church differs not from schismatiks worship of God the Church should not differ essentially from a Schismatical Church And it implieth contradiction that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church Furthermore 3. vse of Sacraments and publik worship of God was the external end for which the Church was instituted and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end Besids the 4. true Church is the mystical Bodie of Christ and therfore as al the members of a natural bodie communicate one with an other so must the members of the true Church Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion Therfore a Church so deuided is no Church of Christs institution Finally al the arguments 6. wherwith before we proued the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God For a Church so deuided in not simply one 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants For Confessio Protestants confÃ©s that the Church is a societie in Sacraments Argentinensis c. 12. saieth God would haue his to haue external societie together for which cause he gaue them Sacraments Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper that we remember of what bodie we be members and therfore agree with al brethren Mulhusina art 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church to testifie faith and fraternal charitie Consensus Poloniae The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist to be the band of publik congregation and the band of mutual charitie among the members So Potter sec 7. p. 98. of the Church Caluin 4. instit c. 1. Caluin in Ioan. 9. PessimuÌ„ in Ecclesia maxime noxium maluÌ„ est schisma Â§ 7. The Church by participation of the Supper doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie See him also ibid. Â§ 8. Whitaker also controuer 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church giuen by Bellarm. thus far Protestants put communion in Sacraments in definition of the Church The Church is a companie of men ioint together in profession of the same faith and communion of SacrameÌ„ts vnder lawful Pastors Where coÌ„iunction in Communion of Sacraments is put as an essential parte of the Church And VVhere is not lawful vse of Sacraments the Church is not ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church So as where they are not the Church is not Moulins lib. 1. contra PeroÌ„ c. 26. That is the true Church which is ioined together by profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments And cap. 25. The question which is the true Church is touching the entire bodie The questioÌ„ about the Church is about the entire bodie Orthodox and ioint in communion of the Orthodox Church ioint in

Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Text snippets containing the quad