Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	communion_n	external_a	forsake_v	5,198	5	10.0415	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

Communion we ask by what external Notes we maie discerne this Church Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. cap. 12. num 132. To the true Church twoe things only are required to wit entire faith in Christ and communion with al faithful that profes this faith Confession of Auspurg art 7. To the true vnitie of the Church it is enough to consent in the doctrin of the Ghospel and ministration of Sacraments Sadeel cont Tur. loc 30. True vse of Vse of Sacraments is essential Sacraments is essential to the Church Caluin 4. iustit c. 1. Â§ 2. Vnles vnder Christ our Head we be vnited to al the other members we can haue no hope of heauen There cannot be twoe or three Churches but Christ must be deuided And Â§ 10. Ib. departure from the Church is denial of God and Christ God so much esteemeth the communion of his Church as he accounteth him a Renegate and Forsaker of his Religion who obstinatly separateth himself from anie Christian societie which hath the true ministerie of the word and Sacraments See him also in Ioa 9. Plessie de Eccl. c. 1. We coÌ„fÃ©s in the Creed that the Church is the CoÌ„munion The Church of the Creed is a communion of Saints So also Confessio Heluetica c. 17. Mulhusina art 5. Argetinensis c. 15. How then can the Church which we profÃ©s in our Creed be without Communion King Iames Resp ad Peron p. 384. Damneth and detesteth thos who haue left the Communion of the See Iunius in sub Ecclesiastico c. 4. Church and become Schismatiks Casaubon exercitat 15. It is an vndoubted truth that whiles pious people adhere to a lawful and true Bishop that is a true Church of God So that if anie separate himself from that companie it cannot be doubted but he is out of the Church D. Potter sec 3. p. 74. Whosoeuer professeth himself to forsake the communion of anie one member of the bodie of Christ must confÃ©s himself consequently to forsake the whole Musculus loco de Eccles sec 3. The Church is a CoÌ„munion of beleuers The true Church is a Communion and societie of true beleuers Perkins in explicat Symboli col 794. As long as anie Church goeth not from Christ we maie not separate from it The same he hath in his Reformed Catholik tract 21. And Protestants commonly who exclude Protestants exclude schismatiks who want but communion Schismatiks out of the Church as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and yet confÃ©s they want nothing but communion as is to be seene ibidem lib. 2. cap. 15. I wil here ad the Confession of D. Potter sec 2. p. 42. Schisme is no les damnable Schisme as damnable as heresie then heresie P. 47. Voluntarie and vngrounded separation from the Catholik Communion is without doubt Ã damnable schisme And p. 56. Whosoeuer peruersly deuides himself from the Catholik Communion as doe Schismatiks his condition is damnable Finally Whitaker controuer 2. qu. 5. c. 17. p 541. saieth Almost al our men put thes twoe Notes of the Church to wit pure preaching of the word and lawful administration of SacrameÌ„ts And thes twoe we affirme to be true Lawful vse of sacraments is essential and certaine Notes of the Church and essential and perpetual Symboles of the Church And if lawful ministration of Sacraments be a true and essential Symbol of the Church how can Churches be deuided in ministration of Sacraments and not be deuided in an essential parte 6. Hence it is euident that the Protestant Church which is deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God not only in itself but also from al other Churches which they account true Churches is no such Church as Scripture Fathers Reason and themselues sometimes propose vnto vs. Nether wil it help which Doctor Potter saieth sec 3. p. 67. and sec 1. p. 19. and Chillingworth c. 5. p. 274. That they are vnited to al members of the vniuersal Church in faith and charitie For to omit that Protestants cannot pretend vnion in faith with al members of the vniuersal Church but only vnion in parte of faith becaus they pretend vnion only in fundamental Vnion in charitie is not the essential vnion of the Church points which are but a parte of faith Vnion in charitie cannot be that vnion which the Scripture and Fathers put in the descriptions of the Church For the * CoÌ„munioÌ„ in Scripture is in Sacraments and praier also by Fathers Scripture speaketh of vnion in Sacraments and praier The * sup n. 2. sup n. 3. Fathers speak of such a vnion as is opposit to schisme which is breach in communion of Sacraments and publik worship And Saint Augustin expresly speaketh of vnion in Sacraments which he saieth is necessarie to anie kinde of Religion true or false and also of vnion in praier For thus * CoÌ„cion de Gestis cum Emerito he speaketh to a Schismatik Doe not saie I haue charitie proue it we haue one Father let vs praie together Besids Protestants themselues put the communion of the Church in external And by Protestants things Confessio Heluetica cap. 17. The true concord of the Church consisteth in doctrins and rites expresly giuen by God Whereby Rites they vnderstand CoÌ„munioÌ„ of the Church is in sacraments and Luturgie Sacraments King Iames Respon ad Peron pag. 403. Communion among the faithful cheifly consisteth in publik exercises of pietie And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 265. To leaue the external communion of a Church is by refusing to communicate with anie Church in her Liturgie and publik worship of God Field lib. 1. c. 15. The communion of the Church consisteth in praiers and dispensation of Sacraments And l. 2. c. 2. saieth communion in sacraments is essential to the Church So also ibid. c. 4. and Hooker lib. 3. p. 130. The communion therfore which is essential to the visible Church is in rites or Sacraments publik exercises of pietie Liturgie and publik worship of God Nether euer yet did anie Protestant define the visible Church to be a societie in profession of faith and communion of charitie which they both would and must haue done if they had thought coÌ„munion in charitie to be an essential parte of the visible Church CoÌ„munion in charitie cannot be essential for a Church 7. But indeed it cannot be essential to a visible Church First becaus it is no waie proued but merely affirmed by reason that Protestants can pretend 1. no other communion with the vniuersal Church For it is euident See c. 13. n 5. l. 2. they haue no communion with her in Sacraments and publik worship of God Secondly becaus the essential 2. parts of the visible Church must be visible as profession of faith is otherwise not the external Church itself self but only some parte of it should be visible And communion in charitie is nether visible

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

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

wholy 10. Nether helpeth it which Chillingworth saieth c. 5. p. 274. and 295. Though the whole Church were corrupted yet Luther and his Followers forsook not the whole corrupted Church or the external Luther and his fellowes forsook their owne coÌ„munion which they had with the whole Church communion of it but only forsook that parte which was corrupted and stil would be so but forsook not themselues and their owne communion For though Luther and his followers forsook not themselues yet they forsook their communion which they had with the whole Church in her Sacraments Liturgie and publik seruice and insteed of that began a new communion among themselues in an other Liturgie For they ioined not themselues in communion to anie Church pre-existent in her Liturgie and publik seruice and so they forsooke the communion And began a new communton of the whole visible Church euen their owne communion which before they had with her and therby ceased to be anie formal parte of the whole preexisteÌ„t Church becaus they wholy leaft her communion in Sacraments and Liturgie which was essential to her and began a new Church as they began wholy a new communion in new vse of Sacraments in a new Liturgie and new publik seruice Howsoeuer therfore Chillingworth c. 6. p. 334. and D. Potter saie sec 3. p. 58. Protestants neuer intended to erect a VVho inteÌ„d new communion intend a new Church new Church seing they intended to erect a new coÌ„munion in Sacraments and publik worship of God they intended to erect a new Church Nether is the example of some leauing the disease of a Societie and yet not the Societie itself to the purpose For a disease is an accident to a Societie but communion in Sacraments is essential to a Church becaus she is a Societie in vse of Sacraments Liturgie and publik seruice of Christ And therfore this communion being leaft the Societie itself is leaft 11. Perhaps some maie saie that To communicate in Sacraments is more then to vse common Sacraments Luther and his Followers leaft not the communion of the whole Church in Sacraments becaus he retained the same Sacraments which the whole Church had But besids that Luther retained no Sacrament which the whole Church had beside baptisme and so had not Sacraments but only one Sacrament coÌ„mon with the whole Church It is one thing to haue some Sacraments common with the whole Church which Schismatiks haue and an other to haue communion in Sacraments which Schismatiks haue not nor Luther had For he did not participate with the whole Church in Sacraments As anie maie eate the same meate which an other doth and yet not dine or sup with him So Luther might receaue the same Sacraments which the whole Church did yet not communicate with the whole Church in Sacraments 12. By what hath been saied we Protestants errors rise of ignorance of the definitions maie see that thes and the like errors shew wel that Protestants are of the number of thos whom the Apostle saieth know not what they speak of For if they knew what true sauing faith is They would neuer saie The essence of it consisteth only in beleif of some principal points or the vnitie of it in vnitie only of such points or if they knew what a true Church is they would neuer saie that some principal points only constitute the essence of it or that the substantial vnitie of the Church consisteth onely in vnitie of such points nor would they compare integritie in faith or in communion to health and defect in faith or in communion to diseases or vice nor saie that they haue communion with al Catholiks in the world becaus they haue as they saie loue or charitie to them al nor saie that thos can be of the same Church who communicate not in vse of Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God For al thes errors and the like rise of their not knowing or not marking what is true sauing faith what is a true Christian Church what is true Christian Communion as is euident by what hath been saied and proued If they would coÌ„stantly agree with vs in the definitions of sauing faith true Church and her communion giuen by the Scripture Fathers and by themselues sometimes and confirmed by reason thes errors of theirs about fundamental and Not fundameÌ„tal points about the essence and vnitie of true sauing faith and about the true Christian Church and her communion would presently vanish And if they wil mainteine thes errors they must needs reiect the definitions of true sauing faith true Church and her communion giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants must make new definitions and so change the question themselues sometimes and giue new definitions and confÃ©s that they dispute not with vs of such a faith Church or communion as Scripture Fathers and themselues sometimes propose but of an other faith Church and communion of which nether Scripture nor Fathers euer dreamed described or proposed to vs but is inuented by themselues And if they wil confÃ©s this I wil not dispute with them whether there be anie fundamental or Not fundamental articles to such a faith or Church or whether in ward charitie wil suffice to such a communion as they haue deuised different from the faith Church and communion described by Scripture and Fathers and themselues sometimes This I am sure That no other faith Church or communion wil help them to saluation but such a faith Church and communion as Scripture and Fathers propose And such faith and Church I haue clearly shewed cannot admit anie Not fundamental points in the Protestants sense nor anie sinful diuision in points of faith or in communion of Sacraments Liturgie or publik worship of God But such faith such Church such communion is perfectly and entirely one at least virtually and implicitly in al points of faith in al vse of Sacraments and al publik worship of God and can only differ in some rites or ceremonies which being accidental and therfore by none put into the definition of the Church as profession of faith and communion cannot deuide substance of the Church And such a Church none is but the Roman Catholik Church And who careful of his saluation wil not prefer a Church which is entirely one in al points of faith and communion before a Church which confessedly is deuided both in some points of faith and altogether in communion If one ask why can not the Church admit diuision in faith or communion as wel as in other matters I answer becaus Faith and Communion are essential partes of the Church and as such put in her definition and nothing can admit diuision in its essential partes For diuision of a thing in essential parts is destruction of it In other matters which are not essential to her she may be deuided and not destroied The aforesaied doctrin of Catholikes and Protestants and their Defenders compared together FOVRTEENTH CHAPTER 1.

whole includeth al or were in an essentially new made Church as their communion in Sacraments and in their publik service amoung themselves was substantially new and not before ether among themselues or among anie other Christians For a new essential part of a Church which was not before must needs make a new essential Church which was not before 7. And becaus Protestants hold Protestants hold some part of the Churches faith but no part of her communion manie of the points of faith which they held before their separation but hold no part of the Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God which they held before with the visible Church but haue made a quite new Communion among themselues in Sacraments and publik seruice which Communion nether they nor anie Christians before them had therfore they cannot distinguish CoÌ„munion into fundamental and not fundamental as they do points of faith nor can saie they hold the fundameÌ„tal parte of their former Communion and therby pretend that they hold the substance of the same visible Church as they saie they hold the fundamental part of the faith they had before and by holding the fundamental parte of the faith of the visible Church pretend they hold stil the same substance of the visible Church Wherupon our argument taken from their whole leauing the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and publik worship of God which is essential to the Church is far more forcible to proue that they haue left the verie substance of the whole Church and so are in no substantial Church or in an other substantially new made then that which is taken from their leauing in parte the faith of the whole visible Church though in truth both arguments be forcible enough as we shal see P. 2. c. 6. 7. And Protestants knowing wel that they haue no pretence to anie parte of the external Communion of the whole visible Church from which they departed neuer proue themselues to be of the true Church becaus they reteine al or the fundameÌ„tal parte of the Communion of the visible Church but Protestants speak not of communion but against their wil. only becaus they reteine the fundamental points of faith And speak as seldom of Communion as they maie or if they saie they haue Communion with the whole Church they equiuocate and by Communion vnderstand charitie Which nether is that See c. 11. Communion which is essential to the visible Church nor is anie other then they are bound to haue to infidels and al that are out of the Church to wit to praie for them Protestants haue no other communion with other Christians then with infidels wish and do them good And I think they wil be ashamed to saie they haue no other kinde of Communion with the members of the Church then they haue with infidels See l. 2. c. 11. 12. 8. Lastly I propose to the Reader a summ of the Protestants vncertainties or contradictions touched in this Treatise that therby he maie visibly see that they are not certaine what to saie but merely make vse of what serueth them for the time and so that al they saie is but shifts for a time For whiles they are racked by the Protestants confes truth whiles they are upon the rack euidence of truth they confÃ¨s that al points of faith sufficiently proposed are necessarie to a sauing faith to true Church and to saluation that sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie destroieth saluation faith Church and vnitie thereof That Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the Church and that for want therof Scismatiks are out of the Church and in state of damnation But when they look back vpon the Churches which they manteine and see how they sinfully denie some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed to them and are deuided partly in matters of faith and wholy in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God they are forced to denie al that before they confessed of sauing faith true Church and true Communion And the reason of this their inconstancie is becaus they would ioine sauing faith with their faith true Church with their Church true Communion with their Communion Which is as impossible as to ioine truth with lies life with death heauen with hel And whosoeuer seeketh to ioine such together must needs be as the Scripture spreaketh vir duplex animo inconstans Iacob 1. est in omnibus viis suis Wheras Catholiks their faith Church and Communion being true faith true Church true Communion easily and without anie contradiction at al ioine them together and shew by the verie definitions of true faith true Church true communion giuen by Scripture and Fathers confirmed by reason and approued by Protestants themselues that their faith their Church their communion is true And if Protestants would with indifferencie consider this quite contrarie proceeding of Catholik and Protestant Writers they would easily see that they constantly defend truth thes vnconstantly make shifts for to to vphold vntruths for a time But at length as the Apostle saieth their 2. Tim. 3. follie wil be made manifest to al. And as Saint Cyprian affirmeth This is true Epist 55. madnes not to think or know that lies do not long deceaue At length shifts wil appeare to be but shifts and that which needeth them to be vntruth 9. And finally out of al which I haue saied I conclude that it is no way against charitie but rather according to true Christian faith and Charitie to warne sinful errants of their danger charitie to tel al Churches and persons which err in anie point of Christian faith or in communion in Sacraments sufficiently proposed or who sinfully err against anie point of faith or communion in Sacraments that whiles they doe so they are in state of damnation that being so warned of their error they may correct it and auoid damnation And at last is breifly shewed that Protestant Churches sinfully err both in points of faith and in communion of Sacraments A CATALOGVE OF THE Chapters of the first Book I. VVHAT Protestants teach of fundamental and not fundamental points and in what they differ therin from Catholiks II. That Protestants teach that some points of faith are so vnfundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith true Church or saluation though they be sufficiently proposed III. Why Protestants distingush articles by thes metaphorical termes Fundamental Not fundamental rather then by thes proper termes Necessarie Not necessarie IV. That Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinctoin of Fundamental and Not fundamental points V. That Protestants are vncertaine what a Not fundamental point is VI. That Protestants are vncertaine which are fundamental points which are Not fundamental VII That Protestants are vncertaine whether a true Church can err in fundamental points or no. OF

THE SECOND BOOKE I. THat there are points of faith beside thes principal articles which are to be preached to al and beleued of al. II. That sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie III. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth saluation IV. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth true sauing faith V. Diuers errors of Protestants about the substance and vnitie of sauing faith refuted VI. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the substance of the Church VII That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the vnitie of the Church VIII That to denie anie point of Christs doctrin suffieiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and Deitie IX That Communion with heretical Churches or which sinfully denie anie point of faith is damnable X. That their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks XI Though the Protestants distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles were true yet it would not suffice for their purpos for want of vnion in fundamental points XII That their distinction would not suffice for their want of communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God XIII Protestants errors about communion refuted XIV The Protestant and Cath. doctrin about matters here handled and their Defenders compared and brefly shewed that it is true Charitie to tel sinful errants in anie point of faith or in communion that they are in a damnable state A RAISONABLE REQVEST to him that wil seriously answer this Treatise to saie directly and plainly yea or no to thes questions following and constantly to stand to his ansuwer in his whole Replie Whether Protestants in their distinction 1. into fundamental and not fundamental points doe intend to distinguish true points of faith and meane that not fundamental points are true points of faith or no Whether sinful error in anie true 2. point of faith or of Gods revealed word can stand with saving faith a true member of the Church and salvation or no Whether there be not sinful error 3. when anie point of faith is sufficiently proposed to a man or for his fault not so proposed and yet not beleued of him or no Whether fundamental points be sufficient 4. to saving faith true Church and salvation even when not fundamental points or not principal points are sufficiently proposed and not beleved or sinfully not beleved or no Whether not fundamental or not 5. principal points be not necessarie to a saving faith true Church and salvation when they are as sufficiently proposed as points of faith ought to be or would be so proposed if it were not our fault or no Whether it be sufficient to proue 6. some to have saving faith to be true members of the Church and in the waie of salvation that they beleve al the fundamental points and it be not also necessarie to prove that they do not sinfully err in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault or no Whether if it be necessarie to saving 7. faith true members of the Church and to salvation not to err sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which should be so proposed if it Were not the vnbelevers fault it be not damnably to deceaue soules to teach that al who beleve the fundamental points haue saving faith are in the Church and in waie of salvation or no Whether sinful error against anie 8. point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the Errants avoidable fault be formal heresie and al such Errants formal heretiks or no or if it be not heresie what sin it is Whether al formal heresie be not 9. damnable sin and al formal heretiks in state of damnation or no Whether the Grecian Lutheran and 10. such other Churches as Calvinists grant to err in some points of faith haue not had thos points sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault or no Whether when Calvinists saie that Grecians Lutherans or such erring 11. Churches have 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

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

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

communion with a Church sinfully erring in points of faith is damnable 2. And first I proue it out of Scripture S. Paul Tit. 3. v. 10. An heretik after the first and second admonition Heretiks to be auoided auoid 2. Thessal 3. v. 6. we denounce vnto ye brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw VVho walk not according to tradition yourselues from euerie brother walking inordinatly and not according to the tradition which they haue receaued from vs. Rom. 16. v. 17. I desire ye brethren to VVho make dissentioÌ„s in doctrin mark them that make dissentions and scandals contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them Saint Iohn Epist 2. v. 10. If anie man come to ye and bring not this doctrin receaue him not into the howse nor saie God saue you vnto him For he that saieth God saue you communicateh with his wicked works And Christ himself Ioan. 10. v. 5. saieth That his sheep follow not a Stranger but flie from him And v. 8. Christs sheep flie from strangers that the sheep heare not theeues and robbers And Math. 7. v. 15. Take great heed of fals Prophets And whom we are to flie to auoid and not to salute we are not to communicate withal And Numbers 16. v. 24. God said to Moises Commaund al the people to depart from the Tabernacles of Core Dathan and Schismatiks to be forsaken Abiron v. 26. And Moises saied to the people depart from the Tabernacles of wicked men and touch not the things which belong to them least ye be iuuolued in their sinns Thus God forbad communion with Schismatiks and the same reason is of heretiks For thes deuide the profession of the Church of God as thos deuide her coÌ„munion 3. The Fathers also teach the same For thus Saint Ireneus lib. 3. c. 4. Al the rest besids the Church are theeues and robbers for which we ought to auoid them And c. 3. after he had told how Saint Iohn ran out of the roome where an heretik was and Saint Policarp would not salute an heretik he addeth So great feare had S. Iohn and his disciples would not speak with heretiks the Apostles and their disciples not to communicate so much as in word with anie of them who had corrupted the truth Tertull. l. praescrip c. 12. we are forbiden to goe to heretiks And c. 7. what haue heretiks and ChristiaÌ„s to doe togeather And c. 41. Noted it as a propertie of heretiks that they communicate with al. S. Cyprian Epist 40. Goe far from the contagion of thes kinde of men and by flying auoid their speeches as a canker and plague And epist 55. Let there be no commerce with such and let vs be as much separated from them as they are from the Church S. Hilarie l. de Synodis Ye illoue wals ye il reuerence the Church in howses and buildings ye il inculcate the name of peace vnder thes Mountaines and forests and lakes and prisons and gulfes are safer for me And lib. contra Auxentium The name of peace is specious and the opinion of vnitie is faire but who doubteth but the Vnitie in Church and Gospel only is vnitie in Christ only vnitie of the Church and Gospel is that peace which is Christs Saint Augustin lib. 7. de Baptismo c. 45. Iohn saied that to men of strange doctrin we L de vnit c. 4. Quicunque de ipso capite scripturis consentiuns vnitati Ecclesiae non coÌ„municant non sunt in Ecclesiae should not saie God saue ye And lib. 2. contra Crescon c. 2. Ye are heretiks and therfore most warily to be auoided And lib. de vera Religione c. 5. condemneth Philosophers becaus teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same Sacrifices and addeth So it is beleued and taught that it is the Principal point of saluation not to coÌ„municate with heretiks principal point of mans saluation that there is no other Philosophie that is studie of wisdome when they whos doctrin we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. S. Hierom. in 2. Thessal 3. plainely by the authoritie of this place we must withdraw ourselues from euerie Christian who walketh not according to the precepts of the Apostle S. Cyrillus Catech. 18. And in one Catholik Church that thou maist flie the filthie Conuenticles of them heretiks and perseuer in the Church And the Catholiks being beaten of Arians cried as Catholiks coÌ„municate not with heretiks reporteth saint Athanase Epist ad Solitarios Beate as ye please we communicate not with heretiks 4. Reason also sheweth that we maie not communicate with heretiks or anie false Church Becaus communion in Sacraments and Liturgie with Comunion with a Church is real approbation of her a Church is a real profession that she is true And to profÃ¨s that a false Church is a true Church of God is damnable For it is to profÃ¨s that a false Church is a Spouse and Mistical Bodie of Christ hath the keyes of heauen and that in a false Church there maie be saluation Nay it is by consequence a denial of the true Church For there being but one true Church if the false Church be true the true Church is false Besids it is a real forsaking of the true Church who euer thrust them out of her communion who communicated with heretiks And as one cannot serue two opposit masters be of two opposit common wealths so can he not be of tow opposit Churches Moreouer coÌ„munion in Sacraments is an essential part of the Church as profession of faith is Who therfore ioine with heretiks in communion of Sacraments ioine with them in an essential part of their Church Charitie we must haue with al but communion with Catholiks onely 5. Protestants also confÃ©s the Protestants command separation from fals Churches same For thus the French Confession art 18. we think al that communicate with Papists to separate themselues from the bodie of Christ The Scotts Confession art 16. It is necessarie that the true Church be discerned from filthie Synagogs by cleare and perfect Notes least being deceaued to our damnation we take the false for the true The Holanders Confession art 28. It is the dutie of al faithful according to the word of God to separate themselues from al them that are out of the Church Whitaker in Praefat. controu If we be heretiks it is reason that they warne al theirs to flie vs. And controu 2. q. 5. c. 1. we must flie and forsake the Churches of Anti-Christ and of heretiks Spalatensis l. 7. de Repub. c. 10. n. 82 There is no doubt but that heretiks are to be auoided and separated Luther also and Melancthon as before we related wondered why the Sacramentaries would account them brethren and yet denie their doctrin Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in doctrin in themselues may induce an obligation to forsake your communion

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

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

not communicating with the whole And euident it is out of what we related before out of Saint Augustin that he meaneth of communion in Sactaments and publik praier And therfore vntruely saied Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 33. That Protestants coÌ„municate as Saint Augustin meant with the Catholik Church in what parte or place of the world soeuer For they communicate not at al with her in Sacraments and publik praier And so according to Saint Augustins doctrin manifestly are out of the Catholik Church Besids Doctor Potter speaketh not consequently when sec 2 p. 66. he faieth we do not communicate with Rome in her publik Liturgie in that our communion is dissolued And yet sec 3. p. 74. Her coÌ„munion we forsake not no more then the Bodie of Christ For how doth he not forsake the communion of Rome who doth not communicate with her in Liturgie and whose communion in that is dissolued But to returne to Saint Augustin he epist 48. affirmeth we are certaine that none can iustly separate himself from the communion None can iustly separate of al Nations Item None can haue iust cause to separate their coÌ„munion from the communion of al Nations lib. 2. contra Parmen cap. 11. There is no iust necessitie to break vnitie And l. 3. c. 4. No iust cause to forsake the Church The world doth securely iugde that they are not good who separate themselues from the world in what parte of land soeuer And ib. c. 5. Let vs hold it firme and sure that no good men can deuide No good men can separate themselues from the Church lib. 3. de Baptis c. 16. It is charitie which they haue not who are cut from the communion of the Catholik Church And epist 152. whosoeuer is separated from this Catholik Church albeit he think he liues lawdably by this only wickdnes that he is separated from the vnitie of Christ he hath not life but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him Lo to be separated from the Catholik Church is to be sepated from the vnitie of Christ And what iust cause can there be to be separated from the vnitie of Christ And epist 48. Relateth that certaine Donatists thought faith would suffice without communion Donatists saied we thought it made no matter where we held Christs faith So that it is an error of Donatists to think that faith wil suffice without communion Finally S. Cyprian l. de vnitate Let none think that good men can leaue the Church 8. Protestants also sometimes confÃ©s that there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole Church For Caluin 4. inst it c. 1. Â§ 10. saieth Departure from the Church of God is denial of Christ which were not true if there were iust cause of departure And lib. de Neces Reform Eccles p. 68. being vrged that there is no iust cause for which we maie Vsher serm to House of Com. No cause why We should make a rent in the Church of God break the vnitie of the Church he doth not answer that there can be iust cause hereof but as supposing that denieth that they are out of the communion of the Church And againe But we are put back with this only engin That no cause excuseth departure from the Church But we denie that we do so Surely if he had thought that there could be iust cause to break the vnitie of the whole Church or to goe out of her communion he would here haue saied it But he did not then dreame that there could be a iust or causeful separation from the coÌ„munion of the whole Church which some Protestants since haue found out Lord Canterburie p. 139. There can be no iust cause to make Ã Schisme from the whole Church Item p. 192. D. Potter sec 3. p. 74. There nether was nor can be anie iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from no iust cause to goe from the whole Church Christ himself Chillingworth sect 5. p. 170. and 272. alloweth thes words of D. Potter and addeth p. 298. It is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church That is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself And surely he ceaseth being a member of the Church who separateth himself from the communion of the whole VVho leaueth to be of the whole Church leaueth to be of anie Church visible Church Becaus communion as I haue proued is an essential parte of the visible Church And he can be no member of the visible Church who wanteth an essential parte of it And to depart from the communion of the visible Church is not as Chillingworth speaketh p. 269. 283. 298. 302. te depart froÌ„ some opinioÌ„s or practises of the Church But it is to depart from some point of faith or from communicating with the Church in vse of Sacraments Liturgie and publick worship of God as is euident and himself confesseth ib. p. 265. and we related his words c. 13. nu 4. In which to communicate is most substantial to the Church For Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God are a principal external end of the Church And namely Sacraments are put in the definition of the Church by Protestants Wherfore to be associated C. 12. nu 5. l. 2. and communicate in them is most substantial to her who is a Societie in vse of them and in profession of Christs faith And therfore to depart from her communion in them is clearely to depart from the societie 9. And here is to be Noted that Protestants make not a distinctioÌ„ of fundameÌ„tal and not fundamental CoÌ„munion Protestants cannot make distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental communion as they did of fundamental and Not fundameÌ„tal articles For separating themselues from communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God they separated themselues most fundamentally in communion and condemning the communion in thes of the Church froÌ„ which they separated they must condemne the fundamental communion and so saie she is substantially no Church Whervpon it must needs follow that ether they must make a new Church substantially different from the whole visible Church or els be in no Church at al. For as I haue saied There can be no Church besids the whole Church Wheras deuiding articles into fundamental and Not fundamental and saying that the Church from which they separated themselues retained the fundamental articles which coÌ„stitute a Chureh and that they feparated themselues from her only in Not fundamental points they had some colour to saie that they stil remained in the substaÌ„ce of the Church froÌ„ which they made separation And therfore an ArgumeÌ„t taken from Protestants separation in communion from the whole Church is more forcible against them then taken from their separation in faith from the whole visible Church For her faith they leaft but partly but her Communion they leaft

one That it is 3. true heresie to denie anie point of faith sufficiently proposed That sinful 4. denial of anie such point of faith destroieth true sauing faith and saluation the substance and vnitie of the true Church That communion in 5. Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to a true Church That though there were such distinction 6. in points of faith as Protestants make yet that would not saue some of their Churches which err euen in fundamental articles and want al communion in Sacraments and in publik worship of God and that seing 7. the Protestants faith doth not essentially embrace al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed but only some parte of it nor is opposit to heresie in al points nor is one in al Gods word but onely in some part that it is not 8. true sauing faith And seing their Church doth not profÃ©s Gods entire word nor is one at most more then in fundamental points nor is at al one in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God it cannot be the true Church of God And seing it did 9 leaue the communion of the whole visible Church and therby leaft the whole visible Church and leauing the whole leaft al visible Churches and leauing al that it can be in no visible Church vnles at their separation there were some new visible Church made These points I saie Catholiks constantly teach 8. Wheras Protestants most vnconstantly teach almost al that we haue rehearsed of their doctrin For sometimes they teach that their Not fundamental points a C. 1. n. 5. 6. 7. are points of faith Sometimes they b C. 5. n. 8. are not Sometimes sinful denial of them is c C. 2. n. 4. l. â— heresie Sometimes it is d C. 2. n 5. not Sometimes sinful denial of them is a sufficient e c. 6. n. 8. cause of separation Sometimes it is f c. 2. n. 3. 6. 5. n 5. not Sometimes Protestants can giue a Catalogue g c. 6. n. 2. of fundamentals Sometime they cannot h c. 6 n. 3. 4. Sometimes the Roman Church is a i c 2. n. 6 c. 7. n. 3. 4. true Church in essence Sometimes she is k c 6 n. 5. c. 5. n. 7. not Sometimes her errors are l c. 5 n. 7. c. 6. n 5. fundamental Sometimes they are m c 5. n. 7. not Sometimes n c. 2. n. 5. heretiks are in the Church Sometimes they are o c. 7. n. 12. 13. l. 2. not Sometimes heretiks p c 6. n. 4. 5. maie be saued Sometimes they q c 1. n. 12. c. 10. n. 4 5. cannot Sometimes a true Church r c. 7. n. 2. 3. 4. can err in fundamentals Sometimes it Å¿ c 7. nu 5. 6. 7. cannot Sometimes al t c 3 n. 5. 6. 7. l. 2. points of faith are necessarie to sauing faith Sometimes they are u c. 2. n. 2 not Sometimes denial of anie point sufficiently proposed x c. 4. n. 6. 7. l. 2. destroieth true faith Sometimes it doth y c. 2. n. 3. not Sometimes sinful denial of anie point of faith z c. 6. n. 4. 5. l. 2. destroieth the substance of the Church Sometimes it doth a c. 3. nu 2. l. 2. not Sometimes diuision in anie point of faith b c. 7. n. 10. l. 2. destroieth the vnitie of the Church Sometimes it doth c c. 5. nu 2. l. 2. not Sometimes there is d c. 13. n. 4. l. 2. iust cause of separation from the whole visible Church Sometimes there is e c. 12. nu 8. l. 2. not Sometimes coÌ„munion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is f c. 12. n. 5. l. 2. essential to the Church Sometimes it is g c. 11. n. 1. l. 2. not Sometimes to leaue the communion of the Church is to h c 12. n. 5. l 2. leaue the Church Sometimes it is i c. 12 n. 4. 5. l 2. not Sometimes wilful error in faith k c. 11. n. 5. l 2. is iust cause to forsake a Church Sometimes it is l c 9 nu 6. c. 2. n. 3. not 9. Surely it must be a verie il cause that driueth such wittie and Learned men thus often and thus plainely to contradict themselues about one question of their fundamental and Not fundamental points For it is nether want of wit nor of learning that maketh them in this sort to contradict themselues but whiles they wil ioine truth with falshood faith with heresie Gods Church with a false Church they cannot doe otherwise For the euidence of truth of faith and of Gods Church forceth them to saie one thing and falshood heresie and their false Church maketh them to saie the quite contrarie Wherfore we must no more expect of heretiks to speake agreably to themselues then of Drunken men to goe streight For heretiks be as the Prophet speaketh drunk and not with wine heresie is a spiritual drunkenes Esaiae 51. which maketh men to reele betweene truth and falshood as drunkenes maketh Caluin CoÌ„futat Hollandi Spiritus vertiginis quo minatur Deus se verbi sui coÌ„temptores potaturum brutam omnium ebriosoruÌ„ amentiam superat men reele from one side to an other It maie be that Catholik writers in some greate work and writing vpon different matters maie contradict themselues by forgetfulnes but that wittie and learned men in so smal works and in one kinde of matter should so often and so plainely contradict themselues cannot proceed but of the nature of the matter which they would mainteine and of Athal orat 2. coÌ„t Arian Qui inciduÌ„t in heresim mentis vertigine laborant C. 19. their spiritual drunkenes or that spirit of giddines which as the aforesaied Prophet saieth our Lord hath mingled in the midst of Egipt and made Egipt to err in al her worke as a drunken and vomiting man erreth 10. And finally out of al hitherto saied I conclude that it is not against Charitie to tell Churches sinfully erring of their damnable state charitie but rather most agreable to Christian faith and true charitie to admonish al Churches or persons that they are in a damnable state who err sinfully ether becaus they wil not beleue some point of Christian faith or part of Gods word sufficiently proposed to them or through their fault haue it not sufficiently proposed For as Protestants confessed cap. 10. The difference is not great betweene him Sinfulmant of sufficient proposing excuseth not that is wilfully blinde and him that knowingly gainsaieth the truth and who were it not for their owne auoidable fault might and should see truth and do not their error is damnable And if anie be negligent in seeking truth vnwilling to finde it or might see it and wil not his case without repentance is desperate Wherfore thus I argue in forme 11. It is

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

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

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

4. p. 225. be denied that the word Fundamental is Metaphorical and ambiguous and profes sometimes by Fundamental Chillingw p. 219. 220. to vnderstand Necessarie and neuertheles they rather make distinction of points of faith into Fundamental and not Fundamental then into necessarie and not necessarie And the reason hereof is partly becaus vnder these ambiguous termes Fundamental not Fundamental they can better couer the fowlnes of their doctrin whereof we speake in the former Chapter That sinful error in some points of faith maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation The fowlnes wherof doth not so euidently appeare if it be only saied that some points of faith are not fundamental to sauing faith to Church or to saluation though they be sufficiently proposed For in rigor of speech not Not al things Necessarie are Fundamental euerie necessarie parte is fundamental as a roof is necessarie to a house yet not fundamental Besids by Not fundamental they maie seeme to meane Not principal or Not Capital In which sense it is no fowle doctrin to saie Some points are Not Fundamental Some points proposed not principal and yet necessarie though they be sufficiently proposed as it is to saie some are Not necessarie though they be sufficiently proposed Becaus not euerie thing necessarie is principal Partly also that vnder thes ambiguous termes Fundamental Not Fundamental See c. 16. n. 6. they maie flie from one sense of them to an other better then they could vnder the proper termes Necessarie Not Necessarie and so delude their aduersarie and auoid conuiction For sometimes by Fundamental articles they only meane principal or capital articles of faith And by Not fundamental Not principal or Not capital articles And thus they must meane when they proue out of Catholiks that they admit Fundamental and Not fundamental articles At other times by Fundamental they meane articles sufficient to a Church and to saluation And by Not fundamental articles Not at al necessarie to a Church or to saluation as we clearly shewed in the second Chapter And this craft they could not so wel vse vnder the words Necessarie Not necessarie Becaus nether are they so ambiguous as Fundamental Not fundamental nether do Catholiks deui'de articles into Necessarie Not necessarie becaus they account al necessarie ether to be beleued actually if they be Al points of faith twoe waies necessarie sufficiently proposed or virtually though they be not so proposed as some doe into Fundamental Not fundamental And that Protestants vse Fundamental in an other sense then we doe is euident by thes words of Chillingworth in his answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word Fundamental I hope she Ro. Church erred not fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did 2. Whereof to auoid al ambiguitie In what seÌ„se Fundamental and Not fundamental maie be used equiuocation or dispute of words if by Fundamental points Protestants would only meane principal or capital points of faith and by not fundamental See Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. Peron Epist ad Reg. Iac. obseruat 3. not principal or not Capital points of faith or if by fundamental points they would only meane such as are the fundations of other articles or lastly by Fundamental Articles such as in ordinarie course their D. Potter sec 7. p. 74. Chillingw p. 263. 283. 227. actual beleif is necessarie to euerie particular person and to saluation And by Not fundamental points such as their actual beleif is not absolutly necessarie to euerie particular person or to saluation but only coÌ„ditionally if they be sufficiently proposed there would be no difference between vs about this distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles But as I said their defending such Churches as sinfully err in some points of faith sufficieÌ„tly proposed or for their fault Bellar l. 3. de Eccles c. 14. multa sunt de fide quae noÌ„ sunt absolute necessaria ad salutem haue them not sufficiently proposed forceth them to vnderstand by fundamental points such points as absolutly or in al cases suffice to sauing faith to a Church and to saluation And by Not fundamentals such as are absolutly or in al cases vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a Church or to saluation In In what sense it is ground of atheisine which sense we condemn this their distinction as a ground of atheisme and damnable deceipt of such as sinfully err in some points of faith But now let vs see what account and what vse they make of this their distinction That Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinction of Fundamental and Not Fundamental points FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. THat Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points is euident both by their words and deeds For Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 70. saith This distinction is most necessarie and hath a ground in reason and scripture And p. 73. he calleth it a most necessarie and A most necessarie most vseful and main distinction most vseful distinction And p. 75. a main distinction K. Iames Epist and Card. Peron This distinction the King accounteth of such importance to diminish the controuersies in the Church as he thinketh it the dutie of euerie peacable man most diligently to explicate teach and vrge it Chillingworth maketh the whole third Chapter of his Book to proue that this distinction is good and pertinent and saieth This distinction is imploied by Protestants to many purposes In answer to the Preface p. 7. as it is applied by Protestants is very good Lord Canterburie in his Relation p. 21. and 24. granteth that the Greek Church hath a dangerous and greuious error and yet affimeth her to be a true Church becaus her error is not Fundamental The like iudgment he giueth of the RomaÌ„ Church p 296. 325. and p. 129. 311. So by this Saueth Churches greuiously erring distinction they saue Churches that haue dangerous and greuious errors 2. Secondly Protestants haue made vse of this distinction euer since they began to be deuided in points of faith as a soueraigne remedie to couer their rent For Zuinglius when he had forsaken Luther in the point of real presence for excuse therof in his Vsed by ProtestaÌ„ts since their dissention Apolog. tom 2. fol. 374. sayed That this matter pertined not to anie foundation of faith The same saied Bucer in Hospinian parte secunda hist fol. 127. and Martyr ib. fol. 244. Caluin Defens 2. contra Wesphal p 766 Beza contra Wesphal p. 258. Whitak controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. Iuel in his Apologie and generally al Sacramentaries when ether they currie fauour with Lutherans and would be held for brethren of them or excuse to Catholiks their dissentions in points of faith See Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 89. and sec 5. p. 18. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 325. 3. Thirdly this

their distinction is the ground of their defense in controuersies The ground of ProtestaÌ„ts defence in main points of greatest moment to wit which are true Churches and in which saluatioÌ„ maie be had and with which men maie communicate lawfully For if we proue that the Protestant Church in general as it comprehendeth both Lutherans and Caluinists is no true Church nor can afford saluation nor is such as men may lawfully communicate withal becaus her members are sinfully deuided in points of faith and Religion one from the other they answer not that they are not sinfully deuided but that their diuision is not in points fundamental but only in not fundamental points which diuision doth not hinder that vnitie of faith or of Church D. Potter sec 2. p. 38. which is necessarie Likwise if we proue that the Lutherans are no true L. Canterb sec 38. p. 325. Church becaus they are deuided in points of faith from the Caluinists their answer is this diuision is not in fundamental points but only in points not fundamental which diuision whether it be sinful or no doth not destroie the substance of a true Church The like answer for the Roman Church Protestants doe giue when it pleaseth them to grant that she is a true Church and that saluation maie be had in her Finally if we proue that no particular Protestant Church can be a true Church or haue hope of saluation becaus as Protestants confes euerie one of their Churches erreth in some point of faith nay that there is no hope that anie Church shal be free from al error in points of faith they answer This error is only in not fundamental points which error destroieth not sauing faith Church or meanes of saluation whether it be vincible and sinful or no. 4. Thus we see that by meanes of this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points Protestants doe make Churches to be true or false as they please accordingly as they make points of faith to be fundamental or not fundamental as they please nether telling vs constantly which are fundamental which not fundamental nor giuing vs anie certaine rule to know which are such but reseruing the determination hereof to their ends as they need Secondly by meanes of this distinction they endeauour what kind of erring Churches maie be true Churches to mainteine three main points to wit That such Churches as they confes to err in some points of faith are notwithstanding true Churches That saluation may be had in such erring Churches And that men may lawfully communicate with erring Churches Which doctrin of theirs if it were meant only of such Churches as inuincibly vnwittingly or innocently err or which err in not fundamental points not sufficiently proposed were not to be condemned but being meant as it is and must be what kinde of erring Churches Protestants meane by them for manie such Churches as they doe mainteine of obstinat or sinful error or of error about Not-fundamental points sufficiently proposed is abhominable and indeed the verie ground of atheisme Nether though it were true would itsuffice them for to mainteiue some Churches which they mainteine and saluation in theÌ„ both becaus they sometimes confes that those Churches do err euen in fundamental points and also becaus those Churches want Communion in Sacraments which is as essential to a true Church as faith is as we shal shew hereafter C. 19. So that this their ground of mainteining such erring Churches as they doe mainteine is not only fals and atheistical but also though it were true were insufficient to vphold such Churches as they endeauour to vphold Protestants ground nether true nor sufficieÌ„t for their purpose by it as God willing I shal shew euidently in this Treatise But first we wil shew their vncertaintie both what and which are Not-fundamental points and whether a true Church can err euen in fundamental points that therby the Reader may see that this their ground is not only fals and also insufficient for their purpose but also that they themselues are not certaine or assured of it and yet do vpon this ground venture their saluation in liuing in confessed erring Churches and other mens also in teaching them that it is not necessarie to sauing faith to a member of the Church or to saluation to beleue euerie point of faith though sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not also the fault of the not beleuer which is damnably to deceaue poore soules That Protestants are vncertaine vvhat a Not-fundamental point is FIFT CHAPTER 1. THe questions what is such a thing and which is such a thing Difference between what and which is are different For the former enquireth the nature of the thing and the latter which hath that nature as what is a Lion enquireth what is his nature which is a Lion enquireth which is the beast that hath that nature In this Chapter we wil shew the Protestants vncertaintie what is the nature of Not fundamental points and in the next chapter their vncertaintie which are they that haue the nature of Not fundamental points For ether becaus indeed they know not what is the nature or coÌ„dition of their Not fundamental points or becaus being between twoe streights to wit of defending Churches which sinfully err in points not fundamental and of defending their separation from the Roman Church for pretended errors in points not fundamental Or lastly becaus they would not haue Catholiks to be able to conuince what they teach in this matter they doeso perplexedly deliuer their doctrin about not fundamental points as there is greater difficultie to conuince what indeed is their doctrin herein then that it is fals doctrin 2. First therfore they teach as Not fundamentals are not necessarie for saluation or separation we shewed before in the 2. chapter that Not fundamental points are By truths vnnecessarie not necessarie for which no separation ought to be made and as Chillingworth saieth c. 4. p. 220. By Fundamental we meane al and only that which is necessarie So no point not fundamental can be necessarie 3. Secondly they saie that Not-fundamental But opinioÌ„s doubtful obscure not euidently deduced out of scripture points are opinions doubtful matters obscure points disputable in themselues and happily by plaine Scripture indeterminable disputable opinions not clearely defined in Scripture not euidently deducible out of Scripture of which nether Church nor Councel hath anie infallible assurance and in which modest opposition is tolerable D. Potter sec 2. p. 38. speaking of Not-fundamental Not fundamentals are opinions points saieth The vnitie of the Church is nothing hindered by dinersitie of opinions in doubtful matters See also p. 40. 43. And p 39. calleth Not fundamental points Probable Opposition in not fundamentals is tolerable Accidental and Obscure points wherein the oppositions of learned men proceeding modestly are tolerable Sec. 4. p. 94. If we did not

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

not to be regarded at al as when we obiect to Caluinists their difference from Lutherans in such points as they account not fundamentals Whitaker controu 1. q. 4. c. 3. calleth them smal matters K. Iames in his Monitorie Epistle Things indifferent and tittles D. Andrews Resp ad Apol Bellarm. c. 14. Matters of no great moment The Apologie of the Church of England No great matters Caluin Admonit vltima p. 832. Matters of nothing Martyr in Locis Classe 4. c. 10. paragr 65. Matters not to be much respected Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 89. No parte of faith but curious Nicities Thus meanely nay contemptously they speak of Not-fundameÌ„tal points when they wil maintaine anie Church which they confes to err in Not-fundamental points or saluation to be had in such a Church or their own Communion with her And surely If Not-fundamental points were such as hitherto they haue described euident it were that euen obstinat error in them could not destroie sauing faith true Church or hope of saluation nor hinder Communion with anie Church obstinatly erring in such points 7. But at other times Not-fundamental At other times not fundamentals are points of faith points are points of faith with them are weightie matters as on which dependeth mens saluation and errors against them damnable as we L. 2. c. 1. shal see at large hereafter And thus highly they esteeme of Not-fundamental points especialy when they would iustifie their separation from the Roman Church which they confes to be a true Church and to hold the fundamental points and yet say her errors are horrible and damnable and iust cause of separation from her But let vs heare them first freeing the Roman Church from fundamental errors and after condemning her for damnable errors and such as are iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The most necessarie and Rome holdeth that which constitutes a Church fundamental truthes which constitute a Church are on both sides Catholik and Protestants vnquestioned p. 60. The things wherin the Protestants do iudge the life and substance of Religion to be The life and substance of Religion comprised their aduersaries Papists themselues do auow and receaue them as wel as they And p. 58. In the prime The fundamental truths grounds or principles of Religion we haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word fundamental I hope she Roman Church erred not fundamentally c. 3. p. 164. The Erreth not in fundamentals only and main reason why we beleue you not to err in fundamentals is your holding the doctrins of faith in Christ and repentance c. 7. p. 401. we approue those See also c. 3. p. 163. fundamental and simply necessarie truths which you reteine by which some good soules among you maie be saued p. 404. We hope she reteines those truths which are simply absolutly and indispensably Holdeth what is necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heauen Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 299. Romanists as they are Christians that is as they beleue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself I dare not proceed so roughly Holdeth the foundation as the denie or weaken the foundation which is Christ euen among them and which is and remaineth holie euen in the midst of their superstitions And sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion is the same And the same it could not be if the Roman differed in fundamental points And sec 35. p. 285. and sec 36. p. 314. 315. affirmeth that ignorant soules in the Roman Church are safe and that Ignorants in the Roman Church are safe their simplicitie of beleuing maketh them safe yea safest And sec 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence not in the things which constitute a Church Thus these men plainly confes that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental but only not fundamental More confessions of Protestants that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamental points maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 2. paragr 3. 8. And neuertheles thes same men saie her errors are horrible and Yet holdeth Rome horrible errors damnable and iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The Roman Church is extreamly defiled with horrible errors and corruptions Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. Errors of the Roman Church of Errors of themselues damnable themselues damnable c. 1. p. 34. Poperie in itself destroies saluation Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 296. He that beleues as that Roman Church beleues Guiltie of schisme is guiltie of the Scisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and of al her damnable opinions too And p. Damnable opinions 298. And therfore in this present case there is peril great peril of damnable both Schisme and Heresie and other Peril of Schisme sin by liuing and dying in the Roman faith tainted with so manie superstitions as this daie it is Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in them selues may induce on obligation to forsake your communion And they al three though they confessed that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental yet afford saluation to these only of the Roman Church who ether are inuincibly ignorant of her errors or repent themselues of them as is to be seene in Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 76. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 267. 285. 283. c. 7. p. 398. Lord Canterburie sec 34. and 35. So not fundamental errors which before they so much sleighted sometimes are horrible errors damnable opinions of themselues damnable and destructiue of saluation and iust cause of separation 9. Finally their ignorance and vncertaintie what Fundamental or Not Fundamental points are appeareth by their manifold and ambiguous distinctions of them Their first distinction is of Fundamental properly ond improperly Doctor Potter Properly sect 7. p. 75. Fundamental properly is that which Christians are oblidged to beleue by an expres and actual faith Lord Canterb. sec 10. p. 38. Catholik Maximes are properly Fundamental An other distinction is Formally not Formally Formally L. Canterb. sect 38. p. 334. Deductions are not formally fundamental for al men An other is In some sense In some sense Potter sect 7. p. 74. whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamental An other Absolutly not Absolutly Absolutly L. Cannterb sect 18. p. 139. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals p. 140. The Church cannot err in doctrins absolutly FundameÌ„tal sect 25. p. 162. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals P. 165. In absolute foundations Chillingworth c. 5. p. 282. We hope your errors are not absolutly vnpardonable An other distinction is Simply Fundamental not Simply Simply L. Canterb. sect 9. p. 24. It was a question not

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

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

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

is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing And Epistle 48. Perhaps she is called Catholik becaus she truly holdeth the whole of which truth some peeces are found in diuers heresies The like hath Saint Cyril Catechesi 18. S. Optatus l. 1. Patianus Epist 1. Vincet c. 3. But who denie anie point of faith sufficiently proposed are not vniuersally perfect nor truly hold the whole but halt in something Therfore they are not Catholiks and consequently not of the true Church Hooker l. 5. p. 324. Cyprian with the greatest part of African Bishops were of nothing more certainly persuaded then that heretiks are as rotten branches cut of from the life and bodie of the true Church 4. And in the same manner doe Description of the Church by Protestants Protestants sometimes define the true Church For thus Moulins l. 1. contra Peron c. 26. That is the true Church which is vnited together in profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments This definition saieth he is receaued by Hiremias P. C. Resp 1 ad VVirtenb Qui se non totos veritati dediderunt nÃ¨ in Christi quidem Ecclesia sunt our Aduersaries Whence it followeth that the true Church is discerned by profession of true faith And that he meaneth by true faith entire true faith I proue First becaus parte of true faith is not absolutly true faith but a parte there of Secondly becaus he saieth Catholiks admit this definition which they neuer admit vnles by true faith be meant entire true faith Thirdly Entire true doctrin is the Note of the Church becaus c. 28. he saieth The whole entire doctrin of saluation is the Note of the Church Therfore when he defined the Church by profession of true faith he meant entire true faith And in the saied c. 26. he saieth The true Church Field l. 2. c. 2. Entire profession of the truth reuealed by Christ distinguisheth right beleuers from heretiks is opposed to heretiks and Schismatiks And c. 25. The question which is the true Church is of the Orthodox Church ioined in Communion by what Notes she maie be discerned from heretiks schismatiks and idolaters Whatsoeuer Church therfore is heretical or not orthodox is no true Church 5. And generally al Protestants put in their definitions of the true The Church professeth the pure entire an vncorrupt word of God Church Pure sincere entire and incorrupt word of God The confession of England ar 19. The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation in which the pure word of God is preached The Swisers Confession c. 17. In which is sincere preaching of Gods word The French Confession Caluin 4. instit c. 2 Â§. 3. vbi ad definitionem Ecclesiae veÌ„tum est haerent in suo luto art 27. In which is consent in embracing pure Religion Beza Epist 24. and Sadeel contra Turian loco 1. In which the doctrin of the Ghospel is purely deliuered And loco 30. When I defined the visible Church consisting of al her parts I saied that puritie of doctrin and true vse of Puritie of doctrin esseÌ„tial to the Church Sacraments was essential to the Church Vrsinus in Catechis q. 2. In which the entire and vncorrupt doctrin of the Law Entire and Gospel is embraced Field l. 2. of the Church c. 2. Entire profession of thos supernatural verities which God hath reuealed in Christ is essential and giueth being to the Church Fulk Ioan. 14. not 5. The true Church of Christ can neuer fal vnto heresie It is an impudent slander to affirme that we say so The Magdeburgians Centur. 1. cap. 4. In which the sincere doctrin of the Ghospel is embraced Iames Andrews li. contra Hosium p. 210. In which the incorrupt word of God vncorrupt soundeth Whitaker contro 2. q. 5. 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 And c. 18. The Church is no other multitude then which holdeth the pure preaching of the word Ibid. It can not hold anie heretical doctrin and yet be a Church Spalatensis l 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu 26. The forme of the Catholik Church is the Forme of the Church is entire profession of Christs faith entire profession of Christs faith And c. 12. num 132. To the true Church two things only are required to wit entire faith in Christ and peace and coÌ„munion with al that profÃ¨s this faith Caluin in Ioan. 10. v. 1. We must not communicate with anie other Societie then that which conspires in the pure faiih of the Ghospel Besids Protestants profÃ¨s puritie in doctrin to be the essential Note of the Church as Beza lib. de Notis Eccles Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton l. 2. Apolog. c. 41. Danaeus contr 4. p. 741. Riuet tract 1. sec 45. Luther in caput 2. Isaiae In which confessions of Protestants we are to Note how when they intend to define the true Church they put pure sincere entire and vncorrupt doctrin in its definition and saie that such doctrin is the essential Note of a true Church and the forme therof Also how they denie anie companie to be a true Church which hath not the pure word But such as sinfully denie the not fundamental points of Gods word sufficiently proposed profÃ¨s not his pure sincere entire and vncorrupt word Therfore they are not of the true Church 6. To this no other answer can be Protest can not answer without coÌ„fession that they equiuacate giuen but that when Protestants define the true Church by the pure sincere entire word of God or saie that such is the essential Note or forme of the Church they meane only pure sincere entire or vncorrupt in fundamental points of Gods word not in al Gods word sufficiently proposed But this euasion in clearely refuted First becaus this condemneth their definition of obscuritie or defect Next becaus if they had only defined the Church to be a coÌ„panie in which the word of God or the faith of Christ is professed they could not haue expounded it of anie parte of Gods word or of Christs faith becaus the word of God The faith of Christ signifie his whole word his whole faith as the Church signifieth the whole See c. 2. nu 5. l. 1. Church And much les can they expound this definition of profession Protest expound pure by impure Entire by a parte of anie parte of Gods word or of Christs faith seing they haue added to the word of God or to the faith of Christ those most significant adiectiues pure sincere entire vncorrupt For VVhat is pure hath no mixture and what entire is no part what is the pure sincere vncorrupt word of God cannot be mixt with anie falsitie or word of man And what is the entire word of God cannot be a parte only but must needs be his whole word Whosoeuer therfore sinfully profÃ©s anie

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

an others beleif and communion Is such a Chaos or hydra the Church instituted by Christ the holie Church professed in our Creed the Spouse of Christ the howse and Kingdom of God Certainely a Church consisting of al Christians or of al that profÃ¨s themselues Christians or of al that hold the principal points of Christian doctrin but denie other points of his doctrin sufficieÌ„tly proposed to be his and communicate not together in Sacraments but condemn one an other was neuer gathered or instituted by Christ neuer mentioned by the Fathers Protestants equiuocate in the name of the Church but is a mere Monster of a Church merely feigned by some ProtestaÌ„ts for to include themselues and sinfully erring Christians within the pale of the Church But we care not whom they include in a Church of their owne inuention or making It sufficeth vs that no such can be in the true Church of Christs making and which the Scripture Fathers reason and Protestants also when they only consider the nature of the true Church describe and propose vnto vs. And that sinfully to err in anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed destroieth the nature and substance of such a Church which Protestants would neuer denie if necessitie of defending sinfully erring Churches did not force them to it Propertie of the vniuersal Church not to err at al. It is the propertie of the vniuersal Church onely promised to her by Christ not to err at al ether voluntarily or involuntarily ether vincibly or inuincibly in anie thing which she Essential not to err vincibly or sinfully professeth as matter of faith but it is essential both to the vniuersal and to euerie particular true Church not to err sinfully voluntarily or vincibly in anie matter of faith whatsoeuer So that it implieth contradiction to err in that manner and yet to be a true Church substantially And hauing thus proued that sinful error in anie point of faith or of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed destroieth the nature or substance of a true Church of Christ Let vs also proue that such error destroieth the true vnitie of a true Church That sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the true vnitie of the Church of Christ SEAVENTH CHAPTER 1. THat sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the true vnitie of Christs Church followeth euidently out of what I haue before proued that such error destroieth the substance of his true Church For if it destroie the substance of the true Church it must needs destroie her vnitie which floweth from her substance and dependeth of it But we wil proue it also in particular out of Scripture Fathers reason and confession also of Protestants 2. Ar for holie Scripture it not only absolutly saieth that the Church is one but also that it is so one as thos are which are wholy one and altogether Cyprian de vnit Aug. tract 6. in Ioan. Optatus l 1. 2. vndeuided Cantic 6. v. 8. Christ saith My doue is one Which place both Fathers teach and Protestants confÃ¨s to be meant of the The true Church is absolutly one true Church Ioan. 10. v. 16. Christ saieth of his Church There shal be made one flock and one shepheard Rom. Perkins in symbal VVitak Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9. 12. v. 5. we manie are one bodie in Christ But a doue a flock a bodie are wholy one vndeuided at al. Therfore such is the true Church of Christ Besids the Scripture calleth the Church the Galat. 3. v. 28. omnes vos vnum estis in Christo Kingdom of God and addeth Mat. 12. that euerie Kingdom deuided it self shal perish Wherfore seing the true Church cannot perish it is not deuided in itself But who are sinfully deuided in points of faith are not wholy Not deuided one but truly manie and deuided in themselues And Ioan. 11. Iesus should die to gather into one the children of God that were dispersed The like is Ioan. 17. and Actor 2. 3. The holie Fathers also teach that the true Church is wholy one and vndeuided in points of faith Saint Cyprian lib. de vnitate saieth The Church is people ioined together in solid One in solid vnitie vnitie of a bodie by the glue of concord and addeth vnitie cannot be cut nor anie bodie separated by diuision of ioints But solid vnitie of a bodie and such as cannot be cut or deuided is perfect and entire vnitie 4. Saint Augustin in Psal 54. after he had recounted manie things in which the Donatists were one with the Catholik Church addeth They The Church is wholy one were there with me but not wholy with me in manie things with me in few not with me But by thes few in which they are not with me the manie in which they Not in parte only are with me profit them not Lo how he exacteth that men must be wholy one with the Catholik Church and professeth that it profits them nothing to be with her in manie matters if they be not in al. And yet the Donatists wherof he speaketh were Donatists were one in the creed and Sacraments Sic etiaÌ„ Optatus l. 3. 5. with Catholiks in fundameÌ„tal points as appeareth by thes his words Epist 48. Yee are with vs in baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in Spirit of vnitie in bond of peace finaly in the verie Catholik Church ye are not with vs. And lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 8. and 13. saieth That an heretik is in parte ioined to the Church And yet no L. 1. CaÌ„tholicus non es foris estis In Catholica non estis l. 3. pars vestra Catholica non est heretik is truly in the Church Saint Optatus also lib. 4. saieth of the same Donatists Ye see that we are not wholy separated one from the other So that by the iudgment of the Fathers it is not enough to be in parte ioined to her See S. Leo epist 4. c. 2. 5. Hereupon the Fathers saie The The Church is one Church is one So the Nicen Creed Saint Cyprian Epist 46. and 64. S. Praeter vnaÌ„ altera non est Optatus lib. 1. 2. Saint Augustin de vnitate c. 2. lib. 1. contra Crescon c. 29. and others coÌ„monly Sometimes One only they saie She is one only So Saint Augustin lib. 3. contra Petilian c. 5. and epistle 120. Saint Hilarie l. 7. de Trinitate Not manie Sometimes she is not manie So Optatus lib. 1. S. Augustin lib. de vnitate c. 16. and in collat 3. diei c. 10. Sometimes that she cannot be deuided Cannot be deuided So Saint Cyprian epist 47. and Saint Hierom in Psal 51. And out of this whole and entire vnitie of the Church Saint Cyprian epist 76. inferreth If the Church be with Nouatian it was not with Cornelius And yet Nouatian was not deuided from Cornelius in

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

pretious in al 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc Hebr. 5. 12. cals the first principles of the Oracle of God And 2. Tim. 1. 13. forme of sound words Thes are his fundamentals the materials laied vpon this foundation whether they be sound or vnsound are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. superstructions which are conclusions ether in truth or appearance And thes if they be sound are his not fundamental points I answer First that the grand and capital doctrins maie wel be the ground of the Church and yet The foundation maketh not vp the building not make vp the common faith of Christians For more is required to a building then the ground or foundation Secondly they maie make vp al the common faith of Christians which is absolutly necessarie to be beleued actually of al and yet not make vp al the faith which absolutly is necessarie so be beleued virtually and implicitly of al and coÌ„ditionally also actually of al if it be sufficiently proposed vnto them So that thes places proue not his fundamentals which are so sufficieÌ„t to sauing faith Church and saluation as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly beleued for to haue sauing faith Church and saluation And for his Not fundamentals I saie that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to proue them First becaus the place is verie obscure and hard to be vnderstood Superstructions are not Protestants not fundamentals S. Aug. epist 48. Quis noÌ„ impudeÌ„tissime nititur aliquid in allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura as Saint Augustin witnesseth l. de fide operibus c. 15. and 16. quest 1. ad Dulcitium and Enarrat in Psal 80. And Morton tom 2. Apolog. l. 5. cap. 44. saieth It is metaphorical and entangled with manie difficulties And the place itself doth euidently shewit And an obscure and difficult place can giue no sufficient ground of so maine a point as this is That there be some points of faith which are not necessarie to saluation to be beleued virtually or implicitly or also actually if they be sufficienily proposed Wil D. Potter venture his owne or other mens saluatioÌ„ in so great a matter vpon an obscure or difficult text We with Saint Augustin lib. de vnitate demaund aliquid No expres text nor necessarie consequence for Protestants not fundamentals manifestum quod interprete non eget And you giue vs a place for Not fundamentals in your sense which no interpretation can make cleare 3. Moreouer how can you think it certaine that Saint Paul here by superstructions meaneth anie doctrin at al seing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68. and Enarrat in Psal 38. 80. and S. Gregorie l. 4. Dialog c. 39. expound it only of works nor you conuince the contrarie Finally admit that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrins how is it certaine that he meaneth doctrins of faith and not rather humane doctrins inuented by men becaus he calleth them our work and points of faith are not our work Admit also that by superstructures he meaneth some points of faith how proueth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation when they are sufficiently proposed seing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal nor saieth that such superstructures are not necessarie not yet calleth them superstructures in respect of faith or Church but in respect of the foundation as walls and roofe may be called superstructures in respect of the foundatioÌ„ and yet are necessarie parts of the house And so secondarie points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points on which they relie as vpon their foundation and yet be necessarie parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church 4. So that this superstruction of Protestants not fundamentals want foundation D. Potter wanteth sufficient foundation for his not foundamentals in his sense and is a not fundamental foundation for diuers causes First becaus the place is obscure and so vnfit to found anie infallible certaintie especially of this so weightie a point Secondly becaus it is not certaine that the Apostle by superstructions meaneth doctrines and not only works Thirdly becaus though he called some doctrins superstructions it is not certaine that he meant doctrins of faith or if he meant doctrins of faith that he called them superstructions in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation and not in respect only of other points of faith on which they are built And we denie not but in respect of themselues some points of faith maie be termed fundamental other not fundamental Fourthly becaus though we graunt that Saint Paul called some points of faith superstructions in respect of the Church or of saluation how proueth D. Potter that he meant so euen when they are sufficiently proposed we denie not but some points maie be termed superstructioÌ„s in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation becaus they are not so absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation to be actually beleued as some other points are But this wil not proue that they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be actually beleued if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie virtually to be beleued howfoeuer 5. Admit that he called them superstructions euen when Superstructions may be essential they are sufficiently proposed how proueth Do. Porter that he meant they were not then essential to sauing faith Church or saluation Is nothing that is laied vpon the foundation essential or necessarie to the building And in this is the controuersie whether anie articles which maie be termed superstructions be essential to sauing faith Church or saluation or no we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foundation and yet essential to the house So on euerie hand falleth down Doctor Potters ground out of Scripture for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense which is that to haue sauing faith Church and saluation See 6. 2. they need not be beleued actually though they be proposed sufficiently not at al virtually For if he only would that some points of faith How some points of faith may be called not fundamental are so not fundameÌ„tal to sauing faith Church or saluation as they need not be actually beleued vnles they be sufficiently proposed and are not absolutly necessarie as some others are there would be no question But this kinde of not fundamentals wil not help him to iustifie his Churches erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or his communion with such Churches 5. Other Protestants would proue that Perkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches maie err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed becaus the GalathiaÌ„s were turned to an other Ghospel and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection and neuertheles Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God But this argument if it

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

some without al sufficient proof 3. And this his sentence our English Protestants should feare becaus in the Apologie of their Church they profÃ©s to hold him for a most excellent man and sent from God to lighten the world And Caluin l. 1. de libero arbit calleth him a Notable Apostle of Christ and saieth that God thundered by his mouth D. Potter sec 3. p. 83. we esteme of Luther as a worthie man So Field l. 2. de Eccles c. vlt. l. 3. c. 42. And did this worthie man who thus seuerely condemned the Sacramentaries doctrin differ rather in formes or phrases of speech then in substance of doctrin as D. Potter affirmeth sec 3. p. 89. or onely in disputable opinions as he saieth sec 6. p. 54. 4. Nether did Luther only but euen the publik confessions of Lutherans condemn the Sacramentaries doctrin For thus the Confession of Auspurg in Hospin l. cit anno 1530 Of the Lords Supper thus we teach That Confession of Auspurg damneth Sacramentaries the true Bodie and Blood of Christ is truly vnder the forme of bread and wine present in the Supper and there distributed and receaued wherfore the contrarie doctrin is reiected Confession of Bohemia art 11. Certaine phanatical Spirits not abiding in the words of Christ denie the bread and chalice of the Supper to be the Bodie and Blood of Christ And in like manner do the Lutherans in their Confession of Swed which was put forth 1563. of Mansfeld and of Antwerp condemne the Sacramentaries 5. And the Sacramentaries doe the same to Lutherans For thus the Sacramentaries condemn Lutherans Czengerin Confession placed in the Syntagme of Protestant Confessions p. 194. As we damne the Papistical dotage of Transubstantiation so we also damne their madnes who mainteine fleasheating that is that Christs natural and bloodie bodie is receaued with carnal mouth without anie mutation or transubstantiation And they add This is contrarie to the rule of faith and nature The Confession of Swisers art 21. The flesh of Christ cannot be corporally eaten Of wickednes without wickednes and crueltie The Palatines Confession Christ cannot now without manifest and horrible Idolatrie be saught in the bread of the Supper Of horrible idolatrie Item we see a horrible distraction raised in the Church becaus some wil eate and drink the bodie and Blood of Christ naturally essentially with their corporal mouthes and who refuse to beleue and profÃ©s this are proclamed sacrilegious and blasphemous Sacramentaries 6. Thus Protestants in their publik Confessions of faith condemne one the other And that the cheifest See P. Martyr in epis ad Eccles Aug. Perkins in Symb. col 781 793. Caluin 4. instit c. 4. Â§. 19. Maisters of the Caluinists condemne the Lutherans of error in fundamental matters I haue shewed l. 1. c. 6. nu 8. and more maie be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. nu 5. Here I wil relate the Confession of the Tigurins in their preface to the Orthodox consent set forth 1585. Of Tigurins confÃ©s dissentions of Protestants the great and manifold contentions betweene Protestants For thus they Nether of the Lords Supper only but also of Christs person of the vnion of the diuine and humane nature of the vbiquitie of his bodie of the corporal and which is made with mouth and teeth and common to good and bad eating of his bodie of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of his Father is contended with such earnest dispute that not few of the old heresies which were long since condemned and extinguished begin againe to life vp their heads as recalled out of hel And did not thes men know what diuision there is among Lutherans and Caluinists as wel as D. Potter sect 3. pag. 89. Doe Thes differ rather in formes or phrases Potter sec 4. p. 119. The errors of vbiquitie consubstantiation and the like are gross and palpable of speech then in substaÌ„ce of doctrin or as others saie they differ not in fundamental points Are not the person of Christ his hypostatical vnion his ascension to heauen and sitting at the right hand of his father fundamental points Are they not in the Creed which commonly is saied to be the foundation of Christianitie C 6. n. 2. l. 1. or did not the Tigurins know wherin Protestants dissent as wel as he wil Protestants not only make fundamental or not fundamental what they Aug. de vnico Baptis c. 14. please as Donatists made crimes but also when or in whom they list Thus we see that the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points wil not mainteine the Protestants Churches For they condemne one the other of fundamental errors Now let vs see that it wil not serue them for want of Communion in Sacraments and in publik seruice of God That the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles vvil not suffice to mainteine such Churches as they would for vvant of communion TWELFT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit we should grant to Protestants both that some No certaine articles are sufficient without others articles are so sufficient to constitute Ã Church as no other articles were necessarie thervnto and also that their Churches doe hold al thos articles which are so sufficient nether of which we shal euer grant yet neuertheles would it not follow that Nor none at al without communion their Churches are true Churches For nether anie certaine articles nor al articles together are sufficient to constitute a true Church of Christ without communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publik worship of God Which communion because Protestants Churches want both with themselues as is euident in Lutherans and Caluinists and also with al other Roman Grecian c. such Churches as they account true Churches Therfore when they wil proue ether their owne or anie other Church to he a true Church they make no mention at al of coÌ„munion but only of fundamental articles and infer their owne or other Churches whom they please to be true Churches only becaus they hold the fundamental articles wherin they commit a Triple fallacie For nether are Triple fallacie of Protestants anie principal articles alone sufficient to the constitution of a Church nether doe Protestants hold al principal articles nether though they held al articles whatsoeuer would that suffice to constitute a true Church without communion in SacrameÌ„ts and publik worship of God Which we proue to be essential to a true Church out of the definitions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and coÌ„firme it by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. vers 42. describing the true Church or true Scripture puts coÌ„m union in the definition of the Church disciples of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praier Where communication in Sacraments and praier is put as essential a parte of the

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.

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.

Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Text snippets containing the quad