to fundamental points only but by opposition to the doctrin which we haue learned against the Tradition which we haue receaued or against which Saint Paul had preached C. 8. l. 1. But Not fundamental points are parte of that which we haue learned parte of that tradition which we haue receaued and parte of that which S. Paul preached Therfore sinful opposition to them is true heresie according to Scripture 3. Secondly I proue it out of the descriptions of heresie and heretiks An heresie described by the Fathers giuen by the holie Fathers of whom no one describeth heresie or heretitks by opposition to only principal or capital points of faith but by only opposition to Scripture or doctrin of the Catholik Church Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretik who vnderstands Contrarie to sense of Scripture the Scripture otherwise then the Holie Ghost would Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Ciuitate c. 51. The diuel raised vp heretiks who vnder the name of Christians should resist Christian doctrin To Christiā doctrin And addeth who in the Church doe hold anie vnsound and naughtie thing pertinaciously are heretiks Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9. They are not heretiks but becaus they vnderstand the Scripture wrongly And lib. de haeresibus in fine After he had reckoned diuers heresies wherof manie are not against anie principal point of faith he thus pronounceth whosoeuer holdeth anie one of thē is no Catholik Christian which is as much as to saie he is an heretik And both he and al antiquitie accounted And so doth Chilling c. 7. p. 398. Donatists heretiks for their error about rebaptization who yet saieth Lord Canterb. sec 35. p. 300. for ought I know did hold the foundation Donatists heretiks yet hold the foundation And Morton in his Grand Imposture c. 15. p. 418. The question of Rebaptization was no fundamental error And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. Saint Cyprian and Stephen might both be saued becaus their contrarie beleif about Rebaptization was not touching anie point conteined in Scripture Nether can they saie that the Donatists error about Rebaptization was fundamental vnles they wil damne S. Cyprian who confessedly held that error but L. Canterb. p. 315. Potter p. 103. without obstinacie as the Donatists did Saint Epiphan in Saint Hierom. l. 3. contra Ruffinum Manie heresies haue been cast out of the Church for one word or twoe contrarie to faith He saieth not contrarie to the foundation of faith but absolutly to faith Saint Gregorie Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrarie to Christs doctrine can be nothing more dangerous then those heretiks who with one word as with a drop of poison infect our Lords true and simple doctrin and Apostolical tradition But who err in Not fundamental points of faith doe so For they are parte of Christs doctrin and Apostolical Tradition Herupon Caluin 4. Institut c. 2. paragr 5. saieth Augustin putteth this difference betweene Heretiks and Schismatiks that they by false doctrins corrupt the sinceritie of faith but thes c. And in 1. Corinth c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresie in Fathers put heresie in corruption of faith dissention of doctrin So clearely he confesseth that the Fathers account anie corruption of Christs faith or doctrin In dissētion of doctrin to be heresie And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as Heretiks who erred in smal matters holding the foundation as Vigilantius Nouatus c. 4. Protestants also define heresie to be an obstinat error in anie point of faith Wittenbergenses in Refutatione orthodoxi consensus p. 73. Not Obstinat error in one point is hresie enerie heretik impugned al and euerie article of faith but for the most parte each heretik impugned one only purposely whom neuertheles being obstinat in their error the Church rightly condemned as Heretiks Schusselburg 1. 2. Theol. In anie fals doctrin Caluin art 1. we are certaine out of the word of God that obstinat error in anie false doctrin doth make heretiks Thus the Lutherans Beza li. de puniendis See VVitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly heretiks who pretending great pietie yet doe not yeeld to the admonition of the In not yeelding to the Church Church and by false doctrin doe break the peace and confession of the Church And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an heretik by Scripture Romans doth not name heretiks but plainly defineth thē For when he had admonished the brethren that they should note thos who make dissentions and scandales he addeth against that doctrin which you haue learnt wherfore where thes two meet there is heresie according to the Apostles definition then the which we ought not to seek anie better Fulk in his Reionder to Bristow p. 82. The Parlament determineth Heresie by contrarietie By the Parlament to the Canonical Scripture And p. 71. I say an Heretik is he which in the Church obstinatly mainteineth an opinion contrarie to the Scripture Plessie de Ecclesia c. 2. we cal them heretical Churches who err in faith Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 7. They are called Heretiks who are separated from the orthodox Church for some error in faith Bucanus in locis q. 33. heresie is properly dissention in doctrin Morton lib. 1. Apol. c. 3. whosoeuer anie waie departeth from the Catholik faith is an heretik saieth Thomas to whom subscribeth Occam and that rightly Tom. 2. l. 5. c. 13. To be an hcretik is to dissent from Scripture And in his Grand Imposture c. 5. p. 325. To be vnwilling ether to learne or to yeeld to manifest truth is proper to In not yeelding to manifest truth a Satanical Synagog Iuel in Defence of the Apologiae p. 44. For iust proof of Heresie three things necessarily are required 1. that it be an error 2. that it be an error against the truth of Gods word 3. that it be stoutly and wilfully mainteind Sharpe de Notis Eccles col 333. That is an heretical Church which obstinatly holdeth errors in doctrin Chilling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresie is nothing In oppositiō to faith but a manifest deuiation from and an opposition to the faith The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik In oppositiō to the Catholik visible Church veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks c. sec 4. p. 95. He is iustly estemed an heretik becaus he In not yeelding to Scripture yeelds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded to him Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against euident Scripture sufficiently cleared vnto him makes an heretik Sec. 7. p. 110. where 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
some without al sufficient proof 3. And this his sentence our English Protestants should feare becaus in the Apologie of their Church they profés 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 profés 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. §. 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 confés 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 substāce 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 à 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 cōmunion 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 Sacramēts 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 cōfirme it by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. vers 42. describing the true Church or true Scripture puts cōm 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
though not primarily called Not fundamental becaus they are not of such absolute necessitie and doe not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to saluation of a Christian Behold not fundamental points belong to the vnitie of faith though not primarily And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith as it is infidelitie to denie them true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Mark whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded out of Scripture is not only a matter of faith but also is so How al reuealed truthes are fūdamentals fundamental to faith as it cannot be denied without infidelitie And in the like sorte p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he beleue al such points of faith as wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God So that al reuealed truthes are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they maie be conuinced that they come from God And surely they maie then be so conuinced when they are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith require 7. Chilling worth in answer to the Preface p. 10. repeateth and defendeth the aforesaied words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession al reuealed truths are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they can be conuinced to come from God as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed can And Maniepoints of faith besids fundamentals ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth not fundamētal points to be called points of faith And saieth c. 4. p. 209. There be manie more points of faith then there be articles of simple beleif necessarie to be explicitly beleued Where by articles necessarie to be explicitly beleued he meaneth fundamentals For thus he expresseth himself ibib p. 220. By fundamental we meane al and onely that which is necessarie And c. 5. p. 285. By al points of faith you meane saieth he al fundamental points only or al simply and absolutly So that fundamental points Fundamētal points are not simply al points of faith are not simply al points of faith Ibid. p. 294. I would faine understand why one error in faith especially if Not fundamental should not consist with holines of this Spouse this Church as wel as manie and great Sinns So there be errors Not fundamentals deliuered by the same authoritie that fundamentals in faith and yet not fundamental And c. 4. p. 193. saieth that Not fundamental points are to be beleued becaus they are ioined with others that are necessarie to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which deliuered thes And if they be to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which See him ib. p. 218. deliuered fundamentals surely they are matters of faith And we shal shew hereafter c. 3. he oftentimes saieth that it is damnable to denie anie reuealed truth sufficiently proposed c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund and so in their nature damnable and thes are errors against his not fundamentals or such as are not only meritoriously but remidilesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation And thes are errors against his fundamentals And so errors against not fundamentals are of their nature damnable 8. Lord Canterburiesec 38. p. 325. Manie things besids fundamentals which are defide Bellarmin is forced to grant this There are manie things defide which are not absolutly necessarie to saluation Therfore there is a latitude in the faith Where by points absolutly necessarie he meaneth fundamētals So there be manie things defide besids fundamentals And sec 10. p. 37. Al which perteines to supernatural Perteine to diuine faith diuine and infallible Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth that apoint of diuine truth though by sundrie consequences deduced from the principles is yet a point of faith P. 163. The promises reach not to this that the Church shal neuererr no not in the lightest matters of faith So that al matters of faith are not the weightiest Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental and yet to some mens saluation they are necessarie 9. Thus plainly doe thes men sometimes confes that such as they terme Not fundamental points are matters of faith and when they are sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith and to saluation and that it is infidelitie to denie them and errors in them of their nature damnable How contrarie is this to that which before they saied that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith matters of opinion in which modest opposition is tolerable and for which no separation of communion ought to be made And thus hauing shewed that al reuealed truths whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed for such are matters of faith now let vs shew that al obstinat or sinful error against such truths is formal heresie and al such opposers formal heretiks THAT SINFVL DENIAL of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is true heresie SECOND CHAPTER 1. IT seemeth so euident that al sinful opposition or denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which for the opposers fault is not sufficiently proposed is true heresie L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith as it cāscarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe Christiās conceaue by the name of heresie but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith or what by an heretik See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer Yet wil I endeauour to make it more manifest 2. And first out of the definitions or descriptions of heresie or heretiks giuen in holie Scripture Rom. vltima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren mark them that make dissentions and scandales contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them 2. Thessal 3. we Heresie contrarie to doctrin learned denounce vnto ye Brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselues from euerie Brother walking inordinatly and not according to Contrarieto Tradition the tradition which they haue receaued from vs And Gal. 1. Albeit we or an Contrarie to Saint Pauls preaching Angel from heauen euangelize to ye besids that which we haue euangelized to ye be he anathema In al which places an heretik or heresie is described not by opposition
and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficiētly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed differ substātially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and cōsequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundamētal points of his doctrin as in fūdamental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she
pretious in al 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc Hebr. 5. 12. cals the first principles of the Oracle of God And 2. Tim. 1. 13. forme of sound words Thes are his fundamentals the materials laied vpon this foundation whether they be sound or vnsound are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. superstructions which are conclusions ether in truth or appearance And thes if they be sound are his not fundamental points I answer First that the grand and capital doctrins maie wel be the ground of the Church and yet The foundation maketh not vp the building not make vp the common faith of Christians For more is required to a building then the ground or foundation Secondly they maie make vp al the common faith of Christians which is absolutly necessarie to be beleued actually of al and yet not make vp al the faith which absolutly is necessarie so be beleued virtually and implicitly of al and cōditionally also actually of al if it be sufficiently proposed vnto them So that thes places proue not his fundamentals which are so sufficiēt to sauing faith Church and saluation as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly beleued for to haue sauing faith Church and saluation And for his Not fundamentals I saie that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to proue them First becaus the place is verie obscure and hard to be vnderstood Superstructions are not Protestants not fundamentals S. Aug. epist 48. Quis nō impudētissime nititur aliquid in allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura as Saint Augustin witnesseth l. de fide operibus c. 15. and 16. quest 1. ad Dulcitium and Enarrat in Psal 80. And Morton tom 2. Apolog. l. 5. cap. 44. saieth It is metaphorical and entangled with manie difficulties And the place itself doth euidently shewit And an obscure and difficult place can giue no sufficient ground of so maine a point as this is That there be some points of faith which are not necessarie to saluation to be beleued virtually or implicitly or also actually if they be sufficienily proposed Wil D. Potter venture his owne or other mens saluatiō in so great a matter vpon an obscure or difficult text We with Saint Augustin lib. de vnitate demaund aliquid No expres text nor necessarie consequence for Protestants not fundamentals manifestum quod interprete non eget And you giue vs a place for Not fundamentals in your sense which no interpretation can make cleare 3. Moreouer how can you think it certaine that Saint Paul here by superstructions meaneth anie doctrin at al seing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68. and Enarrat in Psal 38. 80. and S. Gregorie l. 4. Dialog c. 39. expound it only of works nor you conuince the contrarie Finally admit that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrins how is it certaine that he meaneth doctrins of faith and not rather humane doctrins inuented by men becaus he calleth them our work and points of faith are not our work Admit also that by superstructures he meaneth some points of faith how proueth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation when they are sufficiently proposed seing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal nor saieth that such superstructures are not necessarie not yet calleth them superstructures in respect of faith or Church but in respect of the foundation as walls and roofe may be called superstructures in respect of the foundatiō and yet are necessarie parts of the house And so secondarie points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points on which they relie as vpon their foundation and yet be necessarie parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church 4. So that this superstruction of Protestants not fundamentals want foundation D. Potter wanteth sufficient foundation for his not foundamentals in his sense and is a not fundamental foundation for diuers causes First becaus the place is obscure and so vnfit to found anie infallible certaintie especially of this so weightie a point Secondly becaus it is not certaine that the Apostle by superstructions meaneth doctrines and not only works Thirdly becaus though he called some doctrins superstructions it is not certaine that he meant doctrins of faith or if he meant doctrins of faith that he called them superstructions in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation and not in respect only of other points of faith on which they are built And we denie not but in respect of themselues some points of faith maie be termed fundamental other not fundamental Fourthly becaus though we graunt that Saint Paul called some points of faith superstructions in respect of the Church or of saluation how proueth D. Potter that he meant so euen when they are sufficiently proposed we denie not but some points maie be termed superstructiōs in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation becaus they are not so absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation to be actually beleued as some other points are But this wil not proue that they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be actually beleued if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie virtually to be beleued howfoeuer 5. Admit that he called them superstructions euen when Superstructions may be essential they are sufficiently proposed how proueth Do. Porter that he meant they were not then essential to sauing faith Church or saluation Is nothing that is laied vpon the foundation essential or necessarie to the building And in this is the controuersie whether anie articles which maie be termed superstructions be essential to sauing faith Church or saluation or no we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foundation and yet essential to the house So on euerie hand falleth down Doctor Potters ground out of Scripture for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense which is that to haue sauing faith Church and saluation See 6. 2. they need not be beleued actually though they be proposed sufficiently not at al virtually For if he only would that some points of faith How some points of faith may be called not fundamental are so not fundamētal to sauing faith Church or saluation as they need not be actually beleued vnles they be sufficiently proposed and are not absolutly necessarie as some others are there would be no question But this kinde of not fundamentals wil not help him to iustifie his Churches erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or his communion with such Churches 5. Other Protestants would proue that Perkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches maie err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed becaus the Galathiās were turned to an other Ghospel and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection and neuertheles Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God But this argument if it
simply Fundamental sect 10. p. 31. Nothing is simply Fundamental becaus the Church declares it sect 25. p. 162. Prouided it be not in anie point simply Fundamental Potter in Chillingworth p. 7. Simply and indispensably necessarie Precisely necessarie An other is Prime foundations and Prime not Prime L. Canterb sect 33 p. 256. 258. The Church is infallible in the Prime foundations of faith An other is To some and not to al. L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 37. What perteines to Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Chillingworth c. 3. p. 184. That maie be fundamental to one which to an other is not so Potter sec 7 p. 103. Some truth is fundamental in some persons in certaine respects which is Not to some others An other distinction is That some are fundamental Remedielesly Remedielesly others not Chillingworth c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund but pardonable by ignorance or which are Remedielesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation An other Some are ether in themselues or by accident fundamental Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. An other is some are Reductiue Fundamental others not so Reductiuely White in L. Canterb. sect 37. p. 317. Popish errors are Fundamental Reductiue p. 321. Some errors of that Church were fundamental Reductiue But what signifieth this multiplicitie of ambiguous distinctions but their ignorance or vncertainetie what is truly Fundamental and their minde to delude their Aduersarie and to confound their Reader Wheras one distinction Truly Not truly would haue sufficed For Fundamental is of one only Nature and what hath that nature is truly Fundamētal what hath it not is not truly Fundamental and this multiplicitie of Fundamentals discouereth clearely ignorance and vncertainetie what is the true Nature or Essence of Fundamental And thus we haue seene how vncertaine Protestants are What Not-fundamentals points be to wit Whether points of faith or but opinions Whether errors in them be damnable or no Whether separation ought to be made for them or no Whether they make difference in Religion or no And whether the Nature of fundamental be one or manifold Now let vs see how vncertaine also they be which are Fundamental points Which Not-fundamental THAT PROTESTANTS are vncertaine vvhich are Fundamental and vvhich Not-fundamental SIXT CHAPTER 1. IN the former Chapter I shewed how vncertaine Protestants are what a Not-fundamental point is but now saie one thing now the contrarie as it serueth for their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church that sinfully erreth in Not fundamentals For then they are no points of faith but disputable opinions light matters for which no separation ought to be made or to iustifie their separation from a Church which they confes erreth but in Not-fundamentals For then they are matters of faith and errors in them horrible and of themselues damnable and iust cause of separation or schisme Now I wil shew their like vncertaintie which are the points that are Fundamental and which Not-fundamental and that as it serueth to their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church or to condem a Church they make the self same points to be Fundamental or Not fundamental 2. And as for their vncertaintie Impossible for Protestants to giue an exact catalogue of Fundamentals or ignorance which are al the Fundamental points themselues profes it For thus Chillingworth c. 3. p. 166. we know not precisely iust how much is fundamental p. 134. It is impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Which he repeateth p. 135. and c. 4. p. 201. c. 6. p 367. and in Answer to the Preface p. 26. And c. 7. p. 408. Protestants do not agree touching what points are fundamental Lord Canterb. sec 38. p. 325. To set bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Iust thus far you must beleue in euerie particular or incurdamnation is no work for my pen. And ibid. 372. The Church cannot teach iust how far euerie man must beleue as it relates to the possibilitie or impossibilitie of his saluation in euerie particular And if it be impossible for them to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals it is impossible for them to tel exactly which are Fundamentals and which Not-fundamentals 3. But at other times they vndertake to giue vs an exact Catalogue of fundamētals For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds conteining the Fundamētals of Christianitie The Creed as it is explained is a sufficiēt Catalogue of Fundamentals This is Doctor Potters assertiō The Creed of Apostles as it is explained in latter Creeds of the Catholik Church is esteemed a sufficient Summarie or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquitie The like he hath p. 413 Behold a sufficient Catalogue of Fundamentals And ibid p. 206. The Apostles Creed is a perfect The Creed is a sufficient Summarie of Fundamentals Summarie of the Fundamentals of the Christian faith c. 1. p. 41. The Creed is a sufficient or more then a sufficient Summarie of thos points of faith which were of necessitie to be beleued actually and explicitly And thes are his Fundamentals And c. 3. p. 133. This is the minimum quod sic wherin in men capable of faith God wil be pleased and he that knoweth minimum quod sic and the lowest degree of faith doth he not know Maximum quod sic and the highest degree And ibid. p. 150. They Out of Scripture we maie learne which are Fundamentals which not maie learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not so And if they can learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not why can they not gather out of Scripture a Catalogue of Fundamentals C. 7. p. 408. You ouerreach in saying Protestants cannot agree touching what points are fundamental Doctor Potter sect 7 p. 78. Those prime and Capital doctrines of our Religion which make vp the Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentialy constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Thes fundamentals are al conteined in the rule of faith which The Apostles creed is a catalogue of Fundamentals rule hath been summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed and hath been receaued by Orthodox Christians of al Ages and places as an absolute Summarie of the Christian faith And after he had proued this saith p. 94. Now our Mistaker Feild l. 3. c. 4. nameth which they account fundamentals hath his Catalogue of fundamentals Behold againe a Catalogue of fundamentals Sect. 3. p. 60. The things wherin Protestants doe iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised are summarily deliuered in the Symbols or Creeds And what are those in which the life and substance of Religion is comprised but Fundamentals And ibid. p. 61. To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed The Creed is
a sufficient Summarie of fundamentals a sufficient Summarie of holsome doctrin they Papists haue added manie more And what difference is there betwixt a Summarie and a Catalogue 4. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 371. The foundation is sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds And if it be sufficiently known why cannot Protestants giue vs an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Sect. 37. p. 319. If he meane different in the foundation itself the Creed then c. Lo here the Creed is the foundation Sec. 38. cit p. 334. The Protestants haue as infallible assurance as you can haue of al points which they account fundamental yea and of al which were so accounted by the Primitiue Church and these are but the The Creed and some deductions from it Creed and some few and those immediate deductions from it Lo Potestants know al points which they account fundamental and why then can they not giue an exact Catalogue of them Sec. 10. p. 28. The Creed is a common is a Deductions cannot be fundamentals constant foundation Deductions from it cannot be fundamental The English Deputies in the Synod of Dort sess 15. The fundamental heads of Religion are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and the Sacraments Behold Christian Reader how these men sometimes cannot giue an exact Catalogue of fundamentals sometime they can Sometimes al the fundamentals are conteined in the Apostles Creed sometimes in the Apostles Creed and in some few and immediat deductions from it At other times deductions from the Creed cannot be fundamental Sometimes al fundamentals are comprised in the Symbols and Creeds and at other times al the fundamentals are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and Sacraments Who wil see more of the Protestants vncertaintie which articles are to be accounted fundamental maie read lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. num 1. and 2. 5. In like manner they are vncertaine whether the pretended truthes against which they saie the Roman Church erreth be fundamental or no. For as we saw in the former Chapter nu 7. sometimes they saie she holdeth the foundation the fundamental The errors which Rome holds are not fundamental truths erreth not in fundamentals and holdeth al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation And the same followeth euidently out of that they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence and saie that she and the Protestant Church and their Religions be al one in substance For nether could she be a true See their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence if she erred in anie fundamental point nether can thes Churches or Religions be alone in substance which differ in fundamental points But at other times they auow that the errors of the Roman Church are fundamental and in themselues damnable and consequently opposit to some fundamental points of faith For thus Whitaker controu 2. q. 6. c. 3. The Roman Church Errors of Rome fundamental and damnable hath taken away manie fundamental Articles of faith and corrupted faith in the principal points Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he D. Potter saie that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments or where does he saie you wanted nothing fundamental or necessarie to saluation Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence that yours errors are confessed not to be fundamental it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you p. 289. Your Church did fal into substantial corruptions And p. 305. A fals hood it is that the. Doctor iudges the Roman Rom. errors in thēselues fundamental errors not to be in themselues fundamental or damnable p. 308. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we beleue the points of difference not fundamental or necessarie you haue beene often told that it is a calumnie And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence that we confes the Roman Are damnable heresies Church free from damnable heresie and yeelding you saluation no Protestant is guiltie of it And p. 34. 282. 278. 293. Poperie in it self destroies saluation and 400. saieth The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselues damnable And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie which he saieth is without question to err in necessarie matters In like sort Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 275. al. 257. Transubstantiation taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion Sec. 37. p. 320. The Church of Rome hath in the expositions both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them And yet ibid. p. 319. saieth The Creed is the foundation Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large That he neuer saied that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-fundamental Sec. 38. p. 325. You haue manie dangerous errors about the verie foundation in that which you cal the Roman faith And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day doth not beleue the Scripture and Creeds in the sense in which the ancient Primitiue Church receaued them And addeth as before the Creed is the foundation Thus vncertaine thes men be whether the pretended errors of the Roman Church be fundamental or no. But sometimes they are sometimes they are not as it serueth for their present purpose 9. Perhaps some to saue thes contradictions See Chillingw c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec 7. p. 71 of Protestants that the Roman Church holds al the fundamentals and holds them not al hath fundamental errors and hath not wil saie that fundamental points are of two kinds Some are fundamental not only by reason of their reuelation from God and their sufficient proposal to vs but also of their owne nature fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the passion of Christ and such like capital articles others not of their owne nature but merely because they are reuealed from God and sufficiently proposed to vs are fundamental to faith Church and saluation as that Saint Paul had a cloack c. And that when Protestants confes that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamentals or erreth not in fundamentals they meane of fundamentals of the first kinde when they saie she erreth in fundamentals they meane of the latter kinde and so do not contradict themselues becaus they do not affirme and denie the same kinde of fundamentals True it is that there is this difference betweene points of faith that some are fundamental to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation both of their nature and by reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs as the mysteries of the Trinitie the passion of Christ and such like others are fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation only by reason of Gods reuelation sufficiently proposed as that Abraham had two Sonns and such like But this wil not suffice
true Church as perseuerance in the doctrin of the Apostles is And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper and publik praiers And saieth we must be such if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the Corinthiās and one saied he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas The Apostle reprouing them faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided As if it should follow that Christ were deuided if his mystical Bodie the Church were deuided Besids al the places of Scripture C. 7 nu 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue that the Church of Christ is absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments For such a deuided Church is not absolutly one but in parte or in some sort only The same also is euident out of our Creed where we profés to beleue the Catholik Church the cōmuniō of Saints Where communion of Saints is ether an explication of Cath. Church as * Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 3. Confessio Scotica art 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Kemnit loc de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach or a thing necessarily required to it For it makes no distinct article 3. The Fathers also as Moulins confessed * c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before by the Church vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such cōmunion as is opposit to Scismatiks Churches orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in communion and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks So that they make vnion in communion which excludeth Schismatiks who are deuided in cōmunion as essential a part of the Church of which they meane as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith which excludeth heretiks And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola cōmunione litigant See him 4. cōt Crescon c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers that they exclude as wel Schismatiks out of the Church who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments as heretiks who want soundnes in faith And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth Men cannot s. August puts cōmunion in Sacraments of the essence of Religion be ioined into anie name of Religion true or false vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments So that there can be nether true nor false Religion without communion in Sacraments And epist 118. saieth God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments 4. Reason also conuinceth that Reason also cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the true Church of Christ For his Church is Confessio Anglicaart 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVittenbergica c. de Eccles a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments as al men conceaue and define And it implieth contradiction that there should be a Societie without cōmunion in matters essentially belonging to the societie as Sacramēts belong to Christs Church For if there be no communion in vse of Sacraments there is no societie in vse of Sacraments And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments no Church For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments And Protestants who profés to giue none but essential Notes of the Church giue right vse of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments are deuided in an essential parte and consequently essentially Moreouer without communion 2. in Sacraments and publik VVithout communion the Church differs not from schismatiks worship of God the Church should not differ essentially from a Schismatical Church And it implieth contradiction that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church Furthermore 3. vse of Sacraments and publik worship of God was the external end for which the Church was instituted and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end Besids the 4. true Church is the mystical Bodie of Christ and therfore as al the members of a natural bodie communicate one with an other so must the members of the true Church Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion Therfore a Church so deuided is no Church of Christs institution Finally al the arguments 6. wherwith before we proued the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God For a Church so deuided in not simply one 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants For Confessio Protestants confés that the Church is a societie in Sacraments Argentinensis c. 12. saieth God would haue his to haue external societie together for which cause he gaue them Sacraments Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper that we remember of what bodie we be members and therfore agree with al brethren Mulhusina art 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church to testifie faith and fraternal charitie Consensus Poloniae The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist to be the band of publik congregation and the band of mutual charitie among the members So Potter sec 7. p. 98. of the Church Caluin 4. instit c. 1. Caluin in Ioan. 9. Pessimū in Ecclesia maxime noxium malū est schisma § 7. The Church by participation of the Supper doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie See him also ibid. § 8. Whitaker also controuer 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church giuen by Bellarm. thus far Protestants put communion in Sacraments in definition of the Church The Church is a companie of men ioint together in profession of the same faith and communion of Sacramēts vnder lawful Pastors Where cōiunction in Communion of Sacraments is put as an essential parte of the Church And VVhere is not lawful vse of Sacraments the Church is not ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church So as where they are not the Church is not Moulins lib. 1. contra Perō c. 26. That is the true Church which is ioined together by profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments And cap. 25. The question which is the true Church is touching the entire bodie The questiō about the Church is about the entire bodie Orthodox and ioint in communion of the Orthodox Church ioint in