OF THE DISTINCTION OF FVNDAMENTAL AND NOT FVNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH DEVIDED INTO TVVO BOOKES In the first is shewed the Protestants opinion touching that distinction and their vncertaintie therin In the second is shewed and proued the Catholik doctrin touching the same By C. R. Doctor of Diuinitie Ephes 4. One God one Faith one Baptisme AN. M. DC XLV IN this Treatise is refuted the general doctrin of Protestants concerning the distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points of faith in their sense but particularly the doctrin of the Late English Protestant Writers touching the same namely W. Laude Lord of Canterburie in his Relation of Conference c. D. Potter in his Answer to charitie mistaken wherof I cite the first edition for want of the second and of Mr Chillingworth in his Answer to Mercie and Truth wherby is refuted the most material parte of their said Books This Treatise was made some yeares agoe but not printed in hope that thes tumults in England wold haue bene ended before this time but seing no end of them is now published THE PREFACE to the Reader VVHERIN ARE SET dovvne the contents of this Treatise 1. 1. PRotestants do teach See infra c. 2. n. 3 c. 12 n. 2. that only the principal or capital points of Christian faith are of the substance of sauing faith true Church and waie of saluation and alone truly and indeed Protestants make onely fundamētal points necessarie necessarie to them and that al other points of faith are at most of the perfectiō of sauing faith true Church and waie of saluation and maie be not beleued though they bee sufficiently proposed without los of the substance of sauing faith true Church or saluation And in this sense they call the principal points Fundamental that is alone substantial and truly necessarie to sauing faith to true Church and to saluation and call al other points Not Fundamental that is nether substantial nor truly necessarie to sauing faith true Church or saluation howsoeuer they be proposed And hereupon they teach that al who beleue the principal points of faith howsoeuer they sinfully beleue not other points though they be sufficienty proposed to them haue sauing faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and that who be deuided in secondarie points though sufficiently proposed are not deuided in the substance of sauing faith of the true Church or of the waie of salvation 2. And the cheif ground though they pretend Scripture of this doctrin Their ground therof that alone the principal points of faith are of the substance and truly necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation is that the principal points are termed Fundamental or the foundation by Fathers and Catholiks as if the wals and roof were not of the substance or necessarie to a howse becaus they are not fundamental Their end or the foundation of it But the end for which they teach this doctrin is to mainteine by it that such persons or Churches as they cannot denie but sinfully err in some points of faith ether sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault haue neuertheles a sauing faith are true Churches and in waie of saluation nor deuided from them in the substance of faith of true Church or way of saluation So that mere necessitie of mainteining Churches sinfully erring in some points of faith drew them to this sinful and pernitious doctrin that the principal points of faith are wholy sufficient and al other points howsoeuer proposed wholy vnnecessarie to the substance of sauing faith true Church and saluation And this is in truth their doctrin concerning fundamental and not fundamental points of faith and their ground and end of it wherof the ground is sillie the end sinful and the doctrin pernitious and Antichristian as quite ouerthrowing al Christian faith as hereafter shal clearely appeare and so abhominable as the verie authors of it are ashamed to exprès it in plaine termes yea sometimes forced to denie it inwords 3. For albeit they teach expresly and absolutely and without al exception or limitation of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not fundamentals that fundamentals are sufficient and abundantly sufficient and Not fundamentals are vnnecessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation They are ashamed expresly to auouch their doctrin yet they are ashamed to saie so expresly with this addition euen then when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or when it is the Vnbeleuers faults that they are not so proposed or when one sinfully erreth in not fundamentals Yea sometimes they denie they teach so and affirme the contrarie Yet that in effect and in deed they teach so and meane so we wil Yet are forced to it proue out of their common Tenets and Principles and their plaine words and deeds Nether in truth would 1. this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points afford them anie colour of mainteining such erring Churches as they endeauour to mainteine by it vnles they meant that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals vnnecessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or it is the Vnbeleuers fault that they are not so proposed becaus it is euident that such Churches err in some points of faith which ether are sufficiently proposed to them or would be if it were not their fault and so doe sinfully err in such points Nether also 2. would there otherwise be anie controuersie about the sufficiencie of fundamentals and vnnecessarines of Not fundamentals to sauing faith true Church and saluation betwixt Catholiks and Protestants becaus Catholiks grant that fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamentals vnnecessarie to be actually beleued to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation when not fundamentals nether are sufficiently proposed nor it is the Vnbeleuers fault that they are not so proposed Nether finally 3. would such Churches as they seek to mainteine by this distinction giue them anie thanks if they would afford sauing faith true Church and saluation only to such of them as inuincibly err in some not fundamental points not sufficiently proposed to them or which not for their fault are not so proposed and would denie sauing faith true Church and saluation to al that err sinfully in anie point of faith Wherfore as long as by this distinction they seek to mainteine erring Churches or communicate with such Churches without excepting thos who sinfully err in not fundamental points and also hold such common Tenets and Principles as they hold in vaine they denie that they teach that fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers fault 4. And this their doctrin that Protestants cal their doctrin of defending sinfully errants in faith charitie
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 fundamētal 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 sáid Not Fundamentals in case of sufficient proposal are necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation Therfore Protestants take this distinction In what sense Protestants vnderstād fundamental and not fūdamental 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 fundamētal 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 thē 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
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 meāt 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 Protestāts 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 thēselues 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 mēbers 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 cōfession 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
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-fundamētal 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 Fundamētal 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
though not primarily called Not fundamental becaus they are not of such absolute necessitie and doe not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to saluation of a Christian Behold not fundamental points belong to the vnitie of faith though not primarily And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith as it is infidelitie to denie them true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Mark whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded out of Scripture is not only a matter of faith but also is so How al reuealed truthes are fūdamentals fundamental to faith as it cannot be denied without infidelitie And in the like sorte p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he beleue al such points of faith as wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God So that al reuealed truthes are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they maie be conuinced that they come from God And surely they maie then be so conuinced when they are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith require 7. Chilling worth in answer to the Preface p. 10. repeateth and defendeth the aforesaied words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession al reuealed truths are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they can be conuinced to come from God as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed can And Maniepoints of faith besids fundamentals ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth not fundamētal points to be called points of faith And saieth c. 4. p. 209. There be manie more points of faith then there be articles of simple beleif necessarie to be explicitly beleued Where by articles necessarie to be explicitly beleued he meaneth fundamentals For thus he expresseth himself ibib p. 220. By fundamental we meane al and onely that which is necessarie And c. 5. p. 285. By al points of faith you meane saieth he al fundamental points only or al simply and absolutly So that fundamental points Fundamētal points are not simply al points of faith are not simply al points of faith Ibid. p. 294. I would faine understand why one error in faith especially if Not fundamental should not consist with holines of this Spouse this Church as wel as manie and great Sinns So there be errors Not fundamentals deliuered by the same authoritie that fundamentals in faith and yet not fundamental And c. 4. p. 193. saieth that Not fundamental points are to be beleued becaus they are ioined with others that are necessarie to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which deliuered thes And if they be to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which See him ib. p. 218. deliuered fundamentals surely they are matters of faith And we shal shew hereafter c. 3. he oftentimes saieth that it is damnable to denie anie reuealed truth sufficiently proposed c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund and so in their nature damnable and thes are errors against his not fundamentals or such as are not only meritoriously but remidilesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation And thes are errors against his fundamentals And so errors against not fundamentals are of their nature damnable 8. Lord Canterburiesec 38. p. 325. Manie things besids fundamentals which are defide Bellarmin is forced to grant this There are manie things defide which are not absolutly necessarie to saluation Therfore there is a latitude in the faith Where by points absolutly necessarie he meaneth fundamētals So there be manie things defide besids fundamentals And sec 10. p. 37. Al which perteines to supernatural Perteine to diuine faith diuine and infallible Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth that apoint of diuine truth though by sundrie consequences deduced from the principles is yet a point of faith P. 163. The promises reach not to this that the Church shal neuererr no not in the lightest matters of faith So that al matters of faith are not the weightiest Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental and yet to some mens saluation they are necessarie 9. Thus plainly doe thes men sometimes confes that such as they terme Not fundamental points are matters of faith and when they are sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith and to saluation and that it is infidelitie to denie them and errors in them of their nature damnable How contrarie is this to that which before they saied that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith matters of opinion in which modest opposition is tolerable and for which no separation of communion ought to be made And thus hauing shewed that al reuealed truths whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed for such are matters of faith now let vs shew that al obstinat or sinful error against such truths is formal heresie and al such opposers formal heretiks THAT SINFVL DENIAL of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is true heresie SECOND CHAPTER 1. IT seemeth so euident that al sinful opposition or denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which for the opposers fault is not sufficiently proposed is true heresie L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith as it cāscarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe Christiās conceaue by the name of heresie but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith or what by an heretik See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer Yet wil I endeauour to make it more manifest 2. And first out of the definitions or descriptions of heresie or heretiks giuen in holie Scripture Rom. vltima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren mark them that make dissentions and scandales contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them 2. Thessal 3. we Heresie contrarie to doctrin learned denounce vnto ye Brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselues from euerie Brother walking inordinatly and not according to Contrarieto Tradition the tradition which they haue receaued from vs And Gal. 1. Albeit we or an Contrarie to Saint Pauls preaching Angel from heauen euangelize to ye besids that which we haue euangelized to ye be he anathema In al which places an heretik or heresie is described not by opposition
And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for In oppositiō to anie point of faith sufficiently conuinced the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith as whereof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is ostbinate an heretik and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beauen Feild l. 2. de Eccles c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error may be found among Heretiks And l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they that obstinatly persist in error cōtrarie to the Churches faith Behold how obstinat opposition to the doctrin of the Scripture of the word of God of the Catholik visible Church or of anie point of which maie be conuinced to belong to the doctrin of Christ is true proper and damnable heresie The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth al whosoeuer shal affirme that the 39. articles are in anie parte superstitious or erroneous And yet I hope they wil not say that euerie parte of their 39. articles is fundamental in their sense Wherfor they may be iustly excommunicated out of the Church who affirme some not fundamental point to be erroneous And art 33. who are excōmunicated are cut from the vnitie of the Church Wherfore when Protestants wil haue Sup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinat opposition to some principal or capital point of faith to be true and proper heresie they speak nether with Scripture Fathers nor with themselues Nether haue they anie authoritie of Scripture Father Al sin against faith is ether heresie or infidelitie or other reason to limit heresie to obstinat opposition of fundamental points but onely least they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretiks whom they cannot denie but err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed to them and consequently err obstinatly and sinfully And if we ask them what sin they call sinful error in anie point of faith if not Heresie they can not tel But now hauing seen that euerie sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the errants fault is true heresie Let vs see that eueric such error is damnable becaus sometimes Protestants wil confes that al such error is heresie but denie that al heresie is damnable as is euident by what we haue rehearsed of their doctrin in the second Chapter l. 1. n. 2. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 278. putteth fundamental heresles and others Some herasies though not fundamental which saieth he doe not plainly destroie saluation nor of themselues damne no man That sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable THIRD CHAPTER 1. THat al sinful opposition or denial VVhitak cont 2. q 4. c 2. non omnes errores circa fidem sunt lathales sicut noc omnes morbi of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the opposers fault is damnable followeth out of that we haue proued that al such opposition is true heresie For that al true heresie is damnable is euident out of holie Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Protestants For the Apostle Galat. 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or heresies Heresie numbred by the Apostle Among dam nable sinns among those sinns of which he saieth who doe such things shal not obteine the Kingdom of God And maketh no more distinction of heresie then he doth of the other sinns And Galat. 1. V. 8. saieth generally If anie Euangelize beside that which ye haue receaued be he accursed And Tit. 3. v. 10. Auoid a man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition knowing that he who is such a one is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his Heretiks condemned by their own iudgment owne iudgment But what hindereth to obteine the Kingdom of God what deserueth a Curese and condemneth a man in his owne iudgment is doubtles damnable Our Sauiour also Ioan. 10. calleth heretiks Theeues and Robbers And Apocal. vltim v. 19. it is saied Ifanie shal diminish of the words of this Book of this prophesie God shal take awaie his parte out of the Book of life And if it be damnable to diminish a word of Gods Book much more damnable is it to diminish some point of his faith or doctrin The same also followeth out of thos places of Scripture which we shal cite hereafter C. 9. n. 2. which commaund vs to flie the companie of heretiks 2. Holie Fathers also teach the same Tertullian de praescript c. 2. Heresies are to destroie faith and do Heresie brings damnation bring euerlasting death And c. 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians And surely it is damnable to be no Heretiks no Christians Christian Saint Cyprian Epist 73. Nether faith nor Church are common to vs with heretiks And he addeth that both by the testimonie of the Ghospel and Apostle heretiks are called Anti-Christs Are Anti-Christs The like hesaieth Epist 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de vnitate and Firmilian Epist 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon c. 10. saieth to the Donatists Ye haue no Christian Church l. 3. de Baptis c. 19. Al heretiks and False Christians Schismatiks are false Christians L. 21. de Ciuitate c. 25. An heretik is worse then an Infidel And in Enchiridioc VVorse then infidels 5. Christ in name only is found with anie heretiks Saint Gregorie Nazian Orat. 21. Driue awaie heretiks as the staine and destruction of the Church and the poison of truth And Saint Athanase in his Creed whosoeuer wil be saued before al things he must hold the Catholik faith which vnles he keep whole and inuiolate without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly But heretiks hold not the Catholik faith whole and inuiolate Therfore c. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. 39. Hold most firmely and doubt not at al that not only Pagans but also al Iewes Heretiks and Schismatiks who Al that die heretiks are damned end this life out of the Catholik Church shal goe into euerlasting fire prouided for the Deuil and his Angels Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expresly saieth that the lesterror in matter or faith destroieth faith That he S. Paul might shew that anie litle thing wrongly mingled The lest mixture corrupteth faith doth corrupt the whole he said the Ghospel was ouerthrown For as he who in the Kings coine doth clip but a litle of the stamp maketh the whole of no value so who destroieth the lest particle of sound faith is wholy corrupted Where then are they who condemn vs becaus we contend with Heretiks and say there is no difference betwixt vs and them but that al our discord is for ambition to dominere Let
and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficiētly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed differ substātially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and cōsequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundamētal points of his doctrin as in fūdamental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she
fundamētal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundamētals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profès the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profès but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profès they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them
fals the comparison is which Protestants cōmonly make betweene Integritie of faith is like life and heresie like death heresie and sicknes and betweene ingritie of faith and health in men For health and sicknes are accidents to men and those also separable from them wheras integritie in faith is essential to the Church and heresie destructiue of its essence as is euident out of their owne definitions of the Church before related And therfore C. 6. n 5. they thould rather compare integritie in faith to life and heresie to mans death Secondly how vntruly they teach that diuision in points Not-fundamental if they be sufficiently proposed destroieth not the vnitie of the Church For such diuision is quite opposit to the vnitie of the true Church which as hath been clearly proued C. 7. consisteth in actual and explicit vnitie of professing al points of faith sufficiēntly proposed and in virtual or implicit vnitie of professing al whatsoeuer Christ taught Thus haue we proued that sinful denial of anie point of Christs faith destroieth sauing faith Church and saluation Now let vs proue that it destroieth also Christs veracitie That not to beleue or disbeleue anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie EIGHT CHAPTER 1. THat to denie Christs veracitie in anie point is to denie his Deitie is euident For he cannot be God or Prima Veritas The first veritie who in anie point can deceaue or be deceaued And that to denie anie point of his doctrin sufficiently proposed is to denie his veracitie in that point is also euident out of that which before we said of faith For as to beleue or profès anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed is implicitly to beleue or profès his veracitie therin so not beleue anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed is implicitly to denie his veracitie therin For as beleif and disbeleif are opposit acts the one affirming the other denying so what beleif implicitly affirmeth disbeleif implicitly denieth If therfore beleif of a thing for Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed implicitly professeth his veracitie therin Not beleif of the same for his authoritie sufficiently proposed implicitly denieth his veracitie in that point Besids diuine veracitie being the formal obiect of diuine faith as Sup. c. 4. n. 3. long as that remaineth and is no waie remoued diuine faith remaineth Therfore what taketh awaie diuine faith in one point must needs take awaie diuine veracitie in that point So S. Tho. 22. q. 11. art 1. But Christs veracitie maie be denied in two manners First explicitly and directly and so it is denied by Iewes Beza de puniend haeret p. 99. Christi doctrinā reijciēdo Christum ipsum repudiant p. 105. haeretici Christi nomen nō profitentur Turks and Infidels who profès not to beleue in Christ Secondly implicitly and indirectly and so it is denied by al heretiks who though they explicitly and directly profès Christs veracitie yet in not beleuing al which he taught though it be sufficiently proposed to them as taught by him implicitly and indirectly denie his diuine veracitie For who denieth that to be true which one hath reported and is sufficiently proposed as from him implicitly and indirectly denieth that mans veracitie For directly to denie the veracitie of the report though it be sufficiently proposed as from the reporter is indirectly to denie the veracitie of the reporter Nether can anie Iuditious man conceaue the contrarie Who therfore sinfully denie the truth of anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed for his indirectly denie Christs veracitie 2. Moreouer of two points Chillingw c. 3. p. 138. Gods reuelation is an equal motiue to induce vs to beleue al obiects reuealed by him equally taught by Christ and equally proposed to vs as from him it is impossible to beleue for Christs authoritie the one and not both becaus Christs authoritie is equally in both and where is equally the same motiue of beleif there must needs equally be the same beleif wherfore if we beleue not them both we beleue nether for Christs authoritie but for some other motiue humane Againe not to beleue Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a sufficient and iust Motiue to beleiue euerie thing taught by him is to denie his veracitie But they who beleue not euerie thing taught by him and sufficiently proposed to them as from him do so Tertul. l. de carne Christi vt quid dimidiatis mendatio Christum totus veritas est Therfore they denie his veracitie The Maior is euident the Minor I proue For not to beleue euerie thing that Christ taught and is sufficiently proued to haue been taught by Christ is implicitly to denie his authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a sufficient and iust motiue to beleue whatsoeuer he taught And surely to denie Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a iust and sufficient motiue to beleue is to denie his veracitie to be sufficient for beleif 3. Hereupon rightly said S. Augustin to the Manichees You who in Z. 17. cont Faust c. 3. Scriptures beleue what you list and what you list not beleue not Scriptures but yourselues And so I saie who in points of Christs doctrin equally taught by him and equally proposed to them beleue what seemes true to them and what seemes not true to them beleue not beleue not Christ but themselues For if they beleued ether for Christs authoritie they would equally beleue both becaus his authoritie is equal to both But becaus the motiue of their beleif is seeming truth and seeming truth is to them more in one then in the other they beleue the one and not the other And to this purpos Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 23. said He that doth not beleue al the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted books of Scripture can hardly beleue anie nether haue we reason to beleue he doth And he might haue said so of al points of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed that who beleueth not them al beleueth none to wit with diuine faith and for Christs authoritie becaus this is equal in al such points and therfore if it effectually work diuine faith for one point it wil work the same for al. Wherfore thus I argue Where is equally the total cause of diuine beleif there is equally diuine beleif In al points of Christs doctrin equally taught of him and equally proposed to vs equally is the total cause of diuine beleif Therfore in them al is equally diuine beleif The Maior is euident The Minor is cleare For the total motiue cause of diuine beleif is Christs authoritie and that is equally in al points of his doctrin which haue been equally taught by him and are equally proposed to vs whether they be principal points or secondarie 4. Finally what it opposit to faith is Infidelitie Denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is
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 sufficiēt 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 saluatiō 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 cōsists the life and substāce 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
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 saluatiō 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 cōmunicate 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. § 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 fundamētal 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
dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholik Sec. 7. p. 74. saieth of Not fundamental points They are disputable in themselues and happily by plaine Scripture indeterminable And sec 6. p. 54. affirmeth that controuersies among VVhitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 8. our contentions are for faith for Religiō Protestants are only in disputable opinions not clearly defined in Scripture And yet their Controuersies arc at least in not fundamental points Chillingworth in his preface num 30. The disputes of Protestants about not fundamentals are touching such things Not fundamentals are obscure matters as maie with probabilitie be disputed on both sides and calleth Protestants men of different opinions touching obscure controuersed questions of Religion Nu. 32. Those truths wil be fundamental which are euidently deliuered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to al men Those not fundamental which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure can be necessarie to be vnderstood or not mistaken c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental Not euidētly deducibleout of Scripture which are therehence out of Scripture deducible but probably not euidently And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points in which Protestants dissent matters not plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture c. 5. p. 306. As for our continuing in their Churches erring not fundamentaly Communion the iustification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beleife and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion And 307. It is not No separation for not fundamental errors lawful to separate from anie Churches Communion for errors not perteining to the substance of faith vnles that Church require the beleif and profession of them Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 147. termeth not fundamental points Disputable doctrin and points of curious speculation and errors in the same light Sec. 25. p. 165. Curious truths Sec. 38. p. 361. opinions which flutter about faith Curious truths And sec 38. p. 357. he affirmeth that in not fundamentals Nether general Councels nor the whole Church hath infallible certaintie And ibid. p. 358. No infallibilitie in not fundamētal points That in them it is no matter if Councels err And ibid. It it not requisite that for them we should haue an infallible assurance And sec 32. p. 226. when they know it the error if the error of a general Councel be not manifestly against fundamental veritie I would haue al wise men consider whither external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded So that obedience may be External obedience to known error in not fūdamētals yeelded against not fundamental veritie And sec 26. p. 205. Bihops subiect to Kings in spiritual causes too so the foundations of faith and manners be not shaken 4. Thirdly they teach that not fundamentals points are no points of faith This followeth euidently out of what we euen now related For if they be but opinions obscure and doubtful matters wherof we can haue no infallible certaintie or assurance not clearely defined in scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture they cannot saie they are points of faith vnles they wil turne faith into opinion and make that a point of faith which nether is clearely defined in Scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture But besids this some times they expresly teach that not fundamentals are no points of faith Not fundamentals no points of faith or of Religion Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 40. calleth not fundamental points Things beside or without the faith Sec. 5. p. 89. How Christ is in the Symbols and how in heauen and earth is no parte of faith Sec. 6. p. 54. Our Protestant Controuersies are none of them in the substance of faith but only in disputable opinions Lord Canterburie sec 39. p. 387. Superstructures are doctrins about the faith not the faith itselfe vnles they be immediat consequences And p. 388. Suppose vncertaintie in some of thes superstructures it can neuer be thence concluded that there is no infallible certaintie of the faith itself p. 341. This Athanasius Creed and the Apostles and no more is the Catholik faith Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals opinions which flutter about faith And p. 376. saieth Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion For the Christian Religion is the same to both And yet these Churches Not fundamētals make not differēce in Religion differ at least in not fundamental points and so Not-fundamental points are no points of Religion Chillingworth c. 3. p. 129. But you Papists are al agreed that only those things wherin you doe agree are matters Not matters of faith in which Protestants differ of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seing al of them agree with explicit faith in al thos things which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus Consubstantiation vbiquitie and such are not matters of faith And in answer to the preface when his aduersarie had saied That men of different Religions as Papists and Protestants maie be saued is a ground of atheisme he wil not admit Papists and Protestants to be men of different Religions but saieth p. 14. By men of different Religions he must meane Christians of diuers opinions and communions or els he Differēce in not fundamentals should not hinder communion speaketh not to the point And c. 4. p. 209. The diuersitie of opinions which is among the seueral sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their vnitie in communion So that the seueral sects of Christians differ but in opinions and yet doubtles they differ in not Optatus l. 2. vbi vultis ibi est Ecclesia non est vbi non vultis fundamentals Lord Canterburie also sec 39. p. 376. Potter sec 3. p. 58. White in Defens of his way c. 38. and others say that the Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same and yet grant that they differ in not fundamental points Whence it must needs follow that not fundamental points are no points of Religion For if they be points of Religion who differ in them differ in Religion 5. Fourthly they teach that no opposition to not fundamētal points Error in not Fundamentals is not heresie is true heresie as we shewed before c. 2. and it followeth out of what euen now we rehearsed For if not fundamental points be no points of faith opposition to them cannot be heresie For heresie is an error against faith And as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 26. p. 198. Heresie properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith 6. Lastly Protestants not content to teach that not fundamental points Not fundamentals are matters of nothing are but opinions no points of faith doubtful matters and such like sometimes speak contemptuously of them as if they were
that there are true points of faith besids those which are principal or capital For this is the ground of al our discourse following 2. First whatsoeuer is clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs is a matter of faith Manie matters of faith in Scripture besid fundamentals and ought to be beleued But there be manie things besids the principal and capital articles that are clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs as that Saint Paul had a cloak Saint Timothe was sicklie and the like Therfore they also are matters of faith and ought to be beleued 3. Secondly matters of faith are not Matters of faith are to be measured by the formal obiect of faith to be measured only by the greatnes of the material obiect which is beleued but especially by the formal obiect of faith for which it beleues which is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs. For euerie habit reacheth to whatsoeuer hath is formal obiect But manie smal matters haue the like diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed as that of S. Pauls clooke and Timothes sicknes Therfore they are alike matters of faith 3. Thirdly the holie Scripture In faith are both great and lesser matters Mat. 5. and 22. saieth plainly that there are greatest and least commandements and that there are Iots or Tittles of the Law And why not likwise great and les matters of beleif If anie obiect that though there be great and litle things commanded to be done yet litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of losse of Gods fauour or of saluation so though litle matters of saith be reuealed and ought to be beleued when they are sufficiently proposed as testifyed by God yet are we not bound to beleiue them vnder paine Difference betwene matters to be done and to be beleued of damnation I answer that litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of los of Gods freindship or of saluation becaus smal matters of their nature do not break freindship For he were an vnreasonable freind who for trifles would break freindship and the end of the law is charitie but al litle matters testified by God and sufficiently proposed to vs oblidge vs to beleue them becaus in not beleuing them differeÌ„ce betwixt Faith and charitie touching smal matters we account God not worthie to be beleued in such matters which is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie For who in things equally testifyed by God and equally proposed See Chillin infra c. 4. n. 3. Potter sec 5. p. 3. The principal ground on which faith relies is diuine reuelation So also p. 10. to vs as from God beleueth somethings and not others beleueth nothing for Gods authoritie but becaus himself iudgeth somethings more liklie to be true then others For if he beleued anie for Gods authoritie he would beleue al which Gods authoritie equally proposed doth equally testifie Wherfore we maie keep charitie with God though we obserue not litle matters commanded by him becaus breach of litle maters is not opposit to charitie but only to perfection of charitie But we cannot keep faith with God if we beleue not smal matters testified by him and sufficiently proposed to vs becaê° not beleif of theÌ„ is opposit to Gods veracitie which is the formal obiect of diuine faith and implicitly saieth God is not worthie of beleef in such matters For where is the lest vntruth there is not diuine or prime veracitie so his veracitie is denied by the lest vntruth but not his charitie by the lest sin Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalips threatned to put him out of the book of life who putteth out one word of that prophesie but no where threatneth the like to whosoeuer shal not keep the lest thing he commandeth 5. Holie Fathers also testifie that al things reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs are matters of faith in that as we shal see hereafter c. 2. they account obstinat error in al such matters to be formal heresie and al such obstinat errants formal heretiks And as Saint Basil saied we should rather loose our liues Theodoret l. 4. c. 17. then fuffer one syllable of Gods Word to perish 6. Protestants likewise sometimes confes and must needs confes that al that is clearely testified by God and sufficiently proposed or that those points which they cal vnfundamental if they be sufficiently proposed are matters of faith and of Religion Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Shal it not be a true Church if it think not sincerely of al heads of Religion if it corrupt anie point of Religion God forbid Not fundamentals are heads parts and points of faith and Religion yea it maie be a Church though it think not sincerely of some parts of faith and Religion so they be not fundamental Loe not fundamentals are heads points and parts of faith and Religion And controu 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 527. It is not necessarie that faithful men agree in al things which are of faith so they agree in the highest the cheifest and the necessarie Behold againe vnfundamental points matters of faith Matters of faith Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. calleth them diuine truthes and p. 39. intending to declare his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points saieth Points of Religion are wel distinguished Points of Religion by Thomas and Stapleton Some saie they are primitiue articles others are Secundarie So that Secondarie or Not fundamentals are points of Religion as wel as primitiue or fundamentals And sec 7. p. 71. Being to proue his distinction into fundamental and not fundamental saieth There be diuers degrees of truths and errors in Religion and commendeth Aquinas for Of the obiect of faith So also Chilling c. 4. p. 193. deuiding the obiect of faith into that which is so by itself and that which is by accident and secondarily The first be to that wherby a man is made blessed the latter that which is reuealed whatsoeuer it be as that Abraham had two sonns Loe whatsoeuer is reuealed is a truth of Religion and of the obiect of faith P. 73. There is a certaine measure Are reuealed and to be beleued The like he hath sec 6. p. 58. See white in his Def. c. 17. and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued and these are his fundamentals but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith Behold vnfundamental points belong to faith though not to the highest measure therof and are to be beleued with a virtual faith And p. 73. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued Other points of truth are Belong to the vnitie of faith
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 frō 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 grauissimū haereseos crimē 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 § 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 saluatiō 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 recōmended 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 Fundamētal 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 sufficiētly 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
Catholik is opposit to Heretiks Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 7. Ether we must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must denie thē the name of Christians And surely who are no Christians but Anti-Christs diuels infidels and Apostataes and opposit to Catholiks haue not sauing faith And though Estius in primā Ioan. 4. and 3. distinst 23. paragr 13. think that what truth heretiks beleue they beleue it with The questiō is of sauing faith diuine faith yet he denieth that their faith is Catholik or simply faith becaus it is not entire faith nor euer said that it is a sauing faith as Protestants saie and is the main question betweene vs and them 2. Secondly I proue it out of Heretiks make shipwrack of faith Scripture 1. Timoth. 1. v. 20. where certaine heretiks are saied to haue made Shipwrack of faith And c. 4. v. 1. In the latter daies some shal depart from faith harkning to spirits of error and doctrins of Diuels And Epist 2. c. 2. v. 18. he saieth of other heretiks They haue fallen from truth and ouerturned the faith of some But who haue made Shipwrack of faith haue departed from faith haue fallen from truth and whos faith is ouerturned haue not sauing faith 3. Thirdly I proue that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently Formal obiect of faith is diuine reuelatiō sufficiētly proposed proposed destroieth true sauing faith becaus it destroieth the true formal obiect of diuine faith For the formal obiect of diuine faith is whole diuine truth reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 1. that it is from God But voluntarie error against diuine truth reuealed and sufficiently proposed taketh awaie this formal obiect Therfore it taketh awaie diuine faith For what taketh awaie the formal obiect of anie habit or power taketh awaie the habit itself The Minor is euident The Maior also is cleare For what other can be saied to be the formal obiect of faith And it is confessed by Protestants For thus Lord Canterburie sec See Vsher Serm. before K. Iames p. 39 Morton Appeal l. 1. c. 1. see 1. 38. p. 344. we beleue them for the same formal reason in al namely becaus they are reuealed from and by God and sufficiētly applied in his word and by the Churches ministration And Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 3. The formal obiect of faith is diuine reuelation The same he hath p. 8. and 10. And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. Faith is an assent to diuine reuelation vpon the authoritie of the reuealer And hereupon the same Chillingworth p. 23. saieth He that doth not beleue al the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted He that beleueth not al Scripture truly beleueth none books of Scripture can hardly beleue anie nether haue we reason to beleue he doth so And the same I say of vndoubted points of Christs doctrin 4. Fourthly I proue that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true-sauing faith becaus it destroieth the true vnitie therof For true diuine faith is wholy one and the same in al true Beleuers But who sinfully beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed which others beleue haue not wholy one and the same faith Therefore c. The Minor is euident The Maior I proue out of Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Scripture saieth that faith is wholy one Protestants The Scripture Ephes 4. saieth One God one Faith one Baptisme Where not only faith is saied to be one but also it is saied to be one as God and baptisme are which are wholy one And this same proue al L. Cāt. p. 36. whatsoever is fundamētal in the faith is fūdamental to the Church which is one by the vnitie of faith thos places of Scripture which teach that the Church is one which hereafter we shal cite For seeing the profession of faith is part of the forme of the Church she could not be wholy one if her forme were not altogether one 5. The Fathers also teach the same Likwise Fathers For thus-Saint Ireneus l. 1. c. 4. She who is the vniuersal Church hath one and the same faith in al the world Saint Cyprian l. de vnitate God is one and Christ is one and his Church is one and faith is one vnitie cannot be deuided nor one See s. Chrystom in Gal. 1. to 4. col 812. Bodie separated by disunion of the ioints Saint Hilarie l. 11. de Trinitate Who doubteth but it is beside faith which is beside one faith And lib. contra Constantium What is beside one faith is not faith but persidiousnes Saint Optatus Vna sides ab haereticorū erroribus separatur l. 5. If you giue an other faith giue also an other God Saint Leo serm 4 de Natiuitate If it be not one it is not faith And thes Fathers saie simply ad absolutely that faith is one without anie restriction to fundamētal points And it is both voluntarie and Sophistical to limit that to a parte which is spoken absolutly when the speaker giues no occasion of such limitation Reason also cōuinceth that faith is wholy one in euery true beleuer For as we saied before the formal obiect of true N. 3. faith is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed but this is wholy one and the same in al beleuers and consequently also faith which as al other habits taketh its vnitie and distinction from its formal obiect 6. Protestants also sometimes confès And Protestants also that faith is wholy and entirely one and vndeuided Luther in caput 7. Math. Tom. 5. fol. 74. Faith must be round that is in al articles beleuing Faith beleues little matters howsoeuer litle matters For who doth not rightly beleue one article doth not rightly beleue in al as Saint I ames saieth who offendeth in one is made guiltie of al. And in tria Symbola Tom. 7. fol. 141. Christian faith must be entire and perfect Entire euerie waye euerie waie For albeit it maie be weak and faint yet must it needs be entire and true In caput 7. Deutron tom 3. fol. 56. Faith suffereth nothing and the word beareth with nothing but the word must be perfectly pure and the doctrin alwaies wholy Holsome And tom 1. German Epist ad Albertum He doth not satiffie if in other things he confes Christ and his word For who denieth Christ in one article or word denieth him in al seing there is one only Christ the same in al his words Wittenbergenses in Refutat Orthodoxi Consensus p. 73. As he who keepeth al the Law but offendeth in one is witnes Saint I ames guiltie of al So who beleueth not one word of Christ though he seeme to beleue the other articles of the Creed yet beleueth nothing and is damned as incredulous Scusselburg l. 1. Theolog. Caluin art 1. Most truly wrote Saint Chrysostom in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole
doctrin who subuerteth it in the lest article Most truly saied Ambrose Epist ad Demetriadem He is out of the number of the faithful VVho dissenteth in anie point and lot of Saints who dissenteth in anie point from the Catholik truth Field l. 3. c. 3. There are some things explicitè credenda some things implicitè which whosoeuer wil be saued must beleue them atleast implicitè and in general 7. Martyr Epist ad peregrinos in Anglia tomo 2. loc colum 136. we answer that al Gods words as they proceed Al Gods words of equal authoritie from him are of equal weight and authorities and therfore none maie of his iudgmēt receaue this and reiect an other as fals Iames saieth boldly who effendeth in one is made guiltie of al. If that haue place in obedience to the commandements it wil be true also for points of beleif Caluin in Ephes 4. v. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he saied Christ cannot be deuided faith cannot be parted Perkin in Explicat Symbolicolum 512. Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in al. Wherupon faith is termed in entire copulatiue Spalatensis cōtra Suarem Faith is an entire copulatiue c. 1. nu 7. Diuine faith perisheth wholy by the lest detraction and consequenity it is no true Church no not visible No Church without entire faith in which entire faith is not kept in publik profession L. Canterb. p. 325. There is but one sauing faith Item 338. And 342. who hopes for saluation must beleue the Catholik saith whole and entire in euerie point P. 105. Faith beleueth not onely the articles but al the things rightly deduced from them Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 41. commendeth Saint Basil for saying Not asyllable of diuine doctrin must be betraied And S. Gegorie Nazian for saying One word like a drop of poison maie taint and corrupt faith And sec 7. p. 74. insinuateth clearely that not fundamental points perteine to the vnitie of faith though not primarily and pag. 73. that they are to be beleued by a virtual or general faith and as it were a negatiue faith wherby they are not to be denied or contradicted Whosoeuer therfore denie thē being sufficiently proposed haue no true sauing faith The like he hath also p. 75. Al points sufficiently proposed are fundamētal to faith and as I cited in the 3. Chapter n. 5. doth oftentimes say that it is fundamental to faith to beleue al that is sufficiently proposed and that it is infidelitie to denie anie such point whos words alloweth Chillingworth and Sup c 3. n. 6. addeth that not to beleue such points is to giue God the Lie And that not fundamental points maie be so proposed as the denial of them wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And if Not-fundamental points be fundamental to faith when they are sufficiently proposed how can sauing faith be and not beleue them Seing nothing can be without al that is fundamental to it as is euident by itselfe and confessed by Protestants before Sup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num 5. Besids they profès by Fundamental to vnderstand essential and nothing can be without that which is essential to it And if it be infidelitie and to giue God the Lie to denie such points how can there be true sauing faith where such points are denied seing sauing faith cannot stand where infidelitie is or the Lie giuen to God And out of al that hath beene said of faith it is euident that there can be no sauing faith but that which actually beleueth not onely al fundamental points but euen al points whatsoeuer of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed and virtually also al points or partes of his word whatsoeuer and that al other kinds of beleif is true heresie and a spice of infidelitie The errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and true Church confuted out of that vvhich hath beene saied FIFT CHAPTER 1. OVt of that which hath been saied of the essence and the vnitie of true diuine faith together with that which shal be saied hereafter of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God the errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and Church maie be easily and clearely confuted 2. Their first and principal error out of which proceed the others is Protestants put the essence and vnitie of faith and Church in some points only that there be certaine principal articles which alone belong as D. Potter speaketh sec 5. p. 16. to the substance of faith Sec. 3. p. 60. Cōprehend the life and substance of Religion Sec. 7. p. 74. which essentially perteine to the faith and properly constitute a Church P. 78. which make vp the Catholik faith And p. 102 wherin consists the vnitie of faith and of the Catholik Church Whervpon he saieth sec 2. p. 39. Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith And Lord Conterburie sec 38. p. 355. saieth That to err in Not fundamentals is no breach vpon the one sauing saith And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith And Chilling worth c. 3. pag. 159. saieth there be certaine propositions or doctrins which integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion 3. But this error that the essence of sauing faith and of the true Church of God consisteth only in-certaine principal points and the substantial The total obiect of faith is al Gods reuealed word vnitie of them is clearely confuted out of what hath been saied For the total obiect of true sauing faith is no parte only of Gods reuealed word or anie part only of Christs doctrin but Gods whole reuealed word Christs whole doctrin as is euident by itselfe and is proued before and also confessed C. 4. n. 9. by Doctor Potter sect 7. p. 71. and sec 2. p. 39. where he alloweth the diuisio of the obiect of faith made by Saint Thomas into primarie and into Secundarie as that Abraham had 2. Sonns And both he and Chillingworth cited in the third chaptern 5. 6. confes that it is fundamental to faith to beleue Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed and so far fundamental that to denie them is infidelitie and to giue God the Lie But what is fundamental to faith is essential to faith as is euident by itself and Protestants confessed aboue l. 1. c. 7. num 5. And besids they confessed Protestants by fundamental meane essentials l. 1. c. 7. num 6. and 7. That by fundamental they meane Essential And if Not fundamental sufficiently proposed be essential to faith fals it is that the essence of sauing faith
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 profès 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 profès Christ in name only and in effect denie his veracitie 6. And this truth is so manifest as Protestants sometimes confès it For thus Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 74. It is true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture VVhat is sufficiently proposed is fundamētal 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 ignorāce 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 confès himself to err in anie point of faith yet they confés 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