Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	council_n	trent_n	4,509	5	10.5965	5	true

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

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

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

such as beleue the fundameÌ„tal points but sinfully err in not fundamental points or which is al one who err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed to them or which for their fault are not so proposed to them haue sauing faith are in the true Church and waie of saluation they cal Charitie and becaus we afford nether sauing faith true Church nor saluation to anie such saie they haue more charitie then we haue But this their charitie towards sinful errants in some points of saith is not solid and But it is fals charitie and ungrounded grounded in anie word of God which auoucheth such sinful errants to haue sauing faith to be in the true Church and in waie of saluation as so main a point ought to be but is only apparent charitie grounded in humane pittie or compassion if not in flatterie of such errants and is directly opposit to the word of God as shal hereafter appeare and to true charitie as damnably deceauing them by telling them that they haue sauing faith who The manifold impieties of this doctrin destroie al sauing faith that they are in the true Church who destroie the forme and vnitie of the true Church and that they are in state of saluation who damnably sin against faith who excuse al heresies in not fundamental points from damnable sin who bring in libertinisme to beleue or not beleue not fundamental points who allow communion in Sacraments with al heretiks in not fundameÌ„tal points who denie Gods veracitie and as Protestants themselues sometimes See c. 10 n. 5. 6. confes commit Infidelitie and giue God the Lie Such charitie it is as God willing I shal clearely shew to afford sauing faith true Church and sauation to thos who sinfully err in not fundamental points or which is al one who err in not fundamental points of faith sufficiently proposed or when it is their fault that they are not so proposed Wherfore this fals charitable doctrin is to be detested and impugned not as a simple heresie or error in faith but as a ground And a ground of Heresie Infidelitie and Atheisme of heresies scisme infidelitie and atheisme And it is in itselfe so horrible to Christian eares as the verie defenders of it though in verie deed and effect they do defend and must defend it as long as they wil defend such erring Churches as they do and communicate with them and hold other their common Tenets and principles yet are ashamed to auouch it in exprÃ¨s words yea in words sometimes disclaime from it 5. wherfore in this Treatise first VVhat is handled in this Treatise of al I set down plainely the true difference betwixt Catholiks and Protestants toutching this distinction of Fundamental and not fundamental points of faith in what sense it is good and admitted by Catholiks in what it is naught and meant by Protestants Next I prove by Protesstants cleare words and deeds and by diuers their common Tenets and Principles that they hold that vincible and sinful error in not fundamental points or error in them sufficiently proposed maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation After I shew why Protestants make distinction of points of faith rather by thes Metaphorical and obscure termes Fundamental not fundamental then by proper and cleare termes Necessarie not necessarie Then that Protestants are not certaine what a not Fundamental point is nor vhich be fundamental points which not nor whether a true Church can err in fundamental points or no but now saie one thing now the contrarie as it maketh to their present purpos Which evidently sheweth that this their doctrin of the sufficiencie of Fundamentals and vnnecessarienes of not fundamentals is but a shift for the present and not firmely beleved even of them who teach it and neuertheles do build vpon it their defense of persons and Churches sinfully erring in some points of faith and of their own communion with such in Sacraments and publik worship of God Which is to build their own and other mens salvation vpon a ground not only most fals and which they are ashamed to avoutch in plaine termes but also which themselues dot not firmely beleue 6. And having shewed in the first booke this vncertaintie of Protestants touching their Fundamental and not fundamental points in the second I proceed to certaineties And first of al becaus Protestants sometimes saie that not Fundamental points ar not points of faith I prove that there are manie points of faith beside the Principal or Capital points which are thos that are called Fundamental Next I prove that sinfully to denie anie point of faith or parte of Gods word what sover sufficiently proposed is formal heresie then that euerie heresie is daÌ„nable and destroieth salvation also that al such sinful denial destroieth true saving faith true Church and their vnitie and also Gods veracitie and consequently his Deitie Moreouer that Communion in Sacraments or publik service with anie Church that sinfully denieth anie point of faith is damnable And al thes points I proue by euident Testimonies of holie Scripture and Fathers and confirme them by reason and confession of Protestants Which is the sufficientest kinde of proof that Protestants can desire After this I shew that this distinction of Fundamental and Not-fundamental points in the Protestants sense hath no grownd in Scripture Fathers reason or doctrin of Catholiks as some Protestants pretend but that the whole grownd therof is mere necessitie to have some colorable shift to defend by it Churches vincibly and sinfully erring in some points of faith And also that though this distinction were admitted in their sense yet it would not suffice to defend such Churches as Protestants endeauour to defend by it becaus they are devided not only in not fundamental but also in fundamental points and most manifestly and vndeniably in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Which Communion I prove by Scripture Fathers reason and confession of ProtestaÌ„ts to be essential to a true Church and what Churches are devided in this Communion to be essentially deuided And hence infer that it is VVhen error in faith is sinful not enough to a true Church or member thereof or to the way of salvation that one beleue al the fundamental points But that it is also absolutely necessarie that he doe not sinfully err in anie point of faith or in communion and hee erreh sinfully who erreth when the point of faith or coÌ„munion is sufficiently proposed to him or for his fault is not so proposed to him And that Luther and his followers who devided themselves Chilling c. 5. p. 273. as is evident also confesse by Protestants from the whole visible Church in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God devided themselues essentially and from the essence of the whole visible Luther in leauing the communion of the whole Church leaft her substance Church And so were in no visible Church at al becaus the

THE SECOND BOOKE I. THat there are points of faith beside thes principal articles which are to be preached to al and beleued of al. II. That sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie III. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth saluation IV. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth true sauing faith V. Diuers errors of Protestants about the substance and vnitie of sauing faith refuted VI. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the substance of the Church VII That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the vnitie of the Church VIII That to denie anie point of Christs doctrin suffieiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and Deitie IX That Communion with heretical Churches or which sinfully denie anie point of faith is damnable X. That their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks XI Though the Protestants distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles were true yet it would not suffice for their purpos for want of vnion in fundamental points XII That their distinction would not suffice for their want of communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God XIII Protestants errors about communion refuted XIV The Protestant and Cath. doctrin about matters here handled and their Defenders compared and brefly shewed that it is true Charitie to tel sinful errants in anie point of faith or in communion that they are in a damnable state A RAISONABLE REQVEST to him that wil seriously answer this Treatise to saie directly and plainly yea or no to thes questions following and constantly to stand to his ansuwer in his whole Replie Whether Protestants in their distinction 1. into fundamental and not fundamental points doe intend to distinguish true points of faith and meane that not fundamental points are true points of faith or no Whether sinful error in anie true 2. point of faith or of Gods revealed word can stand with saving faith a true member of the Church and salvation or no Whether there be not sinful error 3. when anie point of faith is sufficiently proposed to a man or for his fault not so proposed and yet not beleued of him or no Whether fundamental points be sufficient 4. to saving faith true Church and salvation even when not fundamental points or not principal points are sufficiently proposed and not beleved or sinfully not beleved or no Whether not fundamental or not 5. principal points be not necessarie to a saving faith true Church and salvation when they are as sufficiently proposed as points of faith ought to be or would be so proposed if it were not our fault or no Whether it be sufficient to proue 6. some to have saving faith to be true members of the Church and in the waie of salvation that they beleve al the fundamental points and it be not also necessarie to prove that they do not sinfully err in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault or no Whether if it be necessarie to saving 7. faith true members of the Church and to salvation not to err sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which should be so proposed if it Were not the vnbelevers fault it be not damnably to deceaue soules to teach that al who beleve the fundamental points haue saving faith are in the Church and in waie of salvation or no Whether sinful error against anie 8. point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the Errants avoidable fault be formal heresie and al such Errants formal heretiks or no or if it be not heresie what sin it is Whether al formal heresie be not 9. damnable sin and al formal heretiks in state of damnation or no Whether the Grecian Lutheran and 10. such other Churches as Calvinists grant to err in some points of faith haue not had thos points sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault or no Whether when Calvinists saie that Grecians Lutherans or such erring 11. Churches have Ã saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of salvation they meane even such of them as err vincibly and sinfully or only such as err invincibly Whether if they allow saving faith 12 true Church and salvation to such only as err inuincibly in not fundamental points they can pretend to haue more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks haue nor no Whether Communion in Sacraments 13. and in publik worship of God be not essential to a true visible Church and for want therof pure Scismatiks be out of the substance of the visible Church or no Whether they who forsake the 14. Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and in publik worship of God doe not substantially forsake the whole visible Church or no Whether there can be iust cause to 15. forsake the Communion of the whole Church in her Sacraments and publiks worship of God and to institute Ã new Communion which none before had or no Whether when Luther and his 16. Fellowes forsook the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments and in her publik worship of God they did not forsake the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and publik worship of God and instituted a new Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God which nether themselues had before nor anie other Christian Church or no Whether if Communion in Sacraments 27 and in publik worship of God be essential to the visible Church Luther and his fellowes when they instituted a new Communion in such things which was not before did not institute a new Church which was not before 18. Whether Churches which differ both in Communion and in al the formal essential parts of the visible Church as in profession of faith in Sacraments and Ministers of the word and of Sacraments as the Roman and Protestants Churches differt can be one and the same substantial Church or no If the Roman and Protestant Churches be substantially different 19. Churches how can both be true Churches Protestants receaue the keyes of heauen and Lawful Mission from a fals Church or shew the continuance of their Church by the continuance of the Roman Whether al Protestant Churches 20. erring in some points of faith as Protestants confes they doe doe not err sinfully in such points as having them sufficiently proposed to them or might have if it were not their avoidable fault Whether it be not charitie to tel 21. al that sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed to them if it were not their avoidable fault and therby are formal heretiks or which sinfully err in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God and therby are formal

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

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

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

whole Church So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed there were no iust cause of separation D. Potter sec 2. p. 39. Amongst wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vuitie of faith or charitie Ib. vnitie in thes matters is verie contingent in the Church now greater now lesser neuer absolute in al particles of faith what more cleare then that according to thes men we must not separate from anie Church for error in not fundamÃ¨tal points though thes be sufficiently proposed but only for errors in fundamental points or for imposing not fundamental errors and consequently a Church sinfully erring in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed but not imposing them upon others is a true Church and we maie not separate from her but must communicate with such an erring Church which we maie not doe if she be not a true Church 4. This same followeth evidently 4. out of divers common tenets or principles of Protestants as first That al are of the Church who hold the fundamental points as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. and 7. secondly that puritie in fundamental points is a certaine note of a true Church ib. c. 7. Thirdly that to prove one to hold al the fundamental points without proving that he erreth not sinfully in other points is Ã sufficient proof that he is of the true Church Fourthly that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold not al things but al things necessarie as speaketh Chillingworth c. 5. Morton Appeale l. 4. c. 2. ProtestaÌ„ts coÌ„municate with al who fundamentally profes the faith of Christ p. 283. who p. 220. professeth that by Necessarie he vnderstandeth fundamental Fiftly that only fundamental points are of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation Sixtly that they haue more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks haue For if al be of the Church who hold the Foundation If puritie in fundamentals be a sure Note of a true Church If Holding the foundation be a sure proof that one is of the true Church If only fundamental points be of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation and that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold the foundation euidently it followeth that such as hold the foundation but sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are of the true Church Besids if Protestants allow not sauing faith Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they shew no more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks doe For we allow al to Protestants haue no more charitie then Catholiks haue sauing faith to be in the Church in waie of saluation for so much as belongeth to faith who hold the fundamental points and inuincibly err in not fundamentals becaus nether are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed as is euident and Cath. allow saluation to inuincibly errants in not fundamentals confessed by Chillingworth c. 7. p. 139. and 400. If therfore they wil seem more charitable then we are they must allow saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals ether sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault not so proposed For to such we nether allow sauing faith But not to vincibly errants in them true Church nor saluation And as long as Protestants hold their common doctrins hitherto related in vaine they denie that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed But now let vs see both their doctrin and deeds towards heretiks Papists and Lutherans and other erring Churches which wil euidently conuince that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as they account to err sinfully in not fundamental points of faith 5. And to omit that sometimes 5. they teach that not fundamental points are no points of faith as we shal see c. 5. Whence it wil euidently follow that beleif of them is not necessarie to sauing faith or true Church though they be sufficiently proposed they teach partly that obstinat error in not fundamental points is no true heresie nor such obstinat errants true heretiks partly that al heresie is not damnable For thus Perkins in Galat 5. v. 20. Heresie is an error in the Heresie onely in fund points foundation of Religion which saith he I add to distinguish it from errors about lesser parts of Religion Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 40. True and properly called heresie is in defect where a true and fundamental article is denied or not beleued See Field l. 3. c. 3. Eliensis Tortura Torti p. 80. and wittenbergenses praefat ad Acta cum Patriar Constant Moulins contra Peron l. 1. c. 7. I would not haue an error called heresie if it be in some smal matter and not in the foundation of faith The Casimirian Caluinists in their Admonition c. 4. p. 131. An heretik is he who dissenteth from the Creed and foundation of holie Scripture c. 7. p. 244. Not al that err in the doctrin of Christ but such as are in Beza ad defens Castal p. 495. Haereticos esse definio non omnes qui sunt Apostatae a veritate aberrantes error which openly repugneth to the foundation of Religion or from which followeth the euersion of some parts of the foundation be heretiks Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 82. The Creed is a distinctiue Note or character seuering orthodox beleuers from Infidels and heretiks So that who beleue the Creed are orthodox beleuers and no heretiks what other points soeuer they denie And sec 4. p. 127. These errors of the Donatists about Rebaptization were not in them selues heretical Yet were they in a point of faith sufficiently proposed to them L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. If the Church err in the foundation she Becomes Heretical Chillingworth c. 4. p. 209. There are no damnable heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to thes prime verities And p. 215. There can be no damnable heresie vnles it contradict some necessarie truth And c. 5. p. 271. Heresie we conceaue an obstinat defence of anie error against anie necessarie article of the Christian faith And by necessarie truth or necessarie article he professeth to vnderstand fundamental Here n. 2. as is before shewed So that no error against anie point of faith is heresie or at least not damnable heresie except it be against some fundamental point And if it be not damnable it maie stand with sauing faith and saluation Naie they expresly teach that heretiks against not fundamental points maie be saued and that heretical Churches are true Churches and yet heretiks cannot be without obstinacie nor obstinacie without sufficient Proposal of the contrarie truth D. Andrews Respon ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 5. Catholik and Heretik are not contrarie Hookerl 3. p. 128. Heretiks are not vtterly cut of from the

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

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

erring Church is lawful 11. Finally sometime Protestants 8. seeme plainly to confes that sauing faith true Church and saluation can stand with sinful error in some points of faith For thus write the Diuines of Casimire in their admonit c. 7. p. 246. we offer ourselues to mainteine Brotherhood with Lutherans from which thes diuines exclude vs euen this dissention in doctrin remaining Chillingworth c. 1. p. 38. To oppose that which he might know to be the word of God were he void Sinfully to oppose Gods word no mortal sin ofpreiudice is a fault I confes but a fault which is incident to good and honest men very often Loe to oppose that which one maie know to be Gods word were it not his fault is no damnable sin but such as is incident to good and honest men Is not this to excuse sinful opposition of Gods word from damnable sin and to saie that saluation maie stand with sinful opposition of Gods word And c. 3. p. 139. He only in fact affirmes that God doth deceaue or is deceaued who denies something which himself knowes or beleues to be Gods reuealed word And vpon this doctrin be excuseth p. 39. and 40. al Protestants from damnably erring becaus they do not oppose what they know God hath testified and saith p. No dishonour to Gods veracitie 40. They only err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified And c. 3. p. 135. Without anie the lest dishonour to Gods veracitie I maie doubt or denie some truth reuealed by him if I nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by him Is not this plainly to saie that they only err damnably who oppose what they know or beleue to be reuealed and so they err not damnably who oppose that which is sufficiently proposed to them but nether beleue nor know it to be Gods word Is not this to excuse al opposers of Gods word vpon sinful or affected ignorance from damnable sin or anie dishonour to Gods veracitie For thes nether know nor beleue it to be Gods word And to saie that error in faith vpon sinful or affected ignorance maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 285. Protestants saie that the errors of the Roman Church are so manie and some so great as weaken the foundation that it is verie Saluation maie stand with vnbeleif of truth manifested hard to goe that waie to heauen especially to theÌ„ that haue had the truth manifested Lo euen thos Papists who haue had the truth manifested maie goe to heauen though verie hardly Is not this to saie that sauing faith and saluation maie stand with vnbeleif of truth manifested Ib. p. 282. The possibilitie of Papists saluation I think cannot be denied with holding known corruptions to the ignorants especially becaus they hold the foundation but a secure waie they cannot goe who hold with such corruptions when they know them Behold againe a possible waie though not secure euen for those Papists who hold corruptions when they know them Is not this to grant sauing faith and possibilitie of saluation where not only truth is sufficiently proposed but also known corruptions are followed And p. 299. I doe for my parte acknowledg a possibilitie of saluation Saluation maie stand with witting association to gros superstitions in the Roman Church but so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself not as they associate themselues wittingly and knowingly to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church Behold againe possibilitie of saluation granted euen to thos Romanists who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church And haue not they truth sufficiently proposed to them who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to gros superstitions Nether hindereth it that he granteth not possibilitie of saluation to Romanists as they associate themselues wittingly to gros superstitions For it sufficeth vs that he granteth possibilitie of saluation to thos same Romanists who so associate themselues to superstitions for to proue that they grant that possibilitie of saluation maie be in the same men with witting and known association to gros superstitions which is more then I needed to proue For it sufficed me to proue that Protestants teach that sauing faith and saluation may stand with sinful denial of some reuealed truths sufficiently proposed And here saluation is granted euen to thos who associate themselues to known gros superstitions which is far more and far worse For he that doth associate himself to gros superstitions only sufficiently proued doth not associate himself to known superstitions but only which might be known of him But who doth wittingly and knowingly associate himself to gros superstitions doth associate himself to known gros superstitions Finally sec 32. p. 226. when they know it if the error be not manifestly against fundamental External obedience to known error veritie I would haue al wise men consider whether external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded Lo external obedience to be yeelded to known error in not fundamentals Be it therfore certaine that howsoeuer Chillingworth or Doctor Potter saie that al diuine reuelations without question or exception are necessarie to be beleued or not reiected when they are sufficiently proposed or that other Protestants denie they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and not fundamental not necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation euen when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed and denie that sauing faith true Church and saluation can stand with sinful error in some points of faith Protestants do plainly teach so and must teach so as long as they defend such Churches as they doe and communicate with such and hold their foresaid common Tenets and Principles and some saie more to wit that sauing faith true Church and saluation maie stand not only with sinful error of some points of faith sufficiently proposed but also with profession or association to known gros superstitions And I haue been the longer in prouing that Protestants hold the foresaid doctrin that sauing faith true Church and saluation may stand with sinful ertor in some points of faith partly becaus sometimes they denie that they hold it partly becaus to haue discouered it is half to haue refuted it it being so detestable as indeed it is Now let vs see why Protestants make or vse the distinction of points of faith rather by thes Metaphorical and ambiguous termes Fundamental Not fundamental then by thes proper and cleare termes Necessarie Not necessarie For it is not without cause that they chose improper and obscure termes rather then proper and cleare VVhy Protestants distinguish points of faith by the Metaphorical termes Fundamental Not Fundamental rather then by proper termes Necessarie Not-Necessarie THIRD CHAPTER PRotestants confes and it cannot Chillingw c.

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

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

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

to saue the aforesaied Protestants from plaine coÌ„tradiction becaus if not in wonds in effect and sense they both affirme and denie that the Roman Church holdeth and holdeth not al points of faith that are fundamental of their nature For whiles they saie that she is a true Church in essence a member of the Catholik Church and of Christ that she holds the fundamental points which constitute a Church which are the life and substance of Religion the simply necessarie truths by which some are saued and that her substance and Religion is the same with the Protestants they must needs meane that she holdeth al the points which of their nature are fundamental to sauing faith Church and saluation and contrariwise whiles they saie that the Roman Church holdeth errors of themselues fundamental hath corrupted faith in the principal points hath not the substance of preaching the word is fallen into substantial corruptions holdeth that which cannot stand with the grounds of Christianitie hath quite lost the sense and meaning of some articles of the Creed is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie and scisme they must needs meane that she holdeth not al points which of their nature are fundamental to sauing faith Christian Church and saluation Nether finally doth this differeÌ„ce between points of faith iustifie these Churches which they cannot denie but sinfully err in such points as they terme Not-fundamental points For whencesoeuer a point be fundamental to faith Church and saluation whether of its nature and reuelation too or of reuelation only they cannot stand without that which is fundamental to them as is euident by itselef and Protestants confes it as we shal see beneath c. 7. n. 5. Besids themselues profes c. 7. n. 6. that by Fundamental they meane Essential and vndoubted it is that nothing can be without that which is essential to it 7. And as vncertaine Sacramentaries are whether the errors of Lutherans be fundamental or no. For sometimes they are not fundamental nay light matters and not to be regarded as we shewed before c. 5. n. 5. And Chillingworth in his Preface nu 39. saieth I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie and from al error destructiue of saluation or in it self No error of Protestants is itself damnable damnable c. 5. p. 306. we iudge they Protestants haue no errors damnable 8. But at other times the Luherans Lutherans errors are fundamental error of Consubstantiation or real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist is fundamental For Caluin Admonit vltima ad Wesphal p. 831. saieth It necessarily draweth with it impious Idololatrie In consensu c. p. 754. It is no les absurd then Transubstantion And Epistle 292. with pernicious iuglings it ouerthroweth the foundations of faith And Epistle 81. It recalleth the dotages of Martion and Eutiches Sadeel de coniunctone c. It destroieth the nature of Christ Pareus in Galat. 3. sec 37. Nothing can be more opposit to the articles of Christian faith And the like saie commonly al Sacramentaires or Caluinists of the Lutherans vbiquitie as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. nu 5. 9. Thus wee see how vncertaine Protestans are which are their fundamental D. Potter sec 3. p 60. sec 7. p. 74. 78. Chilling c. 3 p 159. L. Cant. sec 26. p. 192. points of faith which as they speak comprehend the substance of Religion integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion essentially constitute a true Church and in ordinarie course are necessarie to be distinctly and expresly beleued of euerie one that wil be in the Church and be saued And which are their Not fundamentals which are not of the substance of Christian Religion Church or saluation And which are fundamental errors which destroie the substance of sauing faith of a true Church and of the waie of saluation and which are not fundamental errors which only destroie some perfection of sauing faith of a Church or of the waie of saluation And consequently they must be vncertaine which is substantially a saving faith or a true Church which is not which is a substantial waie of saluation which is not and whether they haue a substantial sauing faith be in a substantial true Church and substantial waie of saluation or no And also vncertaine with what Church they maie lawfully communicate Then the which nothing can be more miserable For as Doctor Potter saieth sec 5. p. 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation And sec 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And as Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton A pologiae l. 2. c. 41. and Protestants commonly teach Puritie in fundamental points is the only certaine Note of a true Church And how can they be certaine which is a true Church which is not if they be not certaine which is fundamental which is not c. how can they be certaine which is puritie in fundameÌ„tals which is not if they be not certaine which are fundamentals which not Besids al fundamental points as Doctor Potter affirmeth sec 7. p. 74. 75. are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly Al fundameÌ„tal points must be distinctly and expresly beloued beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued And Fundamental properly is that which Christians are obliged to beleue by an expres and actualfaict And the same hath Chillingworth p. See Field l. 4. c. 22. 41. 193. 227. 209. and Lord Canterb. p. 28. And how then can they be certaine that they are in the way of saluation and expresly beleue al they are abliged to beleue if they doe not distinctly and expresly beleue al fundamentals or how can they be sure they doe this if they doe not distinctly and expresly know al fundamentals 10. If anie Protestant answer that though they be not certaine precisely which be fundamental articles which not yet they are certaine that the Creed conteineth al fundamental articles which constitute a Church and which in ordinarie course are necessarie to be actually beleued and this is sufficient to be certaine of I replie First that at least they cannot be infallibly certaine that the Creed conteineth al such fundamentals becaus the Scripture which they wil haue to teach al things whereof we can be infallibly certaine speaketh not at al of the Creed and consequently they cannot be infallibly certaine what Church or persons beleue al that is fundamental and necessarie to be actualy beleued of euerie one or who is in the waie of saluation or with whom they maie lawfully communicate I ad also that themselues profes So Chilling c. 4. p. 194. that it is but only probable that the Creed conteineth al fundamental Probable onely that the Creed conteineth al fundamentals articles For thus Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 102. It remaines verie probable

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

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 fuÌ„damentals 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 fundameÌ„tal 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 FundameÌ„tal 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 fundameÌ„tals 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 caÌ„scarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe ChristiaÌ„s 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

to fundamental points only but by opposition to the doctrin which we haue learned against the Tradition which we haue receaued or against which Saint Paul had preached C. 8. l. 1. But Not fundamental points are parte of that which we haue learned parte of that tradition which we haue receaued and parte of that which S. Paul preached Therfore sinful opposition to them is true heresie according to Scripture 3. Secondly I proue it out of the descriptions of heresie and heretiks An heresie described by the Fathers giuen by the holie Fathers of whom no one describeth heresie or heretitks by opposition to only principal or capital points of faith but by only opposition to Scripture or doctrin of the Catholik Church Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretik who vnderstands Contrarie to sense of Scripture the Scripture otherwise then the Holie Ghost would Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Ciuitate c. 51. The diuel raised vp heretiks who vnder the name of Christians should resist Christian doctrin To ChristiaÌ„ doctrin And addeth who in the Church doe hold anie vnsound and naughtie thing pertinaciously are heretiks Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9. They are not heretiks but becaus they vnderstand the Scripture wrongly And lib. de haeresibus in fine After he had reckoned diuers heresies wherof manie are not against anie principal point of faith he thus pronounceth whosoeuer holdeth anie one of theÌ„ is no Catholik Christian which is as much as to saie he is an heretik And both he and al antiquitie accounted And so doth Chilling c. 7. p. 398. Donatists heretiks for their error about rebaptization who yet saieth Lord Canterb. sec 35. p. 300. for ought I know did hold the foundation Donatists heretiks yet hold the foundation And Morton in his Grand Imposture c. 15. p. 418. The question of Rebaptization was no fundamental error And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. Saint Cyprian and Stephen might both be saued becaus their contrarie beleif about Rebaptization was not touching anie point conteined in Scripture Nether can they saie that the Donatists error about Rebaptization was fundamental vnles they wil damne S. Cyprian who confessedly held that error but L. Canterb. p. 315. Potter p. 103. without obstinacie as the Donatists did Saint Epiphan in Saint Hierom. l. 3. contra Ruffinum Manie heresies haue been cast out of the Church for one word or twoe contrarie to faith He saieth not contrarie to the foundation of faith but absolutly to faith Saint Gregorie Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrarie to Christs doctrine can be nothing more dangerous then those heretiks who with one word as with a drop of poison infect our Lords true and simple doctrin and Apostolical tradition But who err in Not fundamental points of faith doe so For they are parte of Christs doctrin and Apostolical Tradition Herupon Caluin 4. Institut c. 2. paragr 5. saieth Augustin putteth this difference betweene Heretiks and Schismatiks that they by false doctrins corrupt the sinceritie of faith but thes c. And in 1. Corinth c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresie in Fathers put heresie in corruption of faith dissention of doctrin So clearely he confesseth that the Fathers account anie corruption of Christs faith or doctrin In disseÌ„tion of doctrin to be heresie And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as Heretiks who erred in smal matters holding the foundation as Vigilantius Nouatus c. 4. Protestants also define heresie to be an obstinat error in anie point of faith Wittenbergenses in Refutatione orthodoxi consensus p. 73. Not Obstinat error in one point is hresie enerie heretik impugned al and euerie article of faith but for the most parte each heretik impugned one only purposely whom neuertheles being obstinat in their error the Church rightly condemned as Heretiks Schusselburg 1. 2. Theol. In anie fals doctrin Caluin art 1. we are certaine out of the word of God that obstinat error in anie false doctrin doth make heretiks Thus the Lutherans Beza li. de puniendis See VVitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly heretiks who pretending great pietie yet doe not yeeld to the admonition of the In not yeelding to the Church Church and by false doctrin doe break the peace and confession of the Church And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an heretik by Scripture Romans doth not name heretiks but plainly defineth theÌ„ For when he had admonished the brethren that they should note thos who make dissentions and scandales he addeth against that doctrin which you haue learnt wherfore where thes two meet there is heresie according to the Apostles definition then the which we ought not to seek anie better Fulk in his Reionder to Bristow p. 82. The Parlament determineth Heresie by contrarietie By the Parlament to the Canonical Scripture And p. 71. I say an Heretik is he which in the Church obstinatly mainteineth an opinion contrarie to the Scripture Plessie de Ecclesia c. 2. we cal them heretical Churches who err in faith Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 7. They are called Heretiks who are separated from the orthodox Church for some error in faith Bucanus in locis q. 33. heresie is properly dissention in doctrin Morton lib. 1. Apol. c. 3. whosoeuer anie waie departeth from the Catholik faith is an heretik saieth Thomas to whom subscribeth Occam and that rightly Tom. 2. l. 5. c. 13. To be an hcretik is to dissent from Scripture And in his Grand Imposture c. 5. p. 325. To be vnwilling ether to learne or to yeeld to manifest truth is proper to In not yeelding to manifest truth a Satanical Synagog Iuel in Defence of the Apologiae p. 44. For iust proof of Heresie three things necessarily are required 1. that it be an error 2. that it be an error against the truth of Gods word 3. that it be stoutly and wilfully mainteind Sharpe de Notis Eccles col 333. That is an heretical Church which obstinatly holdeth errors in doctrin Chilling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresie is nothing In oppositioÌ„ to faith but a manifest deuiation from and an opposition to the faith The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik In oppositioÌ„ to the Catholik visible Church veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks c. sec 4. p. 95. He is iustly estemed an heretik becaus he In not yeelding to Scripture yeelds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded to him Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against euident Scripture sufficiently cleared vnto him makes an heretik Sec. 7. p. 110. where the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an heretik

And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for In oppositioÌ„ to anie point of faith sufficiently conuinced the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith as whereof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is ostbinate an heretik and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beauen Feild l. 2. de Eccles c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error may be found among Heretiks And l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they that obstinatly persist in error coÌ„trarie to the Churches faith Behold how obstinat opposition to the doctrin of the Scripture of the word of God of the Catholik visible Church or of anie point of which maie be conuinced to belong to the doctrin of Christ is true proper and damnable heresie The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth al whosoeuer shal affirme that the 39. articles are in anie parte superstitious or erroneous And yet I hope they wil not say that euerie parte of their 39. articles is fundamental in their sense Wherfor they may be iustly excommunicated out of the Church who affirme some not fundamental point to be erroneous And art 33. who are excoÌ„municated are cut from the vnitie of the Church Wherfore when Protestants wil haue Sup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinat opposition to some principal or capital point of faith to be true and proper heresie they speak nether with Scripture Fathers nor with themselues Nether haue they anie authoritie of Scripture Father Al sin against faith is ether heresie or infidelitie or other reason to limit heresie to obstinat opposition of fundamental points but onely least they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretiks whom they cannot denie but err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed to them and consequently err obstinatly and sinfully And if we ask them what sin they call sinful error in anie point of faith if not Heresie they can not tel But now hauing seen that euerie sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the errants fault is true heresie Let vs see that eueric such error is damnable becaus sometimes Protestants wil confes that al such error is heresie but denie that al heresie is damnable as is euident by what we haue rehearsed of their doctrin in the second Chapter l. 1. n. 2. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 278. putteth fundamental heresles and others Some herasies though not fundamental which saieth he doe not plainly destroie saluation nor of themselues damne no man That sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable THIRD CHAPTER 1. THat al sinful opposition or denial VVhitak cont 2. q 4. c 2. non omnes errores circa fidem sunt lathales sicut noc omnes morbi of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the opposers fault is damnable followeth out of that we haue proued that al such opposition is true heresie For that al true heresie is damnable is euident out of holie Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Protestants For the Apostle Galat. 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or heresies Heresie numbred by the Apostle Among dam nable sinns among those sinns of which he saieth who doe such things shal not obteine the Kingdom of God And maketh no more distinction of heresie then he doth of the other sinns And Galat. 1. V. 8. saieth generally If anie Euangelize beside that which ye haue receaued be he accursed And Tit. 3. v. 10. Auoid a man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition knowing that he who is such a one is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his Heretiks condemned by their own iudgment owne iudgment But what hindereth to obteine the Kingdom of God what deserueth a Curese and condemneth a man in his owne iudgment is doubtles damnable Our Sauiour also Ioan. 10. calleth heretiks Theeues and Robbers And Apocal. vltim v. 19. it is saied Ifanie shal diminish of the words of this Book of this prophesie God shal take awaie his parte out of the Book of life And if it be damnable to diminish a word of Gods Book much more damnable is it to diminish some point of his faith or doctrin The same also followeth out of thos places of Scripture which we shal cite hereafter C. 9. n. 2. which commaund vs to flie the companie of heretiks 2. Holie Fathers also teach the same Tertullian de praescript c. 2. Heresies are to destroie faith and do Heresie brings damnation bring euerlasting death And c. 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians And surely it is damnable to be no Heretiks no Christians Christian Saint Cyprian Epist 73. Nether faith nor Church are common to vs with heretiks And he addeth that both by the testimonie of the Ghospel and Apostle heretiks are called Anti-Christs Are Anti-Christs The like hesaieth Epist 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de vnitate and Firmilian Epist 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon c. 10. saieth to the Donatists Ye haue no Christian Church l. 3. de Baptis c. 19. Al heretiks and False Christians Schismatiks are false Christians L. 21. de Ciuitate c. 25. An heretik is worse then an Infidel And in Enchiridioc VVorse then infidels 5. Christ in name only is found with anie heretiks Saint Gregorie Nazian Orat. 21. Driue awaie heretiks as the staine and destruction of the Church and the poison of truth And Saint Athanase in his Creed whosoeuer wil be saued before al things he must hold the Catholik faith which vnles he keep whole and inuiolate without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly But heretiks hold not the Catholik faith whole and inuiolate Therfore c. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. 39. Hold most firmely and doubt not at al that not only Pagans but also al Iewes Heretiks and Schismatiks who Al that die heretiks are damned end this life out of the Catholik Church shal goe into euerlasting fire prouided for the Deuil and his Angels Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expresly saieth that the lesterror in matter or faith destroieth faith That he S. Paul might shew that anie litle thing wrongly mingled The lest mixture corrupteth faith doth corrupt the whole he said the Ghospel was ouerthrown For as he who in the Kings coine doth clip but a litle of the stamp maketh the whole of no value so who destroieth the lest particle of sound faith is wholy corrupted Where then are they who condemn vs becaus we contend with Heretiks and say there is no difference betwixt vs and them but that al our discord is for ambition to dominere Let

so that ether they do see it and wil not or were it not for their owne voluntarie and auoidable fault might and should see it and doe not let al such errors be as damnable as you please to make them P. 21. If anie Papist or Protestant be betraied into or kept in anie error by anie sin of his wil such error is as the cause of it damnable P. 23. There is as matters now stand Alike necessitie to beleue not fuÌ„damentals as fundamentals as great necessitie of beleuing thos truths of Scripture which are Not fundamental as thos that are And p. 24. he citeth Doctor Potter saying If anie be negligent in seeking truth vnwilling to finde it ether doth see it and wil not or Negligence in seeking truth is damnable might see it and wil not his case is dangerous and without repentance desperat And Chillingworth addeth He secureth none that in matter of Religion are None sinfully erroneous is secure sinfully that is willingly erroneous And c. 3. p. 138. You infer out of Doctor Potters words that al errors are alike damnable Al error alike damnable if the preposal be alike if the manner of propounding the contrarie truths be not different which for ought I know al Protestants and al that haue sense must graunt And ibid. p. 161. we are obliged vnder paine of damnation to beleue al wherof we may be fufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church And p. 137. namely he saieth of a Not fundamental See also p. 41. point It maie by accident become fundamental becaus it maie be so proposed that the denial of it wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And al that is so sufficiently proposed as matters of faith ought to be are proposed in such sort Ibid pag. 134. Among the conditions of saluation which Christ requireth one is that we beleue what he has reuealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue beene reuealed by him And 158. If the cause of the error be some voluntarie and auoidable fault the error is in itself finful and consequeÌ„tly in its owne nature dawnable And c. 5. p. 280. Capital danger may arise from errors though not fundamental Seep 278. 7. Lord Canterburie sec 37. p. 320. It is true that error in points not fundamental maie be damnable to some men though they hold it not against their conscience As namely when they hold an error in some dangerous points which grate vpon the foundation and yet wil nether seek the meanes to know the truth nor accept and beleue truth when it is known especially being men able to iudge And p. 342. I agree that he which hopes for saluatioÌ„ must beleue the Catholik faith whole and entire in euerie point And sec 35. p. 289. saieth A matter of faith and so A matter of faith is a matter of saluation of saluation too As if euerie matter of faith were also matter of saluation And both he p. 24. 31. 139. 140. 162. 165. Chillingworth p. 14. 277. 279. 281. 285. And Potter sec 5. p. 19. sec 7. p. 58. 78. speak of absolutly or simply fundamental or necessarie points which insinuateth that there are others truly fundameÌ„tal or truly necessarie besids thos which are absolutely such The Author of the Preface to K. Iames before Iuels workes In things necessarie onely necessitate Precepti not onely witting and willing disobedience but also wilful and affected ignorance doth condemn 8. In which Confessions of the Points to be noted Protestants I would haue the Reader to mark wel thes points First that al 1. errors fundamental or Not fundamental are alike damnable if the contrarie truth be alike proposed Secondly that a Not fundamental 2. point sufficiently proposed is so fundamental to faith and saluation as to contradict it is infidelitie and to giue 3. God the Lie Thirdly that who beleueth not anie one diuine truth sufficiently proposed is an heretik and excludes himself out of heauen Fourthly that who is negligent to 4. seek truth or vnwilling to finde it is without repentance desperat Fiftly 5. that who were it not for their auoidable faults might and should see truth and do not their error is damnable and that they secure none who is sinfully erroneous And if they would constantly stand to thes points there would be litle coÌ„trouersie about fundamental and not fundamental Protestants some times grant al the question Magna est veritas praeualet points For this is to grant plainly that no points of faith are so fundamental as they are sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation if other points be sufficiently proposed and not beleued or for the not beleuers fault not so proposed nor anie so not fundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be beleued actually if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie to be virtually beleued whether they be so proposed or no. And al the question betwixt Catholiks and Protestants is whether anie points of faith be thus fundamental and anie thus Not-fundamental or no. But becaus Protestants can not denie but that some Churches which they mainteine haue had the truth against which they err sufficiently proposed to them or if it were not their auoidable fault might and should see the truth therfor when they are to defend such Churches they forget this doctrin But now hauing proued that to err sinfully in anie matter of faith is both heresie and destroieth saluation let vs also proue that it destroieth true sauing faith That vincible and sinful error against anie point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. THat vincible and sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith is euident out of this that al such error is true heresie as is before C. 2. proued and heresie is opposit to sauing faith as is euident out of the definitions of heresie related before c. 2. out of Scripture Fathers and Protestants and also out of the testimonies of holie Fathers c. 3. n. 2. that heresie is the destruction of faith the poison of faith that heretiks haue nether faith nor Church common with Catholiks haue Christ only in name that heretiks are no true Christians are false Christians are Christians only in name are worse then Infidels are Anti Christs Which euidently shew that heresie is opposit to sauing faith and heretiks to Catholiks For if they be no Christians much les are they Catholiks And Protestants sometimes giue the same iudgment of them For thus Luther in caput 7. Math. tom 7. Heretiks are not Christians Protestants saie that heretiks are no Christians Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 6. They are Anti-Christs and diuels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostataes Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 2. the name of

and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitioÌ„s of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficieÌ„tly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficieÌ„tly proposed differ substaÌ„tially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is coÌ„teined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and coÌ„sequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundameÌ„tal points of his doctrin as in fuÌ„damental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she

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

falsitie or word of man or not the whole reuealed word of God are not the true Church Secondly becaus as we proued before C. 2. 4. there are no fundamental points in Field l. 2. de Ecclesia c. 3. freedom froÌ„ pertinatious error is euer found in the true Church Fulks ouerthrow of the answer to Char Preface p. 114. the Protestants sense that is such as are sufficient to be beleued though other points of faith be sufficiently proposed nor anie Not fundamental in their sense that is such as are not necessarie to be actually beleued when they are sufficiently proposed and virtually though they be not proposed But al points of faith whatsoeuer are fundamental or essential Al points of faith essential to a true Church to a true Church and are to be beleued ether actually and explicitly if they be sufficiently proposed or at the least virtually and implicitly if they be not sufficiently proposed For as is said before the whole reuealed word which conteineth as wel Not-fundamentals as fundamentals is the true obiect of faith And no companie but such as professeth al Christs doctrin can be a true Church of Christ And therfore none who denie anie points of his doctrin sufficiently proposed can be his true Church absolutly but only his Church in parte as in parte onely they profÃ¨s his doctrin And this D. Potter insinuateth when sec 7. p. 74. he saieth That Not fundamentals do Not fundamentals belong to the essence of a Church not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to the saluation of a Christian For if they doe anie waie truly belong whether See Chilling p. 209. 291. primarily or secondarily to the essence of a Church a Church cannot be without them altogether becaus nothing can be without that which any way belongs to its essence And they maie be faied to belong secundarily to the essence of a Church becaus How Not-fundamentals may belong secundarily a Church maie be without actual beleif of them to wir if they be not sufficiently proposed 7. Reason also conuinceth that what is simply and absolutly a true Al points Christs doctrin howsoeuer must be professed at least virtually or implicitly Church of Christ must at least virtually and implicitly profÃ¨s al his doctrin Becaus if it doe no waie profÃ©s his whole doctrin but only some parte of his doctrin it is not simply and absolutly his Church but in parte only his Church and in parto not his Church as in parte it professeth his doctrin and in part reiecteth it And they nether virtually not implicitly profÃ¨s his whole doctrin who sinfully reiect anie part of it when it is sufficiently proposed to be his Secondly becaus to reiect anie parte of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to be his doctrin is to reiect Christs veracitie for it is as much as to saie he is not to be beleued in that and is an act of infidelitie as Protestants before C. 3. Â§. 5. 6. l. 2. confessed And how can they be a true Church of Christ who in anie point reiect Christ veracitie and commit an act of infidelitie Besids as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 10. p. 36. whatsoeuer is fundamental in the faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the vnitie of faith But Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith as before D. C. 3. Â§ 5. 6. l 2. Potter and Chilling worth confessed Therfore c. 8. And out of thes definitions of a true Church which we haue brought out of holie Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason it appeareth First how vntrue it is which Canterburie saieth sec 16. p. 62. The Catholik Church which wee beleue in our Creed is Catholik Church includeth not al ChristiaÌ„s the societie of al Christians or which Moulins saieth l. 1. coÌ„tra Peron c. 2. The Scripture taketh the name of the Church sometimes for the vniuersal companie of al those who profÃ¨s themselues Christians and to beleue in Iesus Christ Secondly how vntrue it is which the same Lord Canterburie hath sec 36. p. 314. No man can be saied simply to be out of the visible Chureh that is baptized and holds the foundation Or sec 20. p. 129. That Church which receaues the Scripture as a rule of faith and both the Sacraments as seales of grace can not but be a true Church in essence Or which D. Potter saieth sec 5. p. 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation Or as Chilling worth saieth Tertul. praescrip c. 41. haeretici paceÌ„ passim cum omnibus miscent c. 5. p. 283. Protestants grant their communion to al who hold with them not al things but things necessarie Or which generally al Protestants saie That the Catholik Church is the multitude of al Christians through the whole world who agree in profession of the principal articles of Christian faith howsoeuer they denie other points of faith sufficiently proposed to them nor communicate together at al in Sacraments or publik worship of God For beside that these things are saied without al apparent proof ether of Scripture Fathers or reason but merely to include themselues and such others as they please within the bounds of the true Catholik Church they are clearely conuinced out of the aforesaid definitions of the Church taken out of Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason For nether do al Christians or al that profÃ¨s themselues Christians perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles but onely in a part of it nor are they al Orthodox or sound in faith or vnited in communion nor do they al profÃ¨s the pure sincere vncorrupt and entire word of God and therfore according to the definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason they are not al members of the true Church 9. And with les apparence can they be saied to be the Catholik C. 6. n. 3. l. 2. Church For Catholik as before I said out of Saint Augustin and other Fathers halteth in nothing and manie of thos Christians who hold the principal articles halt in manie other points of faith And besids al such Christians communicate not together and coÌ„demn one an other as is euident in the Roman the Grecian the Lutheran the Caluinist and such other Churches And communion is as wel essential to the true Catholik Church C. 13. S. Austin Epist 48. l. de vnit c. 6 Collat. 3. diei c. 3. de Pastoribê° c. 13. Field l. 3. de Eccles c. 43. as puritie in faith as hereafter shal be proued Nay Catholik rather signifieth communion then puritie in faith What monstrous Catholik Church then must that be which consisteth of al thos Christians who agree only in the principal points of Christian faith A monstruous Church of Protestants but in al other points how sufficiently soeuer proposed to them disagree and condemn one

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

fundameÌ„tal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundameÌ„tals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profÃ¨s the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profÃ¨s but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profÃ¨s they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them

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

fals the comparison is which Protestants coÌ„monly 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 sufficieÌ„ntly 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 profÃ¨s anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed is implicitly to beleue or profÃ¨s 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 doctrinaÌ„ reijcieÌ„do Christum ipsum repudiant p. 105. haeretici Christi nomen noÌ„ profitentur Turks and Infidels who profÃ¨s not to beleue in Christ Secondly implicitly and indirectly and so it is denied by al heretiks who though they explicitly and directly profÃ¨s 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HItherto Gentle Reader haue we refuted the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental How fals the Protestants distinction is points in the Protestants sense and clearely shewed that in their sense it introduceth formal heresie destroieth true sauing faith Catholik Church and saluation conteineth Infidelitie and denieth Gods veracitie and so is the verie ground of Atheisme We haue also shewed that this distinctioÌ„ How vnsufficient for their purpose euen in the Protestants sense sufficeth them not for that purpose for which they deuised it which was to mainteine some such Churches as are sinfully Rouse of Cath. Charitie c. 9. deuided in points of faith becaus some of them are deuided euen in fundamental points and al are wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God which diuision as wel destroieth the Church as diuision in fundamental points doth 2. Now it resteth out of that which hath been saied to compare the faith and Church of Catholiks and of Protestants together and also the certaintie or vncertaintie of their defenders that thou maist the better iudge whether of thes seueral faithes or Churches is of God and which of their Defenders defend their doctrin for truth or conscience sake whether to make a shift for a Time 3. The Catholiks faith essentially Difference betweene their faithes embraceth al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed The * c. 5. n. 2. Protestants faith essentially embraceth 1. only the fundamental points The 2. Catholiks faith can stand with no heresie or sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed Protestants faith can stand with anie heresie or sinful denial of anie point C. 2. n 2. l. 1. of faith which is not fundamental how sufficiently so euer it be proposed which is as Protestants sometimes C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. confÃ©s infidelitie and a giuing the Lie to God Catholikes faith is 3. perfectly and entirely one and the same in euerie one beleuing actually euerie parte of Gods word sufficiently proposed and virtually euerie parte whatsoeuer Protestants faith is necessarily C. 5. n 2. l. 2. one only in fundamental points and maie be various or deuided in al other points how sufficiently soeuer they be proposed which vnitie is merely in parte and is true multiplicitie Catholik faith is approued 4. of Protestants to conteine C. 5. n. 7. l. 1. al that is essential to true faith Protestants C. 5. n. 7. faith is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 4. Likewise the Catholik Church DiffereÌ„ce betweene their Churches embraceth only thos who actually beleiue euerie point of faith sufficiently 1. proposed to them and virtually what other points of faith soeuer Protestants Church embraceth sometimes al that are Christians C. 6. n. 8. l. 2. or al that profÃ©s Christs name what heretiks so euer they be Sometimes al that beleiue the fundameÌ„tal points howsoeuer they sinfully denie other points sufficiently proposed which is to include Infidels and Giuers of C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. the Lie to God The Catholik Church is perfectly and entirely one both in 2. profession of faith and in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Protestants Church is at most one in profession of fundamental C. 5. n. 2. l. 2. points and various in al other points And no waie one but wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Which is to be one in a smal parte and to be simply and truly manie The 3. Catholik Church is approued of Protestants to be a true a C. 2. nu 3. c. 7. nu 9. Church a member of the Catholik Church A member of the Bodie of Christ Her Religion a possible waie of saluation a 4. safe b c. 7. n. 3. 7. c. 2. n. 3. waie for them that beleue as they profÃ©s and safest for the ignorants and euen thos who are most obstinat in her members of the Catholik Church The ProtestaÌ„ts Church is condemned of al Catholiks for a false Church guiltie both of heresie and schisme and to haue no possible waie of saluation but assured waie of damnation to al that wittingly liue and die in her 5. Seing therfore by the testimonie of holie Scripture Fathers and Reason and Confession of Protestants the faith and Church of God is both one and holie iudge whether of thes two faiths or Churches be more one or more holie whether Cath faith more one then Protestants that faith be not more one which admitteth no voluntarie diuision in anie point of faith whatsoeuer then that which admitteth voluntarie diuision in al points of faith besids thos which are fundamental And whether that faith be not more holie which admitteth And more holie no sinful denial of Gods word whatsoeuer then that which admitteth sinful denial of al his word besids that which is fundamental how sufficiently soeuer it be proposed which kinde of denial is * C. 3. nu 5. l. 2. Infidelitie and a giuing of the lie to God And whether that faith be not more secure And more secure which is approued of its Aduersaries to conteine al that is * c. 5. n. 5. l 1. essential to true faith then that which is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 6. Likewise whether that Church Catholik Church more one then Protestants be not more one which is entirely one both in profession of al points of faith and in communion of Sacraments then that which requireth no more vnitie but in fundamental points which euerie one is actually to beleue and admitteth sinful diuision in al other points and whole diuision in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God And whether And more holie that be not more holie which admitteth no heresie in points of faith nor no schisme in diuision of communion then that which admitts al heresies except in fundamental points and al schime in diuision of communion And whether that Church be not the And more safe safer waie to saluation which is approued of its Aduersaries for * c. 7. n 3. 6. 2 n. 3. l. 1. safe then that which is approued only of its followers and vtterly condemned by al aduersaries 7. And as for the Defenders Catholiks constant in in their doctrin of thes different faiths and Churches it is euident that Catholiks constantly and resolutly condemne the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental articles in the Protestants 1. sense and auouch that there are no certaine points so sufficient to sauing faith to a Church or to saluation that others maie be denied or not beleued though they be sufficiently proposed None so Not fundamental as they must not necessarily be beleued of a Church and for saluation if they be sufficiently proposed That there be more points of 2. faith then thos which must be actually beleued of euerie

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

Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Text snippets containing the quad