though not primarily called Not fundamental becaus they are not of such absolute necessitie and doe not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to saluation of a Christian Behold not fundamental points belong to the vnitie of faith though not primarily And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith as it is infidelitie to denie them true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Mark whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded out of Scripture is not only a matter of faith but also is so How al reuealed truthes are fūdamentals fundamental to faith as it cannot be denied without infidelitie And in the like sorte p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he beleue al such points of faith as wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God So that al reuealed truthes are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they maie be conuinced that they come from God And surely they maie then be so conuinced when they are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith require 7. Chilling worth in answer to the Preface p. 10. repeateth and defendeth the aforesaied words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession al reuealed truths are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they can be conuinced to come from God as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed can And Maniepoints of faith besids fundamentals ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth not fundamētal points to be called points of faith And saieth c. 4. p. 209. There be manie more points of faith then there be articles of simple beleif necessarie to be explicitly beleued Where by articles necessarie to be explicitly beleued he meaneth fundamentals For thus he expresseth himself ibib p. 220. By fundamental we meane al and onely that which is necessarie And c. 5. p. 285. By al points of faith you meane saieth he al fundamental points only or al simply and absolutly So that fundamental points Fundamētal points are not simply al points of faith are not simply al points of faith Ibid. p. 294. I would faine understand why one error in faith especially if Not fundamental should not consist with holines of this Spouse this Church as wel as manie and great Sinns So there be errors Not fundamentals deliuered by the same authoritie that fundamentals in faith and yet not fundamental And c. 4. p. 193. saieth that Not fundamental points are to be beleued becaus they are ioined with others that are necessarie to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which deliuered thes And if they be to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which See him ib. p. 218. deliuered fundamentals surely they are matters of faith And we shal shew hereafter c. 3. he oftentimes saieth that it is damnable to denie anie reuealed truth sufficiently proposed c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund and so in their nature damnable and thes are errors against his not fundamentals or such as are not only meritoriously but remidilesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation And thes are errors against his fundamentals And so errors against not fundamentals are of their nature damnable 8. Lord Canterburiesec 38. p. 325. Manie things besids fundamentals which are defide Bellarmin is forced to grant this There are manie things defide which are not absolutly necessarie to saluation Therfore there is a latitude in the faith Where by points absolutly necessarie he meaneth fundamētals So there be manie things defide besids fundamentals And sec 10. p. 37. Al which perteines to supernatural Perteine to diuine faith diuine and infallible Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth that apoint of diuine truth though by sundrie consequences deduced from the principles is yet a point of faith P. 163. The promises reach not to this that the Church shal neuererr no not in the lightest matters of faith So that al matters of faith are not the weightiest Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental and yet to some mens saluation they are necessarie 9. Thus plainly doe thes men sometimes confes that such as they terme Not fundamental points are matters of faith and when they are sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith and to saluation and that it is infidelitie to denie them and errors in them of their nature damnable How contrarie is this to that which before they saied that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith matters of opinion in which modest opposition is tolerable and for which no separation of communion ought to be made And thus hauing shewed that al reuealed truths whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed for such are matters of faith now let vs shew that al obstinat or sinful error against such truths is formal heresie and al such opposers formal heretiks THAT SINFVL DENIAL of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is true heresie SECOND CHAPTER 1. IT seemeth so euident that al sinful opposition or denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which for the opposers fault is not sufficiently proposed is true heresie L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith as it cāscarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe Christiās conceaue by the name of heresie but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith or what by an heretik See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer Yet wil I endeauour to make it more manifest 2. And first out of the definitions or descriptions of heresie or heretiks giuen in holie Scripture Rom. vltima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren mark them that make dissentions and scandales contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them 2. Thessal 3. we Heresie contrarie to doctrin learned denounce vnto ye Brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselues from euerie Brother walking inordinatly and not according to Contrarieto Tradition the tradition which they haue receaued from vs And Gal. 1. Albeit we or an Contrarie to Saint Pauls preaching Angel from heauen euangelize to ye besids that which we haue euangelized to ye be he anathema In al which places an heretik or heresie is described not by opposition
to fundamental points only but by opposition to the doctrin which we haue learned against the Tradition which we haue receaued or against which Saint Paul had preached C. 8. l. 1. But Not fundamental points are parte of that which we haue learned parte of that tradition which we haue receaued and parte of that which S. Paul preached Therfore sinful opposition to them is true heresie according to Scripture 3. Secondly I proue it out of the descriptions of heresie and heretiks An heresie described by the Fathers giuen by the holie Fathers of whom no one describeth heresie or heretitks by opposition to only principal or capital points of faith but by only opposition to Scripture or doctrin of the Catholik Church Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretik who vnderstands Contrarie to sense of Scripture the Scripture otherwise then the Holie Ghost would Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Ciuitate c. 51. The diuel raised vp heretiks who vnder the name of Christians should resist Christian doctrin To Christiā doctrin And addeth who in the Church doe hold anie vnsound and naughtie thing pertinaciously are heretiks Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9. They are not heretiks but becaus they vnderstand the Scripture wrongly And lib. de haeresibus in fine After he had reckoned diuers heresies wherof manie are not against anie principal point of faith he thus pronounceth whosoeuer holdeth anie one of thē is no Catholik Christian which is as much as to saie he is an heretik And both he and al antiquitie accounted And so doth Chilling c. 7. p. 398. Donatists heretiks for their error about rebaptization who yet saieth Lord Canterb. sec 35. p. 300. for ought I know did hold the foundation Donatists heretiks yet hold the foundation And Morton in his Grand Imposture c. 15. p. 418. The question of Rebaptization was no fundamental error And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. Saint Cyprian and Stephen might both be saued becaus their contrarie beleif about Rebaptization was not touching anie point conteined in Scripture Nether can they saie that the Donatists error about Rebaptization was fundamental vnles they wil damne S. Cyprian who confessedly held that error but L. Canterb. p. 315. Potter p. 103. without obstinacie as the Donatists did Saint Epiphan in Saint Hierom. l. 3. contra Ruffinum Manie heresies haue been cast out of the Church for one word or twoe contrarie to faith He saieth not contrarie to the foundation of faith but absolutly to faith Saint Gregorie Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrarie to Christs doctrine can be nothing more dangerous then those heretiks who with one word as with a drop of poison infect our Lords true and simple doctrin and Apostolical tradition But who err in Not fundamental points of faith doe so For they are parte of Christs doctrin and Apostolical Tradition Herupon Caluin 4. Institut c. 2. paragr 5. saieth Augustin putteth this difference betweene Heretiks and Schismatiks that they by false doctrins corrupt the sinceritie of faith but thes c. And in 1. Corinth c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresie in Fathers put heresie in corruption of faith dissention of doctrin So clearely he confesseth that the Fathers account anie corruption of Christs faith or doctrin In dissētion of doctrin to be heresie And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as Heretiks who erred in smal matters holding the foundation as Vigilantius Nouatus c. 4. Protestants also define heresie to be an obstinat error in anie point of faith Wittenbergenses in Refutatione orthodoxi consensus p. 73. Not Obstinat error in one point is hresie enerie heretik impugned al and euerie article of faith but for the most parte each heretik impugned one only purposely whom neuertheles being obstinat in their error the Church rightly condemned as Heretiks Schusselburg 1. 2. Theol. In anie fals doctrin Caluin art 1. we are certaine out of the word of God that obstinat error in anie false doctrin doth make heretiks Thus the Lutherans Beza li. de puniendis See VVitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly heretiks who pretending great pietie yet doe not yeeld to the admonition of the In not yeelding to the Church Church and by false doctrin doe break the peace and confession of the Church And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an heretik by Scripture Romans doth not name heretiks but plainly defineth thē For when he had admonished the brethren that they should note thos who make dissentions and scandales he addeth against that doctrin which you haue learnt wherfore where thes two meet there is heresie according to the Apostles definition then the which we ought not to seek anie better Fulk in his Reionder to Bristow p. 82. The Parlament determineth Heresie by contrarietie By the Parlament to the Canonical Scripture And p. 71. I say an Heretik is he which in the Church obstinatly mainteineth an opinion contrarie to the Scripture Plessie de Ecclesia c. 2. we cal them heretical Churches who err in faith Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 7. They are called Heretiks who are separated from the orthodox Church for some error in faith Bucanus in locis q. 33. heresie is properly dissention in doctrin Morton lib. 1. Apol. c. 3. whosoeuer anie waie departeth from the Catholik faith is an heretik saieth Thomas to whom subscribeth Occam and that rightly Tom. 2. l. 5. c. 13. To be an hcretik is to dissent from Scripture And in his Grand Imposture c. 5. p. 325. To be vnwilling ether to learne or to yeeld to manifest truth is proper to In not yeelding to manifest truth a Satanical Synagog Iuel in Defence of the Apologiae p. 44. For iust proof of Heresie three things necessarily are required 1. that it be an error 2. that it be an error against the truth of Gods word 3. that it be stoutly and wilfully mainteind Sharpe de Notis Eccles col 333. That is an heretical Church which obstinatly holdeth errors in doctrin Chilling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresie is nothing In oppositiō to faith but a manifest deuiation from and an opposition to the faith The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik In oppositiō to the Catholik visible Church veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks c. sec 4. p. 95. He is iustly estemed an heretik becaus he In not yeelding to Scripture yeelds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded to him Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against euident Scripture sufficiently cleared vnto him makes an heretik Sec. 7. p. 110. where the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an heretik
such as beleue the fundamētal 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 fundamētal 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 exprès 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 dānable 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 Protestāts 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 cōmunion 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
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 fundamètal 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 à 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. Protestāts cōmunicate 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
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 profès themselues Christians or of al that hold the principal points of Christian doctrin but denie other points of his doctrin sufficiētly 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 Protestāts 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 confès 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 etiā Optatus l. 3. 5. with Catholiks in fundamētal 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. Cātholicus 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 vnā altera non est Optatus lib. 1. 2. Saint Augustin de vnitate c. 2. lib. 1. contra Crescon c. 29. and others cōmonly 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
fundamētal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundamētals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profès the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profès but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profès they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them