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 includeth al or were in an essentially new made Church as their communion in Sacraments and in their publik service amoung themselves was substantially new and not before ether among themselues or among anie other Christians For a new essential part of a Church which was not before must needs make a new essential Church which was not before 7. And becaus Protestants hold Protestants hold some part of the Churches faith but no part of her communion manie of the points of faith which they held before their separation but hold no part of the Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God which they held before with the visible Church but haue made a quite new Communion among themselues in Sacraments and publik seruice which Communion nether they nor anie Christians before them had therfore they cannot distinguish Cōmunion into fundamental and not fundamental as they do points of faith nor can saie they hold the fundamētal parte of their former Communion and therby pretend that they hold the substance of the same visible Church as they saie they hold the fundamental part of the faith they had before and by holding the fundamental parte of the faith of the visible Church pretend they hold stil the same substance of the visible Church Wherupon our argument taken from their whole leauing the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and publik worship of God which is essential to the Church is far more forcible to proue that they haue left the verie substance of the whole Church and so are in no substantial Church or in an other substantially new made then that which is taken from their leauing in parte the faith of the whole visible Church though in truth both arguments be forcible enough as we shal see P. 2. c. 6. 7. And Protestants knowing wel that they haue no pretence to anie parte of the external Communion of the whole visible Church from which they departed neuer proue themselues to be of the true Church becaus they reteine al or the fundamētal parte of the Communion of the visible Church but Protestants speak not of communion but against their wil. only becaus they reteine the fundamental points of faith And speak as seldom of Communion as they maie or if they saie they haue Communion with the whole Church they equiuocate and by Communion vnderstand charitie Which nether is that See c. 11. Communion which is essential to the visible Church nor is anie other then they are bound to haue to infidels and al that are out of the Church to wit to praie for them Protestants haue no other communion with other Christians then with infidels wish and do them good And I think they wil be ashamed to saie they haue no other kinde of Communion with the members of the Church then they haue with infidels See l. 2. c. 11. 12. 8. Lastly I propose to the Reader a summ of the Protestants vncertainties or contradictions touched in this Treatise that therby he maie visibly see that they are not certaine what to saie but merely make vse of what serueth them for the time and so that al they saie is but shifts for a time For whiles they are racked by the Protestants confes truth whiles they are upon the rack euidence of truth they confès that al points of faith sufficiently proposed are necessarie to a sauing faith to true Church and to saluation that sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie destroieth saluation faith Church and vnitie thereof That Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the Church and that for want therof Scismatiks are out of the Church and in state of damnation But when they look back vpon the Churches which they manteine and see how they sinfully denie some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed to them and are deuided partly in matters of faith and wholy in Communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God they are forced to denie al that before they confessed of sauing faith true Church and true Communion And the reason of this their inconstancie is becaus they would ioine sauing faith with their faith true Church with their Church true Communion with their Communion Which is as impossible as to ioine truth with lies life with death heauen with hel And whosoeuer seeketh to ioine such together must needs be as the Scripture spreaketh vir duplex animo inconstans Iacob 1. est in omnibus viis suis Wheras Catholiks their faith Church and Communion being true faith true Church true Communion easily and without anie contradiction at al ioine them together and shew by the verie definitions of true faith true Church true communion giuen by Scripture and Fathers confirmed by reason and approued by Protestants themselues that their faith their Church their communion is true And if Protestants would with indifferencie consider this quite contrarie proceeding of Catholik and Protestant Writers they would easily see that they constantly defend truth thes vnconstantly make shifts for to to vphold vntruths for a time But at length as the Apostle saieth their 2. Tim. 3. follie wil be made manifest to al. And as Saint Cyprian affirmeth This is true Epist 55. madnes not to think or know that lies do not long deceaue At length shifts wil appeare to be but shifts and that which needeth them to be vntruth 9. And finally out of al which I haue saied I conclude that it is no way against charitie but rather according to true Christian faith and Charitie to warne sinful errants of their danger charitie to tel al Churches and persons which err in anie point of Christian faith or in communion in Sacraments sufficiently proposed or who sinfully err against anie point of faith or communion in Sacraments that whiles they doe so they are in state of damnation that being so warned of their error they may correct it and auoid damnation And at last is breifly shewed that Protestant Churches sinfully err both in points of faith and in communion of Sacraments A CATALOGVE OF THE Chapters of the first Book I. VVHAT Protestants teach of fundamental and not fundamental points and in what they differ therin from Catholiks II. That Protestants teach that some points of faith are so vnfundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith true Church or saluation though they be sufficiently proposed III. Why Protestants distingush articles by thes metaphorical termes Fundamental Not fundamental rather then by thes proper termes Necessarie Not necessarie IV. That Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinctoin of Fundamental and Not fundamental points V. That Protestants are vncertaine what a Not fundamental point is VI. That Protestants are vncertaine which are fundamental points which are Not fundamental VII That Protestants are vncertaine whether a true Church can err in fundamental points or no. OF
THE SECOND BOOKE I. THat there are points of faith beside thes principal articles which are to be preached to al and beleued of al. II. That sinful denial of anie point of faith is true heresie III. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth saluation IV. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth true sauing faith V. Diuers errors of Protestants about the substance and vnitie of sauing faith refuted VI. That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the substance of the Church VII That sinful denial of anie point of faith destroieth the vnitie of the Church VIII That to denie anie point of Christs doctrin suffieiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and Deitie IX That Communion with heretical Churches or which sinfully denie anie point of faith is damnable X. That their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points hath no ground in Scripture Fathers Reason or doctrin of Catholiks XI Though the Protestants distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles were true yet it would not suffice for their purpos for want of vnion in fundamental points XII That their distinction would not suffice for their want of communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God XIII Protestants errors about communion refuted XIV The Protestant and Cath. doctrin about matters here handled and their Defenders compared and brefly shewed that it is true Charitie to tel sinful errants in anie point of faith or in communion that they are in a damnable state A RAISONABLE REQVEST to him that wil seriously answer this Treatise to saie directly and plainly yea or no to thes questions following and constantly to stand to his ansuwer in his whole Replie Whether Protestants in their distinction 1. into fundamental and not fundamental points doe intend to distinguish true points of faith and meane that not fundamental points are true points of faith or no Whether sinful error in anie true 2. point of faith or of Gods revealed word can stand with saving faith a true member of the Church and salvation or no Whether there be not sinful error 3. when anie point of faith is sufficiently proposed to a man or for his fault not so proposed and yet not beleued of him or no Whether fundamental points be sufficient 4. to saving faith true Church and salvation even when not fundamental points or not principal points are sufficiently proposed and not beleved or sinfully not beleved or no Whether not fundamental or not 5. principal points be not necessarie to a saving faith true Church and salvation when they are as sufficiently proposed as points of faith ought to be or would be so proposed if it were not our fault or no Whether it be sufficient to proue 6. some to have saving faith to be true members of the Church and in the waie of salvation that they beleve al the fundamental points and it be not also necessarie to prove that they do not sinfully err in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed if it were not their avoidable fault or no Whether if it be necessarie to saving 7. faith true members of the Church and to salvation not to err sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which should be so proposed if it Were not the vnbelevers fault it be not damnably to deceaue soules to teach that al who beleve the fundamental points haue saving faith are in the Church and in waie of salvation or no Whether sinful error against anie 8. point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the Errants avoidable fault be formal heresie and al such Errants formal heretiks or no or if it be not heresie what sin it is Whether al formal heresie be not 9. damnable sin and al formal heretiks in state of damnation or no Whether the Grecian Lutheran and 10. such other Churches as Calvinists grant to err in some points of faith haue not had thos points sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault or no Whether when Calvinists saie that Grecians Lutherans or such erring 11. Churches have à 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 à 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
can take that for different kinds of men ignorants and intelligents and saie that when they affirme the Roman Church to be a true Church and a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ they mean only the inuincibly ignorants and not those who wittingly follow her doctrin how can they equiuocate in the name of Roman faith or Roman Religion which is not of two kinds as its Professors are but one only and includeth the pretended errors of Rome as is euident by that Epitheton Roman when they saie men maie be saued in the Roman faith or Roman Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes that her religion hath antidotes against al errors or sinns that her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue Perkins initio problematis them and withal profes as Chillingworth doth c. 6. p. 375. By your Religion I vnderstand that wherin you al what is the Rom. Religion agree or profes to agree the doctrin of the Councel of Trent Is not this to confes that euen those who wittingly follow the Roman faith or Religion which is the doctrin of the Councel of Trent maie be saued if they beleue as they profes 9. An other thing which conuinceth 8. the Caluinists that they hold that a true Church sauing faith and state of saluation maie stand with sinful errors in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or with faultie want of such proposal is their mainteining that the Lutherans are a true Church haue sauing faith and maie be saued who yet sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or at the least which would be so proposed to them if it were not their fault which is al one touching sin For as Doctor Potter saith sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great between him that is wilfully blinde and him that knowingly gainsaith the truth See also Chillingworth c. 7. p. 404. That Caluinists grant the Lutherans to be their Brothers in Christ is euident by the Apologie of the Church of England and generally by their deeds and writings Here I wil only set down the Profession of Chillingworth in his Preface n. 39. See D Potter sec 3. p. 89. I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie and from al error destructiue of saluatiō or in itself damnable and the Decree of the French Protestants in their Synod at Charenton an 1631. in thes words The Synod declareth that seing the Churches of the Confession of Ausbourg Lutherans do Caluinists cōmunicate in Sacraments with erring Lutherans agree vith the other Reformed Churches in the Principles and fundamental points of their Religion the faithful of that Confession who with the spirit of charitie and truly peaceable doe come to the publik Assemblies of the Churches of this Kingdom and desire their Communication maie without making abiuration be receaued to the supper of the Lord. Behold Lutherans admitted of Caluinists to their Communion without making abiuration which is to confes that they hold errors worthie to be abiured And the reason why they are admitted with their errors is not becaus they sin not in them or they are not sufficiently proposed to them but becaus they are not fundamental errors Nether is it likelie that Lutherans that liue in France among Caluinists should not haue their errors sufficiently proposed vnto them For this were to condemn the Caluinists of want both of zele to their Religion and also of charitie to their erring Brethren or at the least they might haue their errors sufficiently proposed to them if it were not their fault Besids Caluin contra Hessusium p. 843. Withaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. and other Caluinists generally affirme that Lutherans are obstinat in their errors But that which conuinceth that Caluinists account as Brothers euen such Lutherans as are obstinat in their errors sufficiently shewed to them is that Note this Zuinglius and his fellowes in their Conference at Marpurg with Luther and his Mates desired to be held for Brethren of the same Church by Luther and his And the same requested Beza and his companions of Smidelin and his fellowes in their Conference at Montbelgard though to their faces they mainteined their errors See Hospinian parte 2. historiae Sacrament An 1529. 1386. Had not Luther his errors sufficiently shewed to him by Zuinglius and Smidelin by Beza or at the least might they not haue had if it had not been their fault And yet Zuinglius and Beza accounted them for Brethren of the same Church and desired to be accounted such of them but could not obteine it 10. Moreouer Protestants generally Al Protestants err in some points of faith confes that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith And that they err sinfully is euident For ether they haue thos points in which they err sufficiently proposed to them by their Ministers or might haue if it be not ether their fault or their Ministers fault Caluin 4 Instit c. 1. § 12. Ether we must leaue no Church at al or we must pardon errors in those things which maie be vnknown without breach of the summ of religion Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. It is not needful that al should think the same if such vnitie be required there would be no Church at al. Bucer in his dispute at Cambridg p. 481. There is no Church on earth which erreth not in faith as wel as in manners Morton Apologie l. 1. c. 68. Only Papists chaleng priuiledg of not erring Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. It is a great vanitie to hope or expect that al learned men in this life should absolutly consent in al peeces and particles of diuine truth p. 39. vnitie in points not fundamental is verie contingent in the Church neuer absolute in al particles of truth Item Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith or charitie Sec. 5. p. 22. The Church maie not hope to triumph ouer al error til it be in heauen Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 360. This that al agree in al points of faith cannot be hoped for til the Church be Triumphant Chilling worth c. 5. p. 279. The visible Church is free indeed from al error abso-Lutly destructiue and vnpardonable but See whites way p. 110. Montacute part poster orig p. 408. not free from al error which in itselfe is damnable Thus plainly they confes that al Protestants Churches err in some points of faith that they must pardon errors which are not against fundamētal points or haue no Church at al that each discord in Religion dissolues not vnitie in faith And if Ministers haue sufficiently proposed thes errors to their Churches or would so do if it were not their Churches fault ether they haue no true Church or it maie be a true Church which sinfully erreth in some points of faith and communion with such an
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
And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for In oppositiō to anie point of faith sufficiently conuinced the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith as whereof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is ostbinate an heretik and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beauen Feild l. 2. de Eccles c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error may be found among Heretiks And l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they that obstinatly persist in error cōtrarie to the Churches faith Behold how obstinat opposition to the doctrin of the Scripture of the word of God of the Catholik visible Church or of anie point of which maie be conuinced to belong to the doctrin of Christ is true proper and damnable heresie The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth al whosoeuer shal affirme that the 39. articles are in anie parte superstitious or erroneous And yet I hope they wil not say that euerie parte of their 39. articles is fundamental in their sense Wherfor they may be iustly excommunicated out of the Church who affirme some not fundamental point to be erroneous And art 33. who are excōmunicated are cut from the vnitie of the Church Wherfore when Protestants wil haue Sup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinat opposition to some principal or capital point of faith to be true and proper heresie they speak nether with Scripture Fathers nor with themselues Nether haue they anie authoritie of Scripture Father Al sin against faith is ether heresie or infidelitie or other reason to limit heresie to obstinat opposition of fundamental points but onely least they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretiks whom they cannot denie but err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed to them and consequently err obstinatly and sinfully And if we ask them what sin they call sinful error in anie point of faith if not Heresie they can not tel But now hauing seen that euerie sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the errants fault is true heresie Let vs see that eueric such error is damnable becaus sometimes Protestants wil confes that al such error is heresie but denie that al heresie is damnable as is euident by what we haue rehearsed of their doctrin in the second Chapter l. 1. n. 2. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 278. putteth fundamental heresles and others Some herasies though not fundamental which saieth he doe not plainly destroie saluation nor of themselues damne no man That sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable THIRD CHAPTER 1. THat al sinful opposition or denial VVhitak cont 2. q 4. c 2. non omnes errores circa fidem sunt lathales sicut noc omnes morbi of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which would be so proposed if it were not the opposers fault is damnable followeth out of that we haue proued that al such opposition is true heresie For that al true heresie is damnable is euident out of holie Scripture Fathers Reason and Confession of Protestants For the Apostle Galat. 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or heresies Heresie numbred by the Apostle Among dam nable sinns among those sinns of which he saieth who doe such things shal not obteine the Kingdom of God And maketh no more distinction of heresie then he doth of the other sinns And Galat. 1. V. 8. saieth generally If anie Euangelize beside that which ye haue receaued be he accursed And Tit. 3. v. 10. Auoid a man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition knowing that he who is such a one is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his Heretiks condemned by their own iudgment owne iudgment But what hindereth to obteine the Kingdom of God what deserueth a Curese and condemneth a man in his owne iudgment is doubtles damnable Our Sauiour also Ioan. 10. calleth heretiks Theeues and Robbers And Apocal. vltim v. 19. it is saied Ifanie shal diminish of the words of this Book of this prophesie God shal take awaie his parte out of the Book of life And if it be damnable to diminish a word of Gods Book much more damnable is it to diminish some point of his faith or doctrin The same also followeth out of thos places of Scripture which we shal cite hereafter C. 9. n. 2. which commaund vs to flie the companie of heretiks 2. Holie Fathers also teach the same Tertullian de praescript c. 2. Heresies are to destroie faith and do Heresie brings damnation bring euerlasting death And c. 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians And surely it is damnable to be no Heretiks no Christians Christian Saint Cyprian Epist 73. Nether faith nor Church are common to vs with heretiks And he addeth that both by the testimonie of the Ghospel and Apostle heretiks are called Anti-Christs Are Anti-Christs The like hesaieth Epist 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de vnitate and Firmilian Epist 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon c. 10. saieth to the Donatists Ye haue no Christian Church l. 3. de Baptis c. 19. Al heretiks and False Christians Schismatiks are false Christians L. 21. de Ciuitate c. 25. An heretik is worse then an Infidel And in Enchiridioc VVorse then infidels 5. Christ in name only is found with anie heretiks Saint Gregorie Nazian Orat. 21. Driue awaie heretiks as the staine and destruction of the Church and the poison of truth And Saint Athanase in his Creed whosoeuer wil be saued before al things he must hold the Catholik faith which vnles he keep whole and inuiolate without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly But heretiks hold not the Catholik faith whole and inuiolate Therfore c. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. 39. Hold most firmely and doubt not at al that not only Pagans but also al Iewes Heretiks and Schismatiks who Al that die heretiks are damned end this life out of the Catholik Church shal goe into euerlasting fire prouided for the Deuil and his Angels Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expresly saieth that the lesterror in matter or faith destroieth faith That he S. Paul might shew that anie litle thing wrongly mingled The lest mixture corrupteth faith doth corrupt the whole he said the Ghospel was ouerthrown For as he who in the Kings coine doth clip but a litle of the stamp maketh the whole of no value so who destroieth the lest particle of sound faith is wholy corrupted Where then are they who condemn vs becaus we contend with Heretiks and say there is no difference betwixt vs and them but that al our discord is for ambition to dominere Let
doctrin who subuerteth it in the lest article Most truly saied Ambrose Epist ad Demetriadem He is out of the number of the faithful VVho dissenteth in anie point and lot of Saints who dissenteth in anie point from the Catholik truth Field l. 3. c. 3. There are some things explicitè credenda some things implicitè which whosoeuer wil be saued must beleue them atleast implicitè and in general 7. Martyr Epist ad peregrinos in Anglia tomo 2. loc colum 136. we answer that al Gods words as they proceed Al Gods words of equal authoritie from him are of equal weight and authorities and therfore none maie of his iudgmēt receaue this and reiect an other as fals Iames saieth boldly who effendeth in one is made guiltie of al. If that haue place in obedience to the commandements it wil be true also for points of beleif Caluin in Ephes 4. v. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he saied Christ cannot be deuided faith cannot be parted Perkin in Explicat Symbolicolum 512. Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in al. Wherupon faith is termed in entire copulatiue Spalatensis cōtra Suarem Faith is an entire copulatiue c. 1. nu 7. Diuine faith perisheth wholy by the lest detraction and consequenity it is no true Church no not visible No Church without entire faith in which entire faith is not kept in publik profession L. Canterb. p. 325. There is but one sauing faith Item 338. And 342. who hopes for saluation must beleue the Catholik saith whole and entire in euerie point P. 105. Faith beleueth not onely the articles but al the things rightly deduced from them Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 41. commendeth Saint Basil for saying Not asyllable of diuine doctrin must be betraied And S. Gegorie Nazian for saying One word like a drop of poison maie taint and corrupt faith And sec 7. p. 74. insinuateth clearely that not fundamental points perteine to the vnitie of faith though not primarily and pag. 73. that they are to be beleued by a virtual or general faith and as it were a negatiue faith wherby they are not to be denied or contradicted Whosoeuer therfore denie thē being sufficiently proposed haue no true sauing faith The like he hath also p. 75. Al points sufficiently proposed are fundamētal to faith and as I cited in the 3. Chapter n. 5. doth oftentimes say that it is fundamental to faith to beleue al that is sufficiently proposed and that it is infidelitie to denie anie such point whos words alloweth Chillingworth and Sup c 3. n. 6. addeth that not to beleue such points is to giue God the Lie And that not fundamental points maie be so proposed as the denial of them wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And if Not-fundamental points be fundamental to faith when they are sufficiently proposed how can sauing faith be and not beleue them Seing nothing can be without al that is fundamental to it as is euident by itselfe and confessed by Protestants before Sup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num 5. Besids they profès by Fundamental to vnderstand essential and nothing can be without that which is essential to it And if it be infidelitie and to giue God the Lie to denie such points how can there be true sauing faith where such points are denied seing sauing faith cannot stand where infidelitie is or the Lie giuen to God And out of al that hath beene said of faith it is euident that there can be no sauing faith but that which actually beleueth not onely al fundamental points but euen al points whatsoeuer of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed and virtually also al points or partes of his word whatsoeuer and that al other kinds of beleif is true heresie and a spice of infidelitie The errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and true Church confuted out of that vvhich hath beene saied FIFT CHAPTER 1. OVt of that which hath been saied of the essence and the vnitie of true diuine faith together with that which shal be saied hereafter of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God the errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and Church maie be easily and clearely confuted 2. Their first and principal error out of which proceed the others is Protestants put the essence and vnitie of faith and Church in some points only that there be certaine principal articles which alone belong as D. Potter speaketh sec 5. p. 16. to the substance of faith Sec. 3. p. 60. Cōprehend the life and substance of Religion Sec. 7. p. 74. which essentially perteine to the faith and properly constitute a Church P. 78. which make vp the Catholik faith And p. 102 wherin consists the vnitie of faith and of the Catholik Church Whervpon he saieth sec 2. p. 39. Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith And Lord Conterburie sec 38. p. 355. saieth That to err in Not fundamentals is no breach vpon the one sauing saith And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith And Chilling worth c. 3. pag. 159. saieth there be certaine propositions or doctrins which integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion 3. But this error that the essence of sauing faith and of the true Church of God consisteth only in-certaine principal points and the substantial The total obiect of faith is al Gods reuealed word vnitie of them is clearely confuted out of what hath been saied For the total obiect of true sauing faith is no parte only of Gods reuealed word or anie part only of Christs doctrin but Gods whole reuealed word Christs whole doctrin as is euident by itselfe and is proued before and also confessed C. 4. n. 9. by Doctor Potter sect 7. p. 71. and sec 2. p. 39. where he alloweth the diuisio of the obiect of faith made by Saint Thomas into primarie and into Secundarie as that Abraham had 2. Sonns And both he and Chillingworth cited in the third chaptern 5. 6. confes that it is fundamental to faith to beleue Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed and so far fundamental that to denie them is infidelitie and to giue God the Lie But what is fundamental to faith is essential to faith as is euident by itself and Protestants confessed aboue l. 1. c. 7. num 5. And besids they confessed Protestants by fundamental meane essentials l. 1. c. 7. num 6. and 7. That by fundamental they meane Essential And if Not fundamental sufficiently proposed be essential to faith fals it is that the essence of sauing faith
and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficiētly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed differ substātially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and cōsequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundamētal points of his doctrin as in fūdamental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she
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 profès 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 profès al his doctrin Becaus if it doe no waie profés 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 profès 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. §. 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. § 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 profès 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 profès 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 profès 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
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. § 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 § 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 cōfés in the Creed that the Church is the Cōmunion 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 profés 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 confés himself consequently to forsake the whole Musculus loco de Eccles sec 3. The Church is a Cōmunion 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 confés 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 à 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 Sacramēts 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 * Cōmuniō 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 * Cōcion 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 Cōmuniō 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 cōmunion in charitie to be an essential parte of the visible Church Cōmunion 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 mēbers 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 cōt 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 mēbers 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 cōmunion 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 cōmunion 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 mēbers of the vniuersal Church which they haue among themselues and one to an other more thē they haue to Infidels If Protestāts 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 mēbers 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 fundamētal 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 mēber 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 profés 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 à new doctrin needs à 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 volūtarily
separate themselues from the external cōmunion of the whole Church separate themselues from an essential part of her Roote of the Protestants errors For external communion is as essential to the visible Church as is profession of faith And al thes errors rise of not considering or remembring wel the former definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and themselues and confirmed by reason In al which Communion is put as an essētial part of that true Church which Scripture Fathers Reason and somtimes also Protestans propose Protestants forsake the external communion of the visible Church vnto vs. 5. And herevpon it is evident that Chillingworth in confessing c. 5. cit p. 273. That as for the external communion of the visible Church we haue without scrupule formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it And p. 274. Though Luther forsooke the external communion of the Cath. Church it wil not follow he was a Scismatike Plainely confesseth that Luther and Protestants are true Scismatiks and by forsaking the external communion of the * Chilling p 263. The visible Ch. signifieth the whole Church whole visible or Catholik Church ether made a new visible Church or are in no visible Church at al For the external communion of the whole visible Church was an essential parte of her as wel as profession of faith And none can leaue an essential parte of the whole visible Church but he must leaue the VVho is out of the whole visible Ch. is in none whole visible Church which is to make a formal schisme For he cannot leaue the whole visible Church but he must be in no visible Church seing the whole visible Church includeth al visible Churches or he must be in a new substantial visible Church which must be of his VVhy no iust cause to goe out of the whole visible Church owne making And hence it is euidēt why there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole visible Church becaus there can be no iust cause to put onesself out of al visible Churches and to be in no visible Church at al. There maie be iust cause of separation from the communion of some particular Church becaus she maie inuincibly err in some points of faith and exact profession of her VVhy may be iust cause to goe out of a particular Church errors for a condition of her communion And nether is it necessarie to saluation or to a member of the true Church to be in communion of euerie particular Church nor the going out of anie particular Church if there be iust cause for it is the going out of the whole true Church But the whole true Church is not fallible vincibly or inuincibly in anie point of faith by reason of Christs promise and the holie Ghostsassistance So that for pretence of errors there can be no iust cause to go out of her cōmunion And the going out of her is the going out of al Churches whatsoeuer becaus L. Canterb. p. 311. out of the Cath. Church there is no saluation the whole Church includeth al and who is out of al is in none And there cannot be imagined anie iust cause to goe out of al Churches and to be in none at al And hereby we Infallibilitie and necessitie to be in the whole Church proue out the other see how the infallibilitie of the whole Church and necessitie of being in the whole Church do mutually infer each the other For if she were not infallible in matters of faith but sinfully Canterb. p. 240. Al the members of the militant Church can not err So Mortō Imp. c. 15. sec 3. and 4. taught errors one might iustly goe out of her And becaus there can be no iust cause to goe out of the whole Church for then we should be in none at al it must needs be that she is infallible in matters of faith 6. Wherfore when Chillingworth Potter sec 2. p. 47. Canterb. p. 143. c. 5. p. 264. 271. 274. 284. and Protestants commonly define Schisme to be a Causeles separation from the communion of the Church they voluntarily Protestants false definition of Schisme ad that particle Causeles nether do they finde it in anie definition of Fathers who neuer admit anie iust cause of separatiō from the whole Church but Protestants merely ad it to excuse themselues from Schisme becaus they haue some pretence of cause for separation See also supra n. 5. but no colour al at to denie their separation from the whole Caluin Ep. 141. discessionē a toto mūdo facere concti sumus Church yea they plainly confés it as is to be seen l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and 3. Out of which it is euident that ether they are in no Church becaus there is none besid the whole or in a new made Church Let them shew that anie Father euer put that particle Causeles in the definition of Schisme or saied that there can be iust cause of separation from the communion of the whole visible Church or they must confés that according as the Protestants Schismatiks as the Fathers vse that word Fathers vse the word Scisme they are guiltie of Scisme in separating themselues from the external communion of the whole visible Church and so in iudgment of the Fathers as they vse the word are Scismatiks And if they be not Scismatiks as themselues please to vse the word it little importeth let them equiuocate as they please and vse words without matter 7. Let not therfore Chillingworth c. 5. cit p. 272. advise men to look that their cause of separation from anie Churches communion be iust becaus it is as much as their soule is worth but let him look that he make no separation at al from the communion of the whole Church becaus hereof no cause can be iust For as I saied to goe out of the whole Church is S. Augustin puts schisme merely in separation frō the whole to be in no Church at al. Herevpon S. Augustin l. 2. contra Petil. c. 16. saied I obiect to thee the sin of Scisme which thou wilt denie but I wil streigt proue For thou doest not comunicate with al nations which proof were none if there could be iust cause of not communicating with al Nations but he Schisme simply not to communicate with the whole Church should haue added that causelesly he he did not communicate And lib. de vnitate c. 4. whosoeuer beleue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c. yet so dissent from bis Bodie which is the Church as Schisme not to communicate with the whole their communion is not with the whole whersoeuer it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Which were not manfest if there C. 3. n. 3. 6. l. ◠could be iust cause of
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 cōmunicate 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 cōmunion 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 cōmunion 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 confés that there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole Church For Caluin 4. inst it c. 1. § 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 cōmunion of the whole Church which some Protestants since haue found out Lord Canterburie p. 139. There can be no iust cause to make à 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 frō some opiniōs 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 distinctiō of fundamētal and not fundamental Cōmunion Protestants cannot make distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental communion as they did of fundamental and Not fundamētal 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 frō 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 cōstitute 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 substāce of the Church frō which they made separation And therfore an Argumēt 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
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 distinctiō 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. confés 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 Differēce 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 profés Christs name what heretiks so euer they be Sometimes al that beleiue the fundamētal 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 profés and safest for the ignorants and euen thos who are most obstinat in her members of the Catholik Church The Protestāts 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
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 cōmunion 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 preexistēt 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 intēd new communion intend a new Church new Church seing they intended to erect a new cōmunion 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 cōmon 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 cōstantly 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 fundamētal 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 confés 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 confés 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.