Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	church_n	faith_n	infallible_a	3,632	5	9.8838	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. p. 225. be denied that the word Fundamental is Metaphorical and ambiguous and profes sometimes by Fundamental Chillingw p. 219. 220. to vnderstand Necessarie and neuertheles they rather make distinction of points of faith into Fundamental and not Fundamental then into necessarie and not necessarie And the reason hereof is partly becaus vnder these ambiguous termes Fundamental not Fundamental they can better couer the fowlnes of their doctrin whereof we speake in the former Chapter That sinful error in some points of faith maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation The fowlnes wherof doth not so euidently appeare if it be only saied that some points of faith are not fundamental to sauing faith to Church or to saluation though they be sufficiently proposed For in rigor of speech not Not al things Necessarie are Fundamental euerie necessarie parte is fundamental as a roof is necessarie to a house yet not fundamental Besids by Not fundamental they maie seeme to meane Not principal or Not Capital In which sense it is no fowle doctrin to saie Some points are Not Fundamental Some points proposed not principal and yet necessarie though they be sufficiently proposed as it is to saie some are Not necessarie though they be sufficiently proposed Becaus not euerie thing necessarie is principal Partly also that vnder thes ambiguous termes Fundamental Not Fundamental See c. 16. n. 6. they maie flie from one sense of them to an other better then they could vnder the proper termes Necessarie Not Necessarie and so delude their aduersarie and auoid conuiction For sometimes by Fundamental articles they only meane principal or capital articles of faith And by Not fundamental Not principal or Not capital articles And thus they must meane when they proue out of Catholiks that they admit Fundamental and Not fundamental articles At other times by Fundamental they meane articles sufficient to a Church and to saluation And by Not fundamental articles Not at al necessarie to a Church or to saluation as we clearly shewed in the second Chapter And this craft they could not so wel vse vnder the words Necessarie Not necessarie Becaus nether are they so ambiguous as Fundamental Not fundamental nether do Catholiks deui'de articles into Necessarie Not necessarie becaus they account al necessarie ether to be beleued actually if they be Al points of faith twoe waies necessarie sufficiently proposed or virtually though they be not so proposed as some doe into Fundamental Not fundamental And that Protestants vse Fundamental in an other sense then we doe is euident by thes words of Chillingworth in his answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word Fundamental I hope she Ro. Church erred not fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did 2. Whereof to auoid al ambiguitie In what sēse Fundamental and Not fundamental maie be used equiuocation or dispute of words if by Fundamental points Protestants would only meane principal or capital points of faith and by not fundamental See Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. Peron Epist ad Reg. Iac. obseruat 3. not principal or not Capital points of faith or if by fundamental points they would only meane such as are the fundations of other articles or lastly by Fundamental Articles such as in ordinarie course their D. Potter sec 7. p. 74. Chillingw p. 263. 283. 227. actual beleif is necessarie to euerie particular person and to saluation And by Not fundamental points such as their actual beleif is not absolutly necessarie to euerie particular person or to saluation but only cōditionally if they be sufficiently proposed there would be no difference between vs about this distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles But as I said their defending such Churches as sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiētly proposed or for their fault Bellar l. 3. de Eccles c. 14. multa sunt de fide quae nō sunt absolute necessaria ad salutem haue them not sufficiently proposed forceth them to vnderstand by fundamental points such points as absolutly or in al cases suffice to sauing faith to a Church and to saluation And by Not fundamentals such as are absolutly or in al cases vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a Church or to saluation In In what sense it is ground of atheisine which sense we condemn this their distinction as a ground of atheisme and damnable deceipt of such as sinfully err in some points of faith But now let vs see what account and what vse they make of this their distinction That Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinction of Fundamental and Not Fundamental points FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. THat Protestants make great account and great vse of their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points is euident both by their words and deeds For Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 70. saith This distinction is most necessarie and hath a ground in reason and scripture And p. 73. he calleth it a most necessarie and A most necessarie most vseful and main distinction most vseful distinction And p. 75. a main distinction K. Iames Epist and Card. Peron This distinction the King accounteth of such importance to diminish the controuersies in the Church as he thinketh it the dutie of euerie peacable man most diligently to explicate teach and vrge it Chillingworth maketh the whole third Chapter of his Book to proue that this distinction is good and pertinent and saieth This distinction is imploied by Protestants to many purposes In answer to the Preface p. 7. as it is applied by Protestants is very good Lord Canterburie in his Relation p. 21. and 24. granteth that the Greek Church hath a dangerous and greuious error and yet affimeth her to be a true Church becaus her error is not Fundamental The like iudgment he giueth of the Romā Church p 296. 325. and p. 129. 311. So by this Saueth Churches greuiously erring distinction they saue Churches that haue dangerous and greuious errors 2. Secondly Protestants haue made vse of this distinction euer since they began to be deuided in points of faith as a soueraigne remedie to couer their rent For Zuinglius when he had forsaken Luther in the point of real presence for excuse therof in his Vsed by Protestāts since their dissention Apolog. tom 2. fol. 374. sayed That this matter pertined not to anie foundation of faith The same saied Bucer in Hospinian parte secunda hist fol. 127. and Martyr ib. fol. 244. Caluin Defens 2. contra Wesphal p 766 Beza contra Wesphal p. 258. Whitak controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. Iuel in his Apologie and generally al Sacramentaries when ether they currie fauour with Lutherans and would be held for brethren of them or excuse to Catholiks their dissentions in points of faith See Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 89. and sec 5. p. 18. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 325. 3. Thirdly this

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

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

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

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

pretious in al 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc Hebr. 5. 12. cals the first principles of the Oracle of God And 2. Tim. 1. 13. forme of sound words Thes are his fundamentals the materials laied vpon this foundation whether they be sound or vnsound are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. superstructions which are conclusions ether in truth or appearance And thes if they be sound are his not fundamental points I answer First that the grand and capital doctrins maie wel be the ground of the Church and yet The foundation maketh not vp the building not make vp the common faith of Christians For more is required to a building then the ground or foundation Secondly they maie make vp al the common faith of Christians which is absolutly necessarie to be beleued actually of al and yet not make vp al the faith which absolutly is necessarie so be beleued virtually and implicitly of al and cōditionally also actually of al if it be sufficiently proposed vnto them So that thes places proue not his fundamentals which are so sufficiēt to sauing faith Church and saluation as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly beleued for to haue sauing faith Church and saluation And for his Not fundamentals I saie that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to proue them First becaus the place is verie obscure and hard to be vnderstood Superstructions are not Protestants not fundamentals S. Aug. epist 48. Quis nō impudētissime nititur aliquid in allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura as Saint Augustin witnesseth l. de fide operibus c. 15. and 16. quest 1. ad Dulcitium and Enarrat in Psal 80. And Morton tom 2. Apolog. l. 5. cap. 44. saieth It is metaphorical and entangled with manie difficulties And the place itself doth euidently shewit And an obscure and difficult place can giue no sufficient ground of so maine a point as this is That there be some points of faith which are not necessarie to saluation to be beleued virtually or implicitly or also actually if they be sufficienily proposed Wil D. Potter venture his owne or other mens saluatiō in so great a matter vpon an obscure or difficult text We with Saint Augustin lib. de vnitate demaund aliquid No expres text nor necessarie consequence for Protestants not fundamentals manifestum quod interprete non eget And you giue vs a place for Not fundamentals in your sense which no interpretation can make cleare 3. Moreouer how can you think it certaine that Saint Paul here by superstructions meaneth anie doctrin at al seing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68. and Enarrat in Psal 38. 80. and S. Gregorie l. 4. Dialog c. 39. expound it only of works nor you conuince the contrarie Finally admit that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrins how is it certaine that he meaneth doctrins of faith and not rather humane doctrins inuented by men becaus he calleth them our work and points of faith are not our work Admit also that by superstructures he meaneth some points of faith how proueth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation when they are sufficiently proposed seing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal nor saieth that such superstructures are not necessarie not yet calleth them superstructures in respect of faith or Church but in respect of the foundation as walls and roofe may be called superstructures in respect of the foundatiō and yet are necessarie parts of the house And so secondarie points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points on which they relie as vpon their foundation and yet be necessarie parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church 4. So that this superstruction of Protestants not fundamentals want foundation D. Potter wanteth sufficient foundation for his not foundamentals in his sense and is a not fundamental foundation for diuers causes First becaus the place is obscure and so vnfit to found anie infallible certaintie especially of this so weightie a point Secondly becaus it is not certaine that the Apostle by superstructions meaneth doctrines and not only works Thirdly becaus though he called some doctrins superstructions it is not certaine that he meant doctrins of faith or if he meant doctrins of faith that he called them superstructions in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation and not in respect only of other points of faith on which they are built And we denie not but in respect of themselues some points of faith maie be termed fundamental other not fundamental Fourthly becaus though we graunt that Saint Paul called some points of faith superstructions in respect of the Church or of saluation how proueth D. Potter that he meant so euen when they are sufficiently proposed we denie not but some points maie be termed superstructiōs in respect of sauing faith Church or saluation becaus they are not so absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church or saluation to be actually beleued as some other points are But this wil not proue that they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be actually beleued if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie virtually to be beleued howfoeuer 5. Admit that he called them superstructions euen when Superstructions may be essential they are sufficiently proposed how proueth Do. Porter that he meant they were not then essential to sauing faith Church or saluation Is nothing that is laied vpon the foundation essential or necessarie to the building And in this is the controuersie whether anie articles which maie be termed superstructions be essential to sauing faith Church or saluation or no we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foundation and yet essential to the house So on euerie hand falleth down Doctor Potters ground out of Scripture for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense which is that to haue sauing faith Church and saluation See 6. 2. they need not be beleued actually though they be proposed sufficiently not at al virtually For if he only would that some points of faith How some points of faith may be called not fundamental are so not fundamētal to sauing faith Church or saluation as they need not be actually beleued vnles they be sufficiently proposed and are not absolutly necessarie as some others are there would be no question But this kinde of not fundamentals wil not help him to iustifie his Churches erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or his communion with such Churches 5. Other Protestants would proue that Perkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches maie err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed becaus the Galathiās were turned to an other Ghospel and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection and neuertheles Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God But this argument if it

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

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

al our discourse following 2. First whatsoeuer is clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs is a matter of faith Manie matters of faith in Scripture besid fundamentals and ought to be beleued But there be manie things besids the principal and capital articles that are clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs as that Saint Paul had a cloak Saint Timothe was sicklie and the like Therfore they also are matters of faith and ought to be beleued 3. Secondly matters of faith are not Matters of faith are to be measured by the formal obiect of faith to be measured only by the greatnes of the material obiect which is beleued but especially by the formal obiect of faith for which it beleues which is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs. For euerie habit reacheth to whatsoeuer hath is formal obiect But manie smal matters haue the like diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed as that of S. Pauls clooke and Timothes sicknes Therfore they are alike matters of faith 3. Thirdly the holie Scripture In faith are both great and lesser matters Mat. 5. and 22. saieth plainly that there are greatest and least commandements and that there are Iots or Tittles of the Law And why not likwise great and les matters of beleif If anie obiect that though there be great and litle things commanded to be done yet litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of losse of Gods fauour or of saluation so though litle matters of saith be reuealed and ought to be beleued when they are sufficiently proposed as testifyed by God yet are we not bound to beleiue them vnder paine Difference betwene matters to be done and to be beleued of damnation I answer that litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of los of Gods freindship or of saluation becaus smal matters of their nature do not break freindship For he were an vnreasonable freind who for trifles would break freindship and the end of the law is charitie but al litle matters testified by God and sufficiently proposed to vs oblidge vs to beleue them becaus in not beleuing them differēce betwixt Faith and charitie touching smal matters we account God not worthie to be beleued in such matters which is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie For who in things equally testifyed by God and equally proposed See Chillin infra c. 4. n. 3. Potter sec 5. p. 3. The principal ground on which faith relies is diuine reuelation So also p. 10. to vs as from God beleueth somethings and not others beleueth nothing for Gods authoritie but becaus himself iudgeth somethings more liklie to be true then others For if he beleued anie for Gods authoritie he would beleue al which Gods authoritie equally proposed doth equally testifie Wherfore we maie keep charitie with God though we obserue not litle matters commanded by him becaus breach of litle maters is not opposit to charitie but only to perfection of charitie But we cannot keep faith with God if we beleue not smal matters testified by him and sufficiently proposed to vs becaꝰ not beleif of thē is opposit to Gods veracitie which is the formal obiect of diuine faith and implicitly saieth God is not worthie of beleef in such matters For where is the lest vntruth there is not diuine or prime veracitie so his veracitie is denied by the lest vntruth but not his charitie by the lest sin Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalips threatned to put him out of the book of life who putteth out one word of that prophesie but no where threatneth the like to whosoeuer shal not keep the lest thing he commandeth 5. Holie Fathers also testifie that al things reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs are matters of faith in that as we shal see hereafter c. 2. they account obstinat error in al such matters to be formal heresie and al such obstinat errants formal heretiks And as Saint Basil saied we should rather loose our liues Theodoret l. 4. c. 17. then fuffer one syllable of Gods Word to perish 6. Protestants likewise sometimes confes and must needs confes that al that is clearely testified by God and sufficiently proposed or that those points which they cal vnfundamental if they be sufficiently proposed are matters of faith and of Religion Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Shal it not be a true Church if it think not sincerely of al heads of Religion if it corrupt anie point of Religion God forbid Not fundamentals are heads parts and points of faith and Religion yea it maie be a Church though it think not sincerely of some parts of faith and Religion so they be not fundamental Loe not fundamentals are heads points and parts of faith and Religion And controu 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 527. It is not necessarie that faithful men agree in al things which are of faith so they agree in the highest the cheifest and the necessarie Behold againe vnfundamental points matters of faith Matters of faith Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. calleth them diuine truthes and p. 39. intending to declare his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points saieth Points of Religion are wel distinguished Points of Religion by Thomas and Stapleton Some saie they are primitiue articles others are Secundarie So that Secondarie or Not fundamentals are points of Religion as wel as primitiue or fundamentals And sec 7. p. 71. Being to proue his distinction into fundamental and not fundamental saieth There be diuers degrees of truths and errors in Religion and commendeth Aquinas for Of the obiect of faith So also Chilling c. 4. p. 193. deuiding the obiect of faith into that which is so by itself and that which is by accident and secondarily The first be to that wherby a man is made blessed the latter that which is reuealed whatsoeuer it be as that Abraham had two sonns Loe whatsoeuer is reuealed is a truth of Religion and of the obiect of faith P. 73. There is a certaine measure Are reuealed and to be beleued The like he hath sec 6. p. 58. See white in his Def. c. 17. and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued and these are his fundamentals but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith Behold vnfundamental points belong to faith though not to the highest measure therof and are to be beleued with a virtual faith And p. 73. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued Other points of truth are Belong to the vnitie of faith