falsitie or word of man or not the whole reuealed word of God are not the true Church Secondly becaus as we proued before C. 2. 4. there are no fundamental points in Field l. 2. de Ecclesia c. 3. freedom froÌ„ pertinatious error is euer found in the true Church Fulks ouerthrow of the answer to Char Preface p. 114. the Protestants sense that is such as are sufficient to be beleued though other points of faith be sufficiently proposed nor anie Not fundamental in their sense that is such as are not necessarie to be actually beleued when they are sufficiently proposed and virtually though they be not proposed But al points of faith whatsoeuer are fundamental or essential Al points of faith essential to a true Church to a true Church and are to be beleued ether actually and explicitly if they be sufficiently proposed or at the least virtually and implicitly if they be not sufficiently proposed For as is said before the whole reuealed word which conteineth as wel Not-fundamentals as fundamentals is the true obiect of faith And no companie but such as professeth al Christs doctrin can be a true Church of Christ And therfore none who denie anie points of his doctrin sufficiently proposed can be his true Church absolutly but only his Church in parte as in parte onely they profès his doctrin And this D. Potter insinuateth when sec 7. p. 74. he saieth That Not fundamentals do Not fundamentals belong to the essence of a Church not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to the saluation of a Christian For if they doe anie waie truly belong whether See Chilling p. 209. 291. primarily or secondarily to the essence of a Church a Church cannot be without them altogether becaus nothing can be without that which any way belongs to its essence And they maie be faied to belong secundarily to the essence of a Church becaus How Not-fundamentals may belong secundarily a Church maie be without actual beleif of them to wir if they be not sufficiently proposed 7. Reason also conuinceth that what is simply and absolutly a true Al points Christs doctrin howsoeuer must be professed at least virtually or implicitly Church of Christ must at least virtually and implicitly profès al his doctrin Becaus if it doe no waie profés his whole doctrin but only some parte of his doctrin it is not simply and absolutly his Church but in parte only his Church and in parto not his Church as in parte it professeth his doctrin and in part reiecteth it And they nether virtually not implicitly profès his whole doctrin who sinfully reiect anie part of it when it is sufficiently proposed to be his Secondly becaus to reiect anie parte of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to be his doctrin is to reiect Christs veracitie for it is as much as to saie he is not to be beleued in that and is an act of infidelitie as Protestants before C. 3. §. 5. 6. l. 2. confessed And how can they be a true Church of Christ who in anie point reiect Christ veracitie and commit an act of infidelitie Besids as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 10. p. 36. whatsoeuer is fundamental in the faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the vnitie of faith But Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith as before D. C. 3. § 5. 6. l 2. Potter and Chilling worth confessed Therfore c. 8. And out of thes definitions of a true Church which we haue brought out of holie Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason it appeareth First how vntrue it is which Canterburie saieth sec 16. p. 62. The Catholik Church which wee beleue in our Creed is Catholik Church includeth not al ChristiaÌ„s the societie of al Christians or which Moulins saieth l. 1. coÌ„tra Peron c. 2. The Scripture taketh the name of the Church sometimes for the vniuersal companie of al those who profès themselues Christians and to beleue in Iesus Christ Secondly how vntrue it is which the same Lord Canterburie hath sec 36. p. 314. No man can be saied simply to be out of the visible Chureh that is baptized and holds the foundation Or sec 20. p. 129. That Church which receaues the Scripture as a rule of faith and both the Sacraments as seales of grace can not but be a true Church in essence Or which D. Potter saieth sec 5. p. 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation Or as Chilling worth saieth Tertul. praescrip c. 41. haeretici paceÌ„ passim cum omnibus miscent c. 5. p. 283. Protestants grant their communion to al who hold with them not al things but things necessarie Or which generally al Protestants saie That the Catholik Church is the multitude of al Christians through the whole world who agree in profession of the principal articles of Christian faith howsoeuer they denie other points of faith sufficiently proposed to them nor communicate together at al in Sacraments or publik worship of God For beside that these things are saied without al apparent proof ether of Scripture Fathers or reason but merely to include themselues and such others as they please within the bounds of the true Catholik Church they are clearely conuinced out of the aforesaid definitions of the Church taken out of Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason For nether do al Christians or al that profès themselues Christians perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles but onely in a part of it nor are they al Orthodox or sound in faith or vnited in communion nor do they al profès the pure sincere vncorrupt and entire word of God and therfore according to the definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers Protestants and reason they are not al members of the true Church 9. And with les apparence can they be saied to be the Catholik C. 6. n. 3. l. 2. Church For Catholik as before I said out of Saint Augustin and other Fathers halteth in nothing and manie of thos Christians who hold the principal articles halt in manie other points of faith And besids al such Christians communicate not together and coÌ„demn one an other as is euident in the Roman the Grecian the Lutheran the Caluinist and such other Churches And communion is as wel essential to the true Catholik Church C. 13. S. Austin Epist 48. l. de vnit c. 6 Collat. 3. diei c. 3. de Pastoribê° c. 13. Field l. 3. de Eccles c. 43. as puritie in faith as hereafter shal be proued Nay Catholik rather signifieth communion then puritie in faith What monstrous Catholik Church then must that be which consisteth of al thos Christians who agree only in the principal points of Christian faith A monstruous Church of Protestants but in al other points how sufficiently soeuer proposed to them disagree and condemn one
true Church as perseuerance in the doctrin of the Apostles is And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper and publik praiers And saieth we must be such if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the Corinthiās and one saied he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas The Apostle reprouing them faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided As if it should follow that Christ were deuided if his mystical Bodie the Church were deuided Besids al the places of Scripture C. 7 nu 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue that the Church of Christ is absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments For such a deuided Church is not absolutly one but in parte or in some sort only The same also is euident out of our Creed where we profés to beleue the Catholik Church the cōmuniō of Saints Where communion of Saints is ether an explication of Cath. Church as * Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 3. Confessio Scotica art 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Kemnit loc de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach or a thing necessarily required to it For it makes no distinct article 3. The Fathers also as Moulins confessed * c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before by the Church vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such cōmunion as is opposit to Scismatiks Churches orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in communion and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks So that they make vnion in communion which excludeth Schismatiks who are deuided in cōmunion as essential a part of the Church of which they meane as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith which excludeth heretiks And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola cōmunione litigant See him 4. cōt Crescon c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers that they exclude as wel Schismatiks out of the Church who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments as heretiks who want soundnes in faith And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth Men cannot s. August puts cōmunion in Sacraments of the essence of Religion be ioined into anie name of Religion true or false vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments So that there can be nether true nor false Religion without communion in Sacraments And epist 118. saieth God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments 4. Reason also conuinceth that Reason also cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the true Church of Christ For his Church is Confessio Anglicaart 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVittenbergica c. de Eccles a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments as al men conceaue and define And it implieth contradiction that there should be a Societie without cōmunion in matters essentially belonging to the societie as Sacramēts belong to Christs Church For if there be no communion in vse of Sacraments there is no societie in vse of Sacraments And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments no Church For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments And Protestants who profés to giue none but essential Notes of the Church giue right vse of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments are deuided in an essential parte and consequently essentially Moreouer without communion 2. in Sacraments and publik VVithout communion the Church differs not from schismatiks worship of God the Church should not differ essentially from a Schismatical Church And it implieth contradiction that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church Furthermore 3. vse of Sacraments and publik worship of God was the external end for which the Church was instituted and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end Besids the 4. true Church is the mystical Bodie of Christ and therfore as al the members of a natural bodie communicate one with an other so must the members of the true Church Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion Therfore a Church so deuided is no Church of Christs institution Finally al the arguments 6. wherwith before we proued the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God For a Church so deuided in not simply one 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants For Confessio Protestants confés that the Church is a societie in Sacraments Argentinensis c. 12. saieth God would haue his to haue external societie together for which cause he gaue them Sacraments Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper that we remember of what bodie we be members and therfore agree with al brethren Mulhusina art 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church to testifie faith and fraternal charitie Consensus Poloniae The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist to be the band of publik congregation and the band of mutual charitie among the members So Potter sec 7. p. 98. of the Church Caluin 4. instit c. 1. Caluin in Ioan. 9. Pessimū in Ecclesia maxime noxium malū est schisma § 7. The Church by participation of the Supper doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie See him also ibid. § 8. Whitaker also controuer 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church giuen by Bellarm. thus far Protestants put communion in Sacraments in definition of the Church The Church is a companie of men ioint together in profession of the same faith and communion of Sacramēts vnder lawful Pastors Where cōiunction in Communion of Sacraments is put as an essential parte of the Church And VVhere is not lawful vse of Sacraments the Church is not ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church So as where they are not the Church is not Moulins lib. 1. contra Perō c. 26. That is the true Church which is ioined together by profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments And cap. 25. The question which is the true Church is touching the entire bodie The questiō about the Church is about the entire bodie Orthodox and ioint in communion of the Orthodox Church ioint in
a sufficient Summarie of fundamentals a sufficient Summarie of holsome doctrin they Papists haue added manie more And what difference is there betwixt a Summarie and a Catalogue 4. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 371. The foundation is sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds And if it be sufficiently known why cannot Protestants giue vs an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Sect. 37. p. 319. If he meane different in the foundation itself the Creed then c. Lo here the Creed is the foundation Sec. 38. cit p. 334. The Protestants haue as infallible assurance as you can haue of al points which they account fundamental yea and of al which were so accounted by the Primitiue Church and these are but the The Creed and some deductions from it Creed and some few and those immediate deductions from it Lo Potestants know al points which they account fundamental and why then can they not giue an exact Catalogue of them Sec. 10. p. 28. The Creed is a common is a Deductions cannot be fundamentals constant foundation Deductions from it cannot be fundamental The English Deputies in the Synod of Dort sess 15. The fundamental heads of Religion are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and the Sacraments Behold Christian Reader how these men sometimes cannot giue an exact Catalogue of fundamentals sometime they can Sometimes al the fundamentals are conteined in the Apostles Creed sometimes in the Apostles Creed and in some few and immediat deductions from it At other times deductions from the Creed cannot be fundamental Sometimes al fundamentals are comprised in the Symbols and Creeds and at other times al the fundamentals are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and Sacraments Who wil see more of the Protestants vncertaintie which articles are to be accounted fundamental maie read lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. num 1. and 2. 5. In like manner they are vncertaine whether the pretended truthes against which they saie the Roman Church erreth be fundamental or no. For as we saw in the former Chapter nu 7. sometimes they saie she holdeth the foundation the fundamental The errors which Rome holds are not fundamental truths erreth not in fundamentals and holdeth al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation And the same followeth euidently out of that they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence and saie that she and the Protestant Church and their Religions be al one in substance For nether could she be a true See their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence if she erred in anie fundamental point nether can thes Churches or Religions be alone in substance which differ in fundamental points But at other times they auow that the errors of the Roman Church are fundamental and in themselues damnable and consequently opposit to some fundamental points of faith For thus Whitaker controu 2. q. 6. c. 3. The Roman Church Errors of Rome fundamental and damnable hath taken away manie fundamental Articles of faith and corrupted faith in the principal points Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he D. Potter saie that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments or where does he saie you wanted nothing fundamental or necessarie to saluation Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence that yours errors are confessed not to be fundamental it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you p. 289. Your Church did fal into substantial corruptions And p. 305. A fals hood it is that the. Doctor iudges the Roman Rom. errors in thēselues fundamental errors not to be in themselues fundamental or damnable p. 308. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we beleue the points of difference not fundamental or necessarie you haue beene often told that it is a calumnie And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence that we confes the Roman Are damnable heresies Church free from damnable heresie and yeelding you saluation no Protestant is guiltie of it And p. 34. 282. 278. 293. Poperie in it self destroies saluation and 400. saieth The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselues damnable And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie which he saieth is without question to err in necessarie matters In like sort Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 275. al. 257. Transubstantiation taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion Sec. 37. p. 320. The Church of Rome hath in the expositions both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them And yet ibid. p. 319. saieth The Creed is the foundation Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large That he neuer saied that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-fundamental Sec. 38. p. 325. You haue manie dangerous errors about the verie foundation in that which you cal the Roman faith And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day doth not beleue the Scripture and Creeds in the sense in which the ancient Primitiue Church receaued them And addeth as before the Creed is the foundation Thus vncertaine thes men be whether the pretended errors of the Roman Church be fundamental or no. But sometimes they are sometimes they are not as it serueth for their present purpose 9. Perhaps some to saue thes contradictions See Chillingw c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec 7. p. 71 of Protestants that the Roman Church holds al the fundamentals and holds them not al hath fundamental errors and hath not wil saie that fundamental points are of two kinds Some are fundamental not only by reason of their reuelation from God and their sufficient proposal to vs but also of their owne nature fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the passion of Christ and such like capital articles others not of their owne nature but merely because they are reuealed from God and sufficiently proposed to vs are fundamental to faith Church and saluation as that Saint Paul had a cloack c. And that when Protestants confes that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamentals or erreth not in fundamentals they meane of fundamentals of the first kinde when they saie she erreth in fundamentals they meane of the latter kinde and so do not contradict themselues becaus they do not affirme and denie the same kinde of fundamentals True it is that there is this difference betweene points of faith that some are fundamental to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation both of their nature and by reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs as the mysteries of the Trinitie the passion of Christ and such like others are fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation only by reason of Gods reuelation sufficiently proposed as that Abraham had two Sonns and such like But this wil not suffice
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
to fundamental points only but by opposition to the doctrin which we haue learned against the Tradition which we haue receaued or against which Saint Paul had preached C. 8. l. 1. But Not fundamental points are parte of that which we haue learned parte of that tradition which we haue receaued and parte of that which S. Paul preached Therfore sinful opposition to them is true heresie according to Scripture 3. Secondly I proue it out of the descriptions of heresie and heretiks An heresie described by the Fathers giuen by the holie Fathers of whom no one describeth heresie or heretitks by opposition to only principal or capital points of faith but by only opposition to Scripture or doctrin of the Catholik Church Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretik who vnderstands Contrarie to sense of Scripture the Scripture otherwise then the Holie Ghost would Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Ciuitate c. 51. The diuel raised vp heretiks who vnder the name of Christians should resist Christian doctrin To Christiā doctrin And addeth who in the Church doe hold anie vnsound and naughtie thing pertinaciously are heretiks Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9. They are not heretiks but becaus they vnderstand the Scripture wrongly And lib. de haeresibus in fine After he had reckoned diuers heresies wherof manie are not against anie principal point of faith he thus pronounceth whosoeuer holdeth anie one of thē is no Catholik Christian which is as much as to saie he is an heretik And both he and al antiquitie accounted And so doth Chilling c. 7. p. 398. Donatists heretiks for their error about rebaptization who yet saieth Lord Canterb. sec 35. p. 300. for ought I know did hold the foundation Donatists heretiks yet hold the foundation And Morton in his Grand Imposture c. 15. p. 418. The question of Rebaptization was no fundamental error And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. Saint Cyprian and Stephen might both be saued becaus their contrarie beleif about Rebaptization was not touching anie point conteined in Scripture Nether can they saie that the Donatists error about Rebaptization was fundamental vnles they wil damne S. Cyprian who confessedly held that error but L. Canterb. p. 315. Potter p. 103. without obstinacie as the Donatists did Saint Epiphan in Saint Hierom. l. 3. contra Ruffinum Manie heresies haue been cast out of the Church for one word or twoe contrarie to faith He saieth not contrarie to the foundation of faith but absolutly to faith Saint Gregorie Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrarie to Christs doctrine can be nothing more dangerous then those heretiks who with one word as with a drop of poison infect our Lords true and simple doctrin and Apostolical tradition But who err in Not fundamental points of faith doe so For they are parte of Christs doctrin and Apostolical Tradition Herupon Caluin 4. Institut c. 2. paragr 5. saieth Augustin putteth this difference betweene Heretiks and Schismatiks that they by false doctrins corrupt the sinceritie of faith but thes c. And in 1. Corinth c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresie in Fathers put heresie in corruption of faith dissention of doctrin So clearely he confesseth that the Fathers account anie corruption of Christs faith or doctrin In dissētion of doctrin to be heresie And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as Heretiks who erred in smal matters holding the foundation as Vigilantius Nouatus c. 4. Protestants also define heresie to be an obstinat error in anie point of faith Wittenbergenses in Refutatione orthodoxi consensus p. 73. Not Obstinat error in one point is hresie enerie heretik impugned al and euerie article of faith but for the most parte each heretik impugned one only purposely whom neuertheles being obstinat in their error the Church rightly condemned as Heretiks Schusselburg 1. 2. Theol. In anie fals doctrin Caluin art 1. we are certaine out of the word of God that obstinat error in anie false doctrin doth make heretiks Thus the Lutherans Beza li. de puniendis See VVitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly heretiks who pretending great pietie yet doe not yeeld to the admonition of the In not yeelding to the Church Church and by false doctrin doe break the peace and confession of the Church And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an heretik by Scripture Romans doth not name heretiks but plainly defineth thē For when he had admonished the brethren that they should note thos who make dissentions and scandales he addeth against that doctrin which you haue learnt wherfore where thes two meet there is heresie according to the Apostles definition then the which we ought not to seek anie better Fulk in his Reionder to Bristow p. 82. The Parlament determineth Heresie by contrarietie By the Parlament to the Canonical Scripture And p. 71. I say an Heretik is he which in the Church obstinatly mainteineth an opinion contrarie to the Scripture Plessie de Ecclesia c. 2. we cal them heretical Churches who err in faith Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 7. They are called Heretiks who are separated from the orthodox Church for some error in faith Bucanus in locis q. 33. heresie is properly dissention in doctrin Morton lib. 1. Apol. c. 3. whosoeuer anie waie departeth from the Catholik faith is an heretik saieth Thomas to whom subscribeth Occam and that rightly Tom. 2. l. 5. c. 13. To be an hcretik is to dissent from Scripture And in his Grand Imposture c. 5. p. 325. To be vnwilling ether to learne or to yeeld to manifest truth is proper to In not yeelding to manifest truth a Satanical Synagog Iuel in Defence of the Apologiae p. 44. For iust proof of Heresie three things necessarily are required 1. that it be an error 2. that it be an error against the truth of Gods word 3. that it be stoutly and wilfully mainteind Sharpe de Notis Eccles col 333. That is an heretical Church which obstinatly holdeth errors in doctrin Chilling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresie is nothing In oppositiō to faith but a manifest deuiation from and an opposition to the faith The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik In oppositiō to the Catholik visible Church veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks c. sec 4. p. 95. He is iustly estemed an heretik becaus he In not yeelding to Scripture yeelds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded to him Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against euident Scripture sufficiently cleared vnto him makes an heretik Sec. 7. p. 110. where the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an heretik
and that diuision in profession of such word of God is a substantial diuision in faith It wil also appeare that al the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church arise of not obseruing their true definitions the essence or vnitie of sauing faith or of the true Church of God rise of their Not knowing or rather of their not constant obseruing the true definitions of sauing saith and of the true Church of God which themselues sometimes giue But being set betweene two opposites to wit true faith and the Protestant faith the true Church and the Protestant VVhat Protestants can not be constant in doctrin Church when they consider the nature of true sauing faith and true Church they agree with vs in defining or describing them But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith and Church they are faine to saie that which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith and true Church And so in effect recal their owne definitions of a true Church or of sauing faith and therby quite alter the question and make the dispute of quite different things For whiles they defend the Protestant faith or Church Protestants in defeding their faith and Church meane quite other things by Faith and Church by the names of faith or Church they meane quite other things then Scripture Fathers we or themselues other whiles doe But it maie suffice to reasonable men louers of trut hand not wranglers about words that if by faith Protestants wil meane as Scripture Fathers we and themselues sometimes doe they cannot saie that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed nor the vnitie of sauing faith in vnitie of only some principal points but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words sufficiētly proposed and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed differ substātially Protestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church in faith And if by Faith they wil meane some other thing then Scripture Fathers we and themselues also sometimes doe they maie if they wil for words are ad placitum But it shal not be true sauing faith For that is that wherof the Scripture and Fathers meane but a faith of their owne inuention whos essence and vnitie they maie put in what points they please And thus hauing proued that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith or of Gods word reuealed and sufficiently proposed to vs destroieth both the substance and vnitie of true sauing faith Now let vs shew that it also destroieth the substance and vnitie of Gods true Church That sinful error or error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church SIXT CHAPTER 1. ALbeit it be euident by what we haue proued before that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the substance of a true Church becaus al such error is formal heresie and destroieth Catholik faith And a true Church cannot be with heresie or L. Canterb. sec 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith is substantial to the Church without Catholik faith Yet wil we proue it more particularly out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church giuen by Scripture Fathers and Protestants themselues and lastly by reason 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture the true Church of Christ saieth They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles and communication of breaking bread and praiers In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church euen by confession of Protestants For thus Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely notable and thes words do shew by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed The first note was the doctrin of the Apostles For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin which they receaued from Christ the Christians of thos times embraced and perseuered in it and it distinguished that companie of men from other companies and societies For they alone then were the true Church who perseuered in doctrin And Plessie l. de Eccles c. 2. Thes words of Scripture are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him But they who beleue only fundamental points and sinfully denie Not fundamental The doctrin of the Apostles includeth al their doctrin points of faith de not absolutly perseuer in the doctrin of the Apostles For the doctrin of the Apostles is their whole doctrin and includeth as wel Not fundamental as fundamental points of faith Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points and not in the vnfundamental perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin and in parte leaue it and cōsequently are not the true Church Besids our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth My sheep heare my voice But who heare his voice only in fundamental points doe not absolutly heare his voice but in parte only and in parte heare it not For Christs voice is as wel in Not fundamētal points of his doctrin as in fūdamental Therfore such are not Christs And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word ye shal be my disciples indeed But they abide not in his word who forsake it in al points not fundamental Moreouer sinful errors in faith are gates of hel But gats of hel preuaile not against Christs true Church Therfor not sinful errors in faith Besids if the the Catholik Church should sinfully err in anie point of faith she should not be holie men nor a holie societie For she should be a societie in heresie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holic Catholik Church should be false 3. And in like manner the holie Fathers define the true Church as is euident by their exclusion of al heretiks and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnderstand Description of the Church by Fathers by the Church which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in Communion and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks and heretiks which sense saieth he we wil not reiect But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed are not Orthodox nor sound in faith Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church what the Fathers did we cannot saie that such are of the Church And this is confirmed becaus the true Church which we beleue is Catholik as is professed in the Apostles Creed And Catholik by the Fathers iudgment erreth not in anie point of faith For thus Saint August in l. imperfec in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik becaus she
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