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
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 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
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
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