against Gods Church shal be damned But here I will stay my selfe wading no further in the disquisition and search of the great dissentions betweene Catholikes and Protestants touching faith and beliefe only I will reflect a litle vpon the premises And heere it is made most euident first that the Catholikes and Protestants do mainly differ in the sense and construction of the Articles of the Creede and consequently seing the sense and not the words do make the Creed that they both do not belieue one and the same Creede but haue to themselues seuerall Creedes from which point is sufficiently discouered the want of Vnity in faith among them both which Vnitie is so necessarily required to mans saluation as in the precedent chapter is demonstrated Secondly that though by supposition they did belieue the Creede and the true sense therof with an vnanimous consent yet it is proued there are diuers other articles not contayned in the Creed which are indifferently belieued as necessary to saluation both by Catholike and Protestant Thirdly seing also there are sundry Controuersies in Religion as is aboue exemplified which immediatly concerne saluation being houlden as necessary meanes therof by Catholikes but disclaymed from and abaÌ„doned by the Protestants as mayne errours and false doctrines Therfore from all the former premises I do auerre that it is a manifest errour to make the Creed the sole rule of Fayth and that he who maintaynes that both the Catholikes and Protestants notwithstanding their great disparitie of beliefe and fayth the one side necessarily belieuing maintayning Heresie can be saued or enioy one heauen is wholy depriued of all true iudgement reason and discourse and for want thereof may deseruedly be ranged among them of whome the psalmist speaketh (h) Psal 11. nolite fieri sicut equus mulus quibus non est intellectus THE SAME PROVED FROM the authority and priuiledge of the Church in not erring in her definitions and condemnation of Heresies and first of Councels CHAP. VI. FROM the inuiolable vnitie of faith we will next descend to the priuiledges of Gods true Church Of which priuiledges I will at this time take only one into my consideration that is that the Church of God is endued with a supreme priuiledge and prerogatiue of not erring in her definitions of fayth or condemnatioÌ„ of heresie This point is warranted by innumerable texts of holy Scripture as where it is sayd (i) Esay 72. Vpon thy wall ô Hierusalem I haue set watchmen all the day and all the night they shall not be silent But God did not set watchmen ouer his Church to teach errour And agayne The (a) 2. Tim. 3. Church of God is the pillar and foundation of the truth what more perspicuous And further whereas ech man â—s commaunded to repayre in difficulties matters of small consequeÌ„ces to the Church it is threatned by Christ himselfe that who wil not heare the Church shal be accompted â—s an Heathen or Publican according to â—hat his commination Si Ecclesiam non auâ—ierit (b) Mat. 18. sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus where we find no restriction but that in all things we are to heare the Church Agayne Christ himselfe speaketh to his Apostles and in them to the whole Church He (c) Luc. 10. that heareth you heareth me But if the church could erre neither would Christ refer vs to the church especially vnder so great a penalty neither by hearing the church could we be iustly sayd to heare Christ Finally the Church is so gouerned by Christ as its head or spouse and by the holy Ghost as its soule as therefore we find the Apostle thus to write (d) Ephes 1. thereof God hath made him head speaking of Christ ouer all the Church which is his body And agayne (e) Ephes 4. One body and one spirit yet more The (f) Ephes 5. man is the head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church From which texts it followeth that if the church should erre in its definitioÌ„s or resolutions of fayth and condemnation of Heresy this erring might well be ascribed to Christ and to the holy Ghost and consequently it followeth that the Apostles in making the creed would haue omitted that Article I belieue in the Catholike Church For why should we be bound to belieue the church if the church could erre This truth I meane that the church of Christ cannot erre in her sententionall decrees is so illustrious and euident that Tertullian speaking of certaine Heretikes of his tyme obiecting the erring of the whole church thus figuratiuely or Ironically writeth Age Omnes (g) in l. de praescript c. 28. Ecclesiae errauerunt nullam respexit spiritus Sanctus vti eam in veritatem deduceret ad hoc missus à Christo ad hoc postulatus de Patre vt esset doctor veritatis c. That is Go to Belike all the Churches haue erred and the holy Ghost hath regarded no Church that be might lead it into truth being sent for this purpose by Christ and to the same end begged by Christ of the Father â—hat it might be the teacher of truth And S. Augustine Disputare (h) Epist 118. contra id quod Ecclesia vniuersae sentit insolentissimae insaniae est To dispute agaynst any point maintayned by the whole Church is extreme madnes To whose iudgment herein most of the more sober and learned Protestants do indisputably subscribe since diuers of them doe with all feruour earnestnes maintayne that (i) D. Bancrost in his Sermon printed anno 1588. Fox Act. mon. fol. 464. b. art 4. The deuines of Geneua in their propositions and principles disputed c. p. 141. and diuers others the church of Christ cannot erre and that what she defineth for truth is most true or what for Heresy or â—alshood is hereticall and to be condemned This Basis or foundatioÌ„ of the church not â—rring being thus firmely layde we are heereupon to conclude that what points of Religion the catholike church of Christ hath condemned for Heresies the same are by vs to be reputed for Heresies since the churches condemnation or approbation is most infallible and the maintayners of the sayd Heresies for Heretikes and consequently that such Heretikes as departing out of the Church of God by their houlding of the sayde Hereticall opinions cannot be saued Now because the iudgment of the Church in matters of fayth is discouered two wayes first by the sentence of generall Councells secondly by the frequent attestations of the sayd chiefe Doctours of the Church in euery age in their particuler wrytings they not being contradicted therin by any other Orthodoxall Fathers or Doctours of the same age I will therefore distributiuely handle both these wayes shewing that both in generall by Councels and also by the particuler iudgement of the learned Fathers many opinions though not touching the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion or the expresse Articles of
Heresies only in the greatest points admitting such meÌ„ for Heretikes would accordingly haue restrayned his words at least in some one â—ext or other among so many only to these kind of Heretikes But not to leaue the least â—hew of refuge or euasion herein I will produce some passage of holy Scripture in wchâ—he mantayners of particuler errours euen â—n lesser points then the highest articles of Christianity are censured by Christs Apoâ—tles to be depriued of eternall Saluation And first we find S. Paul thus to prophesie In the later (h) 1. Tim. cap. 4. times certaine shall depart from the Fayth attending to spirits of errour and doctrine of deuills and forbidding to marry and to abstaine from meates c. Heere the Apostle prophesieth according to the iudgment of (i) Hom. 12. in 1. Tim. S. Chrysostom (k) Vpon this place Ambrose (l) l. contra Iouin cap. 1. Ierom (m) Haer. 25. 40. Augustin of the Heretikes Encratites Marcionistes Ebionites c. who denyed matrimony as a thing altogeather vnlawfull prohibited absolutly and at all times the eating of certaine meates as creatures impure Now these Heretikes belieued in the Trinity the Incarnation c. yet euen for these two former Heresies touching mariage and eating of meates they are sayd bâ— the Apostle to depart from the Fayth of Chrisâ— and to attend to the doctrine of deuills But sucâ— as leaue the Fayth of Christ and attenâ— to the doctrine of Diuells are not iâ— state of Saluation In my iudgement thâ— one authority alone is sufficient to oueâ—throw this phantasie of our Newtrallists 〈◊〉 since the words are diuine Scripture thâ— Heresies reprehended no fundamentalâ— points of Religion but of as little or lesseâ— consequence then the Controuersies betwixt the Catholikes and the Protestants yet the maintainers of them are accompted to depart from the Fayth of Christ and to attend to the doctrine of deuills A second place shal be that of the former Apostle who writing of certayne Heretikes erring touching the Resurrection of the Body though the article of the Resurrection it selfe they belieued sayth thus (n) 2. Tim. cap. â— Their speach spreadeth like a Canker of whome is Hymenaeus and Philetus who haue erred from the truth saying That the Resurrection is allready past and haue subuerted the Fayth of some These men belieued all the mysteries of the Trinity the IncarnatioÌ„ c. yet for erring only touching the Resurrection of the body they are sayd to erre from the truth to subuert the Fayth of some and that as Canker neuer leaueth the body till â—y little and little it wasteth it away so â—heir speaches by degrees poyson and kill â—he soules of the hearers From which it â—uidently followeth that these Heretikes â—ontinuing and dying in the foresaid Hereâ—ie could not be saued since that faith which â—rreth from the truth which subuerteth the true â—aith of Christ in others and which in killing and â—estroying resembleth a Canker cannot affoard Saluation to its Professours Another passage which heere I will vrge â—s that of S. Iohn who calleth certaine Heâ—etikes Antichrists saying (o) 1. Ioan. c. 2. Now there are beâ—ome many Antichrists who went out of vs were not of vs for if they had byn of vs they would surely haue remayned with vs. These Heretikes belieued in the Trinity in the Incarnation of Christ that he dyed for the saluation of the whole world only they erred touching the Person Natures of Christ yet they are figuratiuely stiled Antichrists and are said to depart out of the Church of Christ but no saluation is reserued for Antichrists and Apostataes leauing the Church of Christ. And thus much out of Gods holy Writ expressely touching Heresie in generall particuler To these Texts I will adioyne though not immediately and directly raunged vnder the former head a place or two of Scripture in my iudgment most vnanswerable and by necessarie inference euicting the point heere vndertakeÌ„ The first place is those words of S. Peter where he saith (p) 2. Ep. c. 3. In the Epistles of S. Paul there are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable do peruert vnto their owne destruction Now heere I thus argue But these thinges hard to be vnderstood in S. Paul his Epistles did not concerne the doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. and yet the misvnderstanding of them doth cause as the text saith the destruction that is the damnation of them who misunderstand them Therfore farre lesser points then the deniall of the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. doe iustly threaten to the false belieuers of them daÌ„nation and consequently it followeth that a bare beliefe of those supreme points is not sufficient to Saluation That those difficulties in S. Paules Epistles intimated by S. Peter did not concerne the Trinity the Incarnation the Passion c. I prooue seuerall wayes first because S. Peter maketh no such mention which no doubt he would haue done if the subiect of them had only touched those supreme mysteries and were not to be extended to other inferiour pointes Secondly it is acknowledged by the writings and â—ommentaries of all the Fathers besides â—at the Epistles themselues shew no lesse â—at S. Paul is most euident and cleere in 〈◊〉 his Epistles touching the Trinity the â—carnation the Passion c. and therfore â—ere is no reason why the difficulties of â—hem should be applyed to those articles such lesse restrayned to them alone Thirdly the Fathers do vnderstand these â—â—fficulties in S. Paul his Epistles mentioâ—d by S. Peter chiefly touching Iustificaâ—oÌ„ as appareth by the testimony euen of S. â—gustine (q) l. de fide operibus c. 15. 16. himselfe who particulerly â—tanceth in that place 1. Corinth 3. If â— man build vpon this foundation gold siluer 〈◊〉 which text intreateth of Iustification â—nd workes and expresly saith that this is he of the difficult passages intended and â—ant by S. Peter With S. Augustine S. â—ome may seeme well to agree in these â—ords (r) Epist ad Algasiam quae 8. Epistola ad Romanos nimijs obscuriâ—bus inuoluta est The Epistle to the Roâ—â—ns is inuolued with many obscurities or â—ake places for it is found that the Epiâ—â—le to the Romans most entreateth of Iuâ—fication and of faith and workes Fourâ—ly and lastly the Protestants themselues 〈◊〉 vnderstand the said obscurities of S. Paul 〈◊〉 Epistles touching Iustification as appeareth to omit the testimonies of â— others herein from the words and Coâ—ment of Doctor Fulke against the Rhâ—mish Testament vpon the foresaid plaâ—â— of S. Peter And this farre of this text wheâ— we find by an ineuitable deduction that false Fayth touching Iustification only caâ—not stand with Saluation The second text of scripture is containâ— in those words of the Apostle where thus sayth (c) c. 11. ad Hebraeos s Credere oportet accedentem ad Dâ— quia
defence of the Apology KeÌ„nitius in exam Concil Trident. part 1. p. 74. diuers others Protestants themselues exempt her from errour most truly insufferably erred in condemning certayne opinions which are not fundamentall for Heresyes and their maintayners for Heretikes and consequently the Scripture and Christ himselfe haue deceaued vs by ascribing to the church an (m) Mat. 18. Luc. 10. 1. Tim. 3. c. infallibility of erring in her definitions of fayth and condemnation of Heresies and by commaunding vs to obey the churches authority and sentence in all things as styling her the pillar and foundation of truth And further it should follow that the Church should thus intollerably erre both in generall councells the highest Tribunalls heere vpon earth as also in the priuate Authorities and sentences of all the learned Fathers in those firster tymes And thus for example the councell of the (n) Act. 15. Apostles should haue erred in decreeing it vnlawfull to eate in those tymes bloud strangled meates In like sort the first councell of (o) Euseb l. 3. de vita Constant Epiphan haeres 70. Nice should haue erred in condemning the Quartadecimani for Heretiks because they would not keep Easter day according to the custome of the Church And to pretermit all the other Councells aboue alleadged the Councell (p) Euseb l. 6. Hist. cap. 33. of Rome vnder Cornelius for condemning the Heresy of the Nouatians who reiected the Sacrament of Pennance as also for condemning of Anabaptisme And thus farre of Councels condemning points of seeming Indifferency for open wicked Heresies But now heere graunting that the sayd points as they were houlden by the maintayning of them were not Heresyes that the belieuers of them be saued then two mayne absurdities doe immediatly follow the first as is sayd is the erring of the whole Church of God in coÌ„demning them for Heresies they being not Heresies but true doctrines The second the inconsiderate cariage of the Church in these matters For to what end or purpose were all these Councells consisting of many hundreds of the most graue and Reuerend men of all Christendome celebrated with such labour trauayle out of all countreys infinite charges if the doctrines for the impugning resistng and condemning whereof they were gathered might be indifferently maintayned defended on all sides without breach of true fayth or daunger of Saluation The erring of the church is no lesse manifested in the sentences and condemnations giuen by many of the most auncient famous leâ—rned Fathers in the Primitiue Church not any one Orthodoxall Father contradicting them therein agaynst diuers maintayning opinions that seemed in regard of the Trinity Incarnation c. of small importance â—f so those opinions be not Heresies nor the belieuers of them Heretikes but men in state of SaluatioÌ„ And thus according heerto Floâ—inus though he taught God to be the Auâ—hour of sinne might be saued In like sort the Heretikes who in S. Ieâ—ome his dayes denyed the possibility of the Commaundements The Manichees who â—enyed freewill The Eunomians who â—aught that only fayth doth iustify The Aeâ—ians who denyed prayer sacrifice for the â—ead and tooke away all fasting dayes Vigilantius who taught that Priests might marry and that we ought not to pray to Saints Iouinian who held marriage better then virginity The Donatists who taught the Inuisibility of the Church And finally to omit many others for breuity sake the Pelagians who denyed the necessity of Baptisme in Children All these men I say might be saued notwithstanding their former doctrines if so it be that euery man might expect Saluation in their Religion And yet we find that the foresaid men were branded for wicked Heretikes their doctrines for damnable Heresies as in the seauenth chapter aboue is shewed by Ireneus Ierome Epiphanius Philastrius Augustine Theodoret and others diuers of which holy Fathers writing catalogues oâ— Heresies did place the foresayd doctrines their Authours within the sayd catalogues this they did without any reluctation oâ— gain-saying of any other auncient and learned Father of their tymes From which consideration I doe gather if those opinions were not iustly condemned for Heresies and their Authouâ— for Heretikes Then not only the churcâ— did fouly erre in so great a matter but alâ— euen the aforesaid alleadged Fathers to wiâ— Ireneus Ierome Epiphanius Austine witâ— many such others should deseruedly be reputed for Heretikes for their condemning of true Doctrines for Heresies and the belieuers of them for Heretikes and on the contrary syde Florinus the Manichees the Eunomians Vigilantius Iouinian the Donatists Pelagius many other such should be accompted for their teaching of true Doctrines Orthodoxall Authors and might haue iustly complayned of their insupportable wronges and indignities proceeding from the pens of the foresaid fathers An absurdity which I thinke no man enioying the benefit of his fiue senses wil allow And yet the admittance of our Newtrallists Paradoxe inanoidably draweth on this infereÌ„ce Another Absurdity accompanying the former doctrine is this that Heretikes should be true members of Christs church This I thus deduce for seing by the consent of all learned men none can be saued but such as are true members of Christs church for otherwyse Turkes and Iewes dying in the state of Turcisme and Iudaisme might be saued and seing the foresaid registred Doctrines and their Authours are condemned for Heresies Heretiks both according to the Authority of Gods church according to the true definition of Heresy aboue in the beginning set downe for the said Heretikes haue made choyce of those their heresies and do maintaine them most frowardly against the whole church of God not submitting their iudgments to it must of necessity follow that if those men could be saued then Heretikes continuing Heretikes are members of Christs true church then which what Paradoxe can in it selfe be accompted more absurd or in the iudgment of learned men more incredible considering with what acerbity of comportement the Apostles and all the Orthodoxall learned pious Fathers both in their wrytings and otherwyse haue in all ages entertayned Heretikes as aboue I haue manifested Furthermore if an Heretike continuing an Heretike can be saued then hath the auncient church of Christ vsed great tyranny to diuers such Professours by vndeseruedly punishing such meÌ„ with losse of Goods Imprisonments Excommunication Banishment sometymes with death it selfe for such were the punishments appointed by the auncient church and Christian Emperours against Heretyks as I haue shewed in the nynth chapter Againe supposing the truth of the doctrine of these Omnifidians yet obserue how repugnant it is to all reason and otherwise absurde eueâ— in it owne nature I will heere passe ouer diuers reasons alleadged in the precedent Chapters insist a little in some few of them The first It is certaine that that Faith which belieueth some articles and yet belieueth not other articles which are no lesse true and
est inquirentibus se remunerator sit 〈◊〉 that commeth to God must belieue that God iâ— and is a rewarder to them that seeke him Hee is imposed a necessity as appeareth by tâ—â— word Oportet to belieue not only that the is a God but that this God giueth rewarâ— to such as seeke him to wit eternall lyâ— But to belieue that God is a rewarder of goâ— men is an article in it selfe wholy distinct 〈◊〉 differeÌ„t from the articles of the Trinity thâ— Incarnation the Passion c. and in natuâ—â— independent of these other for a man maâ— belieue that God is a rewarder of good meâ— with eternall felicity and yet not belieuâ— these other supreme Mysteryes as man vertuous men no doubt did in the law oâ— nature and in the time of the old Testâ—ment and on the contrary side a man maâ— belieue those chiefe articles of Christianity and yet not particulerly belieue that God is a rewarder of such as seeke him And yet we see the beliefe of this later point is necessarily exacted by the Apostle of all those who come to God consequently of all those who shal be saued seeing no man can be saued but such as come to God THE SAME PROVED FROM THE DEfinition Nature and Propriety of Fayth CHAP. III. IN this place we shall first take into our consideration the definition of fayth set downe by S. Paul Secondly the dignity worth of â—ayth much celebrated by diuers of the Aâ—ostles Thirdly the inseparable propriety â—f Fayth which is Vnity for so doth the â—cripture delineate and describe Fayth â—â—om all which it will ineuitably follow â—hat that Fayth which saueth man is not â—o be restrayned only to the Trinity the â—ncarnation and other such sublime points â—f Christian Religion though in other points it be erroneous but to all points whatsoeuer which the Church of God propoundeth to be belieued And to beginne with the definition of Fayth giuen by the Apostle He thus deâ—neth Fayth (a) c. 11. ad Hebraeos Fayth is the substance of thiâ— to be hoped for the argument of things not appâ—ring The sense wherof is this first thâ— Fayth through an infallible certainty caâ—seth those things to subsist and haue a bâ—ing in the mind of man which are yâ— to come but hoped and looked for Sâ—condly that fayth causeth the vnderstaâ—ding to giue an assent to those points whiâ— it vnderstandeth not acknowledging theâ— to be more certaine then any other thinâ— whatsoeuer according to those words of 〈◊〉 Thomas (b) quaest 4. art 8. Multo magis homo certior est de eo qâ—â— audit à Deo qui falli non potest quà m de eo quâ— videt propria ratione quae falli potest Now heeâ— I trust no man wil deny but the Apostle dâ—fined that Fayth of a Christian which sâ—ueth him This being graunted for to denâ— it were both impious in the denier moâ— iniurious to the Apostle we are to remember the nature of euery true definition sâ— downe by the Logitians to wit as is aboue intimated that the thing defined anâ— the definition be of one and the same extenâ— latitude so as whatsoeuer is compreheÌ„ded vnder the definitioÌ„ the same is also contayned vnder the thing defined This theâ— being presupposed by force of all reason foâ— Logike is but an artificiall haÌ„dmaid to Reason we find that this definition of Fayth â—mpriseth in it selfe not only the Doctriâ—e of the Trinity of the Incarnation c. â—nd this not articulately but only by way â—deduction but also it containeth all seâ—â—ndary points of Religion seeing the forâ—r definition doth predicate or may be â—â—d of all the sayd secondary and lesse prinâ—all points of Religion controuerted betâ—eene Christians at any time Therfore the â—ng heere defined which is the sauing â—ayth of a Christian is in like sort to exâ—â—nd it selfe to all the sayd secondary points â— Religion how indifferent soeuer they â—â—me in mans iudgment This inference is 〈◊〉 demonstratiue being taken from the forâ—er definition of Fayth as that the Apostle â—â—mselfe presently after the former words â—â—ginning to instance the seueral Obiect of â—â—yth among diuers other examples setâ—h downe that to belieue Noahs floud 〈◊〉 the deluge of the world by water for â—ne is an article of Fayth for thus he â—â—yth By Fayth (c) Hebr. 11. Noah hauing receaued an ansâ—â—re concerning those things which as yet were â—ot seene fearing framed the Arke for the sauing of â—is howse But to proceed further If the Articles of he Trinity the Incarnation and the like 〈◊〉 the only essentiall points of a true Christian Fayth it is more then wonderfull that the Apostle vndertaking to set down the true definition of an auailable Fayth and exemplifying it in it seuerall Obiects should wholy and silently omit the say articles of the Trinity Incarnation PassioÌ„ c. he in that Chapter not expresly speaking one word of them And thus much touching the definitioâ— of Fayth giuen by the Apostle from whicâ— definition we conclude that whosoeuâ—â— seeketh to haue a true Fayth necessary to saâ—uation must belieue besides the mysteriâ— of the Trinity the Incarnation c. diueâ— others dogmaticall articles of Christian Râ—ligion And therfore answereably therâ— we assure our selues that when our Sauioâ— sayd He (d) Marc. 16. that belieueth not shal be condemneâ— he did speake of the belieuing of the whoâ— corps of Christian Fayth and Doctrine aâ— not only of any part therof for so in this lâ—ter maner it would be both false absurâ— In like fort where our Blessed Sauiour 〈◊〉 the same Chapter sayth to his Apostle Preach the Ghospell to all creatures c. He dâ— vnderstand the whole Ghospell which câ—â—tayneth many other points besides the Tâ—â—nity Incarnation and Passion c. In this next place we will descend 〈◊〉 those passages of holy Scripture which much magnify the efficacy and vertue of â—â—yth And accordingly heerto we find it 〈◊〉 said (e) Marc. vlt. He that belieueth and is baptized â—â—albe saued but he that belieueth not shal be conâ—â—mned Againe our Sauiour said to the â—ind men praying to receaue their sight According to your faith be it donne vnto you (f) Mat. 9. â—nd further (g) Hebr. c. 11. Without fayth it is impossible to â—ase God And more (h) 1. Ioan. c. 5. Our fayth is the virie which ouercommeth the world Now in â—â—ese and many other such texts for breuity â—itted I demaund what fayth is vnderâ—od or meant If it be answered a true â—yre perfect faith belieuing all points Christian Religion proposed by Gods â—â—urch it is true and that which I heare â—e to prooue Yf an vnperfect and munâ—l faith belieuing some points of Chriâ—â—â—â—â— Religion and reiecting others and so â—rroneus faith being partly true partly â— I say it can neuer deserue these prayses â—n by the Euangelists and Apostles neiâ—â—â— can it produce such supernaturall efâ— aboue specifyed no
more then darkeâ— an produce light since Truth himselfe 〈◊〉 taught vs (i) Luc. 6. That we cannot gather figges â—ornes nor grapes of bushes And hence by premises we are to vnderstand that we â—n entyre perfect fayth that by the â—h we belieue all supreme articles of the Trinitie Incarnation Passion c. anâ— all the articles of the Creed expressely articulately in their true sense and do belieue all other inferiour articles at least implicitely that is that we haue a readie preparation of mind to belieue all other articles which the Church of Christ dotâ— propound to be belieued so as that thougâ— we do not belieue euery article of Chrâ—stian Religion with an explicite and expresse faith yet we are bound vnder painâ— of damnation nor to belieue any doctrinâ— contrary or repugnant to the said articleâ— which the Church of Christ doth prâ—pound to be belieued from which it vnauoydably followeth that once grauntinâ— that the Church of Christ propoundeth 〈◊〉 be belieued that there is a Purgatory â— that we may pray to the Saints he incureth damnation who belieueth that theâ— is no Purgatory or that we ought not 〈◊〉 pray to Saints Now in this third place we will toucâ— that inseparable Attribute of true Chrâ—stian fayth which is Vnity in fayth 〈◊〉 doctrine This marke is so indissolubâ—â— annexed to the true fayth of Christ as thâ— we find his Apostles euer readie most â—â—riously to inculcate the same to their dâ—ciples Thus accordingly the Aposâ—â— exhorteth the Ephesians saying (k) Ephes 4. Be you carefull to keepe the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace And immediately againe (l) Ephes vbi supra There is one Lord one fayth one Baptisme Where we see that Vnity in fayth is expressely set downe As also in another place (m) Ephes loc cit I beseech you that you speake all one thing be you kâ—it together in one mind and one iudgment And as this was the exhortation of the Apostle To we read that the first belieuers followed â—he same of whom S. Luke thus saith The (n) Act. 4. multitude that belieued were of one hart and â—ne soule And hence it proceedeth that the Church of Christ which comprehendeth the Professours of this vnanimous faith is â—tyled by Gods holy writ (o) Rom. 12. One Bodie one (p) Cant. 6. Spouse (q) Ioan. 10. one flocke of sheepe A truth â—o euident as that besides the frequent teâ—timonies of the Faâ—hers (r) Athanasius orat 1. con Ani. Chrysost opere imperfecto in Mat. Hom. 20. Tertullian de praescript Irenaeus l r. c. 5. confirming the â—ame euer the Protestants subscribe in iudgâ—ent heerto For thus (Å¿) Luther tom 3. Wittenberg in psal 5. fol. 166. Luther himselfe to omit (t) see herâ—â—â—f the Deuines of Mansfeild against the Sacramentaries And the Deuines of Heidelberg against the Anabaptists others writeth A kingdome deuiâ—ed in it selfe shall not stand neither haue any â—eretikes at any tyme bine ouercome by force or â—btility but by mutuall dissention neither doth â—hrist fight with them otherwise then with a spiâ—â—t of giddines and disagreement Now then this Vnitie of faith is so to be â—nderstood as that it is not repugnant therto that one and the same point should at one time not be houlden as necessary to be belieued the which after it hath vndergone a definitiue sententionall decree of Gods Church is necessarily to be belieued As for example it was not necessary in the beginning of Christianity to belieue that the booke of the Machabees the Epistle of S. Iames S. Iude the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn to be Canonicall Scripture till they were defined so to be by the third Councell (u) Can. 47. of Carthage at which S. Augustine was present But after this Councell had by the assistance of the holy Ghost defined them to be Canonicall and this after confirmed by the consent of the whole Church then it was and is Heresy to deny them to be Canonicall And the reason of this disparity is because it is Gods good pleasure wisdome not to reueale to his Church all articles of faith in the beginning and at one time but at seuerall times and vpon seuerall occasions as to his diuine Maiesty best seemeth expedient Thus the fayth of a Christian is capable of dilatation and of a more large vnfoulding or exposition but not of any contrariety in beliefe chaunge or alteration Anâ— thus to insist in the former example yâ— may well stand with Christian faith in the â—eginning not to accept the former bookes or Canonicall till the authority of the Church had pronounced them for such But it standeth not with sound faith that one man should positiuely belieue now after the Churches definition therof giuen as an article of fayth that the Machabees and the rest of the bookes aboue specified are not Canonicall Scripture but the prophane writings of man and another man should belieue as an article of Faith that they are Canonicall Scripture since the one of these contrary beleifes must be Hereticall This verity of the Vnity of faith being warranted by the word both of God and man as is aboue said we will take into our consideration the Catholike and Protestant Religions both which ioyntly do professe to belieue in generall in the Trinity in Christs Incarnation his Passion and the Creed of the Apostles and so we shall discerne whether the faith of all these seuerall Professours doth inioy the foresaid marke of vnity in doctrine or noe But seing this Subiect is most ample and large I will therfore sepose this ensuing chapter for the more full and exact discouery of the many and great disagreements betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants in their fayth and Religion THE SAME PROVED FROâ— want of vnity in fayth betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants touching the Articles of the Creed CHAP. IIII. VNDERTAKING in this place tâ— set downe the multiplicity of opinions betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants though they all iointly belieue in the Trinity the Incarnation oâ— Christ his Passion and the like and consequently that this their general beliefe wanteth that true Vnity of fayth which out of thâ— holy Scriptures Fathers the Protestants I haue aboue shewed to be most necessary to Saluation I will first examine how the Protestants and Catholikes doe differ touching the beliefe of the Creed made by the Apostles Next I will demonstrate that supposing all Professours of both Religions should agree in the true sense and meaning of the Creed yet there are diuers other dogmaticall points necessarily to be belieued and are at this instant belieued both by Protestants and Catholikes which are not expressed or mentioned in the Creed nor by any immediate inference can be drawne from thence Lastly I wil set down the great difference betweene Catholiks ProtestaÌ„ts in other points of fayth of which the Creed makes no intimation or