Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	word_n	14,132	5	4.8692	4	true

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

not to be regarded at al as when we obiect to Caluinists their difference from Lutherans in such points as they account not fundamentals Whitaker controu 1. q. 4. c. 3. calleth them smal matters K. Iames in his Monitorie Epistle Things indifferent and tittles D. Andrews Resp ad Apol Bellarm. c. 14. Matters of no great moment The Apologie of the Church of England No great matters Caluin Admonit vltima p. 832. Matters of nothing Martyr in Locis Classe 4. c. 10. paragr 65. Matters not to be much respected Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 89. No parte of faith but curious Nicities Thus meanely nay contemptously they speak of Not-fundameÌ„tal points when they wil maintaine anie Church which they confes to err in Not-fundamental points or saluation to be had in such a Church or their own Communion with her And surely If Not-fundamental points were such as hitherto they haue described euident it were that euen obstinat error in them could not destroie sauing faith true Church or hope of saluation nor hinder Communion with anie Church obstinatly erring in such points 7. But at other times Not-fundamental At other times not fundamentals are points of faith points are points of faith with them are weightie matters as on which dependeth mens saluation and errors against them damnable as we L. 2. c. 1. shal see at large hereafter And thus highly they esteeme of Not-fundamental points especialy when they would iustifie their separation from the Roman Church which they confes to be a true Church and to hold the fundamental points and yet say her errors are horrible and damnable and iust cause of separation from her But let vs heare them first freeing the Roman Church from fundamental errors and after condemning her for damnable errors and such as are iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The most necessarie and Rome holdeth that which constitutes a Church fundamental truthes which constitute a Church are on both sides Catholik and Protestants vnquestioned p. 60. The things wherin the Protestants do iudge the life and substance of Religion to be The life and substance of Religion comprised their aduersaries Papists themselues do auow and receaue them as wel as they And p. 58. In the prime The fundamental truths grounds or principles of Religion we haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word fundamental I hope she Roman Church erred not fundamentally c. 3. p. 164. The Erreth not in fundamentals only and main reason why we beleue you not to err in fundamentals is your holding the doctrins of faith in Christ and repentance c. 7. p. 401. we approue those See also c. 3. p. 163. fundamental and simply necessarie truths which you reteine by which some good soules among you maie be saued p. 404. We hope she reteines those truths which are simply absolutly and indispensably Holdeth what is necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heauen Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 299. Romanists as they are Christians that is as they beleue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himself I dare not proceed so roughly Holdeth the foundation as the denie or weaken the foundation which is Christ euen among them and which is and remaineth holie euen in the midst of their superstitions And sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion is the same And the same it could not be if the Roman differed in fundamental points And sec 35. p. 285. and sec 36. p. 314. 315. affirmeth that ignorant soules in the Roman Church are safe and that Ignorants in the Roman Church are safe their simplicitie of beleuing maketh them safe yea safest And sec 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence not in the things which constitute a Church Thus these men plainly confes that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental but only not fundamental More confessions of Protestants that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamental points maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 2. paragr 3. 8. And neuertheles thes same men saie her errors are horrible and Yet holdeth Rome horrible errors damnable and iust cause of separation Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. The Roman Church is extreamly defiled with horrible errors and corruptions Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. Errors of the Roman Church of Errors of themselues damnable themselues damnable c. 1. p. 34. Poperie in itself destroies saluation Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 296. He that beleues as that Roman Church beleues Guiltie of schisme is guiltie of the Scisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and of al her damnable opinions too And p. Damnable opinions 298. And therfore in this present case there is peril great peril of damnable both Schisme and Heresie and other Peril of Schisme sin by liuing and dying in the Roman faith tainted with so manie superstitions as this daie it is Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in them selues may induce on obligation to forsake your communion And they al three though they confessed that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental yet afford saluation to these only of the Roman Church who ether are inuincibly ignorant of her errors or repent themselues of them as is to be seene in Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 76. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 267. 285. 283. c. 7. p. 398. Lord Canterburie sec 34. and 35. So not fundamental errors which before they so much sleighted sometimes are horrible errors damnable opinions of themselues damnable and destructiue of saluation and iust cause of separation 9. Finally their ignorance and vncertaintie what Fundamental or Not Fundamental points are appeareth by their manifold and ambiguous distinctions of them Their first distinction is of Fundamental properly ond improperly Doctor Potter Properly sect 7. p. 75. Fundamental properly is that which Christians are oblidged to beleue by an expres and actual faith Lord Canterb. sec 10. p. 38. Catholik Maximes are properly Fundamental An other distinction is Formally not Formally Formally L. Canterb. sect 38. p. 334. Deductions are not formally fundamental for al men An other is In some sense In some sense Potter sect 7. p. 74. whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamental An other Absolutly not Absolutly Absolutly L. Cannterb sect 18. p. 139. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals p. 140. The Church cannot err in doctrins absolutly FundameÌ„tal sect 25. p. 162. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals P. 165. In absolute foundations Chillingworth c. 5. p. 282. We hope your errors are not absolutly vnpardonable An other distinction is Simply Fundamental not Simply Simply L. Canterb. sect 9. p. 24. It was a question not

though not primarily called Not fundamental becaus they are not of such absolute necessitie and doe not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith or to the essence of a Church or to saluation of a Christian Behold not fundamental points belong to the vnitie of faith though not primarily And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith as it is infidelitie to denie them true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Mark whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded out of Scripture is not only a matter of faith but also is so How al reuealed truthes are fuÌ„damentals fundamental to faith as it cannot be denied without infidelitie And in the like sorte p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith and for the saluation of euerie member of the Church that he beleue al such points of faith as wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God So that al reuealed truthes are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they maie be conuinced that they come from God And surely they maie then be so conuinced when they are so sufficiently proposed as points of faith require 7. Chilling worth in answer to the Preface p. 10. repeateth and defendeth the aforesaied words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession al reuealed truths are not only points of faith but also fundamental points of faith when they can be conuinced to come from God as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed can And Maniepoints of faith besids fundamentals ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth not fundameÌ„tal points to be called points of faith And saieth c. 4. p. 209. There be manie more points of faith then there be articles of simple beleif necessarie to be explicitly beleued Where by articles necessarie to be explicitly beleued he meaneth fundamentals For thus he expresseth himself ibib p. 220. By fundamental we meane al and onely that which is necessarie And c. 5. p. 285. By al points of faith you meane saieth he al fundamental points only or al simply and absolutly So that fundamental points FundameÌ„tal points are not simply al points of faith are not simply al points of faith Ibid. p. 294. I would faine understand why one error in faith especially if Not fundamental should not consist with holines of this Spouse this Church as wel as manie and great Sinns So there be errors Not fundamentals deliuered by the same authoritie that fundamentals in faith and yet not fundamental And c. 4. p. 193. saieth that Not fundamental points are to be beleued becaus they are ioined with others that are necessarie to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which deliuered thes And if they be to be beleued and deliuered by the same authoritie which See him ib. p. 218. deliuered fundamentals surely they are matters of faith And we shal shew hereafter c. 3. he oftentimes saieth that it is damnable to denie anie reuealed truth sufficiently proposed c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund and so in their nature damnable and thes are errors against his not fundamentals or such as are not only meritoriously but remidilesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation And thes are errors against his fundamentals And so errors against not fundamentals are of their nature damnable 8. Lord Canterburiesec 38. p. 325. Manie things besids fundamentals which are defide Bellarmin is forced to grant this There are manie things defide which are not absolutly necessarie to saluation Therfore there is a latitude in the faith Where by points absolutly necessarie he meaneth fundameÌ„tals So there be manie things defide besids fundamentals And sec 10. p. 37. Al which perteines to supernatural Perteine to diuine faith diuine and infallible Christian faith is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth that apoint of diuine truth though by sundrie consequences deduced from the principles is yet a point of faith P. 163. The promises reach not to this that the Church shal neuererr no not in the lightest matters of faith So that al matters of faith are not the weightiest Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental and yet to some mens saluation they are necessarie 9. Thus plainly doe thes men sometimes confes that such as they terme Not fundamental points are matters of faith and when they are sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith and to saluation and that it is infidelitie to denie them and errors in them of their nature damnable How contrarie is this to that which before they saied that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith matters of opinion in which modest opposition is tolerable and for which no separation of communion ought to be made And thus hauing shewed that al reuealed truths whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed for such are matters of faith now let vs shew that al obstinat or sinful error against such truths is formal heresie and al such opposers formal heretiks THAT SINFVL DENIAL of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is true heresie SECOND CHAPTER 1. IT seemeth so euident that al sinful opposition or denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed or which for the opposers fault is not sufficiently proposed is true heresie L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith as it caÌ„scarce be proued by anie thing more euident For what doe ChristiaÌ„s conceaue by the name of heresie but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith or what by an heretik See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer Yet wil I endeauour to make it more manifest 2. And first out of the definitions or descriptions of heresie or heretiks giuen in holie Scripture Rom. vltima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren mark them that make dissentions and scandales contrarie to the doctrin which ye haue learned and auoid them 2. Thessal 3. we Heresie contrarie to doctrin learned denounce vnto ye Brethren in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ that ye withdraw yourselues from euerie Brother walking inordinatly and not according to Contrarieto Tradition the tradition which they haue receaued from vs And Gal. 1. Albeit we or an Contrarie to Saint Pauls preaching Angel from heauen euangelize to ye besids that which we haue euangelized to ye be he anathema In al which places an heretik or heresie is described not by opposition

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 fundameÌ„tal 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 sÃ¡id Not Fundamentals in case of sufficient proposal are necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation Therfore Protestants take this distinction In what sense Protestants vnderstaÌ„d fundamental and not fuÌ„damental 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 fundameÌ„tal 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 theÌ„ 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

of faith to wit whether Sripture or Church or both nor which is a sufficient proposal of points of faith nor what points of faith are sufficiently proposed Neverthles manie and weightie what is here proued points are here handled For first is confuted that most fals and Atheistical 1. doctrin that the principal or fundamental points of faith are absolutly sufficient to sauing faith to a member of the true Church and to saluation So as if one beleve that hee need not care for so much as is to haue saving faith to be a member of the true Church and in waie of salvation whether he beleve anie other points or no. Becaus as is here proued nether are they sufficient to saving faith in case that the les principal or not fundamental points be sufficiently proposed or would be so proposed if it were not the Vnbelevers fault and are not beleved Nether though they were sufficient even in that case to saving faith were they sufficient to a member of the true Church or to salvation Becaus Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is as necessarie to a member of the true Church and to salvation as faith 2. is Secondly is here confuted the like fals and Atheistical doctrin That the les principal or not Fundamental points of faith are absolutly vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a meÌ„ber of the true Church and to saluation euen in case they be sufficiently proposed or would be so proposed if it were not the Vnbeleuers auoidable fault For it is here shewed that the beleif of anie point of faith whatsoeuer sufficiently proposed is necessarie to sauing faith to a member of the true Church and to saluation Thirdly 3. here is confuted that like fals and Atheistical doctrin That al who beleue the principal fundamental points of faith are of the true Church and that a true Church and a Church beleuing al the fundamental points is al one For who beleue not a les principal or not fundamental point of faith sufficiently proposed to them or which would be so proposed to them if it were not their auoidable fault are true heretiks and such Churches true heretical Churches and giue God the lie in thos points though they beleue the principal or fundamental points Fourthly it is shewed to be a vaine proof That one is of the same Church 4. with the Roman becaus he beleueth al the Fundamental points of faith which the Roman Church beleueth Becaus virtual beleif of al points of faith whatsoeuer and actual beleif of al points sufficiently proposed and also Communion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is necessarie to be of the same Church with the Roman Fiftly is shewed that sauing faith cannot 5. stand with sin in matter of faith Sixtly is shewed that it is not only 6. the greatnes of the matters in points of faith which bindeth vs to beleve it but especially the authoritie of the Reuealer which beeing equal in greather and lesser points equally bindeth vs to beleve them al when they are proposed Seventhly is shewed though breifly and by the way that 7. Protestants generally speaking err sinfully in not beleuing some points of faith Becaus besids al other proofs their own Ministers confes that al their Churches err in some points of faith and that they sinfully err appeareth becaus ether they haue had them sufficiently proposed to them or might haue if it were not their auoidable fault That Protestants teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and Not Fundamental points vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation euen vvhen Not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed SECOND CHAPTER 1 CHillingworth in his answer to Chillingw confesseth al points sufficieÌ„tly propofed to be necessarie Mercie and truth c. 4. p. 196. saith The main question in this busines is not what diuine Reuelations are necessarie to be beleued or not reiected when they are sufficiently proposed For al without question al without exception are so And in his answer to the Preface p. 11. affirmeth that D. Potter auoucheth the same True it is that some times they saie al diuine Reuelations sufficieÌ„tly proposed are necessarie being forced therto by the euidencie of truth and their confessions we shal c. 3. n. 5. 67. produce hereafter for confirmation of this truth but true also it is that often times they denie that al such truthes are necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation and they are forced to denie it for to defend such to be true Churches to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation which they cannot with anie probabilitie denie but that they beleue not and reiect some diuine reuelatioÌ„s sufficieÌ„tly proposed to them or which if it were not their fault would be so proposed And their confession of this truth sometimes doth not proue that other times they denie it not but only that they contradict themselues herin which is vsual for heretiks to doe Besids Chillingworth doth not Chillingw speaketh reserued by not setting down the whole question here expres to what end al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed be necessarie to wit to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation which is that which he knew Catholiks affirme and charge Protestants with the denial therof but reseruedly saith that al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed are necessarie to be beleued not telling to what they are necessarie which he maie meane that they are necessarie to some other end as to auoid such a fault as c. 1. p. 38. he saith is incident to good and honest men Which kinds of fault maie stand with sauing faith true Church and saluation And if he had meant that al diuine Reuelations sufficiently proposed are necessarie to sauing faith true Church and saluation why did he not exprÃ¨s it euen then when he endeauoured to cleare himself of the contraric imputation 2. But whatsoeuer he meant I wil proue clearly by Protestants words and deeds by their direct and indirect sayings by their common Tenets or Principles that indeed they mean that al diuine Reuelations though sufficiently proposed are not necessarie 1. to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation For first they saie absolutly and without anie exception of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not Fundamentals that Fundamentals are sufficient nay abundantly sufficient to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation And also absolutely that not fundamentals are vnnecessarie and not necessarie VVhat is faith enough for Protestants D. Andrewes Respon ad Apologiam Bellarmini c. 1. what is in the Creeds and in the fowr Councels is faith enough for vs. D. Whitaker controu Sufficient 2. q. 5. c. 18. wee saie it is sufficient to the Church if truth be kept in the See Caluin 4. c. 2. Â§ 1. and c. 1. Â§. 12. cheif and principal articles of faith The Confession of Swissers in the Preface Mutual consent in

the principal points of faith and in the right sense and brotherlie charitie was to pious antiquitie abundantly sufficient D. Potter sec 3. p. 69. Abundantly sufficient to saluation The main positiue truths wherin al Protestants and Catholiks agree are abundantly sufficient to saluation Chillingw c. 7. p. 408. They that beleue Sufficient to vnitie al things plainly deliuered in Scripture beleue al things fundamental and are at sufficieÌ„t vnitie in matters of faith Lord Canterburie in his Relation sec 38. p. 372. The Church can teach the See Vsherin serm before K. Iames p. 16. 28. foundation and men were happie if they would learn it and the Church more happie would she teach nothing but that as Only fundamentals necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation For certainely nothing but that is necessarie And for not fundamentals the same D. Potter sec Frith in Fox pag. 944. There are manie things in Scriptures which we are not bound to beleue as an article of faith 4. p. 96. saith Al necessarie or fundamental truth is conteined in Scripture making Necessarie and Fundamental al one And sec 3. p 71. speaking of not fundamentals saith By their own Confession the doctrins debated are unnecessarie Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface n. 32. Those are not fundamental points which are not necessarie c. 4. p 219. By fundamental articles we mean al those that are necessarie Ibid. p. 220. By fundamental we mean al and only that which is necessarie L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. speaking of not fundamentals saith The Church maie err in Superstructures and deductions and othey By and vnnecessarie truths Behold how absolutly and with out al exception of sufficient or insufficient proposal of not fundamental points they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and abundantly sufficient to saving faith to a true Church and to salvation that nothing but the Foundation is necessarie that by Fundamental they mean al and only that which is necessarie and that not fundamental points are not necessarie are By and vnnecessarie truths And why should they say thus absolutly and without anie exception that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to faith Church and saluatioÌ„ and not be absolutly vnderstood so vnles they would not be vnderstood as they speak but vse mental reservation even in matters of faith which al men condemn and iustly for it giueth occasion of error in faith 3. But that they mean that Fundamental points are sufficient to saving faith true Church and saluation absolutly and in al cases and Not fundamentals vnnecessarie to those ends even in case of sufficient Proposal is evident by divers other doctrins of theirs For as wee shal see her after they teach that some obstinat heretiks obstinat Papists and obstinat Lutherans have saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and obstinacie is not but where there is sufficient Proposal of truth or it is the fault of the obstinat that there is not such Proposal Besids they teach that fundamental points make vp the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the Bodie of Christian religion that in them consists the unitie of sauing faith that they properly constitute a Church essentially constitute a true Church that a true Church is al one with a Church not erring in fundamentals Breach in not fundamentals is no breach in necessarie faith D. Potter sec 7. p. 76. The Dogmatical foundation of the Church Fund make vp our faith are thos grand and Capital Doctrins which make vp our faith in Christ. P. 78. By Fundamental points of faith we mean those prime and capital doctrins of our religion which make vp the Holie Make vp the Cath faith Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentially constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Ib. p. 102. In thos Essentially constitute a true Church fundamental truths consists the vnitie offaith and of the Catholik Church Item p. 73. 74. By fundamental dostrins we mean such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And sec 3. p. 60. In which Protestants In them coÌ„sists the life and substaÌ„ce of Religion iudge the life and substance of religion to be comprised And finally sec 5. p 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the fundation Chillingworth c. 3. p. 159. calleth fundamentals The Doctrins which integrate and Integrate the bodie of Religion make vp the Bodie of Christian Religion And ib. p 140. saith Not fundamental id est no essential parts of Christianitie Lord Canter burie in his Relat. sec 38. p. 355. Errors in things not absolutly necessarie thos are his not fundamentals Soe also Vsher in his Serm. befor k. Iames. is no breach vpon the one sauing faith which is necessarie And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine Truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith But surely if fundamental points make up our faith in Christ comprehend the life and substance of Religion make up the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion if in them consisteth the vnitie of sauing faith if they properly and essentially constitute a true Church and a true Christian if a true Church be al one with one not erring in the foundation and if not fundamental points be no essential parts of Christianitie nor breach in them be anie breach in necessarie sauing faith our faith in Christ the Catholik faith the entire bodie of Christian Religion vnitie of sauing faith and the essence of a true Church and of a true Christian shal As long as the essential parts are the thing is remaine as long as fundamentals are beleued though Not fundamentals euen sufficiently proposed be not beleued nor breach in these can make anie breach in the essence or vnitie of a true Church or of sauing faith The same also followeth out of 3. their doctrin That we maie not forsake the communion in Sacraments of a Church that erreth in not fundamentals vnles she impose the profession of them Chillingworth c. 5 p. 307. That it is not lawful to separate See him p. 281. from anie Churches communion for errors not apperteining to the substance of No separation for not fundamentals faith is not vniuersally true but with this exception vnles that Church requires the beleif and profession of them So that if she sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed but require not the beleif of them we maie not separate from her Communion Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. speaking of not fundamentals saith absolutely In necessariis in or about things necessarie there ought not to be contention to a separation And sec 28. p. 139. The whole Church cannot vniuersally err in absolute fundamental doctrins and therfore there can be no iust cause to make a scisme from the

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

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 ChristiaÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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 disseÌ„tion 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 theÌ„ 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 oppositioÌ„ 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 oppositioÌ„ 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

them heare what Paul saieth that they had ouerthrown the Ghospel who had brought in neuer so litle noueltie Which words are more cleare then to be eluded by Chillingworths Answer c. 6. p. 381. that Saint Chrysostom by Faith meaneth only Fundamental points of faith For Saint Chrysost expresly speaketh of litle things and lest particles of faith and neuer so litle nouelties Besids his exposition is voluntarie not proued out of one word of Saint Chrysostom And his reason becaus by Faith is oftentimes meant onely Fundamental points is Sophistical For it is a particularibus and dissimilibus For Faith is neuer taken for anie part of it but when that is some way declared by the speaker or writer Becaus al words are to be meant according to their proprietie and latitude vnles the contrarie be declared els we could not be certaine how words were to be taken Which were to destroie the end of speech and writing Far more testimonies of Fathers might be brought to this purpos but whom these suffice not none wil suffice 3. Reason also conuinceth that al herefie is damnable For it is a sin in a weightie matter to wit against faith Moreouer heresie is a sinful Not beleif or Disbeleif of some diuine truth sufficiently proposed to come from God which is in effect not to beleue God in that truth or to denie Gods veracitie and to giue God See here n. 5. 6. the Lie as Chillingworth speaketh or as Doctor Potter saieth An act of Infidelitie And an act of infidelitie or to giue God the Lie and to denie Gods veracitie is doubtles most damnable And as the same Potter saieth sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great betweene him that is wilfully Note this Sinful ignorance excuseth not froÌ„ heresie or sin See also Chilling c. 7. p. 404. blinde and him that knowingly gainesaieth the truth but knowingly to gaine saie diuine truth is most damnable and a sin against the Holie Ghost Nether is there anie ground in holie Scripture Fathers or Reason to denie al heresie to be damnable But some Protestants denie it merely becaus they cannot denie but that some of their Churches and Brethren culpably hold some heresies whom they are ashamed to confes to be in state of damnation 4. Protestants likewise sometimes confes that al heresie is damnable Luther in Explicat Symboli Tom. 7. fol. 124. No heretik is saued vnles No heretik saued he returne to the Church and in al things think doe and teach the same And l. de Caluin Act. 24. Detestabiles iubet haberi haereticos Spiritus Dei Bezadepun haer p. 21. non potest non esse grauissimuÌ„ haereseos crimeÌ„ see p. 119. See Iuel p. 43. 314. votis Tom. 2. fol. 272. If anie denie Marie to be a Virgin or doe not beleue anie other singular article of faith he is damned King Iames Resp and Peron p. 384. Damneth al who saieth he haue departed from the faith of the Catholik Church and are become heretiks Apologie of the Church of England Heresie is a forsaking of saluation and departure from the bodie and Spirit of Christ Idem we pronounce al them damned who haue a wiked opinion of anie point of Christian Religion French Protestants in their cene I excommunicate al Heretiks Feild Append. p. 23. we doe not admit anie sectaries into the communion of the true Catholik Church White in Preface to his way In questions of faith whosoeuer erreth looseth no les then his soule therby Hooker of iustific Â§ 11. Heresie is heretically mainteined by such as obstinatly hold it after holesome admonition Of thes I make no doubt but their condemnation without an actual repentance is ineuitable Whitaker Praefat in controu One heresie is One heresie damneth sufficient to damnation And controu 2. q. 4. c. 2. No heretiks can be saued And ibid. q. 5. c. 2. we confes that heretiks are to be fled Hooker l. 3. p. 129. Heresies which are not actually repented of exclude quite and cleane from saluatioÌ„ More of the like Confessions of Protestants maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. to which I wil ad the Confessions of late English Writers 5. Doctor Potter sect 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks their condition Condition of heretiks damnable is damnable Sec. 7. p. 74. It is true that whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of whatsoeuer is reuealed is fundamental Scripture is in some sorte fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recoÌ„mended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted Infidelitie to denie anie point sufficiently proposed without infidelitie And p. 110. Where there is no such impediment of incapacitie and 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 See Andrews cont Apol. Bellar. c. 6. p. 132. heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat. 5. v. 20. p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith Fundamental to faith and saluation and to saluation of euerie Christian member that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is obstinat an heretik and finally such a FundameÌ„tal to saluation to beleue al sufficiently proposed one as excludes himself out of heauen And p. III. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God Sec. 4. p. 99. Heresie is a greiuous crime where it is true And as Chillingworth saieth in Answer to the Preface p. 8. He giues them only hope of pardon of errors who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to finde the truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not beene so 6. Chillingworth in Answer to To disbeleue what is sufficieÌ„tly proposed is to giue God the Lie the Preface p. 10. and 11. To denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God is to giue God the Lie P. 18. If this proposal be so sufficient as the partie to whom it is made should and but for his own fault would haue been A damnable fault conuinced of the diuine veritie of the doctrin proposed a fault I confes it is and without repentance damnable if al circumstances considered the proposal be sufficient To maie and wil not see truth is damnable See Morton Impo p. 372. P. 19. When God hath interposed his testimonie on one side or other

consisteth only in certaine principal articles And if the essence of faith consist not in them only nether doth the vnitie of it consist in them only but whosoeuer are deuided in anie points of faith sufficiently proposed are deuided in the verie substance and substantial vnitie of faith And sith the substance of faith is but one the one of the parties deuided hath no true sauing faith 4. Their second error is That as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same Potter sec 3. p. 58. Reformation did not change the substance of Religion So also white Defens c. 38. The substaÌ„ce of Rom. Religion different from the substaÌ„ce of Protestants For the substance of the Roman ReligioÌ„ as of al true Christian Religion is profession of al Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to vs and essentially includeth Romish doctrin as is euident by that Epitheton Roman See sup n. 2. Perkins Gal s. v. 9. Politicus qui nullius est Religionis dicit nos Pontificias non differre in substaÌ„tia And the substance of the Protestant Religion are only certaine principal articles of his doctrin Therfore the substance of both of them is not the same Besids who differ in not fundamentals sufficieÌ„tly proposed differ in some essential point of faith becaus as is now rehearsed out of ProtestaÌ„ts such points are fundamental to faith and haue the formal obiect of faith which is diuine reuelation But the Roman and Protestant Religion differ at least in Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed Therfore they differ in some essential points and in some formal obiect of faith and consequently are not the same And this Lord Canterburie seemeth to confes when p. 125. he saieth The time was that you and we were al of one beleef As if now we were not And p. 285. There are no meane differences that are beetweene vs. 5. The third error is that they haue not left the Church of Rome in her essence as speaketh Lord Canterburie The essence of the Rom and Protest Church is different sec 25. p. 192. Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. 66. and others commonly For sith they haue left the Church of Rome in profession of some not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they haue left her in her essence becaus her essence includeth al points of faith sufficiently proposed And therefore who leaueth the Church of Rome in profession of some points of faith sufficiently proposed leaueth her in her essence Besids Protestants saie as is related l. 1. c. 6. num 5. That the Church of Rome erreth in fundamental points holdeth errors of themselues damnable hath corrupted faith in the principal points is fallen into substantial corruptions How then can they saie They haue not left her in her essence Since they saie That she herself hath not the essence of the Church Moreouer seeing the Protestant Church differeth Protest and Ro. Church differ in al the formal partes of a Church from the Roman in al the formal essential parts of a Church to wit in profession of faith and that in great matters as in sacrifice Sacraments parte of Gods written word and such like and in communion of Sacraments and finally in officers of the Church or ministers of the word and Sacraments how can they think that their Church differeth not in essence from ours or that they haue not left our Church in her essence hauing left her in al her formal parts Finally they haue left her in her communion of Sacraments which is an essential part of her 6. Their fourth error is that Chillingw p. 273. 132. L. Cant. p. 192. they haue not left the Church of Rome but only her corruptioÌ„s For thos points are essential points of the Church of Rome and held of her as such becaus they are part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed to her 7. Their fift error is that they haue Potter sec 1. p. 7. not left the Church of Rome anie farther then she hath left herself to wit in some Change in faith is not reformation but a new formation of the Church points of faith For if she had sinfully left herself in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed she had left her owne essence and so had destroied herself And so Protestants must haue left her altogether as she had left herself altogether in destroing herself by going from some points of faith sufficiently proposed to her 8. Their sixt error is that there are some things which separate from the Church in parte only and not simply as saieth Lord Canterburie sec 10. p. VVhat separates froÌ„ the Church in part separates simply 26. For if he meane as he doth of points of faith sufficiently proposed nothing can separate from the Church in part but it separateth simply Becaus as is often saied euerie such point is of the essence of the Church separates simply from her For as Aristotle wel saieth the essences of things consist in indiuisibili and are like numbers which are changed by anie addition or substraction whatsoeuer And it is the whole word of God whose profession is of the essence of the true Church and therfore who separates from a true Church in profession of anie part of Gods word separates from her simply VVho separates from a part of gods word separates wholy from his Church And one thing it is to separate simply or in part from the word of God an other to separate simply or in part from the true Church of God Heretiks separate not simply from the word of God becaus they beleiue some part of it But they separate themselues simply from the true Church of God of whos essence it is to profÃ¨s the whole reuealed word of God And Heretiks separating from profession of the whole word of God separate from this essence of the Church of God and consequently separate simply from her For to separate from her essence is to separate from her simply 9. But al thes points wil be yet more cleare by what we shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God And both by what we haue saied of the essence and vnitie of true sauing faith and shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God it wil easily appeare to be true what Aristotle saieth that A true definition solues al difficulties out of a true definition al difficulties maie be solued which arise about the thing defined For if ProtestaÌ„ts would constantly agree with us as sometimes See sup c. 3. n. 5. 6. being conuicted by euidencie of truth they doe that true sauing faith is essentially beleif of al Gods what is true diuine faith reuealed word sufficiently proposed they would neuer denie but al and euerie part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed is essential to sauing faith and denial of anie part of such word of God is denial of sauing faith

fundameÌ„tal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundameÌ„tals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profÃ¨s the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profÃ¨s but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profÃ¨s they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them

opposit to faith Therfore it is infidelitie The Maior is euident and the Minor proued l. 2. c. 4. But infidelitie denieth Christs veracitie ether directly as in thos who profÃ¨s not to beleue in Christ or indirectly as in thos who beleue not what he clearely taught and is sufficiently proposed to them for his doctrin Besids he that denieth some or al the fundamental points of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to him denieth Christs veracitie and hath not sauing faith And why not he also who denieth some or al Not fundamental points of his doctrin sufficiently proposed seeing Christs authoritie as equally testifieth thes as thos Why is not his authoritie equally denied in al points which he equally testifieth What doth the greatnes of the matter ad to the greatnes of Christs authoritie or what doth the smallnes of the matter diminish of his authoritie seeing it is not the greatnes of the matter for which we ought to beleue it but merely Christs authoritie 5. This also is confirmed out of what we related out of the holie Fathers that al who denie anie point of Christs faith sufficiently proposed are heretiks and that al heretiks are no Christians haue no faith but are infidels For surely whosoeuer are no Christians haue no faith and are infidels doe in effect and at the least implicitly and indirectly denie Christs veracitie And Protestants add here to as we shewed before c. 4. that Heretiks are Apostates AntiChrists and Diuels and surely such at least in effect and indirectly denie Christs veracitie Moreouer S. Augustin as we rehearsed before affirmeth that Christ is in name only with anie heretiks And so heretiks profÃ¨s Christ in name only and in effect denie his veracitie 6. And this truth is so manifest as Protestants sometimes confÃ¨s it For thus Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 74. It is true whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture VVhat is sufficiently proposed is fundameÌ„tal to faith or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recommended And it is infidelitie to denie it that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted without infidelitie Lo that to denie whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is fundamental to faith so that faith cannot be without beleif of euerie such thing becaus faith cannot be without al that which is fundamental to it And also that it is infidelitie to denie anie such thing and infidelitie denieth diuine veracitie Chillingworth also in Answer to the Preface p. 11. For a man to denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God is to giue God And to giue God the lie the lie And to giue God the lie surely is to denie his veracitie By which is refuted what he saith c. 3. p. 135 without anie the lest dishonor to Gods veracitie I maie doubt of or denie some truth reuealed by him If I nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by him And p. 136. He only in fact affirmes that God doth deceaue or is deceaued who denies some things which himself knowes or beleues to be reuealed by God which he oftentimes repeateth For if to denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God be to giue God the lie he dishonoreth Gods veracitie and in effect affirmes that he doth deceaue or is deceaued who denieth or disbeleueth a point of faith sufficiently presented in his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God though he nether know nor beleue it to be reuealed by God For merely to denie or disbeleue a point of faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding is as he said truly to giue God the lie whether he know or beleue it to be reuealed by God or no. And otherwise affected ignoraÌ„ce that God hath reuealed a point which is sufficiently presented or proposed to our vnderstanding as reuealed by God should be no dishonour to Gods veracitie nor a giuing the lie in effect to him And hence it is euident that albeit onely the principal points of Gods reuealed word be so in the couenant betweene him and men as it is necessarie in al ordinarie course to be actually beleued of al that can so beleue yet Gods whole reuealed word is so included in the same couenant as it is also necessarie to be beleued at least virtually becaus who doth nether actually nor virtually beleue his whole reuealed word doth not beleue him to be the prime veritie or true in al his words And surely they doe nether actually nor virtually beleue al Gods reuealed word who wil not beleue some parte of it when it is sufficiently proposed to them for Gods word 7. And out of al that hitherto I haue said it appeareth I hope sufficiently that to teach that some points of Christian saith are not necessarie to sauing faith to a member of Christs Church and to saluation to be actually beleued when they are sufficiently proposed and virtually and in purpose of minde whether they be proposed or no is damnably to deceaue soules is to excuse manie damnable heresies from damnable sin is to introduce an indifference or libertinisme in Christian Religion for beleuing or not beleuing the most points of Christian faith is to destroie the verie substance and vnitie of Christian faith is to destroie the substance and vnitie of Christs Church and to destroie Gods veracitie to introduce infidelitie the giuing of the lie to God and atheisme Now wil I also shew that to communicate in Sacraments and publik Liturgie with anie such as sinfully err in anie point of Christian faith is damnable and that to defend such communion to be lawful is damnably to deceaue soules THAT COMMVNION in Sacraments vvith anie heretical Church or Church erring sinfully in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is damnable NINTH CHAPTER 1. ONE great motiue for Protestants to teach that there are some Not fundamental points of faith in their sense that is not at al necessarie to a true Church is to mainteine their communion in Sacraments and Liturgie with Churches and sinfully erring in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or for their fault not so proposed to them For though perhaps euerie Protestant wil not confÃ¨s himself to err in anie point of faith yet they confÃ©s as we haue seene before lib. 1. c. 2. nu 10. that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith And if they saie thos errors haue not been sufficiently shewed to their Churches they condemn themselues of great negligence of their dutie of want of sufficient zeale of Gods honour and of his truth and of want of charitie to their Churches At least their Churches might be rightly informed if they would and therfore doe err sinfully and vincibly To thes therfore I wil proue that their

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 ProtestaÌ„ts 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 profÃ©s 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 confÃ©s that al their Churches err in some points of faith And they must also confÃ©s 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 sufficieÌ„tly 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 coÌ„municate 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 seÌ„se 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 sufficieÌ„tly proposed haue not so much faith as is sufficient to saluatioÌ„ 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

HItherto Gentle Reader haue we refuted the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental How fals the Protestants distinction is points in the Protestants sense and clearely shewed that in their sense it introduceth formal heresie destroieth true sauing faith Catholik Church and saluation conteineth Infidelitie and denieth Gods veracitie and so is the verie ground of Atheisme We haue also shewed that this distinctioÌ„ How vnsufficient for their purpose euen in the Protestants sense sufficeth them not for that purpose for which they deuised it which was to mainteine some such Churches as are sinfully Rouse of Cath. Charitie c. 9. deuided in points of faith becaus some of them are deuided euen in fundamental points and al are wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God which diuision as wel destroieth the Church as diuision in fundamental points doth 2. Now it resteth out of that which hath been saied to compare the faith and Church of Catholiks and of Protestants together and also the certaintie or vncertaintie of their defenders that thou maist the better iudge whether of thes seueral faithes or Churches is of God and which of their Defenders defend their doctrin for truth or conscience sake whether to make a shift for a Time 3. The Catholiks faith essentially Difference betweene their faithes embraceth al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed The * c. 5. n. 2. Protestants faith essentially embraceth 1. only the fundamental points The 2. Catholiks faith can stand with no heresie or sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed Protestants faith can stand with anie heresie or sinful denial of anie point C. 2. n 2. l. 1. of faith which is not fundamental how sufficiently so euer it be proposed which is as Protestants sometimes C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. confÃ©s infidelitie and a giuing the Lie to God Catholikes faith is 3. perfectly and entirely one and the same in euerie one beleuing actually euerie parte of Gods word sufficiently proposed and virtually euerie parte whatsoeuer Protestants faith is necessarily C. 5. n 2. l. 2. one only in fundamental points and maie be various or deuided in al other points how sufficiently soeuer they be proposed which vnitie is merely in parte and is true multiplicitie Catholik faith is approued 4. of Protestants to conteine C. 5. n. 7. l. 1. al that is essential to true faith Protestants C. 5. n. 7. faith is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 4. Likewise the Catholik Church DiffereÌ„ce betweene their Churches embraceth only thos who actually beleiue euerie point of faith sufficiently 1. proposed to them and virtually what other points of faith soeuer Protestants Church embraceth sometimes al that are Christians C. 6. n. 8. l. 2. or al that profÃ©s Christs name what heretiks so euer they be Sometimes al that beleiue the fundameÌ„tal points howsoeuer they sinfully denie other points sufficiently proposed which is to include Infidels and Giuers of C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. the Lie to God The Catholik Church is perfectly and entirely one both in 2. profession of faith and in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Protestants Church is at most one in profession of fundamental C. 5. n. 2. l. 2. points and various in al other points And no waie one but wholy deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God Which is to be one in a smal parte and to be simply and truly manie The 3. Catholik Church is approued of Protestants to be a true a C. 2. nu 3. c. 7. nu 9. Church a member of the Catholik Church A member of the Bodie of Christ Her Religion a possible waie of saluation a 4. safe b c. 7. n. 3. 7. c. 2. n. 3. waie for them that beleue as they profÃ©s and safest for the ignorants and euen thos who are most obstinat in her members of the Catholik Church The ProtestaÌ„ts Church is condemned of al Catholiks for a false Church guiltie both of heresie and schisme and to haue no possible waie of saluation but assured waie of damnation to al that wittingly liue and die in her 5. Seing therfore by the testimonie of holie Scripture Fathers and Reason and Confession of Protestants the faith and Church of God is both one and holie iudge whether of thes two faiths or Churches be more one or more holie whether Cath faith more one then Protestants that faith be not more one which admitteth no voluntarie diuision in anie point of faith whatsoeuer then that which admitteth voluntarie diuision in al points of faith besids thos which are fundamental And whether that faith be not more holie which admitteth And more holie no sinful denial of Gods word whatsoeuer then that which admitteth sinful denial of al his word besids that which is fundamental how sufficiently soeuer it be proposed which kinde of denial is * C. 3. nu 5. l. 2. Infidelitie and a giuing of the lie to God And whether that faith be not more secure And more secure which is approued of its Aduersaries to conteine al that is * c. 5. n. 5. l 1. essential to true faith then that which is proued of Catholiks to want manie things essential to true faith 6. Likewise whether that Church Catholik Church more one then Protestants be not more one which is entirely one both in profession of al points of faith and in communion of Sacraments then that which requireth no more vnitie but in fundamental points which euerie one is actually to beleue and admitteth sinful diuision in al other points and whole diuision in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God And whether And more holie that be not more holie which admitteth no heresie in points of faith nor no schisme in diuision of communion then that which admitts al heresies except in fundamental points and al schime in diuision of communion And whether that Church be not the And more safe safer waie to saluation which is approued of its Aduersaries for * c. 7. n 3. 6. 2 n. 3. l. 1. safe then that which is approued only of its followers and vtterly condemned by al aduersaries 7. And as for the Defenders Catholiks constant in in their doctrin of thes different faiths and Churches it is euident that Catholiks constantly and resolutly condemne the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental articles in the Protestants 1. sense and auouch that there are no certaine points so sufficient to sauing faith to a Church or to saluation that others maie be denied or not beleued though they be sufficiently proposed None so Not fundamental as they must not necessarily be beleued of a Church and for saluation if they be sufficiently proposed That there be more points of 2. faith then thos which must be actually beleued of euerie

Scismaticks that they are in state of damnation Whether who denie some points of 22. Gods word proposed as sufficiently as Gods word needeth to be or which would be proposed if it were not their avoidable fault do not implicitly denie God to be true in al his words or no Whether who implicitly denie God 23. to be true in al his words be not implicitly Atheists or no Who wil goe close to the matter and bewraye no distrust ether of the truthe of his cause or of his own certaintie therof wil make no difficultie to answer to al thes questions directly and clearly yea or no without making anie distinction where there is no equiuocal terme nor make anie shift to delude the plaine sense of the words OF THE DISTINCTION OF FVNDAMENTAL AND NOT FVNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH THE STATE OF THE question and difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants about Fundamental and Not Fundamental points of faith truly and clearly set dovvn FIRST CHAPTER THE true stating of the question Prima causa victoriae diligenter causam pro qua dicturus es dicere Cicero betwixt Catholiks and Protestants is half the ending of it and if it bewel obserued the question wil be soon ended and if it be not obserued the dispute wil be both fruitles and endles For otherwise the Disputants wil talk of different matters and the one not denie what the other affirmeth but some different thing Wherfore that the Reader maie plainely perceiue wherin standeth the point of controuersie between Catholiks and Protestants concerning Fundamental and not fundamental points he must wel note that Catholiks do not simply Glossa d 19. c. ita Dominus Super illo articulo fidei Tu es Christê° c. fundata est Ecclesia denie the distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental points of faith but only denie it in the Protestants sense For that they grant some points of faith to be Fundamental others not fundamental is euident both by their own sayings and Protestants confession For the Councel of Trent sess 3. and the Catechisme of the same Councel c. 1. and Catholik Diuines commonly call some points the Peron Epistle to K. Iames obser 3. Bellarm. l 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. foundation or fundamental points and consequently must needs grant that other points are not the foundation or not fundamental And this D. Potter sec 7. p. 79. proueth at large out of Catholik writers and the like hath L. Canterburie sec 38. and Chillingworth p. 159. And D. White None denie the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in Defence of his way c. 17. saieth I know none of our aduersaries that denieth this distinction of Fundamental and not fundamental points And Chillingworth in answer to the Preface L. Cant. p. 213. In your sense fundamental p. 16. In our sense of the word Fundamental I hope she Roman Church erred not fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did Which is plainly to confÃ¨s that Catholiks grant that there are fundamental points and that the difference betwixt them and Protestants is about the sense So that the difference is not whether there be fundamental and not fundamental points of faith for this both Catholiks and Protestants grant but whether fundamental and not fundamental points of faith be such as Protestants would haue them to be or no. And if anie Catholiks in words denie that there are anie not fundamental points of faith in deed they denie no more then that there anie such not fundamental points as Protestants teach 2. For al Catholiks grant that there is great difference among points of D. Potter sec 2. p. 47. sec 5 p. 5. sec 7. p. 74. L. Cant. p. 73. Chillingw p. 263. 283. faith For some points are simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued in al ordinarie courses of al men that can beleue actually for to haue sauing faith to be members of the Church and to be in waie of saluatioÌ„ and therfore are to be preached to al kinds of men And thes are also sufficient to be beleued actually to haue a sauing faith to be a member of the Church and in waie of saluation in some case to wit when the ignorance of other points is inuincible or not faultie becaus they are not sufficiently proposed nor the Not-beleuers of them are in anie fault that they are not so proposed Such are the principal points of faith as the Passion of Christ and the like There are other points of faith which nether are sufficient in anie case to a sauing faith member of the Church or waie Bellarm. l 3. de Eccles c. 14. of saluation nor simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued but only conditionally in case they be sufficiently proposed or â—â—ould be so proposed if it were not the not beleuers auoidable fault For otherwise a virtual or intentional beleif of them wil suffice to a sauing faith member of the Church and waie of saluation Such is that Abraham had twoe sonns and the like And the points of the first sorte maie wel be Why some points may be called fundamenlal called Fundamental not only becaus they be absolutly necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the foundation is absolutly necessarie to a house but also becaus other points of faith relievpon them as other parts of a howse relie vpon the foundation And points of the second sorte maie why others not fundamental be termed Not fundamental becaus they are not simply and absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued for to haue sauing faith to be a member of the Church and in waie of saluation as fundamental parts of a temporal building are simply and absolutly necessarie to it nor other points relie on them as other parts of a building relie on the foundation But whether some points of faith maie be called Fundamental which is a verbal question and others not fundamental is no great matter For it is but a question of words The real question and that of great weight is whether the which a real the principal points of faith whether they alone maie be called Fundamental or no be so sufficient to sauing faith to a member the Church and waie of saluation as the actual beleif of them wil suffice to the said ends though other points of faith be sinfully vnbeleued or which cometh al to one though other points be sufficiently proposed and not beleued or would be sufficiently proposed if it were not the vnbeleuers auoidable fault And whether les principal points of faith whether they maie be termed Not fundamental points or no be so vnnecessarie to sauing faith meÌ„ber of the Churc and waie of saluatioÌ„ as they maie be sinfully vnbeleued and yet there maie be sauing faith member of the Church or state of saluation or which cometh al to one maie be not beleued nether virtually nor actually though they

visible Church of Christ Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 18. If an Heretik must be excluded from saluation that is becaus he ouerthroweth some foundation For vnles he shake or ouerthrow some Heretiks in not fundameÌ„tals may be saued foundation he maie be saued And controuer 4. q. 5. c. 3. Al Heretiks are within the Church Alsted de natura Eccles c. 9. I saie absolutly heretiks are of the Church except those who ouerthrow the foundamental articles Morton in his Imposture c. 15. p. 413. Nether do Protestants yeeld more saftie to anie of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoeuer heretiks whose beleif doth not vndermine the fundamental doctrin of faith Doct. Pottersec 4. p. 111. Euen in an heretical Church saluation maie be had Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 141. saith An heretical Church maie be a Church of Christ stil And surely one maie be saued in a Church of Christ More Assertions of ProtestaÌ„ts that heretiks are in the Church and maie be saued are to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 3. And generally Protestants compare heresie to a sicknes which destroieth not a man as maie be seen in Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Moulins in his Buckler sec 92. Lord Canterburie epist to the King Chilling worth c. 5. p. 265. 269. c. 6. p. 335. and others And seing the sin of heresie cannot be without obstinacie as L. Canterb. p. 315. D. Potter sec 4. p. 120. Chillingw p. 271. is euident and Protestants confes nor obstinacie but where there is sufficient proposal of the truth or sinful want of such proposal manifest it is that Protestants do think that sinful and obstinat error in some points of faith can stand with sauing faith Church and saluation 6. The same is also cleare by what Protestants saie the Ro. Church is a true Church they profes of Papists or of the Roman Church For Protestants commonly profes that the RomaÌ„ Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and is in state of saluation as maie be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 2. Here I wil add the like profession of some later English Protestants Lord Canterb. sec 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence Sec. 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence nor in things which constitute a Church Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a Member of the Catholik Church Ib. p. 285. Manie Protestants indeed confes there is saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church p. 282. The possibilitie of saluatioÌ„ in the Roman Church I think cannot be denied Sec. 38. p. 338. Saluation in Rom. faith That the Ladie might be saued in the Roman faith or Church I confes Doctor Potter sec 1. p. 11. we yeeld her Roman Church a member of the Catholik Church sec 3. p. 74 75. we acknowledg her a member of the bodie of Christ Ib. p. 78. we beleue their Roman religion Rom. Religion safe safe that is by Gods great mercie not damnable to some such as beleue what they profes And p. 62. Protestants yeeld them the substance of a Christian Church The like he hath p. 66. 81. Chillingworth in answer to the preface p. 15. and 16. saith of the Roman Church She was before Luther a parte of the whole Catholik Church c. 1. p. 42. Though D. Potter doth not take it il that you beleue yourselues maie be saued in your Religion yet c. c. 2. p. 85. The Roman Church is a parte of the Catholik Church c. 3. p. 163. Our hope is that the truths she retaines and the practise of them maie proue an antidote to her against the errors she mainteines in such persons as in simplicitie of heart follow this Absolon Thes points of Christianitie Antidote against al errors which haue in them the nature of an antidote against the poison of al sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted stil retaines therfore we hope she errs not fundamentally but stil remaines a parte of the Church And these errors though to them that beleue them we hope wil not be pernitious yet c. c. 5. p. 282. we hope your errors are not absolutely vnpardonable p. 285. our and your saluation not desperatly inconsistent c. 7. p. 401. D. Potter saieth indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the bodie of Christ and the hope of saluation frrees vs from the imputation of Scisme Behold the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence hath the things which constitute a Church is a member of the Catholik Church a member of the bodie of Christ is not cut from the bodie of Christ nor hope of saluation retaines thos points of Christianitie which haue in them the nature of an antidote against al sinns and errors possibilitie of saluation in her cannot be denied men maie be saued in the Roman faith and Church her Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue them 7. And neuertheles thes same men And yet saie she erreth sinfully and obstinatly saie that the same Roman Church is obstinat and conuicted of her errors and obstinacie cannot be but where the truth is sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers See Caluin 4. Instit c. 2. Â§. 6. fault Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 26. The Protestants expresly accuse this Roman Church and haue conuicted her to as Ro. Church conuicted they think of manie gros and dangerous errors p. 14. She is senseles of her errors Senseles of her errors and careles to seek anie remedie And sec 3. p. 65. The first Reformers saw Rome in loue with her errors so as she would not be cured Chillingworth c. 6. p. 373. saieth The Roman Church is accused and conuicted of manie damnable errors Incorrigibla And c. 3. p. 163. is most incorrigible c. 5. p. 280. Mainteines errors with obstinacie Obstinat And ib. p. 295. would not be reformed is obstinat in her corruptions And p. 303. Papists are obstinat in their common superstition Lord Canterburie sec 20. p. 133. You thrust vs from you becaus we called for truth sec 21. p. 144. They are resolued to alter nothing King VVil alter nothing Iames in answer to C. Peron Their purpose is constantly to mainteine al they hold Morton in his imposture p. 404. To heresie and Idolatrie your Church ioineth obstinacie So that a Church conuicted of errors in faith which is obstinat and senseles of them which is incorrigible resolued to alter nothing but to hold constantly al she holds is notwithstanding al this a true Church in substance a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ reteines al things that constitute a Church hath possibilitie of saluation her religion is safe

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

so that ether they do see it and wil not or were it not for their owne voluntarie and auoidable fault might and should see it and doe not let al such errors be as damnable as you please to make them P. 21. If anie Papist or Protestant be betraied into or kept in anie error by anie sin of his wil such error is as the cause of it damnable P. 23. There is as matters now stand Alike necessitie to beleue not fuÌ„damentals as fundamentals as great necessitie of beleuing thos truths of Scripture which are Not fundamental as thos that are And p. 24. he citeth Doctor Potter saying If anie be negligent in seeking truth vnwilling to finde it ether doth see it and wil not or Negligence in seeking truth is damnable might see it and wil not his case is dangerous and without repentance desperat And Chillingworth addeth He secureth none that in matter of Religion are None sinfully erroneous is secure sinfully that is willingly erroneous And c. 3. p. 138. You infer out of Doctor Potters words that al errors are alike damnable Al error alike damnable if the preposal be alike if the manner of propounding the contrarie truths be not different which for ought I know al Protestants and al that haue sense must graunt And ibid. p. 161. we are obliged vnder paine of damnation to beleue al wherof we may be fufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church And p. 137. namely he saieth of a Not fundamental See also p. 41. point It maie by accident become fundamental becaus it maie be so proposed that the denial of it wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And al that is so sufficiently proposed as matters of faith ought to be are proposed in such sort Ibid pag. 134. Among the conditions of saluation which Christ requireth one is that we beleue what he has reuealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue beene reuealed by him And 158. If the cause of the error be some voluntarie and auoidable fault the error is in itself finful and consequeÌ„tly in its owne nature dawnable And c. 5. p. 280. Capital danger may arise from errors though not fundamental Seep 278. 7. Lord Canterburie sec 37. p. 320. It is true that error in points not fundamental maie be damnable to some men though they hold it not against their conscience As namely when they hold an error in some dangerous points which grate vpon the foundation and yet wil nether seek the meanes to know the truth nor accept and beleue truth when it is known especially being men able to iudge And p. 342. I agree that he which hopes for saluatioÌ„ must beleue the Catholik faith whole and entire in euerie point And sec 35. p. 289. saieth A matter of faith and so A matter of faith is a matter of saluation of saluation too As if euerie matter of faith were also matter of saluation And both he p. 24. 31. 139. 140. 162. 165. Chillingworth p. 14. 277. 279. 281. 285. And Potter sec 5. p. 19. sec 7. p. 58. 78. speak of absolutly or simply fundamental or necessarie points which insinuateth that there are others truly fundameÌ„tal or truly necessarie besids thos which are absolutely such The Author of the Preface to K. Iames before Iuels workes In things necessarie onely necessitate Precepti not onely witting and willing disobedience but also wilful and affected ignorance doth condemn 8. In which Confessions of the Points to be noted Protestants I would haue the Reader to mark wel thes points First that al 1. errors fundamental or Not fundamental are alike damnable if the contrarie truth be alike proposed Secondly that a Not fundamental 2. point sufficiently proposed is so fundamental to faith and saluation as to contradict it is infidelitie and to giue 3. God the Lie Thirdly that who beleueth not anie one diuine truth sufficiently proposed is an heretik and excludes himself out of heauen Fourthly that who is negligent to 4. seek truth or vnwilling to finde it is without repentance desperat Fiftly 5. that who were it not for their auoidable faults might and should see truth and do not their error is damnable and that they secure none who is sinfully erroneous And if they would constantly stand to thes points there would be litle coÌ„trouersie about fundamental and not fundamental Protestants some times grant al the question Magna est veritas praeualet points For this is to grant plainly that no points of faith are so fundamental as they are sufficient to sauing faith Church and saluation if other points be sufficiently proposed and not beleued or for the not beleuers fault not so proposed nor anie so not fundamental as they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation to be beleued actually if they be sufficiently proposed and necessarie to be virtually beleued whether they be so proposed or no. And al the question betwixt Catholiks and Protestants is whether anie points of faith be thus fundamental and anie thus Not-fundamental or no. But becaus Protestants can not denie but that some Churches which they mainteine haue had the truth against which they err sufficiently proposed to them or if it were not their auoidable fault might and should see the truth therfor when they are to defend such Churches they forget this doctrin But now hauing proued that to err sinfully in anie matter of faith is both heresie and destroieth saluation let vs also proue that it destroieth true sauing faith That vincible and sinful error against anie point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. THat vincible and sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth true sauing faith is euident out of this that al such error is true heresie as is before C. 2. proued and heresie is opposit to sauing faith as is euident out of the definitions of heresie related before c. 2. out of Scripture Fathers and Protestants and also out of the testimonies of holie Fathers c. 3. n. 2. that heresie is the destruction of faith the poison of faith that heretiks haue nether faith nor Church common with Catholiks haue Christ only in name that heretiks are no true Christians are false Christians are Christians only in name are worse then Infidels are Anti Christs Which euidently shew that heresie is opposit to sauing faith and heretiks to Catholiks For if they be no Christians much les are they Catholiks And Protestants sometimes giue the same iudgment of them For thus Luther in caput 7. Math. tom 7. Heretiks are not Christians Protestants saie that heretiks are no Christians Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 6. They are Anti-Christs and diuels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostataes Whitaker Controu 2. q. 5. c. 2. the name of

doctrin who subuerteth it in the lest article Most truly saied Ambrose Epist ad Demetriadem He is out of the number of the faithful VVho dissenteth in anie point and lot of Saints who dissenteth in anie point from the Catholik truth Field l. 3. c. 3. There are some things explicitÃ¨ credenda some things implicitÃ¨ which whosoeuer wil be saued must beleue them atleast implicitÃ¨ and in general 7. Martyr Epist ad peregrinos in Anglia tomo 2. loc colum 136. we answer that al Gods words as they proceed Al Gods words of equal authoritie from him are of equal weight and authorities and therfore none maie of his iudgmeÌ„t receaue this and reiect an other as fals Iames saieth boldly who effendeth in one is made guiltie of al. If that haue place in obedience to the commandements it wil be true also for points of beleif Caluin in Ephes 4. v. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he saied Christ cannot be deuided faith cannot be parted Perkin in Explicat Symbolicolum 512. Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in al. Wherupon faith is termed in entire copulatiue Spalatensis coÌ„tra Suarem Faith is an entire copulatiue c. 1. nu 7. Diuine faith perisheth wholy by the lest detraction and consequenity it is no true Church no not visible No Church without entire faith in which entire faith is not kept in publik profession L. Canterb. p. 325. There is but one sauing faith Item 338. And 342. who hopes for saluation must beleue the Catholik saith whole and entire in euerie point P. 105. Faith beleueth not onely the articles but al the things rightly deduced from them Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 41. commendeth Saint Basil for saying Not asyllable of diuine doctrin must be betraied And S. Gegorie Nazian for saying One word like a drop of poison maie taint and corrupt faith And sec 7. p. 74. insinuateth clearely that not fundamental points perteine to the vnitie of faith though not primarily and pag. 73. that they are to be beleued by a virtual or general faith and as it were a negatiue faith wherby they are not to be denied or contradicted Whosoeuer therfore denie theÌ„ being sufficiently proposed haue no true sauing faith The like he hath also p. 75. Al points sufficiently proposed are fundameÌ„tal to faith and as I cited in the 3. Chapter n. 5. doth oftentimes say that it is fundamental to faith to beleue al that is sufficiently proposed and that it is infidelitie to denie anie such point whos words alloweth Chillingworth and Sup c 3. n. 6. addeth that not to beleue such points is to giue God the Lie And that not fundamental points maie be so proposed as the denial of them wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And if Not-fundamental points be fundamental to faith when they are sufficiently proposed how can sauing faith be and not beleue them Seing nothing can be without al that is fundamental to it as is euident by itselfe and confessed by Protestants before Sup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num 5. Besids they profÃ¨s by Fundamental to vnderstand essential and nothing can be without that which is essential to it And if it be infidelitie and to giue God the Lie to denie such points how can there be true sauing faith where such points are denied seing sauing faith cannot stand where infidelitie is or the Lie giuen to God And out of al that hath beene said of faith it is euident that there can be no sauing faith but that which actually beleueth not onely al fundamental points but euen al points whatsoeuer of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed and virtually also al points or partes of his word whatsoeuer and that al other kinds of beleif is true heresie and a spice of infidelitie The errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and true Church confuted out of that vvhich hath beene saied FIFT CHAPTER 1. OVt of that which hath been saied of the essence and the vnitie of true diuine faith together with that which shal be saied hereafter of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God the errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and Church maie be easily and clearely confuted 2. Their first and principal error out of which proceed the others is Protestants put the essence and vnitie of faith and Church in some points only that there be certaine principal articles which alone belong as D. Potter speaketh sec 5. p. 16. to the substance of faith Sec. 3. p. 60. CoÌ„prehend the life and substance of Religion Sec. 7. p. 74. which essentially perteine to the faith and properly constitute a Church P. 78. which make vp the Catholik faith And p. 102 wherin consists the vnitie of faith and of the Catholik Church Whervpon he saieth sec 2. p. 39. Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith And Lord Conterburie sec 38. p. 355. saieth That to err in Not fundamentals is no breach vpon the one sauing saith And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith And Chilling worth c. 3. pag. 159. saieth there be certaine propositions or doctrins which integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion 3. But this error that the essence of sauing faith and of the true Church of God consisteth only in-certaine principal points and the substantial The total obiect of faith is al Gods reuealed word vnitie of them is clearely confuted out of what hath been saied For the total obiect of true sauing faith is no parte only of Gods reuealed word or anie part only of Christs doctrin but Gods whole reuealed word Christs whole doctrin as is euident by itselfe and is proued before and also confessed C. 4. n. 9. by Doctor Potter sect 7. p. 71. and sec 2. p. 39. where he alloweth the diuisio of the obiect of faith made by Saint Thomas into primarie and into Secundarie as that Abraham had 2. Sonns And both he and Chillingworth cited in the third chaptern 5. 6. confes that it is fundamental to faith to beleue Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed and so far fundamental that to denie them is infidelitie and to giue God the Lie But what is fundamental to faith is essential to faith as is euident by itself and Protestants confessed aboue l. 1. c. 7. num 5. And besids they confessed Protestants by fundamental meane essentials l. 1. c. 7. num 6. and 7. That by fundamental they meane Essential And if Not fundamental sufficiently proposed be essential to faith fals it is that the essence of sauing faith

fals the comparison is which Protestants coÌ„monly make betweene Integritie of faith is like life and heresie like death heresie and sicknes and betweene ingritie of faith and health in men For health and sicknes are accidents to men and those also separable from them wheras integritie in faith is essential to the Church and heresie destructiue of its essence as is euident out of their owne definitions of the Church before related And therfore C. 6. n 5. they thould rather compare integritie in faith to life and heresie to mans death Secondly how vntruly they teach that diuision in points Not-fundamental if they be sufficiently proposed destroieth not the vnitie of the Church For such diuision is quite opposit to the vnitie of the true Church which as hath been clearly proued C. 7. consisteth in actual and explicit vnitie of professing al points of faith sufficieÌ„ntly proposed and in virtual or implicit vnitie of professing al whatsoeuer Christ taught Thus haue we proued that sinful denial of anie point of Christs faith destroieth sauing faith Church and saluation Now let vs proue that it destroieth also Christs veracitie That not to beleue or disbeleue anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie EIGHT CHAPTER 1. THat to denie Christs veracitie in anie point is to denie his Deitie is euident For he cannot be God or Prima Veritas The first veritie who in anie point can deceaue or be deceaued And that to denie anie point of his doctrin sufficiently proposed is to denie his veracitie in that point is also euident out of that which before we said of faith For as to beleue or profÃ¨s anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed is implicitly to beleue or profÃ¨s his veracitie therin so not beleue anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed is implicitly to denie his veracitie therin For as beleif and disbeleif are opposit acts the one affirming the other denying so what beleif implicitly affirmeth disbeleif implicitly denieth If therfore beleif of a thing for Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed implicitly professeth his veracitie therin Not beleif of the same for his authoritie sufficiently proposed implicitly denieth his veracitie in that point Besids diuine veracitie being the formal obiect of diuine faith as Sup. c. 4. n. 3. long as that remaineth and is no waie remoued diuine faith remaineth Therfore what taketh awaie diuine faith in one point must needs take awaie diuine veracitie in that point So S. Tho. 22. q. 11. art 1. But Christs veracitie maie be denied in two manners First explicitly and directly and so it is denied by Iewes Beza de puniend haeret p. 99. Christi doctrinaÌ„ reijcieÌ„do Christum ipsum repudiant p. 105. haeretici Christi nomen noÌ„ profitentur Turks and Infidels who profÃ¨s not to beleue in Christ Secondly implicitly and indirectly and so it is denied by al heretiks who though they explicitly and directly profÃ¨s Christs veracitie yet in not beleuing al which he taught though it be sufficiently proposed to them as taught by him implicitly and indirectly denie his diuine veracitie For who denieth that to be true which one hath reported and is sufficiently proposed as from him implicitly and indirectly denieth that mans veracitie For directly to denie the veracitie of the report though it be sufficiently proposed as from the reporter is indirectly to denie the veracitie of the reporter Nether can anie Iuditious man conceaue the contrarie Who therfore sinfully denie the truth of anie point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed for his indirectly denie Christs veracitie 2. Moreouer of two points Chillingw c. 3. p. 138. Gods reuelation is an equal motiue to induce vs to beleue al obiects reuealed by him equally taught by Christ and equally proposed to vs as from him it is impossible to beleue for Christs authoritie the one and not both becaus Christs authoritie is equally in both and where is equally the same motiue of beleif there must needs equally be the same beleif wherfore if we beleue not them both we beleue nether for Christs authoritie but for some other motiue humane Againe not to beleue Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a sufficient and iust Motiue to beleiue euerie thing taught by him is to denie his veracitie But they who beleue not euerie thing taught by him and sufficiently proposed to them as from him do so Tertul. l. de carne Christi vt quid dimidiatis mendatio Christum totus veritas est Therfore they denie his veracitie The Maior is euident the Minor I proue For not to beleue euerie thing that Christ taught and is sufficiently proued to haue been taught by Christ is implicitly to denie his authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a sufficient and iust motiue to beleue whatsoeuer he taught And surely to denie Christs authoritie sufficiently proposed to be a iust and sufficient motiue to beleue is to denie his veracitie to be sufficient for beleif 3. Hereupon rightly said S. Augustin to the Manichees You who in Z. 17. cont Faust c. 3. Scriptures beleue what you list and what you list not beleue not Scriptures but yourselues And so I saie who in points of Christs doctrin equally taught by him and equally proposed to them beleue what seemes true to them and what seemes not true to them beleue not beleue not Christ but themselues For if they beleued ether for Christs authoritie they would equally beleue both becaus his authoritie is equal to both But becaus the motiue of their beleif is seeming truth and seeming truth is to them more in one then in the other they beleue the one and not the other And to this purpos Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 23. said He that doth not beleue al the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted books of Scripture can hardly beleue anie nether haue we reason to beleue he doth And he might haue said so of al points of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed that who beleueth not them al beleueth none to wit with diuine faith and for Christs authoritie becaus this is equal in al such points and therfore if it effectually work diuine faith for one point it wil work the same for al. Wherfore thus I argue Where is equally the total cause of diuine beleif there is equally diuine beleif In al points of Christs doctrin equally taught of him and equally proposed to vs equally is the total cause of diuine beleif Therfore in them al is equally diuine beleif The Maior is euident The Minor is cleare For the total motiue cause of diuine beleif is Christs authoritie and that is equally in al points of his doctrin which haue been equally taught by him and are equally proposed to vs whether they be principal points or secondarie 4. Finally what it opposit to faith is Infidelitie Denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed is

Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Text snippets containing the quad