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 que­stionPrima 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 [Page 35] 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 simplyGlossa d 19. c. ita Domi­nus. Super illo articulo fidei (Tu es Christꝰ &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, thePeron 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 [Page 36] large out of Catholik writers: and the like hath L. Canterburie sec. 38. and Chillingworth p. 159. And D. WhiteNone 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 confès, 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 [Page 37] that there anie such not fundamental points, as Protestants teach.

2. For al Catholiks grant, that there is great difference among points ofD. 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 sal­uatiō: 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 Not­beleuers 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 waieBellarm. l 3. de Eccles c. 14. of saluation: nor simply and absolutly [Page 38] necessarie to be actually beleued, but only conditionally, in case they be sufficiently proposed, or [...]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 beWhy 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, maiewhy 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 [Page 39] 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 thewhich 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, mē ­ber of the Churc and waie of saluatiō, as they maie be sinfully vnbeleued, and yet there maie be sauing faith, member of the Church, or state of [Page 40] saluation: or (which cometh al to one) maie be not beleued, nether virtually nor actually, though they be suffi­ciently proposed, or would be, if it were not the vnbeleuers fault, without los of sauing faith, member of the Church or state of saluation. For such fundamental and not fundamētal points, Protestants affirme to be, and Catho­liks vtterly denie there are anie such; but saie that no points of faith are so fundamental, as they are sufficient to sauing faith, to a member of the Church, and state of saluation, when anie other points of faith are sinfully vnbeleued, or not beleued when they are sufficiently proposed, or would be, if it were not the vnbeleuers auoi­dable fault: Nor anie points of faith so not fundamental, as they are not real­ly necessarie to sauing faith, member of the Church, and state of saluation, when they are as sufficiently propo­sed, as points of faith need to be, or wold be so proposed, if it were not the vnbeleuers auoidable fault.Protestants end in this their distin­ction.

3. And the end, why Protestants deuised this distinction of fundamen­tal [Page 41] and not fundamental points in their forsaid sense or rather, wrested this distinction vnto their foresaid sense, is, for to defend some Churches or persons to haue sauing faith, to be true Churches, and in waie of salua­tion, who sinfully err in some points of faith, ether becaus they wil not be­leue them though they be sufficiently proposed, or are in fault, that they are not so proposed: For (as is sáid) Not Fundamentals, in case of suffi­cient proposal, are necessarie to sauing faith, Church, and saluation. Ther­fore Protestants take this distinctionIn what sense Protes­tants vn­derstād fun­damental, and not fū ­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 Not­beleuers [Page 42] 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 ofThe 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 [Page 43] beleif of them is not necessarie to sauing faith, Church, or saluation, when they are sufficiently proposed, and virtual or intentional beleif of them be necessarie, whether they be proposed, or no: or (which cometh al to one) whether, not fundamental points be such, as vincible and sinful ignorance or error in them, maie stand with saing sauing faith, true Church, and saluation. For such sufficiencie of fundamental points, and such vnne­cessarines of not fundamētal points, to sauing faith, true Church, and salua­tion Protestants affirme, and Catho­liks vtterly condemn.

4. Protestants cal this distinctionProtestants 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, thisBut 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 [Page 44] 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, andSee 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) [Page 45] is infidelitie, and the giuing of the Lie to God. Wherfore in vaine do some, who teach this doctrin, com­plaine, that Atheisme and irreligion getteth strength, seing that to teach that some points of faith are sufficient to sauing faith, true Church, or salua­tion, and others, not necessarie, though thes be sufficiently proposed, or it be the not beleuers fault, that they are not so proposed, is plaine Atheisme and Irreligion. And ther­fore (as I said in the Preface) this doc­trin is not to be detested and impug­ned as a single, or simple error in faith, but as a ground of al heresies in secon­darie points of faith, of Scisme, of Infidelitie, and Atheisme. For as long as they mainteine such to be true Churches, to haue sauing faith, and to be in the waie of saluation, which sinfully err in some points of faith, or (which comes al to one) which beleue not some points of faith suf­ficiently proposed to them, or for their fault not so proposed to thē, or communicate in Sacraments and pu­blik Liturgie with such Churches, [Page 46] 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 suffi­cientwhat 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 weigh­tiewhat is here proued. points are here handled: For first is confuted that most fals and Atheis­tical1. doctrin, that the principal or fun­damental points of faith are absolutly [Page 47] 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 faith2. 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 mēber of the true Church, and to saluation, euen in case they be suf­ficiently [Page 48] 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. Third­ly3. 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 [Page 49] 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 can­not5. stand with sin in matter of faith. Sixtly is shewed, that it is not only6. 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) that7. 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 toChillingw. confesseth, al points suf­ficiētly 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 suf­ficiētly proposed are necessarie, being forced therto by the euidencie of [Page 51] truth, and their confessions we shalc. 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 reuelatiōs sufficiētly 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 notChillingw. 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 [Page 52] 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 exprès 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 neces­sarie1. 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 [Page 53] 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. § 1. and c. 1. §. 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 sufficiēt 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, [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 saluatiō, 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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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 cō ­sists the life and substāce 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 [Page 58] 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, shalAs 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 of3. 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, [Page 59] 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 whole Church. So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently pro­posed, there were no iust cause of se­paration. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 39. Amongst wise men, each discord in Reli­gion, dissolues not the vuitie of faith or charitie. Ib. vnitie in thes matters, is verie contingent in the Church, now [Page 60] greater, now lesser, neuer absolute in al particles of faith. what more cleare, then that (according to thes men) we must not separate from anie Church for er­ror in not fundamètal points, though thes be sufficiently proposed: but only for errors in fundamental points, or for imposing not fundamental er­rors? and consequently, a Church sinfully erring in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed, but not imposing them upon others, is a true Church and we maie not separate from her, but must communicate with such an erring Church, which we maie not doe, if she be not a true Church.

4. This same followeth evidently4. out of divers common tenets or prin­ciples of Protestants, as first: That al are of the Church, who hold the fundamental points, as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. and 7. secondly, that puritie in fun­damental points, is a certaine note of a true Church ib. c. 7. Thirdly that to prove one to hold al the fundamen­tal [Page 61] points (without proving, that he erreth not sinfully in other points) is à sufficient proof, that he is of the true Church. Fourthly, that we maie lawfully communicate with al, that hold not al things, but al things neces­sarie, as speaketh Chillingworth c. 5.Morton Ap­peale l. 4. c. 2. Protestāts cōmunicate with al, who fundamen­tally profes the faith of Christ. p. 283. who p. 220. professeth, that by Necessarie, he vnderstandeth fun­damental. Fiftly, that only funda­mental points are of the substance of sauing faith, Church, and saluation. Sixtly, that they haue more charitie to erring Christians, then Catholiks haue. For if al be of the Church, who hold the Foundation: If puritie in fun­damentals, be a sure Note of a true Church: If Holding the foundation, be a sure proof, that one is of the true Church: If only fundamental points, be of the substance of sauing faith, Church, and saluation: and that we maie lawfully communicate with al, that hold the foundation, euidently it followeth, that such as hold the foundation, but sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently pro­posed, [Page 62] are of the true Church. Besids, if Protestants allow not sauing faith, Church, and saluation, to such, as sin­fully err in not fundamentals suffi­ciently proposed, they shew no more charitie to erring Christians, then Catholiks doe. For we allow al toProtestants haue no mo­re charitie then Catholiks. haue sauing faith, to be in the Church, in waie of saluation (for so much as belongeth to faith) who hold the fundamental points, and inuincibly err in not fundamentals; becaus ne­ther are these sufficiently proposed to them, nor they in fault, that they are not so proposed, as is euident, andCath. allow saluation to inuincibly errants in not funda­mentals. confessed by Chillingworth c. 7. p. 139. and 400. If therfore they wil seem more charitable, then we are, they must allow saluation to such, as sin­fully err in not fundamentals, ether sufficiently proposed to them, or for their fault, not so proposed. For to such, we nether allow sauing faithBut not to vincibly er­rants in them. true Church, nor saluation. And as long as Protestants hold their com­mon doctrins hitherto related, in vaine they denie, that they afford [Page 63] sauing faith, true Church, and salua­tion, to such, as sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently pro­posed. But now let vs see, both their doctrin, and deeds, towards heretiks; Papists, and Lutherans, and other er­ring Churches, which wil euidently conuince, that they afford sauing faith, true Church, and saluation, to such, as they account to err sin­fully in not fundamental points of faith.

5. And to omit, that sometimes5. they teach, that not fundamental points are no points of faith, as we shal see c. 5. Whence it wil euidently follow, that beleif of them, is not ne­cessarie to sauing faith, or true Church, though they be sufficiently proposed, they teach, partly, that obstinat error in not fundamental points is no true heresie; nor such obstinat errants, true heretiks: partly, that al heresie is not damnable. For thus Perkins in Ga­lat. 5. v. 20. Heresie is an error in the Heresie one­ly in fund, points. foundation of Religion, which (saith he) I add, to distinguish it from errors about [Page 64] lesser parts of Religion. Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 40. True and properly called he­resie, is in defect, where a true and fun­damental article is denied, or not bele­ued. See Field l. 3. c. 3. Elien­sis Tortura Torti p. 80. and witten­bergenses praefat. ad Acta cum Patriar. Constant. Moulins contra Peron l. 1. c. 7. I would not haue an error called heresie, if it be in some smal matter, and not in the foundation of faith. The Casimirian Caluinists in their Admonition c. 4. p. 131. An heretik is he, who dissenteth from the Creed, and foundation of holie Scripture. c. 7. p. 244. Not al that err in the doctrin of Christ, but such as are in Beza ad de­fens Castal. p. 495. Haereticos esse de­finio, non omnes qui sunt Apo­statae & a veritate ab­errantes. error, which openly repugneth to the foun­dation of Religion, or from which follo­weth the euersion of some parts of the foun­dation be heretiks. Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 82. The Creed is a distinctiue Note or character, seuering orthodox beleuers from Infidels, and heretiks. So that, who beleue the Creed, are orthodox beleuers, and no heretiks, what other points soeuer they denie. And sec. 4. p. 127. These errors of the Donatists (about Rebaptization) were not in them selues heretical. Yet were they in a point of faith sufficiently proposed [Page 65] to them. L. Canterb. sec. 21. p. 141. If the Church err in the foundation she Becomes Heretical. Chillingworth c. 4. p. 209. There are no damnable here­sies, but such as are plainly repugnant to thes prime verities. And p. 215. There can be no damnable heresie, vnles it con­tradict some necessarie truth. And c. 5. p. 271. Heresie we conceaue an obstinat de­fence of anie error against anie necessarie article of the Christian faith. And by necessarie truth, or necessarie article, he professeth to vnderstand fundamental, Here n. 2. as is before shewed. So that, no error against anie point of faith, is heresie, or at least, not damnable heresie, ex­cept it be against some fundamental point. And if it be not damnable, it maie stand with sauing faith, and sal­uation. Naie they expresly teach, that heretiks against not fundamental points maie be saued, and that here­tical Churches, are true Churches: and yet heretiks cannot be without obstinacie, nor obstinacie without sufficient Proposal of the contrarie truth. D. Andrews Respon. ad Apol. [Page 66] Bellarm. c. 5. Catholik and Heretik are not contrarie. Hookerl. 3. p. 128. He­retiks are not vtterly cut of from the 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 funda­mētals 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 Protestāts, that heretiks [Page 67] 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, asL. 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 whatProtestants saie the Ro. Church is a true Church they profes of Papists, or of the Roman Church. For Protestants com­monly profes, that the Romā 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 [Page 68] 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 saluatiō (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: [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 menAnd 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 vnbeleuersSee Caluin 4. Instit. c. 2. §. 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 [Page 71] 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. KingVVil 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 [Page 72] of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ, reteines al things that con­stitute a Church, hath possibilitie of saluation, her religion is safe to such as beleue, as they profes, her errors not pernitious to them who beleue them And is not this plainly to teach, that a Church sinfully erring in some points of faith, hath sauing faith, is a true Church, and in waie of sal­uation?

8. Nether wil it help them to saie (as sometimes they doe) that whenL. Canterb. p. 35. 285. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 46. Chillingw. p. 282. 398. 400. 32. they confes the Roman Church to be a true Church, to haue sauing faith, and to be in the waie of saluation, by Roman Church, they mean only those, who vpon inuincible ignorance fol­low her Religion. First, becaus this is said voluntarily, without anie ground giuen in the places, where they con­fes this of the Roman Church.By Roman Church can not be meāt only inuin­cibly igno­rants. Where, if they meant only of the ignorants in the Roman Church, why did they not name them, rather then the Roman Church?

9. Secondly, becaus they saie thus,2. [Page 73] only, when we, out of their grant, that the Roman Church is a true Church, hath sauing faith, and true waie of sal­uation, doe clearly infer, that the Pro­testants Church, is no true Church, hath no sauing faith, nor waie of sal­uation. And haue no other cause to expound themselues thus, but Becaus otherwise they should condemn their Church, and religion. Thirdly,3. becaus this is to profes, that they equiuocate in a matter of religion, becaus nether we, nor themselues commonly, doe by Roman Church, vnderstand only those, who in her, are invincibly ignorant. And if Chil­lingworth saie c. 7. p. 399. By Roman Church, to vnderstand the ignorant mem­bers of it, is a verie unusual Senecdoche: much more vnusual is it, by Roman Church, to vnderstand them alone. And yet (as the same man saieth c. 2. p. 57.) Men should speak properly, when they write of Controuersies in Religion. And, (as Caluin addeth) Plaine dea­ling is to be vsed in al things, but cheifly in matters of faith. And if Protestants, [Page 74] when they saie, The Roman Church is a true Church, had only meant the in­uincibly ignorants in her, it had been easie for them, to haue said so, and therby giuen no occasion to mistake their meaning. Fourthly, it is against4. their own descriptions of the RomanVVhat Pro­testāts mean by Roman Church. Church. Morton in his imposture c. 14. sec. 12. The Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope, and his subordinats, as of a head, and a bodie. And c. 4. No people, can be called the Church of Rome, except they be Professors of the faith of Rome. The like he hath c. 2. p. 13. Feild in Apendice parte 3. The Roman Church, that now is, is the multitude of such only, as magnifie, admire, and adore the pleni­tude of Papal power, or, at least, are con­tent to be vnder the yoak of it stil. White in defence of his Waie c. 33. The Church of Rome is the Papacie. Sutclif l. 1. de Ecclesia c. 6. We must first tel, what we, and our Aduersaries meane, by the Church of Rome. I saie, that the Church of Rome, is a multitude vnder one Head, the Bishop of Rome, and agreeing in the pu­blik doctrin of the Bishop of Rome, and [Page 75] the external worship, and Rites of that Church. Rainolds l. 2. de Idolalatria, c. 1. By the name of the Roman Church, I meane al thos, who defile themselues with the superstition of Rome, and communion of the Pope. Whitaker controu. 2 q. 5. c. 5. p. 506. I esteeme the Papistical Church, not by number of men, but of Professors: And they cannot be truly, cal­led Professors, but who vnderstand, and beleue, what they profes: Al which de­finitions, or descriptions of the Roman Church, or Church of Rome, ether only, or cheifly agree to them, who wit­tingly embrace her doctrin and com­munion.

10. Fiftly this exposition of the5. Roman Church, is against the profes­sion of the English Protestant Church. For (as Rouse writeth in his Catholik charitie c. 2.) The Roman Church (ac­cording to the Church of England) is to be vnderstood of the Pope, and his ad­herents. And in the margin citeth the Homelie on Whitsontide. And c. 3. The Church of Rome beeing vnderstood, (as before) according to the words of the [Page 76] Church of England, to be the Pope, and his adherents, &c. And doubtles, the adherents to the Pope, are not only inuincible ignorants, but ether only,6. or chiefly, the intelligents. Sixtly, becaus thēselues sometimes declare, that when they saie the Roman Church, is a true Church, they meane euen thos, who wittingly follow her doctrin. For Doctor Potter sec. 1. p.The curst Dame of Rome is a member of the Cath. Church. 10. hauing called her, the curst Dame of Rome, who takes vpon her to reuel in the house of God, who hath manie waies plaid the Harlot, and in that regard, de­serued See Vsher Serm. before x Iames p. 26. a bil of diuorce from Christ, and detestation from Christians: saith in the next page. Yet for those Catholik veri­ties which she retaines, we yeeld her a member of the Catholik. Is not this plainly to confes, that the most ob­stinat parte of the Roman Church, is not yet diuorced from Christ, and is stil a member of the Catholik Church? Moreouer sec. 3. p. 74. 75. we acknow­ledg (saith he) the Church of Rome a member of the bodie of Christ, and this cleares vs from imputation of Scisme, [Page 77] whose propertie it is, to cut of from the bodie of Christ, and hope of saluation, the Church, from which it separates. And the same defendeth Chillingworth c. 5. p. 266. But they separated them­selues from the Pope and his adhe­rents; Therfore those, they must ac­count mēbers of the bodie of Christ, and in hope of saluation, or they cleare not themselues from scisme. Montague also l. orig. Eccles. parte poster. p. 408. saith: The Bishop of Rome is a parte, and a Cheif, of the vni­uersal representatiue Church. And if the Pope be a parte, surely al Papists are.7. Seuenthly, if they did allow no Papists to be of the Church, or in waie of sal­uation, but only the inuincibly igno­rants, they could pretend no more charitie to Papists, then we haue to Protestants. For (as ChillingworthIb. p. 400. Material he­retiks, you do not ex­clude from possibilitie of saluation. writeth c. 7. p. 398. Ignorant Protes­tants maie be saued by the cōfession of Pa­pists. The same he hath c. 5. p. 308. And c. 1. p. 34. According to the grownds of your own Religion, Protestants maie die in their supposed error, ether with ex­cusable [Page 78] ignorance, or with contrition, and if they doe so, maie be saued. which is true, if he mean of inuincible igno­rance: but such are no true or formal Protestants, such are rather Protestan­tibus credentes, then Protestantes, be­caus wittingly they hold no point of true Protestancie, but the Capital points of Christianitie, which are the Capital points of Papacie. But how­soeuer they can equiuocate in the name of Roman Church, becaus they can take that for different kinds of men, ignorants and intelligents, and saie, that when they affirme the Ro­man Church to be a true Church, and a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ, they mean only the inuincibly ignorants, and not those who wittingly follow her doc­trin: how can they equiuocate in the name of Roman faith, or Roman Reli­gion, which is not of two kinds, as its Professors are, but one only, and in­cludeth the pretended errors of Rome, as is euident by that Epitheton Roman, when they saie, men maie be [Page 79] saued in the Roman faith, or Roman Re­ligion is safe to such, as beleue what they profes, that her religion hath antidotes against al errors, or sinns, that her errors wil not be pernitious to them, that beleue Perkins ini­tio proble­matis. them, and withal profes, (as Chilling­worth doth c. 6. p. 375. By your Reli­gion I vnderstand that, wherin you al what is the Rom. Reli­gion. agree, or profes to agree, the doctrin of the Councel of Trent. Is not this to con­fes, that euen those, who wittingly follow the Roman faith, or Religion, (which is the doctrin of the Councel of Trent) maie be saued, if they be­leue as they profes?

9. An other thing, which con­uinceth8. the Caluinists, that they hold, that a true Church, sauing faith, and state of saluation, maie stand with sin­ful errors in some points of faith suffi­ciently proposed, or with faultie want of such proposal, is their mainteining, that the Lutherans are a true Church, haue sauing faith, and maie be saued: who yet sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or at the least, which would be so pro­posed [Page 80] to them, if it were not their fault, which is al one, touching sin. For (as Doctor Potter saith sec. 7. p. 109.) In this case, the difference is not great, between him, that is wilfully blinde, and him, that knowingly gainsaith the truth. See also Chillingworth c. 7. p. 404. That Caluinists grant the Lu­therans to be their Brothers in Christ, is euident by the Apologie of the Church of England, and generally by their deeds and writings. Here I wil only set down the Profession of Chillingworth in his Preface, n. 39.See D Pot­ter sec. 3. p. 89. I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie, and from al error de­structiue of saluatiō, or in itself damnable: and the Decree of the French Protes­tants in their Synod at Charenton, an. 1631. in thes words. The Synod de­clareth, that seing the Churches of the Confession of Ausbourg (Lutherans) do Caluinists cōmunicate in Sacra­ments with erring Lu­therans. agree vith the other Reformed Churches, in the Principles, and fundamental points of their Religion, the faithful of that Confession, who with the spirit of charitie and truly peaceable, doe come to the [Page 81] publik Assemblies of the Churches of this Kingdom, and desire their Communica­tion, maie without making abiuration, be receaued to the supper of the Lord. Behold Lutherans admitted of Caluinists to their Communion, without making abiuration; which is to confes, that they hold errors worthie to be abiu­red. And the reason, why they are admitted with their errors, is not be­caus they sin not in them, or they are not sufficiently proposed to them, but becaus they are not fundamental er­rors. Nether is it likelie, that Luthe­rans that liue in France among Cal­uinists, should not haue their errors sufficiently proposed vnto them. (For this were to condemn the Caluinists of want, both of zele to their Religion, and also of charitie to their erring Brethren) or at the least, they might haue their errors suffi­ciently proposed to them, if it were not their fault. Besids, Caluin contra Hessusium p. 843. Withaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 8. and other Caluinists ge­nerally affirme, that Lutherans are [Page 82] obstinat in their errors. But that, which conuinceth, that Caluinists ac­count as Brothers, euen such Luthe­rans, as are obstinat in their errors sufficiently shewed to them, is, thatNote this. Zuinglius, and his fellowes in their Conference at Marpurg with Luther and his Mates, desired to be held for Brethren of the same Church, by Lu­ther and his. And the same requested Beza and his companions, of Smidelin and his fellowes, in their Conference at Montbelgard, though to their faces they mainteined their errors. See Hos­pinian parte 2. historiae Sacrament. An 1529. 1386. Had not Luther his errors sufficiently shewed to him by Zuinglius, and Smidelin, by Beza, or at the least might they not haue had, if it had not been their fault? And yet Zuinglius and Beza accounted them for Brethren of the same Church, and desired to be accounted such of them: but could not obteine it.

10. Moreouer Protestants gene­rallyAl Protes­tants err in some points of faith. confes, that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of [Page 83] faith. And that they err sinfully, is euident. For ether they haue thos points, in which they err, sufficiently proposed to them by their Ministers, or might haue; if it be not ether their fault, or their Ministers fault. Caluin. 4, Instit. c. 1. §. 12. Ether we must leaue no Church at al, or we must pardon errors in those things, which maie be vnknown without breach of the summ of religion. Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 8. It is not needful, that al should think the same: if such vnitie be required, there would be no Church at al. Bucer in his dispute at Cambridg p. 481. There is no Church on earth, which erreth not in faith, as wel as in manners. Morton Apologie l. 1. c. 68. Only Papists chaleng priuiledg of not erring. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 38. It is a great vanitie to hope or expect, that al learned men in this life should ab­solutly consent in al peeces and particles of diuine truth. p. 39. vnitie (in points not fundamental) is verie contingent in the Church, neuer absolute in al parti­cles of truth. Item: Among wise men, each discord in Religion dissolues not the [Page 84] vnitie of faith or charitie. Sec. 5. p. 22. The Church maie not hope to triumph ouer al error, til it be in heauen. Lord Can­terburie sec. 33. p. 360. This (that al agree in al points of faith) cannot be hoped for, til the Church be Triumphant. Chilling worth c. 5. p. 279. The visible Church is free indeed from al error abso-Lutly destructiue and vnpardonable, but See whites way p. 110. Montacute part. poster. orig. p. 408. not free from al error, which in itselfe is damnable. Thus plainly they confes, that al Protestants Churches err in some points of faith, that they must pardon errors which are not against fundamētal points, or haue no Church at al: that each discord in Religion dissolues not vnitie in faith. And if Ministers haue sufficiently proposed thes errors to their Churches, or would so do, if it were not their Chur­ches fault, ether they haue no true Church, or it maie be a true Church, which sinfully erreth in some points of faith, and communion with such an erring Church, is lawful.

11. Finally, sometime Protestants8. seeme plainly to confes, that sauing [Page 85] faith, true Church, and saluation, can stand with sinful error in some points of faith, For thus write the Diuines of Casimire in their admonit. c. 7. p. 246. we offer ourselues to mainteine Brother­hood with Lutherans, from which thes diuines exclude vs, euen this dissention in doctrin remaining. Chillingworth c. 1. p. 38. To oppose that, which he might know to be the word of God, were he void Sinfully to oppose Gods word, no mortal sin. ofpreiudice, is a fault I confes, but a fault, which is incident to good and honest men very often. Loe, to oppose that, which one maie know to be Gods word, were it not his fault, is no damnable sin, but such, as is incident to good, and honest men. Is not this to excuse sinful opposition of Gods word from damnable sin, and to saie, that salua­tion maie stand with sinful opposition of Gods word? And c. 3. p. 139. He only in fact affirmes, that God doth de­ceaue or is deceaued, who denies some­thing, which himself knowes or beleues to be Gods reuealed word. And vpon this doctrin, be excuseth p. 39. and 40. al Protestants from damnably erring, [Page 86] becaus they do not oppose, what they know God hath testified: and saith p.No disho­nour to Gods veracitie. 40. They only err damnably, who oppose, what they know God hath testified. And c. 3. p. 135. Without anie, the lest disho­nour to Gods veracitie, I maie doubt or denie some truth reuealed by him, if I ne­ther know nor beleue it to be reuealed by him. Is not this plainly to saie, that they only err damnably, who oppose what they know or beleue to be re­uealed? and so they err not damnably, who oppose that, which is sufficiently proposed to them, but nether beleue, nor know it to be Gods word? Is not this to excuse al opposers of Gods word, vpon sinful or affected igno­rance, from damnable sin, or anie dishonour to Gods veracitie? For thes nether know nor beleue it to be Gods word: And to saie, that error in faith vpon sinful or affected igno­rance, maie stand with sauing faith, true Church, and saluation? Lord Canterburie sec. 35. p. 285. Protestants saie, that the errors of the Roman Church, are so manie, and some so great, as [Page 87] weaken the foundation, that it is verie Saluation maie stand with vnbe­leif of truth manifested. hard to goe that waie to heauen, especially to thē, that haue had the truth manifested. Lo, euen thos Papists, who haue had the truth manifested, maie goe to hea­uen, though verie hardly. Is not this to saie, that sauing faith and saluation maie stand with vnbeleif of truth ma­nifested? Ib. p. 282. The possibilitie of Pa­pists saluation, I think cannot be denied, with hol­ding known corruptions. to the ignorants especially, becaus they hold the foundation: but a secure waie they cannot goe, who hold with such corrup­tions, when they know them; Behold againe, a possible waie, though not secure, euen for those Papists, who hold corruptions, when they know them. Is not this to grant sauing faith, and possibilitie of saluation, where not only truth is sufficiently propo­sed, but also known corruptions are followed? And p. 299. I doe for my parte acknowledg a possibilitie of salua­tion Saluation maie stand with wit­ting associa­tion to gros superstitions in the Roman Church, but so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Chri­stians, that is, as they beleue the Creed, [Page 88] and hold the foundation, Christ himself: not as they associate themselues wittingly and knowingly to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church. Behold againe, possibilitie of saluation granted euen to thos Romanists, who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church; And haue not they truth sufficiently proposed to them, who wittingly and knowingly associate themselues to gros superstitions? Ne­ther hindereth it, that he granteth not possibilitie of saluation to Roma­nists, as they associate themselues wit­tingly to gros superstitions. For it sufficeth vs, that he granteth possibi­litie of saluation to thos same Roma­nists, who so associate themselues to superstitions, for to proue, that they grant, that possibilitie of saluation maie be in the same men, with witting and known association to gros super­stitions: which is more then I needed to proue. For it sufficed me to proue, that Protestants teach, that sauing faith, and saluation may stand with [Page 89] sinful denial of some reuealed truths sufficiently proposed: And here sal­uation is granted euen to thos, who associate themselues to known gros superstitions: which is far more, and far worse. For he that doth associate himself to gros superstitions only suf­ficiently proued, doth not associate himself to known superstitions, but only which might be known of him. But who doth wittingly and kno­wingly associate himself to gros su­perstitions, doth associate himself to known gros superstitions. Finally sec. 32. p. 226. when they know it, if the error be not manifestly against funda­mental External obedience to known er­ror. veritie, I would haue al wise men consider, whether external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded. Lo external obedience to be yeelded to known error in not fundamentals. Be it therfore certaine, that howsoeuer Chillingworth or Doctor Potter saie, that al diuine reuelations without que­stion or exception, are necessarie to be beleued or not reiected, when they are sufficiently proposed; or that other [Page 90] Protestants denie they teach, that Fundamental points are sufficient, and not fundamental, not necessarie to sa­uing faith, true Church, and saluation, euen when not fundamentals are suffi­ciently proposed, and denie, that sa­uing faith, true Church, and salua­tion can stand with sinful error in some points of faith, Protestants do plainly teach so, and must teach so, as long as they defend such Churches as they doe, and communicate with such, and hold their foresaid common Tenets and Principles: and some saie more, to wit, that sauing faith, true Church, and saluation, maie stand not only with sinful error of some points of faith sufficiently proposed, but also with profession or association to known gros superstitions. And I haue been the longer in prouing, that Pro­testants hold the foresaid doctrin, that sauing faith, true Church, and sal­uation, may stand with sinful ertor in some points of faith, partly, becaus sometimes they denie, that they hold it, partly, becaus to haue dis­couered [Page 91] it, is half to haue refuted it, it being so detestable, as indeed it is. Now let vs see, why Protestants make, or vse the distinction of points of faith, rather by thes Metaphorical and ambiguous termes, Fundamental, Not fundamental, then by thes pro­per and cleare termes, Necessarie, Not necessarie. For it is not without cause, that they chose improper and obscure termes, rather then proper and cleare.

VVhy Protestants distinguish points of faith by the Metaphorical ter­mes Fundamental, Not Funda­mental, rather then by proper termes, Necessarie, Not-Necessarie. THIRD CHAPTER.

PRotestants confes (and it cannotChillingw. c. 4. p. 225. be denied) that the word Funda­mental is Metaphorical and ambiguous, and profes sometimes by Fundamen­tal Chillingw. p. 219. 220. to vnderstand Necessarie: and ne­uertheles they rather make distinc­tion of points of faith into Fundamen­tal, and not Fundamental, then into necessarie, and not necessarie. And the reason hereof, is, partly becaus vn­der these ambiguous termes, Funda­mental, not Fundamental, they can better couer the fowlnes of their doc­trin, whereof we speake in the for­mer [Page 93] Chapter, That sinful error in some points of faith, maie stand with sauing faith, true Church, and saluation, The fowlnes wherof doth not so euidently appeare, if it be only saied, that some points of faith, are not fundamental to sauing faith, to Church, or to salua­tion, though they be sufficiently pro­posed. For in rigor of speech, notNot al things Ne­cessarie are Fundamen­tal. euerie necessarie parte, is fundamen­tal: as a roof is necessarie to a house, yet not fundamental. Besids by Not fundamental, they maie seeme to meane, Not principal, or Not Capital. In which sense, it is no fowle doctrin, to saie, Some points are Not Funda­mental, Some points proposed, not principal, and yet ne­cessarie. though they be sufficiently proposed: as it is to saie, some are Not necessarie though they be suffi­ciently proposed: Becaus not euerie thing necessarie, is principal. Partly also, that vnder thes ambiguous ter­mes, Fundamental, Not Fundamental, See c. 16. n. 6. they maie flie from one sense of them, to an other, better then they could vnder the proper termes Necessarie, Not Necessarie, and so delude their [Page 94] aduersarie, and auoid conuiction. For sometimes by Fundamental articles, they only meane principal or capital articles of faith: And by Not funda­mental, Not principal, or Not capital articles. And thus they must meane, when they proue out of Catholiks, that they admit Fundamental and Not fundamental articles. At other times by Fundamental, they meane articles sufficient to a Church, and to saluation: And by Not fundamental articles, Not at al necessarie to a Church or to saluation, as we clearly shewed in the second Chapter. And this craft they could not so wel vse, vnder the words Necessarie, Not ne­cessarie, Becaus nether are they so am­biguous, as Fundamental, Not funda­mental: nether do Catholiks deui'de articles into Necessarie, Not necessarie, (becaus they account al necessarie; ether to be beleued actually, if they beAl points of faith, twoe waies ne­cessarie. sufficiently proposed, or virtually, though they be not so proposed) as some doe into Fundamental, Not fun­damental. And that Protestants vse [Page 95] Fundamental in an other sense, then we doe, is euident, by thes words of Chillingworth in his answer to the Preface p. 16. In our sense of the word Fundamental, I hope she (Ro. Church) erred not fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, I feare she did.

2. Whereof to auoid al ambiguitie,In what sēse Fundamen­tal and Not fundamental maie be used. equiuocation, or dispute of words, if by Fundamental points, Protestants would only meane, principal or capi­tal points of faith; and by not funda­mental, See Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. Peron Epist, ad Reg. Iac. obseruat. 3. not principal or not Capital points of faith: or if by fundamental points, they would only meane such, as are the fundations of other articles: or lastly, by Fundamental Articles, such as (in ordinarie course) theirD. Potter sec 7. p. 74. Chillingw. p. 263. 283. 227. actual beleif is necessarie to euerie particular person, and to saluation, And by Not fundamental points, such as their actual beleif is not absolutly necessarie to euerie particular person, or to saluation, but only cōditionally, if they be sufficiently proposed, there would be no difference between vs about this distinction of Fundamental, [Page 96] and Not fundamental articles. But (as I said) their defending such Churches, as sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiētly proposed, or for their fault,Bellar l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. multa sunt de fide, quae nō sunt ab­solute neces­saria ad sa­lutem. haue them not sufficiently proposed, forceth them to vnderstand by funda­mental points, such points, as absolut­ly or in al cases suffice to sauing faith, to a Church, and to saluation: And by Not fundamentals, such as are absolut­ly or in al cases vnnecessarie to sauing faith to a Church, or to saluation. InIn what sense it is ground of atheisine. which sense we condemn this their distinction, as a ground of atheisme and damnable deceipt of such, as sin­fully err in some points of faith: But now let vs see, what account, and what vse they make of this their distin­ction.

That Protestants make great account, and great vse, of their distinction of Fundamental, and Not Fun­damental points. FOVRTH CHAPTER.

1. THat Protestants make great account, and great vse, of their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points, is euident, both by their words and deeds. For Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 70. saith This distinction is most necessarie, and hath a ground in reason and scripture. And p. 73. he calleth it, a most necessarie and A most ne­cessarie, most vseful, and main distin­ction. most vseful distinction. And p. 75. a main distinction. K. Iames Epist. and Card. Peron. This distinction, the King accounteth of such importance, to diminish the controuersies in the Church, as he thinketh it the dutie of euerie peacable man, most diligently to explicate, teach, and vrge it. Chillingworth maketh [Page 98] the whole third Chapter of his Book to proue, that this distinction is good and pertinent, and saieth: This distin­ction is imploied by Protestants to many purposes. In answer to the Preface p. 7. as it is applied by Protestants is very good. Lord Canterburie in his Rela­tion p. 21. and 24. granteth, that the Greek Church hath a dangerous and greuious error, and yet affimeth her to be a true Church, becaus her error is not Fundamental. The like iudg­ment he giueth of the Romā Church p 296. 325. and p. 129. 311. So by thisSaueth Churches greuiously erring. distinction they saue Churches, that haue dangerous and greuious er­rors.

2. Secondly Protestants haue made vse of this distinction euer since they began to be deuided in points of faith, as a soueraigne remedie to couer their rent. For Zuinglius, when he had forsaken Luther in the point of real presence, for excuse therof, in hisVsed by Pro­testāts since their dissen­tion. Apolog. tom. 2. fol. 374. sayed. That this matter pertined not to anie founda­tion of faith: The same saied Bucer in [Page 99] Hospinian parte secunda hist. fol. 127. and Martyr ib. fol. 244. Caluin De­fens. 2. contra Wesphal. p 766 Beza contra Wesphal. p. 258. Whitak con­trou. 2. q. 5. c. 8. Iuel in his Apologie and generally al Sacramentaries, when ether they currie fauour with Luthe­rans, and would be held for brethren of them, or excuse to Catholiks; their dissentions in points of faith. See Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 89. and sec. 5. p. 18. Lord Canterburie sec. 38. p. 325.

3. Thirdly, this their distinction is the ground of their defense in con­trouersiesThe ground of Protestāts defence in main points. of greatest moment, to wit; which are true Churches, and in which saluatiō maie be had: and with which, men maie communicate lawfully. For, if we proue, that the Protestant Church in general (as it comprehen­deth both Lutherans and Caluinists) is no true Church, nor can afford sal­uation: nor is such, as men may law­fully communicate withal, becaus her members are sinfully deuided in points of faith and Religion, one [Page 100] from the other, they answer not, that they are not sinfully deuided, but that their diuision is not in points funda­mental, but only in not fundamental points: which diuision doth not hin­der that vnitie of faith, or of Church,D. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. which is necessarie. Likwise, if we proue, that the Lutherans are no trueL. Canterb sec. 38. p. 325. Church, becaus they are deuided in points of faith from the Caluinists, their answer is, this diuision is not in fundamental points, but only in points not fundamental, which diui­sion (whether it be sinful, or no) doth not destroie the substance of a true Church. The like answer for the Ro­man Church, Protestants doe giue, when it pleaseth them to grant, that she is a true Church, and that salua­tion maie be had in her. Finally, if we proue, that no particular Protestant Church can be a true Church, or haue hope of saluation, becaus (as Protes­tants confes) euerie one of their Churches erreth in some point of faith, nay that there is no hope, that anie Church shal be free from al [Page 101] error in points of faith, they answer: This error is only in not fundamen­tal points, which error destroieth not sauing faith, Church, or meanes of sal­uation, whether it be vincible and sin­ful, or no.

4. Thus we see, that by meanes of this distinction, of fundamental, and not fundamental points, Protestants doe make Churches to be true, or false, as they please, accordingly, as they make points of faith to be fundamen­tal, or not fundamental, as they please: nether telling vs constantly, which are fundamental, which not funda­mental; nor giuing vs anie certaine rule to know which are such, but re­seruing the determination hereof to their ends, as they need: Secondly by meanes of this distinction, they en­deauourwhat kind of erring Churches maie be true Churches. to mainteine three main points, to wit: That such Churches, as they confes to err in some points of faith, are notwithstanding true Churches: That saluation may be had in such erring Churches: And that men may lawfully communicate with [Page 102] erring Churches. Which doctrin of theirs, if it were meant only of such Churches, as inuincibly, vnwittingly or innocently err, or which err in not fundamental points, not sufficiently proposed, were not to be condemned: but being meant (as it is, and must bewhat kinde of erring Churches Protestants meane. by them, for manie such Churches as they doe mainteine) of obstinat or sinful error, or of error about Not­fundamental points sufficiently pro­posed, is abhominable, and indeed the verie ground of atheisme. Nether, though it were true, would itsuffice them for to mainteiue some Chur­ches, which they mainteine, and sal­uation in thē: both becaus they some­times confes, that those Churches do err euen in fundamental points: and also, becaus those Churches want Communion in Sacraments, which is as essential, to a true Church, as faith is, as we shal shew hereafter.C. 19. So that this their ground of main­teining such erring Churches as they doe mainteine, is not only fals and atheistical, but also though it were [Page 103] true, were insufficient to vphold such Churches, as they endeauour to vp­holdProtestants ground, ne­ther true, nor sufficiēt for their purpose. by it, as (God willing) I shal shew euidently in this Treatise. But first we wil shew their vncertaintie, both what, and which are Not-funda­mental points, and whether a true Church can err euen in fundamental points, that therby the Reader may see, that this their ground, is not only fals, and also insufficient for their pur­pose; but also that they themselues are not certaine, or assured of it; and yet do vpon this ground, venture their saluation in liuing in confessed erring Churches: and other mens al­so, in teaching them, that it is not necessarie to sauing faith, to a mem­ber of the Church, or to saluation, to beleue euerie point of faith though sufficiently proposed, or which would be so proposed, if it were not also the fault of the not beleuer, which is dam­nably to deceaue poore soules.

That Protestants are vncertaine, vvhat a Not-fundamental point is. FIFT CHAPTER.

1. THe questions: what is such a thing? and, which is such a thing? Difference between what, and which is. are different. For the former, enqui­reth the nature of the thing, and the latter, which hath that nature: as, what is a Lion, enquireth, what is his nature? which is a Lion, enquireth, which is the beast, that hath that na­ture? In this Chapter, we wil shew the Protestants vncertaintie, what is the nature of Not fundamental points, and in the next chapter, their vncer­taintie, which are they, that haue the nature of Not fundamental points. For, ether becaus indeed, they know not, what is the nature, or cōdition of their Not—fundamental points; or becaus, being between twoe streights, to wit, [Page 105] of defending Churches, which sinful­ly err in points not fundamental, and of defending their separation from the Roman Church, for pretended errors in points not fundamental: Or lastly, becaus they would not haue Catholiks to be able to conuince, what they teach in this matter, they doeso perplexedly deliuer their doc­trin about not fundamental points, as there is greater difficultie to conuince, what indeed is their doctrin herein, then that it is fals doctrin.

2. First therfore, they teach (asNot funda­mentals are not necessa­rie for sal­uation, or separation. we shewed before in the 2. chapter) that Not fundamental points, are By truths, vnnecessarie, not necessarie, for which no separation ought to be made: and (as Chillingworth saieth c. 4. p. 220.) By, Fundamental, we meane al, and only that, which is necessarie. So, no point not fundamental, can be ne­cessarie.

3. Secondly, they saie, that Not­fundamental But opiniōs, doubtful, ob­scure, not euidently deduced out of scripture. points are opinions, doubtful matters, obscure points, disputable in themselues, and happi­ly, [Page 106] by plaine Scripture, indetermi­nable, disputable opinions, not clea­rely defined in Scripture, not euident­ly deducible out of Scripture, of which nether Church nor Councel hath anie infallible assurance, and in which, modest opposition is tolerable. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. speaking of Not­fundamentalNot funda­mentals are opinions. points saieth. The vnitie of the Church is nothing hindered by di­nersitie of opinions in doubtful matters. See also p. 40. 43. And p, 39. calleth, Not fundamental points, Probable, Opposition in not fun­damentals, is tolerable. Accidental, and Obscure points, wherein the oppositions of learned men, proceeding modestly, are tolerable. Sec. 4. p. 94. If we did not dissent in some opinions, from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholik. Sec. 7. p. 74. saieth of Not fundamen­tal points: They are disputable in them­selues, and happily, by plaine Scripture, indeterminable. And sec. 6. p. 54. af­firmeth, that controuersies amongVVhitak. cont. 2. q. 5. c. 8. our con­tentions are for faith, for Religiō. Protestants, are only in disputable opi­nions, not clearly defined in Scripture. And yet their Controuersies, arc (at [Page 107] least) in not fundamental points: Chillingworth in his preface num. 30. The disputes of Protestants (about not fundamentals) are touching such things, Not funda­mentals, are obscure matters. as maie with probabilitie be disputed on both sides: and calleth Protestants men of different opinions, touching obscure controuersed questions of Religion. Nu. 32. Those truths, wil be fundamental, which are euidently deliuered in Scrip­ture, and commanded to be preached to al men: Those, not fundamental, which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure, can be ne­cessarie to be vnderstood, or not mistaken. c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental, Not euidētly deducibleout of Scripture. which are therehence (out of Scripture) deducible but probably, not euidently. And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points, in which Protestants dissent, matters not plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture. c. 5. p. 306. As for our conti­nuing in their (Churches erring not fundamentaly) Communion, the iusti­fication hereof, is not so much, that their errors are not damnable, as that they re­quire not the beleife, and profession of these errors, among the conditions of [Page 108] their communion. And 307. It is not No separa­tion for not fundamen­tal errors. lawful to separate from anie Churches Communion, for errors not perteining to the substance of faith, vnles that Church require the beleif and profession of them. Lord Canterburie sec. 21. p. 147. ter­meth not fundamental points, Dispu­table doctrin, and points of curious spe­culation: and errors in the same, light. Sec. 25. p. 165. Curious truths. Sec. 38. p. 361. opinions which flutter about faith. Curious truths. And sec. 38. p. 357. he affirmeth, that in not fundamentals, Nether general Councels, nor the whole Church hath in­fallible certaintie. And ibid. p. 358.No infalli­bilitie in not fundamētal points. That in them, it is no matter, if Coun­cels err. And ibid. It it not requisite, that for them, we should haue an infal­lible assurance. And sec. 32. p. 226. when they know it (the error) if the error (of a general Councel) be not manife­stly against fundamental veritie, I would haue al wise men consider, whither exter­nal obedience be not, euen then, to be yeelded. So that obedience may beExternal o­bedience, to known er­ror in not fūdamētals. yeelded against not fundamental ve­ritie. And sec. 26. p. 205. Bihops subiect [Page 109] to Kings in spiritual causes too, so the foundations of faith, and manners be not shaken.

4. Thirdly, they teach, that not fundamentals points. are no points of faith. This followeth euidently out of what we euen now related: For if they be but opinions, obscure, and doubtful matters, wherof we can haue no infallible certaintie, or assurance, not clearely defined in scripture, nor euidently deducible out of Scripture, they cannot saie, they are points of faith, vnles they wil turne faith into opinion, and make that a point of faith, which nether is clearely defined in Scripture, nor euidently deducible out of Scripture: But besids this, some times they expresly teach, that not fundamentals are no points of faith,Not funda­mentals no points of faith. or of Religion. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 40. calleth not fundamental points, Things beside, or without the faith. Sec. 5. p. 89. How Christ is in the Symbols, and how in heauen and earth, is no parte of faith. Sec. 6. p. 54. Our (Protestant) Controuersies are none of them in the [Page 110] substance of faith, but only in disputable opinions. Lord Canterburie sec. 39. p. 387. Superstructures are doctrins about the faith, not the faith itselfe, vnles they be immediat consequences. And p. 388. Suppose vncertaintie in some of thes super­structures, it can neuer be thence conclu­ded, that there is no infallible certaintie of the faith itself. p. 341. This Athana­sius Creed, and the Apostles, and no more, is the Catholik faith. Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals, opinions, which flutter about faith. And p. 376. saieth: Nor do the Church of Rome, and the Protestants, set vp a different Reli­gion. For the Christian Religion, is the same to both. And yet these ChurchesNot funda­mētals make not differēce in Religion. differ, at least, in not fundamental points, and so Not-fundamental points, are no points of Religion. Chillingworth c. 3. p. 129. But you (Papists) are al agreed, that only those things, wherin you doe agree, are mat­ters Not matters of faith, in which Pro­testants dif­fer. of faith: And Protestants, if they were wise, would doe so too. Sure I am, they haue reason enough to doe so, seing al of them agree with explicit faith in al [Page 111] thos things, which are plainly and vn­doubtedly deliuered in Scripture. Thus Consubstantiation, vbiquitie, and such, are not matters of faith. And in answer to the preface, when his ad­uersarie had saied, That men of different Religions (as Papists and Protestants) maie be saued, is a ground of atheisme, he wil not admit Papists and Protes­tants to be men of different Religions, but saieth p. 14. By men of different Re­ligions, he must meane Christians of di­uers opinions and communions, or els he Differēce in not funda­mentals should not hinder com­munion. speaketh not to the point. And c. 4. p. 209. The diuersitie of opinions, which is among the seueral sects of Christians, ought to be no hinderance to their vnitie in communion. So that the seueral sects of Christians differ but in opinions, and yet doubtles they differ in notOptatus l. 2. vbi vul­tis, ibi est Ecclesia, & non est vbi non vultis. fundamentals. Lord Canterburie al­so sec. 39. p. 376. Potter sec. 3. p. 58. White in Defens. of his way c. 38. and others say, that the Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same: and yet grant, that they differ in not fundamental points. Whence it must [Page 112] needs follow, that not fundamental points are no points of Religion. For if they be points of Religion, who differ in them, differ in Religion.

5. Fourthly they teach, that no opposition to not fundamētal points,Error in not Fundamen­tals is not heresie. is true heresie, as we shewed before c. 2. and it followeth out of what euen now we rehearsed. For if not funda­mental points be no points of faith, opposition to them, cannot be here­sie. For heresie, is an error against faith. And as Lord Canterburie saieth sec. 26. p. 198. Heresie, properly cannot be, but in doctrin of faith.

6. Lastly, Protestants not content to teach, that not fundamental pointsNot fundamentals, are matters of nothing. are but opinions, no points of faith, doubtful matters, and such like, some­times speak contemptuously of them, as if they were 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: [Page 113] 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-fundamētal 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-funda­mentalAt other ti­mes not fun­damentals are points of faith. points, are points of faith with them, are weightie matters, as on [Page 114] which dependeth mens saluation: and errors against them, damnable, as weL. 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. [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] sec. 35. p. 285. and sec. 36. p. 314. 315. affirmeth, that ignorant soules in the Roman Church, are safe, and thatIgnorants 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 andYet 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 [Page 117] 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, [Page 118] 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 PotterProperly 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 notFormally. 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, notAbsolutly. Absolutly. L. Cannterb. sect. 18. p. 139. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals. p. 140. The Church can­not err in doctrins absolutly Fundamētal. sect. 25. p. 162. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals. P. 165. In abso­lute foundations. Chillingworth c. 5. [Page 119] p. 282. We hope your errors, are not ab­solutly vnpardonable. An other distin­ction is, Simply Fundamental, notSimply. Simply. L. Canterb. sect. 9. p. 24. It was a question, not simply Fundamental. sect. 10. p. 31. Nothing is simply Funda­mental, becaus the Church declares it. sect. 25. p. 162. Prouided, it be not in anie point simply Fundamental. Potter in Chillingworth p. 7. Simply and in­dispensably necessarie, Precisely necessarie. An other is, Prime foundations, andPrime. not Prime. L. Canterb sect. 33 p. 256. 258. The Church is infallible in the Prime foundations of faith. An other is: To some, and not to al. L. Canterb. sec. 10. p. 37. What perteines to Christian faith, is not by and by fundamental in the faith to al men. Chillingworth c. 3. p. 184. That maie be fundamental to one, which to an other is not so. Potter sec. 7 p. 103. Some truth is fundamental in some per­sons in certaine respects, which is Not to some others. An other distinction, is That some are fundamental Reme­dielesly,Remedielesly others not Chillingworth c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors, maie [Page 120] signifie, ether such, as are repugnant to Gods commaund, but pardonable by igno­rance, or which are Remedielesly perni­tious, and destructiue of saluation. An other. Some are ether in themselues, or by accident fundamental. Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. An other is, some are Re­ductiue Fundamental, others not, soReductiuely White in L. Canterb. sect 37. p. 317. Popish errors, are Fundamental Redu­ctiue. p. 321. Some errors of that Church, were fundamental Reductiue. But what signifieth this multiplicitie of ambi­guous distinctions, but, their igno­rance or vncertainetie, what is truly Fundamental, and their minde to de­lude their Aduersarie, and to con­found their Reader. Wheras one di­stinction, Truly, Not truly, would haue sufficed. For Fundamental is of one only Nature, and what hath that nature, is truly Fundamētal, what hath it not, is not truly Fundamental, and this multiplicitie of Fundamentals, discouereth clearely ignorance, and vncertainetie, what is the true Nature or Essence of Fundamental. And [Page 121] thus we haue seene, how vncertaine Protestants are, What Not-funda­mentals points be, to wit, Whether points of faith, or but opinions. Whether errors in them be damna­ble or no: Whether separation ought to be made for them, or no: Whe­ther they make difference in Reli­gion, or no: And whether the Na­ture of fundamental, be one or ma­nifold. Now let vs see, how vncer­taine also they be, which are Fun­damental points, Which, Not-fun­damental.

THAT PROTESTANTS are vncertaine, vvhich are Fun­damental, and vvhich Not­fundamental. SIXT CHAPTER.

1. IN the former Chapter I shewed, how vncertaine Protestants are, what a Not-fundamental point is, but now saie one thing, now the contra­rie, as it serueth for their present pur­pose, ether to iustifie a Church that sinfully erreth in Not fundamentals, For then they are no points of faith, but disputable opinions, light mat­ters, for which no separation ought to be made, or to iustifie their separa­tion from a Church, which they con­fes erreth but in Not-fundamentals. For then they are matters of faith, and errors in them, horrible, and of themselues damnable, and iust cause of separation, or schisme. Now I wil [Page 123] shew their like vncertaintie, which are the points, that are Fundamental, and which, Not-fundamental: and that as it serueth to their present pur­pose, ether to iustifie a Church, or to condem a Church, they make the self same points to be Fundamental, or Not fundamental.

2. And as for their vncertaintie,Impossible for Protes­tants to giue an exact catalogue of Fundamen­tals. or ignorance, which are al the Funda­mental points, themselues profes it. For thus Chillingworth c. 3. p. 166. we know not precisely, iust how much is fundamental. p. 134. It is impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamen­tals. Which he repeateth p. 135. and c. 4. p. 201. c. 6. p 367. and in Answer to the Preface p. 26. And c. 7. p. 408. Protestants do not agree touching what points are fundamental. Lord Canterb. sec. 38. p. 325. To set bounds to this, and strictly to define it for particular men, Iust thus far you must beleue in euerie particu­lar, or incurdamnation, is no work for my pen. And ibid. 372. The Church can­not teach, iust how far euerie man must beleue, as it relates to the possibilitie, or [Page 124] impossibilitie of his saluation in euerie par­ticular. And if it be impossible for them to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals, it is impossible for them to tel exactly, which are Funda­mentals, and which Not-fundamen­tals.

3. But at other times, they vnder­take to giue vs an exact Catalogue of fundamētals. For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds con­teining the Fundamētals of Christianitie, The Creed as it is ex­plained, is a sufficiēt Ca­talogue of Funda­mentals. This is Doctor Potters assertiō. The Creed of Apostles, as it is explained in latter Creeds of the Catholik Church, is esteemed a sufficient Summarie, or Catalogue of Fundamentals, by the best learned Ro­manists, and by Antiquitie. The like he hath p. 413 Behold, a sufficient Cata­logue of Fundamentals. And ibid p. 206. The Apostles Creed, is a perfect The Creed is a sufficient Summarie of Funda­mentals. Summarie of the Fundamentals of the Christian faith. c. 1. p. 41. The Creed, is a sufficient, or more then a sufficient, Summarie of thos points of faith, which were of necessitie to be beleued actually and explicitly. And thes are his Fun­damentals. [Page 125] And c. 3. p. 133. This is the, minimum quod sic. wherin, in men capable of faith, God wil be pleased: and he that knoweth minimum quod sic, and the lowest degree of faith, doth he not know Maximum quod sic, and the hi­ghest degree? And ibid. p. 150. They Out of Scripture we maie learne which are Fundamen­tals, which not. maie learn from the Scripture, that such points are fundamental, others are not so. And if they can learn from the Scrip­ture, that such points are fundamen­tal, others are not, why can they not gather out of Scripture a Catalogue of Fundamentals? C. 7. p. 408. You ouerreach in saying, Protestants cannot agree touching what points are funda­mental. Doctor Potter sect. 7 p. 78. Those prime and Capital doctrines of our Religion, which make vp the Catholik and Apostolik faith, that faith, which essentialy constitutes a true Church, and a true Christian. Thes fundamentals are al conteined in the rule of faith, which The Apostles creed is a ca­talogue of Fundamen­tals. rule hath been summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed, and hath been re­ceaued by Orthodox Christians of al Ages and places, as an absolute Summarie of the [Page 126] Christian faith. And after he had pro­ued this, saith p. 94. Now our Mistaker Feild l. 3. c. 4. nameth which they account fundamentals. hath his Catalogue of fundamentals. Be­hold againe a Catalogue of funda­mentals. Sect. 3. p. 60. The things, wherin Protestants doe iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised, are summarily deliuered in the Symbols, or Creeds. And what are those, in which the life and substance of Religion is comprised, but Fundamentals? And ibid. p. 61. To those twelue (Articles) which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed The Creed is a sufficient Summarie of funda­mentals. a sufficient Summarie of holsome doctrin, they (Papists) haue added manie more. And what difference is there betwixt a Summarie, and a Catalogue?

4. Lord Canterburie sec. 38. p. 371. The foundation, is sufficiently known by Scripture, and the Creeds. And if it be sufficiently known, why cannot Pro­testants giue vs an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals? Sect. 37. p. 319. If he meane, different in the foundation itself, the Creed, then, &c. Lo here the Creed is the foundation. Sec. 38. cit. p. 334. The Protestants haue as infallible [Page 127] assurance, as you can haue, of al points, which they account fundamental, yea and of al, which were so accounted by the Pri­mitiue Church: and these are but the The Creed, and some deductions from it. Creed, and some few and those immediate deductions from it. Lo Potestants know al points, which they account funda­mental, and why then can they not giue an exact Catalogue of them? Sec. 10. p. 28. The Creed is a common, is a Deductions cannot be fundamen­tals. constant foundation: Deductions from it, cannot be fundamental. The English Deputies in the Synod of Dort, sess. 15. The fundamental heads of Religion, are conteined in the Creed, the Lords praier, Decalogue, and the Sacraments. Behold (Christian Reader) how these men, sometimes cannot giue an exact Ca­talogue of fundamentals, sometime they can. Sometimes al the funda­mentals, are conteined in the Apostles Creed, sometimes in the Apostles Creed, and in some few and imme­diat deductions from it: At other ti­mes, deductions from the Creed can­not be fundamental. Sometimes al fundamentals are comprised in the [Page 128] Symbols and Creeds; and at other times, al the fundamentals are con­teined in the Creed, the Lords praier, Decalogue, and Sacraments. Who wil see more of the Protestants vncertain­tie, which articles are to be accounted fundamental, maie read lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. num. 1. and 2.

5. In like manner, they are vncer­taine, whether the pretended truthes, against which they saie the Roman Church erreth, be fundamental, or no. For (as we saw in the former Chapter, nu. 7.) sometimes they saie, she holdeth the foundation, the fun­damentalThe errors which Rome holds are not fundamen­tal. truths, erreth not in funda­mentals, and holdeth al that is abso­lutly necessarie to saluation: And the same followeth euidently out of that, they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence, and saie, that she and the Protestant Church, and their Religions, be al one in sub­stance For nether could she be a trueSee their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence, if she erred in anie fundamental point; nether can thes [Page 129] Churches, or Religions, be alone in substance, which differ in fundamen­tal points But at other times, they auow, that the errors of the Roman Church, are fundamental, and in themselues damnable, and conse­quently opposit to some fundamental points of faith. For thus Whitaker controu. 2. q. 6. c. 3. The Roman Church Errors of Rome fun­damental and dam­nable. hath taken away manie fundamental Ar­ticles of faith, and corrupted faith in the principal points. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he (D. Potter) saie, that you had for the substance, the true prea­ching of the word, or due administration of the Sacraments, or where does he saie, you wanted nothing fundamental, or ne­cessarie to saluation? Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence, that yours (errors) are confessed not to be fundamental, it is an affected mistake, as I haue often told you. p. 289. Your Church did fal into substan­tial corruptions. And p. 305. A fals hood it is, that the. Doctor iudges the Roman Rom. errors in thēselues fundamen­tal. errors, not to be in themselues fundamen­tal or damnable. p. 308. As for your ob­truding vpon vs, that we beleue the [Page 130] points of difference, not fundamental, or necessarie, you haue beene often told, that it is a calumnie. And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence, that we confes, the Roman Are damna­ble heresies. Church free from damnable heresie, and yeelding you saluation, no Protestant is guiltie of it. And p. 34. 282. 278. 293.Poperie in it self destroies saluation. and 400. saieth. The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselues damnable. And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie, which (he saieth) is with­out question, to err in necessarie matters. In like sort Lord Canterburie sec. 33. p. 275. al. 257. Transubstantiation, taken properly, cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion. Sec. 37. p. 320. The Church of Rome, hath in the exposi­tions, both of Creeds and Councels, quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them. And yet ibid. p. 319. saieth: The Creed is the foundation. Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large; That he neuer saied, that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-funda­mental. Sec. 38. p. 325. You haue manie dangerous errors about the verie foun­dation, [Page 131] in that which you cal the Roman faith. And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day, doth not beleue the Scripture, and Creeds, in the sense, in which the ancient Primitiue Church receaued them. And addeth (as before) the Creed is the foundation. Thus vncertaine thes men be, whether the pretended er­rors of the Roman Church, be funda­mental, or no. But sometimes they are, sometimes they are not, as it serueth for their present purpose.

9. Perhaps some, to saue thes con­tradictionsSee Chil­lingw. c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec. 7. p. 71 of Protestants, that the Roman Church holds al the funda­mentals, and holds them not al, hath fundamental errors, and hath not: wil saie, that fundamental points are of two kinds. Some are fundamental not only by reason of their reuelation from God, and their sufficient propo­sal to vs, but also of their owne nature, fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith, Church, and saluation, as the passion of Christ, and such like capital articles: others, not of their owne na­ture, but merely because they are [Page 132] reuealed from God, and sufficiently proposed to vs, are fundamental to faith, Church, and saluation, as that Saint Paul had a cloack &c. And that when Protestants confes, that the Roman Church holdeth al the fun­damentals, or erreth not in funda­mentals, they meane of fundamen­tals of the first kinde; when they saie she erreth in fundamentals, they meane of the latter kinde, and so do not contradict themselues, becaus they do not affirme and denie the same kinde of fundamentals. True it is, that there is this difference bet­weene points of faith, that some are fundamental to sauing faith, to a true Church, and to saluation, both of their nature, and by reuelation suffi­ciently proposed to vs, as the myste­ries of the Trinitie, the passion of Christ, and such like: others are fun­damental or necessarie to sauing faith, Church, and saluation, only by rea­son of Gods reuelation sufficiently proposed, as that Abraham had two Sonns, and such like. But this wil [Page 133] not suffice, to saue the aforesaied Protestants from plaine cōtradiction: becaus, (if not in wonds) in effect and sense, they both affirme and denie that the Roman Church holdeth, and holdeth not, al points of faith that are fundamental of their nature. For whiles they saie, that she is a true Church in essence, a member of the Catholik Church and of Christ, that she holds the fundamental points which constitute a Church, which are the life and substance of Religion, the simply necessarie truths, by which some are saued, and that her substance and Religion is the same with the Protestants, they must needs meane, that she holdeth al the points, which of their nature are fundamental to sauing faith, Church, and saluation: and contrariwise, whiles they saie, that the Roman Church holdeth errors of themselues fundamental, hath cor­rupted faith in the principal points, hath not the substance of preaching the word, is fallen into substantial corruptions, holdeth that, which can­not [Page 134] stand with the grounds of Chri­stianitie, hath quite lost the sense and meaning of some articles of the Creed, is guiltie of impietie, and ido­latrie, and scisme, they must needs meane, that she holdeth not al points, which of their nature are fundamen­tal to sauing faith, Christian Church, and saluation. Nether finally, doth this differēce between points of faith, iustifie these Churches, which they cannot denie, but sinfully err in such points, as they terme Not-fundamen­tal points, For whencesoeuer a point be fundamental to faith, Church, and saluation, whether of its nature, and reuelation too, or of reuelation only, they cannot stand without that, which is fundamental to them, as is euident by itselef, and Protestants confes it, as we shal see beneath c. 7. n. 5. Besids, themselues profes c. 7. n. 6. that by Fundamental they meane Essential, and vndoubted it is, that nothing can be without that, which is essential to it.

7. And as vncertaine Sacramen­taries are, whether the errors of Lu­therans, [Page 135] be fundamental, or no. For sometimes they are not fundamental, nay light matters, and not to be re­garded, as we shewed before c. 5. n. 5. And Chillingworth in his Preface nu. 39. saieth: I hold the doctrin of al Pro­testants free from al impietie, and from al error destructiue of saluation, or in it self No error of Protestants, is itself damnable. damnable. c. 5. p. 306. we iudge, they (Protestants) haue no errors dam­nable.

8. But at other times, the Luhe­ransLutherans errors are fundamen­tal. error of Consubstantiation, or real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist, is fundamental. For Cal­uin Admonit. vltima ad Wesphal. p. 831. saieth: It necessarily draweth with it impious Idololatrie. In consensu &c. p. 754. It is no les absurd, then Tran­substantion. And Epistle 292. with pernicious iuglings, it ouerthroweth the foundations of faith. And Epistle 81. It recalleth the dotages of Martion and Eutiches: Sadeel de coniunctone, &c. It destroieth the nature of Christ. Pareus in Galat. 3. sec. 37. Nothing can be more opposit to the articles of Christian [Page 136] faith. And the like saie commonly al Sacramentaires or Caluinists of the Lutherans vbiquitie, as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie, c. 3. nu. 5.

9. Thus wee see, how vncertaine Pro­testans are, which are their funda­mentalD. Potter sec. 3. p 60. sec. 7. p. 74. 78. Chilling. c. 3 p 159. L. Cant. sec. 26. p. 192. points of faith, which (as they speak) comprehend the substance of Re­ligion, integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion, essentially constitute a true Church, and in ordinarie course are necessarie to be distinctly and expresly beleued of euerie one that wil be in the Church and be saued. And which are their Not fundamentals, which are not of the substance of Christian Re­ligion, Church, or saluation. And which are fundamental errors, which destroie the substance of sauing faith, of a true Church, and of the waie of saluation: and which are not funda­mental errors, which only destroie some perfection of sauing faith, of a Church, or of the waie of saluation. And consequently, they must be vn­certaine, which is substantially a [Page 137] saving faith, or a true Church, which is not, which is a substantial waie of saluation, which is not; and whether they haue a substantial sauing faith, be in a substantial true Church, and sub­stantial waie of saluation, or no: And also vncertaine, with what Church, they maie lawfully communicate; Then the which, nothing can be more miserable. For as Doctor Potter saieth sec. 5. p. 18. A true Church, is alone, with a Church not erring in the founda­tion. And sec. 7. p. 74. By fundamen­tal doctrins, we meane such Catholik verities, as essentially perteine to the faith, such as properly constitute a Church. And as Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton A pologiae, l. 2. c. 41. and Protestants commonly teach: Puritie in fundamental points, is the only cer­taine Note of a true Church. And how can they be certaine, which is a true Church, which is not, if they be not certaine, which is fundamental, which is not, &c. how can they be certaine, which is puritie in fundamētals, which is not, if they be not certaine, which [Page 138] are fundamentals, which not? Besids, al fundamental points, as Doctor Potter affirmeth sec. 7. p. 74. 75. are necessarie in ordinarie course to be di­stinctly Al funda­mētal points must be di­stinctly and expresly be­loued. beleued by euerie Christian, that wil be saued. And Fundamental proper­ly, is that, which Christians are obliged to beleue by an expres, and actualfaict. And the same hath Chillingworth p.See Field l. 4. c. 22. 41. 193. 227. 209. and Lord Canterb. p. 28. And how then can they be cer­taine, that they are in the way of sal­uation, and expresly beleue al they are abliged to beleue, if they doe not distinctly and expresly beleue al fun­damentals, or how can they be sure they doe this, if they doe not distinct­ly and expresly know al funda­mentals?

10. If anie Protestant answer, that though they be not certaine precisely, which be fundamental articles, which not, yet they are certaine, that the Creed conteineth al fundamental ar­ticles, which constitute a Church, and which in ordinarie course are neces­sarie to be actually beleued: and this [Page 139] is sufficient to be certaine of: I replie, First, that at least they cannot be in­fallibly certaine, that the Creed con­teineth al such fundamentals, becaus the Scripture (which they wil haue to teach al things, whereof we can be infallibly certaine) speaketh not at al of the Creed, and consequently they cannot be infallibly certaine, what Church, or persons, beleue al, that is fundamental and necessarie to be a­ctualy beleued of euerie one, or who is in the waie of saluation, or with whom they maie lawfully communi­cate. I ad also, that themselues pro­fes,So Chilling. c. 4. p. 194. that it is, but only probable, that the Creed conteineth al fundamentalProbable onely that the Creed conteineth al funda­mentals. articles. For thus Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 102. It remaines verie probable, that the Creed is the perfect Summarie of thos fundamental truths, which al Christians ordinarily are bound expresly to beleue. Chillingworth p. 200. That the Creed doth not containe al main and principal points of faith of al sortes, whither they be speculatiue, or practical, Doctor Potter grants, So that in beleuing the Creed, [Page 140] we beleue not al fundamental points. Lord Canterburie sec. 33. p. 334. saieth. The fundamental points, are the Creed, and some deductions from it. Others ad other things, as is to be seene l. 1. de Authore Protestant c. 3. Secondly, they cannot saie, that the Creed con­teineth al that is fundamental and necessarie to be beleued of euerie one. For iustification by only special faith, which is the most fundamental point of Protestancie, and the life, and soule therof, (as Protestants calSee li. 11 de authore c. 6 throughout. it) is nether actualy in the Creed, nor can be clearly deduced out of it. For to saie, that iustification by only spe­cial faith, is conteined in that article of the Creed; (Remission of sinns) isOne thing is the end, an other the meane ther-to. absurd. Becaus that article speaketh only of the end, which is remission of sinns, not of the meanes to atteine vnto it, which Protestants wil haue to be only special faith, of which the Creed speaketh not. And in the same manner, is Chillingworth refuted, when he saieth c. 3. p. 135. and 166. we are sure, that al that is necessarie anie [Page 141] waie, is in Scripture, and therfore be­leuing al that is there, we are sure to beleue al that is necessarie. And c. 6. p. 367. beleuing al the Bible, we beleue al that is fundamental. For, besids that their foresaied most fundamental point of iustification by only special faith, is not in Scripture, but the quite contrarie, fundamental points, (as D.To beleue the Bible is not to beleue di­stinctly al fundamen­tals. Potter saieth sec. 7. p. 74. are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly beleued by euerie Christian, that wil be saued. And p. 75. Fundamenial properly, is that, which Christians are obliged to beleue by an expres and actual faith, And theL. Cant. p. 28. same doth Chillingworth saie p. 41. 193. 227. 209. and other, also who make the beleif of Fundamentals ne­cessarie,Chillingw c. 6. p. 336. Vsher Serm. befor K. Ia­mes. Necessitate Medij. But who doe only in general beleue al the Bi­ble, do not distinctly and expresly beleue al the fundamentals. And thus we haue shewed, how vncertaine Pro­testants are, both, what Not fundamen­tal points be, to wit, whether they be points of faith, or but opinions: and whether errors in them sufficiētly [Page 142] proposed, be damnable, or no: and whether they be a iust cause of separa­tionThe mani­fold vncer­tainties of Protestants about not fundamen­tals. from a Church, or no: and also, how vncertaine they are, whether they know which points be Funda­mental, which not fundamental: and whether the truths, against which the Roman Church is pretended to err, be fundamental truths, or no, and her errors, fundamental, or no: And like­wise whether the errors of the Luthe­rans be fundamental, or not funda­mental: Now let vs see, how vncer­taine also they are, whether a true Church, remaining a true Church, may err in fundamental points, or no.

That Protestants are vncertaine, vvhether a true Church can err in fundamental points, or no. SEAVENTH CHAPTER.

1. THAT Protestants are vncer­taine, whether a true Church of Christ, can err in fundamental points, and yet remaine a true Church, or no, is euident. For sometimes they plainly affirme it, other times, as plainly denie it.

4. They affirme it: For thus Whi­takerThe Church maie err in some foun­dations. cuntrouer. 2. qu. 5. c. 17. Out of which we gather, that the Church maie for a time err euen, in some foundations, and yet be safe. qu. 4. c. 3. It is euident, that the true Church maie err for a time, euen in things necessarie. Beza l. de Notis Ecclesiae p. 45. Some errors, euen In funda­mental heads. in some fundamental heads of faith, maie crecp into the Catholik Church. Perkins in Explicat. Symboli colum. 790. [Page 144] whiles, ether directly or diametrally, May dia­metrally op­pose the foundation or by necessitie of consequence, an error opposeth the foundation, if the error be of infirmitie, the Errant is to be reputed a Couel art. 11. member of the vniuersal Church. And in Galat. c. 1. v. 2. If anie err of frailtie, though the error be about the foundation, neuertheles the Church remaineth: as is euident by the example of the Galathians. In Epist. Iudae v. 19. The Church of Ga­latia, by infirmitie was turned to an other Ghospel, and erred fundamentally, yet May be tur­ned to an other Ghos­pel. Paul wrote to her, as to a Church of God. And Tractat de Baptis. colum. 819. The Apostle called the Galathians, the children of God, euen when they erred in the foundation, and had turned to an o­ther Ghospel, saying; All ye are the sonns of God. Hence it is, that not euerie enor­mious sin, or euerie error against the foundation, doth obscure, and much les extinguish, grace, and regeneration, which maketh sonns of God. Sadeel Respons. ad Theses Posnan. c. 12. The Galathians, and Corinthians (whoMaie denie the Resurre­ction. denied the Resurrection) though de­praued with error, and dissenting about a [Page 145] principal foundation of faith, nor about the manner, but about the thing itselfe: neuertheles retained the name of a true Church. And the same of the Gala­thians and Corinthians, commonly teach Protestants, as confessio Heluet. c. 17. Luther in 1. Gal. fol. 215. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. paragr. 14. and 27. Beza 2. parte Respons. ad acta Colloq. Montis: p. 253. pareus in Gal. 1. lect. 7. Riuet. tractatu 1. sec. 39. Feild of the Church l. 1. c. 8.

3. Lord Canterburie sec. 21. p. 141.The whole Church maie err in the founda­tion. If she (the whole militant Church of Christ) err in the foundation, that is, in some one or more fundamental points of faith, then she maie be a Church of Christ stil. Sec. 33. p. 233. A Church maie err, and dangerously too. Sec. 37. p. 320. A Church maie hold the fundamental point literaly, and yet err grosly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. And sec. 9. p. 24. The Greek error of denying the procession of the holie Ghost, is a gre­uious error in diuinitie. And sec. 24. p. 154. what article of faith, doth more con­cerne Christians in general, then that [Page 146] of [Filioque.] And neuertheles he saieth p. 22. 24. The Greeks, are a true Church: Likewise he affirmeth, that the Roman Church hath fundamen­tal errors, as we shewed in the former chapter n. 5. and notwithstanding writeth. Sec. 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church is a true Church, and truth can­not denie it: A true Church in essence. Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a member of the Catholik Church. And p. 282. 285. Saluation maie be had in her. P. 285. 314. 316.Ignorāts in the Roman Church, are safe. Ignorant soules in her, are safe, yea safest.

4. D. Potter sec. 5. p. 21. The faith of the Church cannot be totally corrupted Faith of the Churc. maie be partly corrupted in the essentials. in the essentials of it, or abolished, yet maie it be fowly infected. Which insi­nuateth, that it can be partly corrup­ted in the essentials, and fowly infe­cted in some of them. And p. 20. The Church maie err, and dangerously too. And (as we shewed in former Chap­ter n. 5.) he affirmeth, that the Ro­man Church erreth in the foundation; and neuertheles saieth sec. 1. p. 11. we yeeld her a member of the Catholik [Page 147] 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 RomanA 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. [Page 148] 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 otherSic 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 inProtestants accōmodate their doctrin to times. Hospin. parte 2. fol. 90. and others confes, they accommodate their doc­trins to times, and occasions.

5. But at other times, they teach,The Church cannot err in anie fun­damental point. that a true Church, remaining a true Church, can not err in anie fundamen­tal [Page 149] point. Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. If anie fundamental point be taken awaie, the Church presently falleth. And c. 18. If anie fundamental principle of faith be ouerthrown or shaken, it can be no more truly called a Church. Ibid. Arti­cles are called fundamental, becaus our faith relieth vpon them, as a house doth vpon the foundation. The same saie manie other Protestants, as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protest. c. 1. nu. 5. to whom I wil ad some later wri­ters. Lord Canterburie sec. 37. p. 319. If it denie this foundation, it cannot re­maine a differing Church, sed transit in non Ecclesiam, but passes awaie into no Church: The like he saieth sec. 2. p. 162. and sec. 33. p. 240. of the whole Church.

6. Doctor Potter sec. 5. p. 17. The whole militant Church can not possibly err in anie necessarie point of faith. p. 18. A true Church is al one, with a Church not erring in the foundation. Sec. 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrins, we meane such Catholik doctrins, as principally and essentially Fundamētal is Essential perteine to the faith, such as pro­perly cōstitute [Page 150] a Church. And no Church can be without that, which essentially perteineth to faith, and doth consti­tute a Church. And sec. 5. p. 16. and 21 and sec. 6 p. 66. maketh fundamen­tal and essential, al one.

7 Likewise Chillingworth c. 3. p.Not funda­mental, not essential. 140. saieth: Not fundamental, id est, No essential parts of Christianitie. c. 2. p. 105. To saie, that the Church, whiles it is Cōtradictiō to saie, the true Church can err in fundamentals. the true Church, maie err in fundamen­tals, implies contradiction, and is alone to saie; The Church, whiles it is the Church, maie not be the Church. c. 3. p. 131. If they (Protestants) differ in points fundamental, they are not members of the same Church, one with an other. Ibid. p. 177. That the true Church alwaies shal be the mainteiner and teacher of al neces­sarie truth, yee know we graunt, and must graunt. For it is of the essence of the Essence of the Church to main­taine fun­damentals. Church to be so. And anie companie of men were no more a Church without it, then anie thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. Item p. 162. To the verie being of a Church, it is repugnant, that it should err in fundamentals. For if it [Page 151] 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.

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 [Page 154] points of faith: that opposition against them, is no heresie: and for which, there should be no separation in com­munion: that denial of them, de­stroieth nether sauing faith, Church, nor saluation; Al which (God willing) we shal refute hereafter. But first we wil shew, that there are true points of faith besids those, which are principal or capital; For this is the ground of 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 notMatters 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 [Page 155] 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 ScriptureIn 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 paineDifference betwene matters to be done and to be beleued. of damnation. I answer, that litle matters are not commanded to be [Page 156] done vnder paine of los of Gods freindship, or of saluation, becaus smal matters of their nature do not break freindship. For he were an vn­reasonable freind, who for trifles would break freindship, and the end of the law is charitie: but al litle mat­ters testified by God, and sufficiently proposed to vs, oblidge vs to beleue them, becaus in not beleuing them,differēce bet­wixt Faith and charitie touching smal mat­ters. we account God not worthie to be be­leued in such matters, which is to de­nie his veracitie, and consequently his deitie: For who in things equally testifyed by God, and equally propo­sedSee 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 [Page 157] to charitie, but only to perfection of charitie. But we cannot keep faith with God, if we beleue not smal mat­ters, testified by him, and sufficiently proposed to vs, becaꝰ not beleif of thē, is opposit to Gods veracitie, which is the formal obiect of diuine faith, and implicitly saieth: God is not worthie of beleef in such matters. For where is the lest vntruth, there is not diuine or prime veracitie: so his veracitie is denied by the lest vntruth, but not his charitie by the lest sin. Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalips, threatned to put him out of the book of life, who putteth out one word of that prophesie: but no where threat­neth the like, to whosoeuer shal not keep the lest thing he commandeth.

5. Holie Fathers also testifie, that al things reuealed by God, and suffi­ciently proposed to vs, are matters of faith, in that (as we shal see he­reafter c. 2.) they account obstinat error in al such matters, to be formal heresie, and al such obstinat errants, formal heretiks: And as Saint Basil [Page 158] 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 [Page 159] 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 forOf 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. [Page 160] 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, 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 [Page 161] only a matter of faith, but also is soHow al re­uealed tru­thes are fū ­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 [Page 162] of faith, when they can be conuinced to come from God, as al reuealed truths sufficiently proposed, can. AndManiepoints of faith be­sids funda­mentals. ibid. p. 11. diuers times admitteth, not fundamētal 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,Fundamētal 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 er­rorsNot 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 [Page 163] 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, whichSee 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 fundamētals. So there be manie things [Page 164] 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 fun­damentalsL. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith, matters of opinion, in which modest [Page 165] 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 cāscarce be proued by anie thing more euident. For what doe Christiās conceaue by the name of heresie, but sinful opposition to some point of [Page 166] 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 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 [Page 167] of that tradition which we haue recea­ued, and parte of that, which S. Paul preached. Therfore sinful opposition to them, is true heresie according to Scripture,

3. Secondly, I proue it out of the descriptions of heresie, and heretiks,An heresie described by the Fathers. giuen by the holie Fathers, of whom, no one describeth heresie or heretitks, by opposition to only principal or ca­pital points of faith, but by only oppo­sition to Scripture, or doctrin of the Catholik Church. Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretik, who vn­derstands Contrarie to sense of Scripture. the Scripture otherwise, then the Holie Ghost would. Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Ciuitate c. 51. The diuel rai­sed vp heretiks, who vnder the name of Christians, should resist Christian doctrin. To Christiā doctrin. And addeth, who in the Church doe hold anie vnsound and naughtie thing perti­naciously, are heretiks. Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9. They are not heretiks, but becaus they vnderstand the Scripture wrongly. And lib. de haeresibus in fine. After he had reckoned diuers here­sies, wherof manie are not against [Page 168] anie principal point of faith, he thus pronounceth: whosoeuer holdeth anie one of thē, is no Catholik Christian: which is as much, as to saie, he is an heretik. And both he, and al antiquitie ac­countedAnd 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, butL. 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 [Page 169] faith, but absolutly, to faith, Saint Gregorie Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrarie to Christs doctrine. can be nothing more dangerous, then those heretiks, who with one word, as with a drop of poison, infect our Lords true and simple doctrin, and Apostolical tradition. But who err in Not funda­mental points of faith, doe so: For they are parte of Christs doctrin, and Apostolical Tradition. Herupon Cal­uin 4. Institut. c. 2. paragr. 5. saieth: Augustin putteth this difference betweene Heretiks, and Schismatiks, that they, by false doctrins, corrupt the sinceritie of faith, but thes, &c. And in 1. Corinth. c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresie, in Fathers put heresie in corruption of faith. dissention of doctrin. So clearely he con­fesseth, that the Fathers account anie corruption of Christs faith or doctrin,In dissētion of doctrin. to be heresie. And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as He­retiks, who erred in smal matters, hol­ding the foundation, as Vigilantius No­uatus, &c.

4. Protestants also define heresie, to be an obstinat error in anie point of faith. Wittenbergenses in Refuta­tione [Page 170] 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 puniendisSee VVitak. cont. 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly he­retiks, who pretending great pietie, yet doe not yeeld to the admonition of the In not yeel­ding to the Church. Church: and by false doctrin, doe break the peace and confession of the Church. And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an here­tik by Scri­pture. Romans doth not name heretiks, but plainly defineth thē: For when he had ad­monished the brethren, that they should note thos who make dissentions and scan­dales, he addeth, against that doctrin which you haue learnt: wherfore where thes two meet, there is heresie according to the Apostles definition, then the which we ought not to seek anie better. Fulk in his Reionder to Bristow p. 82. The [Page 171] 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. [Page 172] That is an heretical Church, which obsti­natly holdeth errors in doctrin. Chil­ling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresie is nothing, In oppositiō to faith. but a manifest deuiation from, and an op­position to the faith. The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer, ether wilfully opposes anie Ca­tholik In oppositiō to the Ca­tholik visi­ble Church. veritie mainteined by this Church, (of Saints) or the Catholik visible Church, as do heretiks &c. sec. 4. p. 95. He is iustly estemed an heretik, becaus he In not yeel­ding to Scri­pture. yeelds not to Scripture sufficiently pro­pounded to him. Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against euident Scripture sufficiently cleared vnto him, makes an heretik. Sec. 7. p. 110. where the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propoun­ded, there he, that opposeth, is conuinced of error, and he who is thus conuinced, is an heretik. And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seemes fundamental to the faith, and for In oppositiō to anie point of faith sufficiently conuinced. the saluation of euerie member of the Church, that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith, as whereof he maie be sufficiently conuinced, that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ. For he, that being sufficiently conuinced, doth oppose, [Page 173] is ostbinate an heretik, and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beauen. Feild l. 2. de Eccles. c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error, may be found among Heretiks. And l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they that obstinatly persist in error cōtrarie to the Churches faith. Behold, how ob­stinat opposition to the doctrin of the Scripture, of the word of God, of the Catholik visible Church, or of anie point of which maie be conuin­ced to belong to the doctrin of Christ, is true, proper, and damnable heresie. The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth al, whosoeuer shal affirme that the (39.) articles are in anie parte superstitious or erroneous. And yet I hope they wil not say, that euerie parte of their 39. articles is funda­mental in their sense. Wherfor they may be iustly excommunicated out of the Church, who affirme some not fundamental point, to be erroneous. And art. 33. who are excōmunicated, are cut from the vnitie of the Church. Wherfore, when Protestants wil haueSup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinat opposition to some prin­cipal [Page 274] or capital point of faith, to be true and proper heresie, they speak nether with Scripture, Fathers, nor with themselues. Nether haue they anie authoritie of Scripture, Father,Al sin a­gainst faith is ether he­resie, or infi­delitie. or other reason to limit heresie to ob­stinat opposition of fundamental points, but onely, least they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretiks, whom they cannot denie, but err in some points of faith suffi­ciently proposed, or which, (if it were not their fault) would be so pro­posed to them, and consequently, err obstinatly and sinfully. And if we ask them, what sin they call, sin­ful error in anie point of faith, if not Heresie, they can not tel. But now hauing seen, that euerie sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, or which would be so pro­posed, if it were not the errants fault, is true heresie: Let vs see, that eueric such error is damnable, becaus some­times Protestants wil confes that al such error is heresie, but denie, that al heresie is damnable: as is euident [Page 175] by what we haue rehearsed of their doctrin in the second Chapter l. 1. n. 2. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 278. put­teth fundamental heresles, and others, Some hera­sies though not funda­mental. which (saieth he) doe not plainly destroie saluation, nor of themselues damne no man.

That sinful denial of anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, is damnable. THIRD CHAPTER.

1. THat al sinful opposition or de­nialVVhitak. cont. 2. q 4. c 2. non om­nes errores, circa fidem sunt latha­les, sicut noc omnes mor­bi. of anie point of faith suffi­ciently proposed, or which would be so proposed, if it were not the oppo­sers fault, is damnable, followeth out of that we haue proued, that al such opposition, is true heresie. For that al true heresie, is damnable, is euident out of holie Scripture, Fa­thers, Reason, and Confession of Protestants. For the Apostle Galat. [Page 176] 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or he­resies,Heresie numbred by the Apostle Among dam nable sinns. among those sinns, of which he saieth: who doe such things, shal not obteine the Kingdom of God. And ma­keth no more distinction of heresie, then he doth of the other sinns. And Galat. 1. V. 8. saieth generally: If anie Euangelize, beside that, which ye haue receaued, be he accursed. And Tit. 3. v. 10. Auoid a man, that is an heretik, after the first and second admonition, knowing that he, who is such a one, is subuerted, and sinneth, being condemned by his Heretiks condemned by their own iudg­ment. owne iudgment. But what hindereth to obteine the Kingdom of God, what deserueth a Curese, and condemneth a man in his owne iudgment, is doubt­les damnable. Our Sauiour also Ioan. 10. calleth heretiks Theeues and Rob­bers. And Apocal. vltim. v. 19. it is saied. Ifanie shal diminish of the words of this Book of this prophesie, God shal take awaie his parte out of the Book of life. And if it be damnable to diminish a word of Gods Book, much more damnable is it, to diminish some point of his faith or doctrin. The same also [Page 177] followeth out of thos places of Scrip­ture, which we shal cite hereafter,C. 9. n. 2. which commaund vs to flie the com­panie of heretiks.

2. Holie Fathers also teach the same. Tertullian de praescript. c. 2. Heresies are to destroie faith: and do Heresie brings dam­nation. bring euerlasting death. And c. 37. If they be heretiks, they can be no Christians. And surely it is damnable, to be noHeretiks no Christians. Christian. Saint Cyprian Epist. 73. Nether faith, nor Church, are common to vs with heretiks. And he addeth, that both by the testimonie of the Ghospel and Apostle, heretiks are called Anti-Christs. Are Anti-Christs. The like hesaieth Epist. 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de vnitate and Fir­milian Epist. 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon. c. 10. saieth to the Donatists. Ye haue no Christian Church. l. 3. de Baptis. c. 19. Al heretiks and False Chri­stians. Schismatiks, are false Christians. L. 21. de Ciuitate c. 25. An heretik, is worse then an Infidel. And in Enchiridioc.VVorse then infidels. 5. Christ, in name only, is found with anie heretiks. Saint Gregorie Nazian. Orat. 21. Driue awaie heretiks, as the [Page 178] staine and destruction of the Church, and the poison of truth. And Saint Athanase in his Creed, whosoeuer wil be saued, before al things, he must hold the Catholik faith: which vnles he keep whole and in­uiolate, without doubt he shal perish euer­lastingly. But heretiks hold not the Catholik faith whole and inuiolate. Therfore &c. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. & 39. Hold most firmely, and doubt not at al, that not only Pagans, but also al Iewes, Heretiks, and Schismatiks, who Al that die heretiks, are damned. end this life out of the Catholik Church, shal goe into euerlasting fire prouided for the Deuil and his Angels. Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expresly saieth that the lesterror in matter or faith de­stroieth faith. That he (S. Paul) might shew that anie litle thing wrongly min­gled The lest mixture corrupteth faith. doth corrupt the whole, he said the Ghospel was ouerthrown. For as he who in the Kings coine doth clip but a litle of the stamp, maketh the whole of no value: so who destroieth the lest particle of sound faith, is wholy corrupted. Where then are they who condemn vs, becaus we contend with Heretiks, and say: there is no dif­ference [Page 179] betwixt vs and them, but that al our discord is for ambition to dominere. Let 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 [Page 180] 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 frō 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 [Page 181] 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. deCaluin Act. 24. Detesta­biles iubet haberi haere­ticos, Spiri­tus Dei. Bezadepun. haer. p. 21. non potest non esse gra­uissimū hae­reseos crimē. 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 [Page 182] 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. §. 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 saluatiō. 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 [Page 183] 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 recōmended, 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 Fundamētal 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, [Page 184] 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 toTo disbeleue what is suf­ficiētly 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, so that ether they do see it, and wil not, or were it not for their owne voluntarie and auoi­dable [Page 185] 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 fū ­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 [Page 186] Apostles, his Apostles, the Church. And p. 137. namely he saieth of a Not fun­damentalSee 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 conse­quētly 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 [Page 187] 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 sal­uatiō, 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 fundamētal, 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 thePoints to be noted. Protestants, I would haue the Reader to mark wel thes points. First, that al1. [Page 188] errors, fundamental or Not funda­mental, are alike damnable, if the contrarie truth be alike proposed. Secondly, that a Not fundamental2. point sufficiently proposed, is so fun­damental to faith and saluation, as to contradict it, is infidelitie, and to giue3. 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 to4. 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 cōtrouersie about fundamental, and not fundamentalProtestants 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, [Page 189] 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 be­foreC. 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 [Page 191] 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 Catholik, is opposit to Heretiks. Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 7. Ether we must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants, or we must denie thē the name of Christians. And surely, who are no Christians, but Anti-Christs, diuels, infidels, and Apostataes, and opposit to Catholiks, haue not sauing faith. And though Estius in primā Ioan. 4. and 3. distinst. 23. paragr. 13. think, that, what truth heretiks beleue, they beleue it withThe questiō is of sauing faith. diuine faith, yet he denieth, that their faith is Catholik, or simply faith, be­caus [Page 192] it is not entire faith: nor euer said, that it is a sauing faith, as Protestants saie, and is the main question bet­weene vs and them.

2. Secondly, I proue it out ofHeretiks make ship­wrack of faith. Scripture. 1. Timoth. 1. v. 20. where certaine heretiks are saied, to haue made Shipwrack of faith. And c. 4. v. 1. In the latter daies, some shal depart from faith harkning to spirits of error, and doc­trins of Diuels. And Epist. 2. c. 2. v. 18. he saieth of other heretiks: They haue fallen from truth, and ouerturned the faith of some. But who haue made Shipwrack of faith, haue departed from faith, haue fallen from truth, and whos faith is ouerturned, haue not sauing faith.

3. Thirdly, I proue that sinful error against anie point of faith suffi­cientlyFormal ob­iect of faith, is diuine re­uelatiō sufficiētly pro­posed. proposed, destroieth true sa­uing faith, becaus it destroieth the true formal obiect of diuine faith. For the formal obiect of diuine faith, is whole diuine truth reuealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to vs,See S. Tho­mas 2. 2. q. 1. that it is from God. But voluntarie [Page 193] error against diuine truth reuealed, and sufficiently proposed, taketh awaie this formal obiect. Therfore it taketh awaie diuine faith. For what taketh awaie the formal obiect of anie habit or power, taketh awaie the habit itself. The Minor is euident. The Maior also is cleare. For what other can be saied to be the formal obiect of faith? And it is confessed by Protes­tants. For thus Lord Canterburie sec.See Vsher Serm. before K. Iames p. 39 Morton Appeal. l. 1. c. 1. see 1. 38. p. 344. we beleue them for the same formal reason in al, namely, be­caus they are reuealed, from, and by God, and sufficiētly applied in his word, and by the Churches ministration. And Doctor Potter sec. 5. p. 3. The formal obiect of faith, is diuine reuelation. The same he hath p. 8. and 10. And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. Faith is an assent to diuine re­uelation, vpon the authoritie of the re­uealer. And hereupon the same Chil­lingworth p. 23. saieth: He that doth not beleue al the vndoubted parts of the vn­doubted He that be­leueth not al Scripture, truly bele­ueth none. books of Scripture, can hardly beleue anie, nether haue we reason to be­leue, he doth so. And the same I say [Page 194] of vndoubted points of Christs doc­trin.

4. Fourthly I proue, that sinful er­ror against anie point of faith suffi­ciently proposed, destroieth true-sa­uing faith, becaus it destroieth the true vnitie therof. For true diuine faith, is wholy one, and the same in al true Beleuers. But who sinfully beleue not some points of faith sufficiently pro­posed, which others beleue, haue not wholy one and the same faith There­fore &c. The Minor is euident. The Maior I proue out of Scripture, Fa­thers, Reason, and Confession ofScripture saieth that faith is wholy one. Protestants. The Scripture Ephes. 4. saieth: One God, one Faith, one Baptisme. Where, not only faith is saied to be one, but also it is saied to be one, as God, and baptisme are, which are wholy one. And this same, proue alL. Cāt. p. 36. whatsoever is fundamē ­tal in the faith, is fū ­damental to the Church, which is one by the vni­tie of faith. thos places of Scripture, which teach, that the Church is one, which here­after we shal cite. For seeing the pro­fession of faith is part of the forme of the Church, she could not be wholy one, if her forme were not [Page 195] altogether one.

5. The Fathers also teach the sameLikwise Fathers. For thus-Saint Ireneus l. 1. c. 4. She, who is the vniuersal Church, hath one and the same faith in al the world. Saint Cy­prian l. de vnitate: God is one, and Christ is one, and his Church is one, and faith is one, vnitie cannot be deuided, nor one See s. Chry­stom in Gal. 1. to. 4. col. 812. Bodie separated by disunion of the ioints. Saint Hilarie l. 11. de Trinitate: Who doubteth, but it is beside faith, which is beside one faith? And lib. contra Con­stantium. What is beside one faith, is not faith, but persidiousnes. Saint OptatusVna sides ab haereticorū erroribus separatur. l. 5. If you giue an other faith, giue also an other God. Saint Leo serm 4 de Na­tiuitate: If it be not one, it is not faith. And thes Fathers saie simply ad abso­lutely, that faith is one, without anie restriction to fundamētal points. And it is both voluntarie, and Sophistical, to limit that to a parte, which is spo­ken absolutly, when the speaker giues no occasion of such limitation: Rea­son also cōuinceth, that faith is wholy one in euery true beleuer. For (as we saied before) the formal obiect of trueN. 3. [Page 196] faith, is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed: but this is wholy one and the same in al beleuers, and conse­quently also faith, which (as al other habits) taketh its vnitie and distinction from its formal obiect.

6. Protestants also sometimes con­fès,And Protes­tants also. that faith is wholy and entirely one, and vndeuided. Luther in caput 7. Math. Tom. 5. fol. 74. Faith must be round, that is, in al articles, beleuing Faith bele­ues little matters. howsoeuer litle matters. For who doth not rightly beleue one article, doth not rightly beleue in al: as Saint I ames saieth, who offendeth in one, is made guiltie of al. And in tria Symbola Tom. 7. fol. 141. Christian faith must be entire and perfect Entire eue­rie waye. euerie waie. For albeit it maie be weak and faint, yet must it needs be entire and true. In caput 7. Deutron. tom. 3. fol. 56. Faith suffereth nothing, and the word beareth with nothing: but the word must be perfectly pure, and the doctrin alwaies wholy Holsome. And tom. 1. German. Epist. ad Albertum: He doth not satif­fie, if in other things he confes Christ and his word. For who denieth Christ in one [Page 197] article or word, denieth him in al, seing there is one only Christ, the same in al his words. Wittenbergenses in Refutat. Orthodoxi Consensus p. 73. As he, who keepeth al the Law, but offendeth in one, is (witnes Saint I ames) guiltie of al: So who beleueth not one word of Christ, though he seeme to beleue the other arti­cles of the Creed, yet beleueth nothing, and is damned, as incredulous. Scussel­burg l. 1. Theolog. Caluin. art. 1. Most truly wrote Saint Chrysostom in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole 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 explicitè cre­denda, some things implicitè: which, whosoeuer wil be saued, must beleue them, atleast implicitè 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 [Page 198] iudgmēt 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 cōtra 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 [Page 199] 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 thē, being sufficiently proposed, haue no true sa­uing faith. The like he hath also p. 75.Al points sufficiently proposed are fundamētal 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 andSup 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 [Page 200] 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 beforeSup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num. 5. Besids they profès 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. Cōprehend the life and substance of Religion. Sec. 7. p. 74. which [Page 202] 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 substantialThe 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 [Page 203] 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 con­fessedC. 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 con­sisteth only in certaine principal arti­cles. And if the essence of faith consist [Page 204] 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 substāce of Rom. Re­ligion diffe­rent, from the substāce of Protes­tants. For the substance of the Roman Re­ligiō (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 substātia. 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 sufficiētly proposed, differ [Page 205] in some essential point of faith, becaus (as is now rehearsed out of Protestāts) 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 CanterburieThe 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 [Page 206] 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 diffe­rethProtest. 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 [Page 207] 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, thatChillingw. p. 273. 132. L. Cant. p. 192. they haue not left the Church of Rome, but only her corruptiōs. 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 someChange 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 [Page 208] the Church in parte only, and not simply, as saieth Lord Canterburie sec. 10. p.VVhat se­parates frō 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 [Page 209] Church of God, of whos essence it is, to profès 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, thatA true defi­nition solues al difficul­ties. out of a true definition, al difficulties maie be solued, which arise about the thing defined. For if Protestāts 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 Godswhat is true diuine faith reuealed word, sufficiently proposed, they would neuer denie, but al and [Page 210] 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; and that diuision in profession of such word of God, is a substantial diuision in faith. It wil also appeare, that al the errors of Protestants aboutErrors of Protestants about faith and Church, arise of not obseruing their true definitions. the essence or vnitie of sauing faith, or of the true Church of God, rise of their Not knowing, or rather of their not constant obseruing, the true defi­nitions of sauing saith, and of the true Church of God, which themselues sometimes giue. But being set bet­weene two opposites, to wit, true faith, and the Protestant faith; the true Church, and the ProtestantVVhat Pro­testants can not be con­stant in doctrin. Church, when they consider the na­ture of true sauing faith, and true Church, they agree with vs in defi­ning or describing them: But when they consider the nature of the Pro­testant faith, and Church, they are faine to saie that, which is clearely refuted out of their owne definitiōs of true sauing faith, and true Church. [Page 211] And so in effect recal their owne defi­nitions of a true Church, or of sauing faith, and therby quite alter the que­stion, and make the dispute of quite different things. For whiles they de­fend the Protestant faith or Church,Protestants in defeding their faith and Church, meane quite other things by Faith and Church. by the names of faith or Church, they meane quite other things, then Scrip­ture, Fathers, we, or themselues other whiles, doe. But it maie suffice to rea­sonable men, louers of trut, hand not wranglers about words, that if by faith, Protestants wil meane, as Scrip­ture, Fathers, we, and themselues sometimes, doe, they cannot saie, that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points, but in al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed: nor the vnitie of sauing faith, in vnitie of only some principal points, but in vnitie of beleuing al Gods words suf­ficiētly proposed, and that who differ in beleif of anie point of Gods word sufficiētly proposed, differ substātiallyProtestants equiuocate in the names of Faith and Church. in faith. And if by Faith, they wil meane some other thing, then Scrip­ture, Fathers, we, and themselues [Page 212] also sometimes, doe, they maie if they wil; for words are ad placitum; But it shal not be true sauing faith, (For that is that, wherof the Scripture, and Fathers meane) but a faith of their owne inuention, whos essence and vni­tie they maie put in what points they please. And thus hauing proued, that voluntarie or sinful denial of anie point of faith, or of Gods word re­uealed, and sufficiently proposed to vs, destroieth both the substance, and vnitie of true sauing faith: Now let vs shew, that it also destroieth the substance, and vnitie of Gods true Church.

That sinful error, or error in anie point of faith sufficiently pro­posed, destroieth the substance of a true Church. SIXT CHAPTER,

1. ALbeit it be euident, by what we haue proued before, that sinful error against anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroieth the substance of a true Church, becaus al such error is formal heresie, and de­stroieth Catholik faith: And a true Church cannot be with heresie, orL. Canterb. sec. 10. p. 36. what is sub­stantial in faith, is substantial to the Church. without Catholik faith: Yet wil we proue it more particularly, out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church, giuen by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants themselues, and lastly by reason.

2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. de­scribingDescription of the Church by Scripture. the true Church of Christ, saieth: They were perseuering in the doc­trin [Page 214] of the Apostles, and communication of breaking bread, and praiers, In which words is cōteined a description of the true Church, euen by confession of Protestants. For thus Whitaker Con­trou. 2. q. 5. c. 19. This place is surely no­table, and thes words do shew, by what Notes the Apostolik Church was known and shewed. The first note, was the doctrin of the Apostles. For the Apostles deliuered that doctrin, which they receaued from Christ, the Christians of thos times em­braced and perseuered in it, and it distin­guished that companie of men from other companies and societies. For they alone then were the true Church, who perseuered in doctrin. And Plessie l. de Eccles. c. 2. Thes words of Scripture, are nothing but a description of the true Church of Christ, instructed in the true faith of Christ by his word, and knit together in true loue by the Communion which is in him. But they who beleue only fundamental points, and sinfully denie Not fundamentalThe doctrin of the Apo­stles, inclu­deth al their doctrin. points of faith, de not absolutly per­seuer in the doctrin of the Apostles. For the doctrin of the Apostles, is their [Page 215] whole doctrin, and includeth as wel Not fundamental, as fundamental points of faith. Who therfore perseuer only in the fundamental points, and not in the vnfundamental, perseuer only in a parte of the Apostles doctrin, and in parte leaue it, and cōsequently are not the true Church. Besids, our Sauiour Ioan. 10. saieth: My sheep, heare my voice. But who heare his voice only in fundamental points, doe not absolutly heare his voice, but in parte only, and in parte heare it not. For Christs voice, is as wel in Not funda­mētal points of his doctrin, as in fūda­mental. Therfore such are not Christs. And Ioan. 8. If ye abide in my word, ye shal be my disciples indeed. But they abide not in his word, who forsake it in al points not fundamental. Moreo­uer, sinful errors in faith, are gates of hel. But gats of hel preuaile not a­gainst Christs true Church. Therfor not sinful errors in faith. Besids if the the Catholik Church, should sinfully err in anie point of faith, she should not be holie men, nor a holie societie. [Page 216] For she should be a societie in he­resie: and so that article of our Creed: I beleue the holic Catholik Church, should be false.

3. And in like manner, the holie Fathers define the true Church, as is euident by their exclusion of al he­retiks, and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to vnder­stand Description of the Church by Fathers. by the Church (which oftentimes they cal Catholik) the whole societie of Christian Churches, Orthodox, and sound in faith, vnited together in Com­munion: and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks, and heretiks, which sense (saieth he) we wil not reiect. But who sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or for their fault not so proposed, are not Ortho­dox nor sound in faith. Therfore if we wil vnderstand by the Church, what the Fathers did, we cannot saie, that such are of the Church. And this is confir­med, becaus the true Church, which we beleue, is Catholik, as is professed in the Apostles Creed: And Catholik, [Page 217] by the Fathers iudgment, erreth not in anie point of faith. For thus Saint August in l. imperfec. in Genesin c. 1.Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholik, becaus she is vniuersally perfect, and halteth in no­thing. And Epistle 48. Perhaps she is called Catholik, becaus she truly holdeth the whole, of which truth, some peeces are found in diuers heresies. The like hath Saint Cyril. Catechesi 18. S. Optatus l. 1. Patianus Epist. 1. Vincet. c. 3. But who denie anie point of faith suffi­ciently proposed, are not vniuersally perfect, nor truly hold the whole, but halt in something. Therfore they are not Catholiks, and consequently not of the true Church. Hooker l. 5. p. 324. Cyprian with the greatest part of African Bishops were of nothing more certainly persuaded, then that heretiks are, as rot­ten branches, cut of from the life and bodie of the true Church.

4. And in the same manner doeDescription of the Church, by Protestants. Protestants sometimes define the true Church. For thus Moulins l. 1. contra Peron c. 26. That is the true Church, which is vnited together in profession of [Page 218] true faith, and communion of Sacraments. This definition (saieth he) is receaued by Hiremias P. C. Resp. 1 ad VVirtenb. Qui se non totos veri­tati dedide­runt, nè in Christi qui­dem Ecclesia sunt. our Aduersaries. Whence it followeth, that the true Church is discerned by profession of true faith. And that he meaneth by true faith, entire true faith. I proue: First, becaus parte of true faith, is not absolutly true faith: but a parte there of. Secondly, becaus he saieth, Ca­tholiks admit this definition, which they neuer admit, vnles by true faith, be meant entire true faith. Thirdly,Entire true doctrin is the Note of the Church. becaus c. 28. he saieth. The whole en­tire doctrin of saluation, is the Note of the Church. Therfore when he defined the Church, by profession of true faith, he meant entire true faith. And in the saied c. 26. he saieth. The true Church Field l. 2. c. 2. Entire profession of the truth re­uealed by Christ dis­tinguisheth right bele­uers from heretiks. is opposed to heretiks and Schismatiks. And c. 25. The question (which is the true Church) is of the Orthodox Church, ioined in Communion, by what Notes she maie be discerned from heretiks, schisma­tiks, and idolaters. Whatsoeuer Church therfore is heretical, or not orthodox, is no true Church.

5. And generally al Protestants, [Page 319] put in their definitions of the trueThe Church professeth the pure, en­tire, an vn­corrupt word of God. Church, Pure, sincere, entire, and incor­rupt word of God. The confession of En­gland ar. 19. The visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation, in which the pure word of God is preached. The Swisers Confes­sion c. 17. In which is sincere preaching of Gods word. The French ConfessionCaluin 4. instit. c. 2 §. 3. vbi ad de­finitionem Ecclesiae vē ­tum est, hae­rent in suo luto. art 27. In which is consent in embracing pure Religion. Beza Epist. 24. and Sa­deel contra Turian. loco 1. In which the doctrin of the Ghospel is purely deliuered. And loco 30. When I defined the visible Church, consisting of al her parts, I saied, that puritie of doctrin, and true vse of Puritie of doctrin es­sētial to the Church. Sacraments, was essential to the Church. Vrsinus in Catechis. q. 2. In which the entire and vncorrupt doctrin of the Law Entire. and Gospel is embraced. Field l. 2. of the Church c. 2. Entire profession of thos supernatural verities which God hath re­uealed in Christ, is essential and giueth being to the Church. Fulk. Ioan. 14. not. 5. The true Church of Christ can neuer fal vnto heresie. It is an impudent slander to affirme, that we say, so. The Magdebur­gians Centur. 1. cap. 4. In which, the [Page 220] sincere doctrin of the Ghospel, is embraced. Iames Andrews li. contra Hosium p. 210. In which the incorrupt word of God vncorrupt. soundeth. Whitaker contro. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word, and lawful vse of the Sacraments, make the Church: so as where they are not, the Church is not. And c. 18. The Church is no other multi­tude, then which holdeth the pure prea­ching of the word. Ibid. It can not hold anie heretical doctrin, and yet be a Church. Spalatensis l 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu. 26. The forme of the Catholik Church, is the Forme of the Church, is entire pro­fession of Christs faith. entire profession of Christs faith. And c. 12. num. 132. To the true Church, two things only are required, to wit, entire faith in Christ, and peace and cōmunion with al that profès this faith. Caluin in Ioan. 10. v. 1. We must not communicate with anie other Societie, then that, which conspires in the pure faiih of the Ghospel. Besids, Protestants profès, puritie in doctrin, to be the essential Note of the Church, as Beza lib. de Notis Eccles. Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Mor­ton l. 2. Apolog. c. 41. Danaeus contr. 4. p. 741. Riuet tract. 1. sec. 45. Luther [Page 221] in caput 2. Isaiae: In which confessions of Protestants we are to Note, how, when they intend to define the true Church, they put, pure, sincere, entire, and vncorrupt doctrin in its definition, and saie, that such doctrin is the essen­tial Note of a true Church, and the forme therof. Also, how they denie anie companie to be a true Church, which hath not the pure word. But such as sinfully denie the not funda­mental points of Gods word suffi­ciently proposed, profès not his pure, sincere, entire, and vncorrupt word. Therfore they are not of the true Church.

6. To this, no other answer can beProtest. can not answer without cō ­fession that they equiuacate. giuen, but that, when Protestants de­fine the true Church, by the pure, sincere entire word of God, or saie that such is the essential Note, or forme of the Church, they meane only, pure, sin­cere, entire, or vncorrupt, in funda­mental points of Gods word, not in al Gods word sufficiently proposed. But this euasion in clearely refuted. First becaus this condemneth their [Page 222] definition of obscuritie or defect. Next becaus if they had only defined the Church to be a cōpanie, in which the word of God, or the faith of Christ, is professed, they could not haue ex­pounded it, of anie parte of Gods word, or of Christs faith: becaus the word of God, The faith of Christ, signifie his whole word, his whole faith, as the Church signifieth the wholeSee c. 2. nu. 5. l. 1. Church: And much les can they ex­pound this definition, of professionProtest. ex­pound pure by impure Entire by a parte. of anie parte of Gods word, or of Christs faith, seing they haue added to the word of God, or to the faith of Christ those most significant adiecti­ues, pure, sincere, entire, vncorrupt. ForVVhat is pure, hath no mixture, and what entire, is no part. what is the pure, sincere, vncorrupt, word of God, cannot be mixt with anie fal­sitie, or word of man. And what is the entire word of God, cannot be a parte only, but must needs be his whole word. Whosoeuer therfore sinfully, profés anie falsitie, or word of man, or not the whole reuealed word of God, are not the true Church. Se­condly, becaus (as we proued before)C. 2. 4. [Page 223] there are no fundamental points inField l. 2. de Ecclesia c. 3. freedom frō pertinatious error, is euer found in the true Church. Fulks ouer­throw of the answer to Char Pre­face p. 114. the Protestants sense, that is, such as are sufficient to be beleued, though other points of faith be sufficiently proposed: nor anie Not fundamental in their sense, that is, such as are not necessarie to be actually beleued, when they are sufficiently proposed, and virtually, though they be not proposed. But al points of faith what­soeuer, are fundamental or essentialAl points of faith essen­tial to a true Church. to a true Church, and are to be bele­ued, ether actually and explicitly, if they be sufficiently proposed, or (at the least) virtually and implicitly, if they be not sufficiently proposed. For (as is said before) the whole reuealed word (which conteineth as wel Not­fundamentals, as fundamentals) is the true obiect of faith. And no com­panie, but such as professeth al Christs doctrin, can be a true Church of Christ. And therfore none, who de­nie anie points of his doctrin suffi­ciently proposed, can be his true Church absolutly, but only his Church in parte, as in parte onely [Page 224] they profès his doctrin. And this D. Potter insinuateth, when sec. 7. p. 74. he saieth; That Not fundamentals doNot funda­mentals be­long to the essence of a Church. not primarily belong to the vnitie of faith, or to the essence of a Church, or to the saluation of a Christian. For if they doe anie waie truly belong (whetherSee Chil­ling. p. 209. 291. primarily, or secondarily) to the es­sence of a Church, a Church cannot be without them altogether, becaus nothing can be without that which any way belongs to its essence. And they maie be faied to belong secunda­rily, to the essence of a Church, be­causHow Not-fundamen­tals may be­long secun­darily a Church maie be without actual beleif of them, to wir, if they be not sufficiently proposed.

7. Reason also conuinceth, that what is simply and absolutly a trueAl points Christs doc­trin howsoe­uer must be professed at least vir­tually or implicitly. Church of Christ, must, (at least vir­tually and implicitly) profès al his doctrin. Becaus if it doe no waie pro­fés his whole doctrin, but only some parte of his doctrin, it is not simply and absolutly his Church, but in parte only his Church, and in parto not his Church; as in parte it professeth [Page 225] his doctrin, and in part reiecteth it. And they, nether virtually not impli­citly profès his whole doctrin, who sinfully reiect anie part of it, when it is sufficiently proposed to be his. Se­condly, becaus to reiect anie parte of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to be his doctrin, is to reiect Christs veracitie: for it is as much as to saie, he is not to be beleued in that, and is an act of infidelitie, as Protestants beforeC. 3. §. 5. 6. l. 2. confessed. And how can they be a true Church of Christ, who in anie point reiect Christ, veracitie, and commit an act of infidelitie. Besids, as Lord Canterburie saieth, sec. 10. p. 36. whatsoeuer is fundamental in the faith, is fundamental to the Church, which is one by the vnitie of faith. But Not funda­mental points sufficiently proposed, are fundamental to faith, as before D.C. 3. § 5. 6. l 2. Potter and Chilling worth confessed. Therfore &c.

8. And out of thes definitions of a true Church, which we haue brought out of holie Scripture, Fathers, Pro­testants, and reason, it appeareth: [Page 226] First, how vntrue it is, which Canter­burie, saieth sec. 16. p. 62. The Catholik Church, which wee beleue in our Creed, is Catholik Church in­cludeth not al Christiās. the societie of al Christians: or which Moulins saieth l. 1. cōtra Peron c. 2. The Scripture taketh the name of the Church sometimes, for the vniuersal companie of al those, who profès themselues Christians, and to beleue in Iesus Christ. Secondly, how, vntrue it is, which the same Lord Canterburie hath sec. 36. p. 314. No man can be saied simply to be out of the visible Chureh, that is baptized, and holds the foundation. Or sec. 20. p. 129. That Church, which receaues the Scrip­ture as a rule of faith, and both the Sa­craments, as seales of grace, can not but be a true Church in essence. Or which D. Potter saieth sec. 5. p. 18. A true Church, is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation. Or as Chilling worth saiethTertul. praescrip. c. 41. haeretici pacē passim cum omni­bus miscent. c. 5. p. 283. Protestants grant their com­munion to al, who hold with them, not al things, but things necessarie. Or, (which generally al Protestants saie:) That the Catholik Church, is the multitude of al Christians through the whole [Page 227] world, who agree in profession of the principal articles of Christian faith, howsoeuer they denie other points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, nor communicate together at al in Sa­craments or publik worship of God. For, beside that these things are saied without al apparent proof, ether of Scripture, Fathers, or reason, but me­rely to include themselues and such others as they please, within the bounds of the true Catholik Church, they are clearely conuinced out of the aforesaid definitions of the Church, taken out of Scripture, Fa­thers, Protestants, and reason. For nether do al Christians, or al that profès themselues Christians, perse­uer in the doctrin of the Apostles, but onely in a part of it: nor are they al Orthodox or sound in faith, or vnited in communion: nor do they al profès the pure, sincere, vncorrupt, and en­tire word of God: and therfore, ac­cording to the definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture, Fathers, Protestants, and reason, they are [Page 228] not al members of the true Church.

9. And with les apparence, can they be saied to be the CatholikC. 6. n. 3. l. 2. Church. For Catholik (as before I said out of Saint Augustin and other Fathers) halteth in nothing, and manie of thos Christians, who hold the principal articles, halt in manie other points of faith. And besids, al such Christians communicate not to­gether, and cōdemn one an other, as is euident in the Roman the Grecian, the Lutheran the Caluinist, and such other Churches: And communion, is as wel essential to the true Catholik Church,C. 13. S. Austin Epist 48. l. de vnit. c. 6 Collat. 3. diei c. 3. de Pa­storibꝰ c. 13. Field l. 3. de Eccles c. 43. as puritie in faith, as hereafter shal be proued. Nay Catholik rather signifieth communion, then puritie in faith. What monstrous Catholik Church then must that be, which consisteth of al thos Christians, who agree only in the principal points of Christian faith,A mon­struous Church of Protestants. but in al other points, how sufficiently soeuer proposed to them, disagree, and condemn one an others beleif, and communion? Is such a Chaos, or hydra, the Church instituted by [Page 229] Christ, the holie Church professed in our Creed, the Spouse of Christ, the howse and Kingdom of God? Cer­tainely a Church consisting of al Christians, or of al that profès them­selues Christians, or of al that hold the principal points of Christian doc­trin, but denie other points of his doctrin sufficiētly proposed to be his, and communicate not together in Sa­craments, but condemn one an other, was neuer gathered or instituted by Christ, neuer mentioned by the Fa­thers,Protestants equiuocate in the name of the Church. but is a mere Monster of a Church, merely feigned by some Protestāts, for to include themselues, and sinfully erring Christians, within the pale of the Church. But we care not, whom they include in a Church of their owne inuention or making. It sufficeth vs, that no such, can be in the true Church of Christs making and which the Scripture, Fathers, rea­son, and Protestants also (when they only consider the nature of the true Church) describe and propose vnto vs. And that sinfully to err in anie [Page 230] point of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed, destroieth the nature and substance of such a Church; which Protestants would neuer denie, if ne­cessitie of defending sinfully erring Churches, did not force them to it.Propertie of the vniuer­sal Church, not to err at al. It is the propertie of the vniuersal Church onely, promised to her by Christ, not to err at al, ether volun­tarily or involuntarily, ether vincibly or inuincibly, in anie thing which sheEssential, not to err vincibly, or sinfully. professeth as matter of faith: but it is essential, both to the vniuersal, and to euerie particular true Church, not to err sinfully, voluntarily, or vin­cibly, in anie matter of faith what­soeuer. So that, it implieth contradi­ction, to err in that manner, and yet to be a true Church substantially; And hauing thus proued that sinful er­ror in anie point of faith, or of Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed, de­stroieth the nature or substance of a true Church of Christ: Let vs also proue, that such error destroieth the true vnitie of a true Church.

That sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroieth the true vnitie of the Church of Christ. SEAVENTH CHAPTER.

1. THat sinful error in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroieth the true vnitie of Christs Church, followeth euidently out of what I haue before proued, that such error destroieth the substance of his true Church. For if it destroie the substance of the true Church, it must needs destroie her vnitie, which flo­weth from her substance, and depen­deth of it. But we wil proue it also in particular, out of Scripture, Fathers, reason, and confession also of Pro­testants.

2. Ar for holie Scripture, it not only absolutly saieth, that the Church is one, but also, that it is so one, as thos [Page 232] are, which are wholy one, and alto­getherCyprian. de vnit. Aug. tract. 6. in Ioan. Opta­tus l 1. & 2. vndeuided. Cantic. 6. v. 8. Christ saith: My doue, is one. Which place both Fathers teach; and Pro­testants confès, to be meant of theThe true Church is absolutly one. true Church. Ioan. 10. v. 16. Christ saieth of his Church: There shal be made one flock, and one shepheard. Rom.Perkins in symbal VVitak. Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9. 12. v. 5. we manie, are one bodie in Christ. But a doue, a flock, a bodie, are wholy one vndeuided at al. Therfore such is the true Church of Christ. Besids, the Scripture calleth the Church, theGalat. 3. v. 28. omnes vos vnum estis in Christo. Kingdom of God, and addeth Mat. 12. that euerie Kingdom deuided it self, shal perish. Wherfore seing the true Church cannot perish, it is not deui­ded in itself. But who are sinfully de­uided in points of faith, are not wholyNot deui­ded. one, but truly manie, and deuided in themselues. And Ioan. 11. Iesus should die, to gather into one the children of God that were dispersed. The like is Ioan. 17. and Actor 2.

3. The holie Fathers also teach, that the true Church is wholy one and vndeuided in points of faith. Saint [Page 233] Cyprian lib. de vnitate saieth: The Church, is people ioined together in solid One in solid vnitie. vnitie of a bodie, by the glue of concord, and addeth, vnitie cannot be cut, nor anie bodie separated by diuision of ioints. But solid vnitie of a bodie, and such, as cannot be cut or deuided, is perfect and entire vnitie.

4. Saint Augustin in Psal. 54. after he had recounted manie things, in which the Donatists were one with the Catholik Church, addeth: They The Church is wholy one. were there with me, but not wholy with me, in manie things with me, in few, not with me. But by thes few, in which they are not with me, the manie, in which they Not in par­te only. are with me, profit them not. Lo how he exacteth, that men must be wholy one with the Catholik Church, and professeth, that it profits them no­thing, to be with her in manie mat­ters, if they be not in al. And yet the Donatists (wherof he speaketh) wereDonatists were one in the creed and Sacra­ments. Sic etiā Opta­tus l. 3. & 5. with Catholiks in fundamētal points, as appeareth by thes his words Epist. 48. Yee are with vs in baptisme, in the Creed, in the rest of Gods Sacraments: in [Page 234] Spirit of vnitie, in bond of peace, finaly in the verie Catholik Church, ye are not with vs. And lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 8. and 13. saieth. That an heretik, is in parte ioined to the Church. And yet noL. 1. Cātho­licus non es foris estis In Catholica non estis l. 3. pars vestra, Catholica non est. heretik is truly in the Church. Saint Optatus also lib. 4. saieth of the same Donatists: Ye see, that we are not wholy separated one from the other. So that by the iudgment of the Fathers, it is not enough, to be in parte ioined to her. See S. Leo epist. 4. c. 2.

5. Hereupon the Fathers saie, TheThe Church is one. Church is one. So the Nicen Creed, Saint Cyprian Epist. 46. and 64. S.Praeter vnā altera non est. Optatus lib. 1. & 2. Saint Augustin de vnitate c. 2. lib. 1. contra Crescon c. 29. and others cōmonly. SometimesOne only. they saie: She is one only. So Saint Au­gustin lib. 3. contra Petilian. c. 5. and epistle 120. Saint Hilarie l. 7. de Tri­nitate.Not manie. Sometimes, she is not manie: So Optatus lib. 1. S. Augustin lib. de vnitate c. 16. and in collat. 3. diei c. 10. Sometimes, that she cannot be de­uided. Cannot be deuided. So Saint Cyprian epist. 47. and Saint Hierom in Psal. 51. And out of [Page 235] this whole and entire vnitie of the Church, Saint Cyprian epist. 76. in­ferreth: If the Church be with Nouatian it was not with Cornelius. And yet No­uatian was not deuided from Corne­lius in fundamētal 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 [Page 236] 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 [Page 237] the Church is a Societie in pro­fession of Christs whole doctrin. ButNone 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 ChurchC. 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 [Page 238] 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 veriewho inuin­cibly err in not funda­mētals 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 [Page 239] 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 profès the doctrin of Christ, but some parte, and no parte is the whole. And as they pro­fès 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 [Page 240] they, who reiect anie point of hisHeretiks 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, [Page 341] 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 profès 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, nor anie certaine mark to know them. But Catholiks, whoCatholiks know who are of their Church: and Protes­tants, not. measure not the vnitie of the Church, by fundamental points only, but by beleif of al points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, clearely see, who [Page 242] are of the true Church who are not, and with whom they maie communi­cate, with whom not.

10. Protestants also sometimesProtestants sometimes confes the vnitie of the Church in matters of faith, to be entire. The Church is one. confès, that the true Church is wholy one, and vndeuided in profession of faith. For first they saie simply and absolutly, that the Church is one: So the confession of Auspurg art. 7. The Apologie of the Church of England, and Protestants generally. Also, that it is one only: So confessio HelueticaOne onely. c. 17. Belgica art. 27. Perkins vpon the Creed art. de Eccles. Iames Res­pons. ad Peron p. 384. Beza de pun. haeret. p. 25. Sadeel praefat. ad artic. Abiurat. likewise, that the Church is not manie: Luther l. contra PapatumNot manie. tom. 7. p. 461. Christ knoweth not two kinds of vnlike Churches, but one only Church. Melancton in Hospin parte 2. hist. fol. 81. we spake sharply to them in this point, that we maruailed, with what conscience, they (Sacramentaries) could hold vs for Brethren, whom they thought to err in doctrin. And fol. 82. Luther spake grauely to them, saying: he [Page 243] much maruailed, how they could haue him for a brother, if they thought their doc­trin true. Caluin 4. instit. c. 1. paragr. 4. we cannot haue two or three Churches, but Christ must be deuided. See him Ioan. 10. v. 17. Musculus loco de Eccles. sec. 2. The true Church of Christ, is not ma­nifold, but one only. And Whitaker controuer. 2. q. 1. c. 10. taketh it so il, that we should saie, They put two Churches, as he saieth; It is a mere slaunder. And ibid. q. 3. c. 3. auoucheth: That it is impossible, the Church should consist of them, who profès cōtrarie faiths. Serauia de gradibus Ministrorum c. 2. The Church is one, which cannot be cut The Church can not be deuided. or deuided. Lord Canterburie sec. 35. p. 284. Tis true, There is but one true faith, and but one true Church. Ib p. 310. It is as necessarie to beleue one God our fa­ther, as one Church our Mother, P. 366. There is but one Baptisme, as welas but one Church. Sec. 23. p. 147. Christgaue his natural bodie to be rent and torne Elien. in Tortura p. 398. Ecclesia vnum cor­pus. vpon the Cros, that his mystical bodie might be one. Chillingworth in Answer to the preface p. 7. D. Potter tels him: [Page 244] His labour is lost, in prouing the vnitie of the Catholik Church, wherof there is no doubt or controuersie. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 22. No Protestant denies the Catholik Church to be one. Confessio Heluet. c. 17. The Church is not deuided or seuered in itself. But how can thos Churches be simply and absolutly saied to be one, only one, not manie, not two or three, not deuided, which are not one,Vnitie in some points, is but vni­tie, secundū quid, and is true mul­tiplicitie. are manie, are deuided in profession of points of faith sufficiently propo­sed? Doth not want of vnitie, or diui­sion in profession of such points, make want of vnitie, or substantial diuision in Churches? Why should Luther or Melancthon maruaile, that Sacra­mentaries would account them bre­thren, and yet condemn their doctrin, if men holding obstinatly false doc­trin, maie be brethren of the same Church?

11. Moreouer, sometimes theyDiuision in Religion, is a Note of a false Church confès, that diuision in faith or Reli­giō, is a certaine note of a false Church. Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu. 63. Negatiuely, this Note (of vnitie) [Page 245] hath ful force. For if this vnitie (in faith) be anie waie wanting, the true forme of a true Church wil be wanting. Alsted l. de Notis Eccles. c. 10. Dissention in Reli­gion, is a certaine Note of a false and Anti-Christian Church. Wesphalus in Caluin in consens. de re Sacramenta­ria p. 756. It is proper to heretiks, to disagree: to which Caluin: Be it so; what is that to vs? But where is want of vni­tie in not fundamental points of faith, there is want of vnitie in faith, and where there is dissention in Not fun­damental points, there is dissention in Religion. For Not fundamental points, are points of faith and Reli­gion, as is before proued. TherforeL. 2. c. 1. want of vnitie, or dissention in them, is a certaine signe of a false Church.

12. Furthermore, sometimes they teach absolutly (without making di­stinction of heresie in fundamental or Not fundamental points) that heresie is a departure from the Church, andAl heretiks are out of the Church. that heretiks are out of the Church. Apologie of the Church of England [Page 246] parte 1. Heresie is a departure from the Bodie and Spirit of Christ. Whitaker controu. 2. qu. 1. cap. 12. No heretiks, though secret, belong to the Church of God. Item. An heretik cannot be a member of the Church. Ibid. c. 4. That (Bellarmin) proueth, heretiks Apostataes, and Schis­matiks, not to be members of the true Church, maketh not against vs. For none of vs euer saied so. And q. 5. c. 18. It can­not hold an heretical opinion, and yet be a Church. And c. 6. It is false, that hereti­cal and schismatical Churches, are true Churches. Morton lib. 1. Apolog. c. 3. Heretiks are not truly, but in name only, of the Church: not indeed, but equiuocally. Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 26. The true Church is opposit to heretiks and Schismatiks. Sutcliff l. 1. de Eccles. c. 16. No societie of heretiks doth deserue the name of a Church. And yet (as we pro­ued before) al are heretiks, who ob­stinatlyC. 2. l. 2. denie anie point of Christs faith sufficiently proposed. Therfore voluntarie breach, in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroieth the vnitie of the true Church.

13. King Iames also Respons. adThe Church wil suffer no light cor­ruption in faith. Peron p. 388. Durstone, but lightly cor­rupt the faith approued through the world? It was easie for a Child to discouer the new Master by his Noueltie. And the Theef of truth being found, al the pastors of the whole world, if need were, were moued, and being moued, did not rest, til they had remoued the il, and prouided for the securitie of the sheep of Christ. Lo, how the Church would not sufferPuritie of doctrin, su­preme law in the Church. anie, who, euen but lightly, corrupted Christs faith. And ibid. p. 385. He knowes, that the supreame law in the howse of God, is puritie of heauenly doctrin. And if this be the supreme law in Gods howse, none that teacheth impure doctrin, is to be suffered in Gods howse.

14. And out of that which we haue proued here, and before, appearethSee c. 2. l. 1. how fals the comparison is, which Protestants cōmonly make betweeneIntegritie 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 [Page 248] 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 therforeC. 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 suf­ficiēntly 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 profès anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed, is implicitly to beleue or profès his veracitie therin: so not be­leue anie point of his doctrin for his authoritie sufficiently proposed, is im­plicitly to denie his veracitie therin. [Page 250] 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, asSup. 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 doctrinā re­ijciēdo Chri­stum ipsum repudiant. p. 105. haeretici Christi no­men nō pro­fitentur. Turks, and Infidels, who profès not to beleue in Christ. Secondly, impli­citly and indirectly, and so it is denied by al heretiks, who though they ex­plicitly and directly profès Christs veracitie, yet in not beleuing al which he taught, though it be sufficiently [Page 251] 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 pointsChillingw. 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 [Page 252] 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 [Page 253] 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. [Page 254] 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 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 profès 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 [Page 255] 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) [Page 256] 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 profès Christ in name only, and in effect denie his ve­racitie.

6. And this truth is so manifest, as Protestants sometimes confès it. For thus Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 74. It is true, whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scrip­ture, VVhat is sufficiently proposed is fundamētal 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, [Page 257] 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, [Page 258] 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 ignorāce, 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 [Page 259] 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 [Page 260] 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 con­fès himself to err in anie point of faith, yet they confés (as we haue seene [Page 252] 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 communion with a Church sin­fully erring in points of faith, is damnable.

2. And first, I proue it out of Scrip­ture. S. Paul Tit. 3. v. 10. An heretik, after the first and second admonition, Heretiks to be auoided. auoid. 2. Thessal 3. v. 6. we denounce vnto ye, brethren, in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, that ye withdraw VVho walk not accor­ding to tra­dition. yourselues from euerie brother walking inordinatly, and not according to the tra­dition which they haue receaued from vs. Rom. 16. v. 17. I desire ye brethren, to VVho make dissentiōs in doctrin. mark them, that make dissentions and [Page 263] scandals contrarie to the doctrin, which ye haue learned, and auoid them. Saint Iohn Epist. 2. v. 10. If anie man come to ye, and bring not this doctrin, receaue him not into the howse, nor saie, God saue you, vnto him. For he that saieth, God saue you, communicateh with his wicked works. And Christ himself Ioan. 10. v. 5. saieth, That his sheep follow not a Stranger, but flie from him: And v. 8.Christs sheep flie from strangers. that the sheep heare not theeues and rob­bers. And Math. 7. v. 15. Take great heed of fals Prophets. And whom we are to flie, to auoid, and not to salute, we are not to communicate withal. And Numbers 16. v. 24. God said to Moises. Commaund al the people to depart from the Tabernacles of Core, Dathan, and Schismatiks to be forsa­ken. Abiron. v. 26. And Moises saied to the people, depart from the Tabernacles of wicked men, and touch not the things which belong to them, least ye be iuuolued in their sinns, Thus God forbad com­munion with Schismatiks, and the same reason is of heretiks. For thes deuide the profession of the Church of God, as thos deuide her cōmunion.

3. The Fathers also teach the same. For thus Saint Ireneus lib. 3. c. 4. Al the rest (besids the Church) are theeues and robbers, for which we ought to auoid them. And c. 3. after he had told how Saint Iohn ran out of the roome, where an heretik was, and Saint Policarp would not salute an heretik, he addeth. So great feare had S. Iohn and his disciples, would not speak with heretiks. the Apostles and their disciples, not to communicate, so much as in word, with anie of them, who had corrupted the truth. Tertull. l. praescrip. c. 12. we are forbiden to goe to heretiks. And c. 7. what haue heretiks and Christiās to doe togea­ther? And c. 41. Noted it as a propertie of heretiks, that they communicate with al. S. Cyprian Epist. 40. Goe far from the contagion of thes kinde of men, and by flying, auoid their speeches, as a canker and plague. And epist. 55. Let there be no commerce with such, and let vs be as much separated from them, as they are from the Church. S. Hilarie l. de Syno­dis. Ye illoue wals, ye il reuerence the Church in howses and buildings, ye il in­culcate the name of peace vnder thes. [Page 265] Mountaines, and forests, and lakes, and prisons, and gulfes, are safer for me. And lib. contra Auxentium. The name of peace is specious, and the opinion of vni­tie is faire, but who doubteth, but the Vnitie in Church and Gospel only, is vnitie in Christ. only vnitie of the Church and Gospel, is that peace, which is Christs. Saint Au­gustin lib. 7. de Baptismo c. 45. Iohn saied, that to men of strange doctrin, we L de vnit. c. 4. Quicun (que) de ipso capi­te scripturis consentiuns & vnitati Ecclesiae non cōmunicant non sunt in Ecclesiae. should not saie: God saue ye. And lib. 2. contra Crescon c. 2. Ye are heretiks, and therfore most warily to be auoided. And lib. de vera Religione c. 5. con­demneth Philosophers, becaus teaching different things of God, yet they frequen­ted the same Sacrifices: and addeth. So it is beleued and taught, that it is the Principal point of sal­uation, not to cōmuni­cate with heretiks. principal point of mans saluation, that there is no other Philosophie, that is, studie of wisdome, when they, whos doc­trin we approue not, communicate not in Sacraments with vs. S. Hierom. in 2. Thessal. 3. plainely by the authoritie of this place, we must withdraw ourselues from euerie Christian, who walketh not according to the precepts of the Apostle, S. Cyrillus Catech. 18. And in one Catholik [Page 266] Church: that thou maist flie the filthie Conuenticles of them (heretiks) and perseuer in the Church. And the Catho­liks being beaten of Arians, cried (asCatholiks cōmunicate not with heretiks. reporteth saint Athanase Epist. ad Solitarios) Beate, as ye please, we com­municate not with heretiks.

4. Reason also sheweth, that we maie not communicate with heretiks or anie false Church. Becaus commu­nion in Sacraments and Liturgie withComunion with a Church, is real appro­bation of her. a Church, is a real profession, that she is true: And to profès, that a false Church is a true Church of God, is damnable. For it is to profès, that a false Church is a Spouse, and Mi­stical Bodie of Christ, hath the keyes of heauen, and that in a false Church, there maie be saluation. Nay, it is by consequence, a denial of the true Church. For there being but one true Church, if the false Church be true, the true Church is false. Besids it is a real forsaking of the true Church, who euer thrust them out of her communion, who communicated with heretiks. And as one cannot [Page 267] serue two opposit masters, be of two opposit common wealths, so can he not be of tow opposit Churches. Moreouer cōmunion in Sacraments is an essential part of the Church, as profession of faith, is, Who therfore ioine with heretiks in communion of Sacraments, ioine with them in an essential part of their Church. Chari­tie we must haue with al, but com­munion, with Catholiks onely.

5. Protestants also confés theProtestants command separation from fals Churches. same. For thus the French Confes­sion art, 18. we think, al that communi­cate with Papists, to separate themselues from the bodie of Christ. The Scotts Confession art. 16. It is necessarie, that the true Church be discerned from filthie Synagogs, by cleare and perfect Notes, least being deceaued to our damnation, we take the false for the true. The Holan­ders Confession art. 28. It is the dutie of al faithful, according to the word of God, to separate themselues from al them, that are out of the Church. Whitaker in Praefat. controu. If we be heretiks, it is reason, that they warne al theirs, to flie [Page 268] vs. And controu. 2. q. 5. c. 1. we must flie and forsake the Churches of Anti-Christ, and of heretiks. Spalatensis l. 7. de Repub. c. 10. n. 82, There is no doubt but that heretiks are to be auoided and separated. Luther also and Melancthon (as before we related) wondered, why the Sacramentaries would account them brethren, and yet denie their doctrin. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in doctrin in themselues may induce an obligation to forsake your communion. 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 [Page 269] hath diuers treatises in his OpusculesSee 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 ifSee c. 2. n. 1. l. 1 and Cal­uin cont­versipel. p. 357. they meane (as doubtles they doe) of sinful errors, or of errors in mat­ters of faith sufficiently proposed. For euerie such Church, is a false Church, and beside the authorities of Scripture, Fathers, and confessions of Protestāts before rehearsed, the verie remaining in her, is a real profession, that shee is a true Church, and that saluation maie be had in her. Which to profés of a false Church, is damnable. And hence also appeareth, that it isC. 2. nu. 10. l. 1. damnable for anie Protestant, to communicate with anie Protestant [Page 270] Church, becaus they confés, that al their Churches err in some points of faith: And they must also confés, that they sinfully err in points suffi­ciently proposed to them, or els con­demn themselues, (especially if they be Ministers of the word) of damna­ble negligence of their dutie, towards God, and their Churches, in not she­wing sufficiently to their Churches their errors. At least their Churches might be sufficiētly informed of their errors, if they would: which is al one, as if they were sufficiently informed.None can to liue in a Church, and not cōmunicate with her. As themselues confessed c. 3. n. 6.

7. Hence also is refuted, what Lord Canterburie saieth sec. 35. p. 296. It is one thing to liue in a Schismatical Church, and not communicate with it in the Schisme, or in anie false worship, that attends it. For so Elias liued among the ten Tribes, and was not Schismatical. For to liue in a Schismatical Church,To liue a­mong Schis­matical peo­ple, is not liue in a Schismati­cal Church. is to liue in a Schismatical commu­nion. And Elias liued not in a Schis­matical communion, but only liued among men, that were Schismatical. [Page 271] 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 giuingC. 3. n. 5. 6. him the lie, euen according to the confession of some Protestants. Now we wil shew, that this their distinction in their sēse, hath no ground in Scrip­ture, Fathers, Reason, or doctrin of Catholiks, as they pretend it hath.

That the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in the Protestants sense, hath no ground in Scripture, Fathers, reason, or doctrin of Catholiks. TENTH CHAPTER.

1. DOctor Potter sec. 7. p. 70. saieth: The distinction betweene doctrins fundamental and not funda­mental, hath ground in reason, and Scripture. True: but not in his sense: His reason is, becaus as in humane sciences, there be principles, and conclusions drawne out of them: So in Religion, there be degrees of truth. For some, of it self, is the obiect of faith, some, but by accident or secundarily. And it is the common doc­trin of Schoolmen and Casuists, that there is a certaine measure and quantitie of faith, without which none can be saued: but euerie thing reuealed, belongs not to [Page 273] 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 beVVho 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 [Page 274] proposed, or are in fault, that they are not sufficiently proposed to them, Let him shew therfore, how Papists or Lutherans, (whom he accountethNote this. true Churches) haue a virtual, gene­ral, or negatiue faith of the Sacra­mentaries truths, and doe not denie or contradict them; or els this his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points, wil so little help him to defend the saied Churches to be true Churches, as it wil rather con­demne them, and him also, for de­fending them: or let him shew, how anie, who denie or contradict some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, (as Papists and Lutherans denie and contradict the points of Caluinists faith, so sufficiently pro­posed to them, as Caluinists can pro­pose them) haue such a virtual, gene­ral, or negatiue faith, wherby they doe not denie, or contradict thos points: or let him confes, that whoso­uer denie or contradict anie point of faith sufficiētly proposed, haue not so much faith, as is sufficient to saluatiō.

His ground out of Scripture, is be­caus, saieth he, sec. 7. p. 76. The dogma­tical ground of the Church, are thos grand and capital doctrines, which make vp our faith in Christ, that is, that common faith Tit. 1. 4. which is alike pretious in al 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc. Hebr. 5. 12. cals the first principles of the Oracle of God: And 2. Tim. 1. 13. forme of sound words (Thes are his fundamentals) the materials, laied vpon this foundation, whether they be sound or vnsound, are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. super­structions, which are conclusions, ether in truth, or appearance. And thes, (if they be sound) are his not funda­mental points. I answer. First, that the grand and capital doctrins maie wel be the ground of the Church, and yetThe founda­tion maketh not vp the building. not make vp the common faith of Christians. For more is required to a building, then the ground or founda­tion. Secondly, they maie make vp al the common faith of Christians, which is absolutly necessarie to be be­leued actually of al, and yet not make vp al the faith, which absolutly is ne­cessarie [Page 276] so be beleued virtually and implicitly of al, and cōditionally also actually of al, if it be sufficiently pro­posed vnto them. So that thes places proue not his fundamentals, which are so sufficiēt to sauing faith, Church and saluation, as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly beleued, for to haue sauing faith, Church and saluation. And for his Not fundamentals, I saie, that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to proue them. First, becaus the place is verie obscure and hard to be vnder­stood,Superstru­ctions, are not Protes­tants not fundamen­tals. S. Aug. epist. 48. Quis nō impudētissi­me nititur aliquid in allegoria po­situm pro se interpreta­ri, nisi ha­beat mani­festa testi­monia quo­rum lumi­ne illustren­tur obscura. as Saint Augustin witnesseth l. de fide & operibus c. 15. and 16. quest. 1. ad Dulcitium, and Enarrat. in Psal. 80. And Morton tom. 2. Apolog. l. 5. cap. 44. saieth: It is metaphorical, and entangled with manie difficulties. And the place itself doth euidently shewit. And an obscure and difficult place can giue no sufficient ground of so maine a point, as this is: That there be some points of faith, which are not neces­sarie to saluation to be beleued virtually or implicitly, or also actually, if they be [Page 277] sufficienily proposed. Wil D. Potter ven­ture his owne, or other mens saluatiō, in so great a matter, vpon an obscure or difficult text? We with Saint Augu­stin lib. de vnitate demaund, aliquid No expres text, nor ne­cessarie con­sequence for Protestants not funda­mentals. manifestum, quod interprete non eget. And you giue vs a place for Not fun­damentals in your sense, which no interpretation can make cleare.

3. Moreouer, how can you think it certaine, that Saint Paul here by superstructions, meaneth anie doctrin at al, seing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68. and Enarrat. in Psal. 38. 80. and S. Gregorie l. 4. Dialog. c. 39. expound it only of works, nor you conuince the contrarie? Finally, admit, that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrins, how is it certaine, that he meaneth doctrins of faith? and not rather humane doctrins in­uented by men? becaus he calleth them our work, and points of faith are not our work. Admit also, that by superstructures, he meaneth some points of faith, how proueth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth, they are not [Page 278] necessarie to sauing faith, Church, or saluation, when they are sufficiently proposed, seing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal, nor saieth, that such superstructures are not necessa­rie, not yet calleth them superstru­ctures in respect of faith, or Church, but in respect of the foundation, as walls and roofe may be called super­structures in respect of the foundatiō, and yet are necessarie parts of the house. And so secondarie points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points, on which they relie as vpon their foun­dation, and yet be necessarie parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church.

4. So that this superstruction ofProtestants not funda­mentals want foun­dation. D. Potter wanteth sufficient founda­tion for his not foundamentals in his sense, and is a not fundamental foun­dation for diuers causes. First, becaus the place is obscure, and so vnfit to found anie infallible certaintie, espe­cially of this so weightie a point. Se­condly, becaus it is not certaine, that [Page 279] the Apostle by superstructions, mea­neth doctrines, and not only works. Thirdly, becaus though he called some doctrins, superstructions, it is not certaine, that he meant doctrins of faith; or if he meant doctrins of faith, that he called them superstructions in respect of sauing faith, Church or sal­uation, and not in respect only of other points of faith, on which they are built. And we denie not, but in respect of themselues, some points of faith maie be termed fundamental, other not fundamental. Fourthly, becaus though we graunt, that Saint Paul called some points of faith, su­perstructions in respect of the Church, or of saluation, how proueth D. Pot­ter, that he meant so, euen when they are sufficiently proposed? we denie not, but some points maie be termed superstructiōs in respect of sauing faith, Church or saluation, becaus they are not so absolutly necessarie to sauing faith, Church, or saluation, to be actually beleued, as some other points are. But this wil not proue, that [Page 280] they are not necessarie to sauing faith Church, and saluation, to be actually beleued, if they be sufficiently pro­posed, and necessarie virtually to be beleued, howfoeuer. 5. Admit, that he called them superstructions, euen whenSuperstru­ctions may be essential. they are sufficiently proposed, how proueth Do. Porter, that he meant, they were not then essential to sauing faith, Church, or saluation? Is no­thing, that is laied vpon the founda­tion, essential or necessarie to the building? And in this is the contro­uersie, whether, anie articles, which maie be termed superstructions, be es­sential to sauing faith, Church, or saluation, or no? we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foun­dation, and yet essential to the house. So on euerie hand falleth down Do­ctor Potters ground out of Scripture, for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense; which is, that to haue sauing faith, Church, and salua­tion,See 6. 2. they need not be beleued actual­ly, though they be proposed suffi­ciently, not at al, virtually. For if he [Page 281] only would, that some points of faithHow some points of faith may be called not fundamen­tal. are so not fundamētal to sauing faith, Church, or saluation, as they need not be actually beleued, vnles they be sufficiently proposed, and are not absolutly necessarie, as some others are, there would be no question. But this kinde of not fundamentals, wil not help him, to iustifie his Churches, erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or his commu­nion with such Churches.

5. Other Protestants would proue, thatPerkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches maie err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed, becaus the Galathiās were turned to an other Ghospel, and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection: and neuertheles Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God. But this argument, if it were good, would proue more then Pro­testants commonly do teach. For it would proue that true Churches maie err euen in fundamental points, which Protestants commonly denie. For doubtles, such were the aforesaied errors. Secondly, it is euident out of [Page 282] Saint Paul himself. 1. Cor. 15. vers. 12. That only some of the Corinthiās de­nied the Resurrection. For his words are. Some among ye saie, there is no Re­surrection of the dead. And the same, Protestants confés of the Galathians. For thus Sadeel Resp. ad Arthurum c. 5, There was a Church among the Ga­lathians, which is denominated of the better parte Whitaker controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 18. Some of the Galathians fel from pure faith, not al. And. c. 19. The Galathians, that failed, were no Church. Morton l. 2. Apologi c. 39. Not al the Corinthians or Galathians, but verie few were drowned in thos errors. And as Saint Augustin saieth l. de Anima c. 17. and els where often: The holie Scripture vseth signifie by a part, the whole, and by the whole, a part.

6. Doctor Potter sec. 7. cit. p. 79.Catholiks calling the Creed the foundation, is not for D. Potters pur­pos. 89. & seqq. citeth diuers Fathers and Catholikes calling the Creed the foundation. But this maketh not to his purpose, which is, that the Creed alone is essential to a true Church, and so sufficient to saluation, as no­thingSee c. 5. n. 2. l. 2. [Page 283] els need be virtually or impli­citly beleued, or also actually and ex­plicitly, if it be sufficiently proposed: and in this sense, no Catholik callethHow the Creed may be called the foundation. the Creed the foundation. In other senses, the Creed maie wel be called the foundation, ether becaus it con­teineth al the most principal and most capital articles: or becaus al other points of faith depend on it: or becaus it must be actually beleued of al, ne­ther sufficeth it that it be only virtual­ly beleued: Nether wil it follow, that the Creed alone is essential or suffi­cient to a Church, becaus it alone is the foundation therof, better then it wil follow, that the foundation alone is essential or sufficient to a house, be­causVVhat is alone the foundation, is not alone essential or necessarie. it alone is the foundation. At most wil follow, that it is the cheif es­sential parte of the Church, on which the rest essential parts depend, becaus it alone is the foundation: which we willingly graunt. And vpon such weak foundations as thes: depend D. Potters proofes, that the Creed alone is essential to the Church. And that [Page 284] who beleveth the Creed, hath sauing faith, is in the true Church, and in true waie of saluation, though he be­leue not, or disbeleue other points of faith sufficiently proposed. Hence itL. Cant. p. 29. Deduc­tions are ne­cessarie to some, but not fundamen­tal. appeareth also, why (as I saied be­fore) they rather saie some articles alone, are fundamental or the foun­dation, then that some alone, are ne­cessarie; becaus some articles are in some sense the only foundation of the Church and of saluation, but in noSome arti­cles be the foundation, but not alone necessarie. sense are only necessarie. For al poins of faith are two waies necessarie. First, absolutly necessarie, to be virtually and implicitly beleued. Secondly, conditionally, to be beleued also actually, if they be sufficiently propo­sed. Thus we haue seene, that Doctor Potter hath not so much as anie pro­bable ground, much les certaine and infallible (as he ought to haue for so weightie a matter) for the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in his sense, ether in Scripture, Fathers, reason, or Catholiks doc­trin. Now let vs shew that though we [Page 285] granted him his distinctiō in his sense, yet it would not, suffice to mainteine the Protestants Churches, for main­teining wherof, it was deuised, as Rouse confessed, sup. c. 1. and is most certaine.

THAT THOVGH THE Protestants distinction of funda­mental and not fundamental articles vvere admitted in their sense, it vvould not suffice to their purpose. ELEVENTH CHAPTER.

1. THat though the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles were admitted euen in their owne sēse, yet it would not suffice to their purpose, is euident. For the cheif end, for which they deuised this distinction is their sense, was therby to defend, that Protestant Churches, though they be [Page 286] sinfully deuided in matters of faith, yet be true Churches, and haue sauing faith, and meanes of saluation, becaus (forsooth) they differ but in not fun­damental points, and such points are no waie essential, nor necessarie to a true Church, nor to sauing faith, or saluation. For Lutheran Protestants are deuided from Caluinists, not only in not fundamental, or not principal points of faith, but also in fundamen­tal and principal points: nor only in points of faith, but also in commu­nion of Liturgie and publik service: both which diuisions destroie a true Church.

2. That diuision in fundamental points destroieth a Church, is the common doctrin of Protestants, as is before shewed lib. 1. c. 7. nu. 5. 6. 7. Nether can they denie it, becaus by fundamental, they profés to vnder­stand essential: And euident it is, that diuision in essential parts destroieth the whole, becaus the whole is no­thing but al its essential parts ioined together. And that Lutherans are [Page 287] deuided from Caluinists in funda­mental points, both Lutherans and Caluinists profés.

3. For thus Luther disput. contra Louanienses Tom. 2. fol. 203. In ear­nest, we iudge to be heretiks, and out of the Church of God, Zuinglians, and al Sacramentaries, who denie the bodie Luther con­demnes the Sacramen­taries. and Blood of Christ to be receaued with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist. And this sentence he pronounced a­gainst the Sacramentaries anno 1545. as Hospinian 2. parte histor. writeth in that yeare; and died the next yeare, 18. Feb. as he testifieth anno 1546. And in anno 1544. he relateth thes words of Luther. I, who am now neare Luthers glorie before God, to con­dēne Sacra­mentaries. my deatb, wil carrie with me this testi­monie and this glorie to the Tribunal of Iesus Christ, that with al my heart I haue damned and auoided the Swarmers, enemies of the Sacraments, Carolstadius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and their disciples, and we stil damn them in Ser­mons. And their lying and blasphemous heresie. And tom. 7. in defen. verb. Cenae fol. 381. he thus speaketh: I wil [Page 288] cal God and the whole world to witnes, that I do not think with Sacramentaries, nor euer did think, nor for euer, (God willing) wil think. And fol. 382. Cursed for euer be that charitie and concord (withHe curseth agreement with them. Sacramentaries.) The one partie must needs be set on by the diuel, we wil auoid them to the last breath, we wil reproue and damn them, for Idolaters, corrupters of Gods word, blasphemers, and deceauors. And there calleth them masked Diuels, who bring in the diuel in steed of God. And that, he should recal this iudg­ment of the Sacramentaries before his death, is feigned by some without al sufficient proof.

3. And this his sentence, our En­glish Protestants should feare, becaus in the Apologie of their Church, they profés to hold him for a most excellent man, and sent from God to lighten the world. And Caluin l. 1. de libero ar­bit. calleth him, a Notable Apostle of Christ: and saieth, that God thundered by his mouth. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 83. we esteme of Luther as a worthie man. So Field l. 2. de Eccles. c. vlt. l. 3. c. 42. [Page 289] And did this worthie man, who thus seuerely condemned the Sacramen­taries doctrin, differ rather in formes or phrases of speech, then in substance of doctrin, as D. Potter affirmeth sec. 3. p. 89. or onely in disputable opinions, as he saieth sec. 6. p. 54.

4. Nether did Luther only, but euen the publik confessions of Luthe­rans condemn the Sacramentaries doctrin. For thus the Confession of Auspurg in Hospin l. cit. anno 1530, Of the Lords Supper, thus we teach: That Confession of Auspurg damneth Sacramen­taries. the true Bodie and Blood of Christ, is truly vnder the forme of bread and wine present in the Supper, and there distributed and receaued. wherfore the contrarie doctrin, is reiected. Confession of Bohemia art. 11. Certaine phanatical Spirits, not abiding in the words of Christ, denie the bread and chalice of the Supper, to be the Bodie and Blood of Christ. And in like manner do the Lutherans in their Confession of Swed, (which was put forth 1563.) of Mansfeld, and of Antwerp, condemne the Sacramen­taries.

5. And the Sacramentaries doe the same to Lutherans. For thus theSacramen­taries con­demn Lu­therans. Czengerin Confession, placed in the Syntagme of Protestant Confessions p. 194. As we damne the Papistical dotage of Transubstantiation: so we also damne their madnes, who mainteine fleashea­ting, that is, that Christs natural and bloodie bodie is receaued with carnal mouth, without anie mutation or tran­substantiation. And they add: This is contrarie to the rule of faith, and nature. The Confession of Swisers art. 21. The flesh of Christ cannot be corporally eaten, Of wicked­nes. without wickednes and crueltie. The Pa­latines Confession: Christ cannot now, without manifest and horrible Idolatrie, be saught in the bread of the Supper. Of horrible idolatrie. Item, we see a horrible distraction raised in the Church, becaus some wil eate and drink the bodie and Blood of Christ, na­turally, essentially, with their corporal mouthes, and who refuse to beleue and profés this, are proclamed sacrilegious and blasphemous Sacramentaries.

6. Thus Protestants in their pu­blik Confessions of faith, condemne [Page 291] one the other. And that the cheifestSee P. Mar­tyr in epis. ad Eccles. Aug. Per­kins in Symb. col. 781, 793. Caluin 4. instit. c. 4. §. 19. Maisters of the Caluinists condemne the Lutherans of error in fundamen­tal matters, I haue shewed l. 1. c. 6. nu. 8. and more maie be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. nu. 5. Here I wil relate the Confession of the Tigurins, in their preface to the Orthodox consent, set forth 1585. OfTigurins confés dis­sentions of Protestants. the great and manifold contentions betweene Protestants. For thus they Nether of the Lords Supper only, but also of Christs person, of the vnion of the di­uine and humane nature, of the vbiquitie of his bodie, of the corporal (and which is made with mouth and teeth, and com­mon to good and bad) eating of his bo­die, of his ascension into heauen, and sitting at the right hand of his Father, is contended with such earnest dispute, that not few of the old heresies, which were long since condemned and extinguis­hed, begin againe to life vp their heads, as recalled out of hel. And did not thes men know, what diuision there is among Lutherans and Caluinists, as wel as D. Potter sect. 3. pag. 89. Doe [Page 292] Thes differ rather in formes or phra­sesPotter sec. 4. p. 119. The errors of vbiquitie consubstan­tiation and the like, are gross and palpable. of speech then in substāce of doc­trin? or as others saie, they differ not in fundamental points? Are not the person of Christ, his hypostatical vnion, his ascension to heauen, and sitting at the right hand of his father, fundamental points! Are they not in the Creed, which commonly is saied to be the foundation of Christianitie?C 6. n. 2. l. 1. or did not the Tigurins know, wherin Protestants dissent, as wel as he? wil Protestants not only make funda­mental or not fundamental what theyAug. de vni­co Baptis. c. 14. please, as Donatists made crimes, but also when, or in whom they list? Thus we see, that the distinction of funda­mental and not fundamental points, wil not mainteine the Protestants Churches. For they condemne one the other of fundamental errors. Now let vs see, that it wil not serue them, for want of Communion in Sacra­ments, and in publik seruice of God.

That the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles, vvil not suffice to main­teine such Churches, as they would, for vvant of communion. TWELFT CHAPTER.

1. ALbeit we should grant to Protestants, both, that someNo certaine articles are sufficient without others. articles are so sufficient to constitute à Church, as no other articles were necessarie thervnto, and also, that their Churches doe hold al thos ar­ticles, which are so sufficient; (nether of which we shal euer grant) yet ne­uertheles, would it not follow, thatNor none at al without communion. their Churches are true Churches. For nether anie certaine articles, nor al articles together, are sufficient to constitute a true Church of Christ, without communion in Sacraments, Liturgie, and publik worship of God. [Page 294] Which communion, because Protes­tants Churches want, both with themselues (as is euident in Lutherans and Caluinists) and also with al otherRoman, Grecian, &c. such Churches, as they account true Churches: Therfore when they wil proue, ether their owne, or anie other Church, to he a true Church, they make no mention at al of cōmunion, but only of fundamental articles: and infer, their owne, or other Churches, (whom they please) to be true Chur­ches, only becaus they hold the fun­damental articles: wherin they com­mit a Triple fallacie. For nether areTriple fal­lacie of Pro­testants. anie principal articles alone, sufficient to the constitution of a Church: ne­ther doe Protestants hold al principal articles: nether though they held al articles whatsoeuer, would that suffice to constitute a true Church, without communion in Sacramēts and publik worship of God. Which we proue to be essential to a true Church, out of the definitions of a true Church, giuen by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants themselues, and cōfirme it by reason.

2. The Scripture Acts 2. vers. 42. describing the true Church, or trueScripture puts cōm u­nion in the definition of the Church. disciples of Christ, saieth: They were perseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles, and communication of breaking bread, and praier. Where communication in Sacraments and praier, is put as essen­tial a parte of the true Church, as per­seuerance in the doctrin of the Apo­stles is. And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper, and publik praiers: And saieth: we must be such, if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God. And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the Corinthiās, and one saied he was of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas, The Apostle re­prouing them, faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided? As if it should follow, that Christ were deuided, if his mystical Bodie the Church, were deuided. Besids, al the places of Scripture,C. 7 nu. 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue, that the Church of Christ is absolutly one, proue, that she cannot be deui­ded in communion of Sacraments. [Page 296] For such a deuided Church, is not ab­solutly one, but in parte, or in some sort only. The same also is euident out of our Creed: where we profés to beleue the Catholik Church, the cōmuniō of Saints. Where communion of Saints, is ether an explication of Cath. Church, as Caluin 4. c. 1. parag. 3. Confessio Scotica art. 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles. c. 1. Kemnit. loc. de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec. 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach, or a thing necessarily required to it. For it makes no distinct article.

3. The Fathers also (as Moulins confessed c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before) by the Church, vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such cōmu­nion, as is opposit to Scismatiks. Churches, orthodox and sound in faith, vnited together in communion, and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks. So that they make vnion in communion, (which excludeth Schismatiks, who are deuided in cōmunion) as essential a part of the Church, of which they meane, as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith, which excludeth heretiks. AndS. Aug. Ep. 50 Dona­tistae de sola cōmunione litigant. See him 4. cōt. Crescon. c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers, that they exclude, as wel Schismatiks, out of the Church, who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments: as heretiks, who want soundnes in faith. [Page 297] And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth: Men can­not s. August. puts cōmu­nion in Sa­craments, of the essence of Religion. be ioined into anie name of Religion, true or false, vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacra­ments. So that there can be nether true nor false Religion, without com­munion in Sacraments. And epist 118. saieth. God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments.

4. Reason also conuinceth, thatReason also. cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God, is essential to the true Church of Christ. For his Church, isConfessio Anglicaart. 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVitten­bergica c. de Eccles. a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments, as al men conceaue and define. And it implieth contradiction, that there should be a Societie, without cōmunion in mat­ters essentially belonging to the so­cietie: as Sacramēts belong to Christs Church. For if there be no commu­nion in vse of Sacraments, there is no societie in vse of Sacraments: And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments, no [Page 298] Church. For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments. And Protestants, who profés to giue none but essential No­tes of the Church, giue right vse ofSee c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her. Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments, are deuided in an essential parte, and consequently essentially. Moreouer, without com­munion2. in Sacraments and publikVVithout communion the Church differs not from schis­matiks. worship of God, the Church should not differ essentially from a Schisma­tical Church. And it implieth contra­diction, that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church. For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church. Fur­thermore,3. vse of Sacraments and pu­blik worship of God, was the external end for which the Church was insti­tuted, and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ, Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end? Besids, the4. true Church, is the mystical Bodie of [Page 299] Christ, and therfore, as al the mem­bers of a natural bodie communicate one with an other, so must the mem­bers of the true Church. Nether did5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion. Therfore a Church so deuided, is no Church of Christs in­stitution. Finally, al the arguments,6. wherwith before we proued, the trueC. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one, proue that she cannot be deui­ded in communion of Sacraments, and publik worship of God. For a Church so deuided, in not simply one.

5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants. For Con­fessioProtestants confés that the Church is a societie in Sacra­ments. Argentinensis c. 12. saieth: God would haue his to haue external societie together, for which cause he gaue them Sacraments. Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper, that we remember of what bodie we be members, and therfore agree with al brethren. Mulhusina art. 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church, to testifie faith and fraternal charitie. [Page 300] Consensus Poloniae: The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation. Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist, to be the band of publik congregation, and the band of mutual charitie among the mem­bers So Potter sec. 7. p. 98. of the Church. Caluin 4. instit. c. 1.Caluin in Ioan. 9. Pes­simū in Ec­clesia, & maxime no­xium malū, est schisma. §. 7. The Church, by participation of the Supper, doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie. See him also ibid. §. 8. Whitaker also controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church, giuen by Bellarm. thus far.Protestants put commu­nion in Sa­craments, in definition of the Church. The Church is a companie of men, ioint together in profession of the same faith, and communion of Sacramēts, vnder law­ful Pastors. Where cōiunction in Com­munion of Sacraments, is put, as an essential parte of the Church. AndVVhere is not lawful vse of Sa­craments the Church is not. ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word, and lawful vse of the Sacraments, make the Church. So as, where they are not, the Church is not. Moulins lib. 1. contra Perō c. 26. That is the true Church, which is ioined together by profession of true faith, and communion of Sacraments. And cap. 25. The question (which is the [Page 201] true Church) is, touching the entire bo­die The questiō about the Church, is about the entire bodie Orthodox, and ioint in communion. of the Orthodox Church, ioint in Com­munion: we ask, by what external Notes, we maie discerne this Church. Spalaten­sis lib. 7. de Repub. cap. 12. num. 132. To the true Church, twoe things only are required, to wit, entire faith in Christ, and communion with al faithful that pro­fes this faith. Confession of Auspurg art. 7. To the true vnitie of the Church, it is enough, to consent in the doctrin of the Ghospel, and ministration of Sacraments. Sadeel cont. Tur. loc. 30. True vse of Vse of Sa­craments is essential. Sacraments, is essential to the Church. Caluin 4. iustit. c. 1. §. 2. Vnles vnder Christ our Head, we be vnited to al the other members, we can haue no hope of heauen. There cannot be twoe or three Churches, but Christ must be deuided. And §. 10. Ib. departure from the Church is denial of God and Christ. God so much esteemeth the communion of his Church, as he accounteth him a Renegate and For­saker of his Religion, who obstinatly se­parateth himself from anie Christian so­cietie, which hath the true ministerie of the word and Sacraments. See him also [Page 302] in Ioa 9. Plessie de Eccl. c. 1. We cōfés in the Creed, that the Church is the Cōmunion The Church of the Creed is a commu­nion. of Saints. So also Confessio Heluetica c. 17. Mulhusina art. 5. Argetinensis c. 15. How then, can the Church, which we profés in our Creed, be without Communion? King Iames Resp. ad Peron p. 384. Damneth and detesteth thos, who haue left the Communion of the See Iunius in sub Eccle­siastico c. 4. Church, and become Schismatiks. Ca­saubon exercitat. 15. It is an vndoubted truth, that whiles pious people adhere to a lawful and true Bishop, that is a true Church of God. So that if anie separate himself from that companie, it cannot be doubted, but he is out of the Church. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 74. Whosoeuer professeth himself to forsake the communion of anie one member of the bodie of Christ, must confés himself consequently to forsake the whole. Musculus loco de Eccles. sec. 3.The Church is a Cōmu­nion of be­leuers. The true Church, is a Communion and so­cietie of true beleuers. Perkins in expli­cat. Symboli col. 794. As long as anie Church goeth not from Christ, we maie not separate from it. The same he hath in his Reformed Catholik tract. 21. [Page 303] And Protestants commonly, who ex­cludeProtestants exclude schismatiks who want but commu­nion. Schismatiks out of the Church, as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and yet confés, they want nothing but communion, as is to be seene ibidem lib. 2. cap. 15. I wil here ad the Confession of D. Potter sec. 2. p. 42. Schisme is no les damnable, Schisme as damnable as heresie. then heresie. P. 47. Voluntarie and vn­grounded separation from the Catholik Communion, is without doubt à damna­ble schisme. And p. 56. Whosoeuer per­uersly deuides himself from the Catholik Communion, as doe Schismatiks, his con­dition is damnable. Finally, Whitaker controuer. 2. qu. 5. c. 17. p 541. saieth: Almost al our men put thes twoe Notes of the Church, to wit, pure preaching of the word, and lawful administration of Sacra­mēts. And thes twoe we affirme to be true Lawful vse of sacra­ments, is essential. and certaine Notes of the Church, and essential and perpetual Symboles of the Church. And if lawful ministration of Sacraments, be a true and essential Symbol of the Church, how can Churches be deuided in ministration of Sacraments, and not be deuided [Page 304] in an essential parte?

6. Hence it is euident, that the Protestant Church, which is deuided in communion of Sacraments, and publik worship of God, not only in itself, but also from al other Chur­ches, which they account true Chur­ches, is no such Church, as Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and themselues sometimes, propose vnto vs. Nether wil it help, which Doctor Potter saieth sec. 3. p. 67. and sec. 1. p. 19. and Chil­lingworth c. 5. p. 274. That they are vnited to al members of the vniuersal Church, in faith and charitie. For to omit, that Protestants cannot pre­tend vnion in faith with al members of the vniuersal Church, but only vnion in parte of faith; becaus they pretend vnion only in fundamentalVnion in charitie is not the es­sential vnion of the Church points; which are but a parte of faith; Vnion in charitie cannot be that vnion, which the Scripture, and Fa­thers, put in the descriptions of the Church For the Cōmuniō, in Scripture, is in Sacra­ments, and praier; also by Fathers. Scripture speaketh of vnion in Sacraments and praier. [Page 305] The sup. n. 2. sup. n. 3. Fathers speak of such a vnion, as is opposit to schisme, which is breach in communion of Sacraments and pu­blik worship. And Saint Augustin ex­presly speaketh of vnion in Sacra­ments, which he saieth is necessarie to anie kinde of Religion, true or false: and also of vnion in praier. For thus Cōcion. de Gestis cum Emerito. he speaketh to a Schismatik: Doe not saie, I haue charitie: proue it, we haue one Father, let vs praie together. Besids, Protestants themselues put the com­munion of the Church in externalAnd by Pro­testants things. Confessio Heluetica cap. 17. The true concord of the Church consisteth in doctrins, and rites expresly giuen by God. Whereby Rites they vnderstandCōmuniō of the Church, is in sacra­ments, and Luturgie. Sacraments. King Iames Respon. ad Peron pag. 403. Communion among the faithful, cheifly consisteth in publik exer­cises of pietie. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 265. To leaue the external communion of a Church, is by refusing to communicate with anie Church, in her Liturgie, and publik worship of God. Field lib. 1. c. 15. The communion of the Church consisteth in praiers and dispensation of Sacraments. [Page 306] And l. 2. c. 2. saieth, communion in sa­craments is essential to the Church. So al­so ibid. c. 4. and Hooker lib. 3. p. 130. The communion therfore, which is essential to the visible Church, is in rites or Sacraments, publik exercises of pietie, Liturgie, and publik wors­hip of God. Nether euer yet did anie Protestant define the visible Church, to be a societie in profession of faith, and communion of charitie: which they both would, and must haue done, if they had thought cōmunion in charitie, to be an essential parte of the visible Church.Cōmunion in charitie cannot be essential for a Church.

7. But indeed it cannot be essential to a visible Church. First, becaus it is no waie proued, but merely affirmed, by reason that Protestants can pre­tend1. no other communion with the vniuersal Church. For it is euident,See c. 13. n 5. l. 2. they haue no communion with her, in Sacraments, and publik worship of God. Secondly, becaus the essen­tial2. parts of the visible Church must be visible, as profession of faith, is: otherwise, not the external Church it­self, [Page 307] self, but only some parte of it, should be visible. And communion in cha­ritie is nether visible by itself, nor by anie vndoubted acts therof; as the soule of man is visible by her vndoub­ted vital acts. Thirdly, becaus if com­munion in charitie were an essential3. parte of the visible Church, none that want charitie, should be true mēbers of the visible Church. And so wicked men should be nether of the inuisible nor visible Church. Which is contra­rieAugust art 7. 8. Saxon art. 12. Caluin 4. c. 1. parag. 13. whitak. cōt. 2. q. 5. c. 3. to the Confessions of faith of Pro­testants. And Chillingworth cap. 5. p. 255. When his Aduersarie had saied: That al the mēbers of the visible Church, are by charitie vnited into one mystical Bodie, replieth thus: which is mani­festly vntrue, for manie of them haue no charitie. How then can vnion in cha­ritie, be that communion, which is es­sential to the visible Church; seing they, that want charitie, maie be true members of the visible Church, who cannot be vnited in charitie, which they haue not? True it is, that who break the cōmunion of the Church, [Page 308] as Schismatiks doe, haue not charitie, and charitie hindereth that breach: But yet not al, that want charitie, break communion. And one thing it is, to want charitie, an other to make Schisme in the Church: And charitie is lost by Schisme, but not only by Schisme. Besids, what charitie haue4. Protestants to al the members of the vniuersal Church, but such as they must haue to Iewes, Turks, Infidels, and generally to al that are out of the Church, that is, to praie for them, and wish and doe them good? A singular cōmunion surely, with the members of the vniuersal Church, which they haue common to al Infidels, and men whatsoeuer. Is there no communion peculiar to the mēbers of the vniuer­sal Church, which they haue among themselues, and one to an other, more thē they haue to Infidels? If Protestāts had indeed true charitie ether toward God, or the vniuersal Church, they would not separate themselues from her communion in Sacraments, and publik worship of God. For as S. Aug. [Page 309] lib. 1. de Sermone Domini c. 3. If they had charitie, they would not teare in peeces the Bodie of Christ, which is the Church. But they doe external acts against charitie, and vainely pretend inward charitie. And it is contrarie to charitie both towards themselues and others, to forsake the communion in Sacraments, and publik worship of God, of the vniuersal Church. For so (as is before shewed) they put them­seluesProtestant inference absurd. out of al Churches, and be­come in none. And out of al that hath bene saied hitherto of faith and Communion, appeareath euidently how fondly Protestants infer them­selues or other Churches or persons, whom they please, to be true Chur­ches, or true members of the Church, or in the way of saluation, onely be­caus they beleue al the fundamen­tal points. For that is not enough to a true Church, or to a true member therof, or to the way of saluation. But they should add also, that they doe not sinfully err in anieother point of faith, or in Communion. Becaus [Page 310] if they sinfully err in anie point of faith, they are Heretiks: and if they sinfully err in Communion, they are Schismatiks: and so no true Chur­ches, nor true mēbers of the Church, nor in the way of saluation. But becaus Protestants despaire to proue, that such Churches or persons, as they mainteine, doe not err sinfully at al in faith or communion, they speak not of this: and damnably deceaue thos that beleue onely fundamētal points. But now, out of that which we haue saied of the Communion of the Church, let vs refel the Protestants errors concerning it.

Protestants errors about communion, refuted outof vvhat vvas saied in the former Chapter. THIRTEENTH CHAPTER.

1. OVt of that, which we have saied of Communion, are clearly refuted the errors of Protes­tants touching the same: their first, and radical error, and the foundation of the rest, is, that King Ia­mes resp. ad Peron p. 384 Communion is not essential to a true Church, or to a true member of the Church. For Communion is put in the definitions of the Church taken out of Scrip­ture, and giuen by Fathers, and Pro­testants themselues: and therfore es­sential to a true Church, and to euerie true member of it: If anie aske, how then can a true mēber of the Church, be without Communion, as if he be in a Desert or be by force hindered [Page 312] from Communion? I answer, that na­tural or material things cannot be without natural or material existence of euerie essential parte of them: ButMoral things may haue their partes but morally. moral things (such as a member of the Church is, depending of mans wil) maie be when some essential parte is only morally, and by effec­tual wil. And so Communion of a man in a Desert, or held by force, mo­rally maie be. For it is in his wil to be done, when he can, and ought to com­municate: and neuer leaueth to be, til he haue a wil the contrarie, as Schis­matiks have. And it is essential, and sufficient to a true member of the Church, when he cannot actually communicate with the Church, to profés to haue this wil to commu­nicate whensoeuer he can, and ought.

2. An other error of Protestans is, that to leave the external commu­nion of the Church, is not to leave the Church: as one maie leave the custome of the Colledg, yet not the Colledg: so Chillingworth, [Page 313] c. 5. p. 265. 269. For CommunionTo leaue an essential parte, is to leaue the whole. is essential to the Church, and to leaue an essential parte of a thing, is to leave the thing itself: wheras the custome of a Colledg is accidental to a Colledg, and to leave the acci­dent of a thing, is not to leave the thing it self.

3. An other error is, which D. Potter hath sec. 3. p. 74. that they forsake not the Communion of the Church of Rome, no more then the Bodie of Christ: For to refuse to communicate with her in vse of Sacraments, Liturgie, and pu­blik worship, is to forsake her com­munion. And he that meanes other­wise by Communion, speaks a new lan­guage as indeed à new doctrin, needs à new language, or equivocation to vphold it Wherfore Chillingworth c. 5. p. 261. saieth. It needs no proof, that Luther and his followers forsook the external communion of the Roman Church.

4. An other error, which Chilling­worth hath c. 5. p. 270. is, that the whole Church being corrupted, some parts of it, [Page 314] might, and did reforme themselues, and yet might, and did continue parts of the Church, though separated from the exter­nal communion of the other parts, which would not reforme. As a man maie re­nounce a vice of a societie, and yet be stil of the Societie. And p. 271. It is certainly false, that no twoe men or Churches, deuided in external commu­nion, can be both true parts of the Cath. Church. This I saie is easily refuted. For to omit, that blasphemie (that the whole Church can be corrupted) whosoever volūtarily separate them­selues from the external cōmunion of the whole Church, separate them­selues from an essential part of her.Roote of the Protestants errors. For external communion is as essen­tial to the visible Church, as is profes­sion of faith. And al thes errors rise, of not considering or remembring wel, the former definitions of the true Church, giuen by Scripture, Fathers, and themselues, and confirmed by reason. In al which, Communion, is put as an essētial part of that true Church, which Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and [Page 315] (somtimes) also Protestans, proposeProtestants forsake the external communion of the visible Church. vnto vs.

5. And herevpon it is evident, that Chillingworth in confessing c. 5. cit. p. 273. That as for the external commu­nion of the visible Church, we haue without scrupule formerly granted, that Protestants did forsake it. And p. 274. Though Luther forsooke the external com­munion of the Cath. Church, it wil not follow, he was a Scismatike: Plainely confesseth, that Luther and Protes­tants are true Scismatiks, and by for­saking the external communion of the Chilling. p 263. The visible Ch. signifieth the whole Church. whole visible or Catholik Church, ether made a new visible Church, or are in no visible Church at al: For the external communion of the whole visible Church, was an essential parte of her, as wel as profes­sion of faith: And none can leaue an essential parte of the whole visible Church, but he must leaue theVVho is out of the whole visible Ch. is in none. whole visible Church, which is to make a formal schisme For he can­not leaue the whole visible Church, but he must be in no visible Church, [Page 316] seing the whole visible Church, in­cludeth al visible Churches; or he must be in a new substantial vi­sible Church, which must be, of hisVVhy no iust cause, to goe out of the whole visible Church. owne making. And hence it is euidēt, why there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole visible Church, becaus there can be no iust cause to put onesself out of al visible Churches, and to be in no visible Church at al. There maie be iust cause of separation from the communion of some particular Church, becaus she maie inuincibly err in some points of faith, and exact profession of herVVhy may be iust cause, to goe out of a particular Church. errors, for a condition of her commu­nion. And nether is it necessarie to saluation, or to a member of the true Church, to be in communion of eue­rie particular Church; nor the going out of anie particular Church (if there be iust cause for it) is the going out of the whole true Church: But the whole true Church, is not fallible, vincibly or inuincibly, in anie point of faith, by reason of Christs promise, and the holie Ghostsassistance. So that, for [Page 317] pretence of errors, there can be no iust cause to go out of her cōmunion. And the going out of her, is the going out of al Churches whatsoeuer, be­causL. Canterb. p. 311. out of the Cath. Church there is no saluation. the whole Church includeth al, and who is out of al, is in none. And there cannot be imagined anie iust cause, to goe out of al Churches, and to be in none at al: And hereby weInfallibili­tie, and ne­cessitie to be in the whole Church, proue out the other. see, how the infallibilitie of the whole Church, and necessitie of being in the whole Church, do mutually infer each the other. For if she were not in­fallible in matters of faith, but sinful­lyCanterb. p. 240. Al the members of the militant Church can not err. So Mortō Imp. c. 15. sec. 3. and 4. taught errors, one might iustly goe out of her. And becaus there can be no iust cause to goe out of the whole Church (for then we should be in none at al) it must needs be, that she is infallible in matters of faith.

6. Wherfore, when ChillingworthPotter sec. 2. p. 47. Canterb. p. 143. c. 5. p. 264. 271. 274. 284. and Protes­tants commonly define, Schisme, to be a Causeles separation from the commu­nion of the Church, they voluntarilyProtestants false defini­tion, of Schisme. ad that particle (Causeles) nether do they finde it in anie definition of Fa­thers, [Page 318] who neuer admit anie iust cause of separatiō from the whole Church: but Protestants merely ad it, to excuse themselues from Schisme, becaus they haue some pretence of cause for sepa­ration,See also su­pra n. 5. but no colour al at, to denie their separation from the wholeCaluin Ep. 141. disces­sionē a toto mūdo facere concti su­mus. Church: yea they plainly confés it, as is to be seen l. 2. of the Author of Pro­testancie c. 1. and 3. Out of which it is euident, that ether they are in no Church, becaus there is none besid the whole, or in a new made Church. Let them shew, that anie Father euer put that particle (Causeles) in the definition of Schisme, or saied, that there can be iust cause of separation from the communion of the whole visible Church: or they must confés, that according as theProtestants, Schismatiks as the Fa­thers vse that word. Fathers vse the word, Scisme, they are guiltie of Scisme, in separating them­selues from the external communion of the whole visible Church: and so in iudgment of the Fathers (as they vse the word) are Scismatiks. And if they be not Scismatiks, as themselues [Page 319] please to vse the word, it little impor­teth, let them equiuocate as they please, and vse words without mat­ter.

7. Let not therfore Chillingworth c. 5. cit. p. 272. advise men, to look that their cause of separation from anie Churches communion be iust, becaus it is as much as their soule is worth: but let him look, that he make no separation at al from the communion of the whole Church, becaus hereof no cause can be iust. For (as I saied) to goe out of the whole Church, isS. Augustin, puts schisme merely in se­paration frō the whole. to be in no Church at al. Herevpon S. Augustin l. 2. contra Petil. c. 16. saied. I obiect to thee the sin of Scisme, which thou wilt denie, but I wil streigt proue. For thou doest not comunicate with al nations: which proof were none, if there could be iust cause of not com­municating with al Nations: but heSchisme simply, not to communi­cate with the whole Church. should haue added, that causelesly he he did not communicate. And lib. de vnitate c. 4. whosoeuer beleue that Ie­sus Christ came in flesh, in which he suffered, was borne, &c. yet so dissent [Page 320] from bis Bodie, which is the Church, as Schisme, not to commu­nicate with the whole. their communion is not with the whole, whersoeuer it is spread, but is found separate in some part, it is manifest, that they are not in the Catholik Church. Which were not manfest, if thereC. 3. n. 3. 6. l. [...]. could be iust cause of not communi­cating with the whole. And euident it is, out of what we related before out of Saint Augustin: that he meaneth of communion in Sactaments, and publik praier. And therfore vntruely saied Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 33. That Protestants cōmunicate (as Saint Augu­stin meant) with the Catholik Church, in what parte or place of the world soeuer. For they communicate not at al with her in Sacraments and publik praier. And so according to Saint Augustins doctrin, manifestly are out of the Ca­tholik Church. Besids, Doctor Potter speaketh not consequently, when sec. 2 p. 66. he faieth: we do not communi­cate with Rome in her publik Liturgie: in that, our communion is dissolued. And yet sec. 3. p. 74. Her cōmunion we forsake not, no more then the Bodie of Christ. For how [Page 321] doth he not forsake the communion of Rome, who doth not communi­cate with her in Liturgie, and whose communion in that, is dissolued: But to returne to Saint Augustin: he epist. 48. affirmeth: we are certaine, that none can iustly separate himself from the com­munion None can iustly sepa­rate. of al Nations. Item: None can haue iust cause to separate their cōmunion from the communion of al Nations: lib. 2. contra Parmen. cap. 11. There is no iust necessitie to break vnitie. And l. 3. c. 4.No iust cause to for­sake the Church. The world doth securely iugde, that they are not good, who separate themselues from the world, in what parte of land soeuer. And ib. c. 5. Let vs hold it firme and sure, that no good men can deuide No good men can se­parate. themselues from the Church: lib. 3. de Baptis. c. 16. It is charitie, which they haue not, who are cut from the communion of the Catholik Church. And epist. 152. whosoeuer is separated from this Catholik Church, albeit he think, he liues lawda­bly, by this only wickdnes, that he is se­parated from the vnitie of Christ, he hath not life, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him. Lo, to be separated from [Page 322] the Catholik Church, is to be sepa­ted from the vnitie of Christ. And what iust cause can there be, to be se­parated from the vnitie of Christ? And epist. 48. Relateth, that certaineDonatists thought faith, would suffice with­out commu­nion. Donatists saied: we thought it made no matter, where we held Christs faith. So that it is an error of Donatists, to think, that faith wil suffice without communion. Finally S. Cyprian l. de vnitate. Let none think, that good men can leaue the Church.

8. Protestants also sometimes con­fés, that there can be no iust cause to leaue the communion of the whole Church. For Caluin 4. inst it. c. 1. §. 10. saieth: Departure from the Church of God, is denial of Christ, which were not true, if there were iust cause of de­parture. And lib. de Neces. Reform. Eccles. p. 68. being vrged, that there is no iust cause, for which we maieVsher serm to House of Com. No cause why We should make a rent in the Church of God. break the vnitie of the Church; he doth not answer, that there can be iust cause hereof: but (as supposing that) denieth that they are out of the communion of the Church. And [Page 323] againe: But we are put back with this only engin. That no cause excuseth de­parture from the Church. But we denie, that we do so. Surely, if he had thought, that there could be iust cause to break the vnitie of the whole Church, or to goe out of her communion, he would here haue saied it. But he did not then dreame, that there could be a iust or causeful separation from the cōmu­nion of the whole Church, which some Protestants since haue found out. Lord Canterburie p. 139. There can be no iust cause, to make à Schisme from the whole Church. Item p. 192. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 74. There nether was, nor can be, anie iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more then from no iust cause to goe from the whole Church. Christ himself. Chillingworth sect. 5. p. 170. and 272. alloweth thes words of D. Potter, and addeth p. 298. It is most true, that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church: That is, to cease being a member of the Church, no more then to depart from Christ himself. And surely, he ceaseth being a member of the Church, who separateth himself [Page 324] from the communion of the wholeVVho lea­ueth to be of the whole Church leaueth to be of anie Church visible Church. Becaus communion (as I haue proued) is an essential parte of the visible Church: And he can be no member of the visible Church, who wanteth an essential parte of it. And to depart from the communion of the visible Church, is not (as Chil­lingworth speaketh p. 269. 283. 298. 302.) te depart frō some opiniōs or practises of the Church. But it is to depart from some point of faith, or from commu­nicating with the Church, in vse of Sacraments, Liturgie, and publick worship of God, as is euident, and himself confesseth ib. p. 265. and we related his words c. 13. nu. 4. In which to communicate, is most substantial to the Church. For Sacraments, Li­turgie, and publik worship of God, are a principal external end of the Church. And namely Sacraments are put in the definition of the Church by Protestants. Wherfore, to be as­sociatedC. 12. nu. 5. l. 2. and communicate in them, is most substantial to her, who is a So­cietie in vse of them, and in profession [Page 325] of Christs faith. And therfore to de­part from her communion in them, is clearely to depart from the so­cietie.

9. And here is to be Noted, thatProtestants make not a distinctiō of fundamētal and not fun­damental Cōmunion. Protestants cannot make distinction of fundamental and Not fundamen­tal communion, as they did of funda­mental and Not fundamētal articles. For separating themselues from com­munion in Sacraments, Liturgie, and publik worship of God, they separa­ted themselues most fundamentally in communion, and condemning the communion in thes, of the Church, frō which they separated, they must condemne the fundamental commu­nion, and so saie, she is substantially no Church. Whervpon it must needs follow, that ether they must make a new Church, substantially different from the whole visible Church, or els be in no Church at al. For (as I haue saied) There can be no Church besids the whole Church: Wheras, deuiding articles into fundamental and Not fundamental, and saying, that the [Page 326] Church, from which they separated themselues, retained the fundamen­tal articles, which cōstitute a Chureh, and that they feparated themselues from her only in Not fundamental points, they had, some colour to saie, that they stil remained in the substāce of the Church, frō which they made separation; And therfore an Argumēt, taken from Protestants separation in communion from the whole Church, is more forcible against them, then taken from their separation in faith from the whole visible Church. For her faith they leaft but partly: but her Communion they leaft wholy.

10. Nether helpeth it which Chil­lingworth: saieth: c. 5. p. 274. and 295. Though the whole Church were corrupted, yet Luther and his Followers forsook not the whole corrupted Church, or the exter­nal Luther and his fellowes forsook the­ir owne cō ­munion, which they had with the whole Church. communion of it, but only forsook that parte which was corrupted, and stil would be so, but forsook not themselues, and their owne communion. For though Luther and his followers forsook not them­selues, yet they forsook their com­munion [Page 327] which they had with the whole Church in her Sacraments, Li­turgie, and publik seruice, and insteed of that, began a new communion a­mong themselues, in an other Litur­gie. For they ioined not themselues in communion to anie Church pre­existent, in her Liturgie and publik seruice: and so they forsooke the com­munionAnd began a new com­munton. of the whole visible Church, euen their owne communion, which before they had with her, and therby ceased to be anie formal parte of the whole preexistēt Church, becaus they wholy leaft her communion in Sacra­ments and Liturgie, which was essen­tial to her: and began a new Church, as they began wholy a new commu­nion, in new vse of Sacraments, in a new Liturgie, and new publik seruice. Howsoeuer therfore, Chillingworth c. 6. p. 334. and D. Potter saie sec. 3. p. 58. Protestants neuer intended to erect a VVho intēd new commu­nion, intend a new Church. new Church, seing they intended to erect a new cōmunion in Sacraments, and publik worship of God, they in­tended to erect a new Church. Ne­ther [Page 328] is the example of some leauing the disease of a Societie, and yet not the Societie itself, to the purpose. For a disease is an accident to a Socie­tie, but communion in Sacraments is essential to a Church, becaus she is a Societie in vse of Sacraments, Litur­gie, and publik seruice of Christ. And therfore this communion being leaft, the Societie itself is leaft.

11. Perhaps some maie saie, thatTo commu­nicate in Sa­craments, is more then to vse common Sacraments. Luther and his Followers leaft not the communion of the whole Church in Sacraments, becaus he retained the same Sacraments, which the whole Church had. But besids, that Luther retained no Sacrament which the whole Church had, beside baptisme, and so had not Sacraments, but only one Sacrament cōmon with the whole Church: It is one thing, to haue some Sacraments common with the whole Church, which Schismatiks haue, and an other, to haue communion in Sa­craments, which Schismatiks haue not, nor Luther had: For he did not participate with the whole Church in [Page 329] Sacraments. As anie maie eate the same meate which an other doth, and yet not dine or sup with him: So Lu­ther might receaue the same Sacra­ments, which the whole Church did, yet not communicate with the whole Church in Sacraments.

12. By what hath been saied, weProtestants errors rise of ignorance of the defini­tions. maie see, that thes, and the like errors shew wel, that Protestants are of the number of thos, whom the Apostle saieth, know not what they speak of. For if they knew, what true sauing faith is, They would neuer saie, The essence of it consisteth only in beleif of some principal points; or the vnitie of it, in vnitie only of such points: or if they knew, what a true Church is, they would neuer saie, that some principal points only, con­stitute the essence of it, or that the substantial vnitie of the Church, con­sisteth onely in vnitie of such points: nor would they compare integritie in faith or in communion, to health, and defect in faith or in communion, to diseases or vice: nor saie, that they [Page 330] haue communion with al Catholiks in the world, becaus they haue (as they saie) loue or charitie to them al: nor saie, that thos can be of the same Church, who communicate not in vse of Sacraments, Liturgie, and publik worship of God. For al thes errors, and the like, rise of their not knowing or not marking, what is true sauing faith, what is a true Christian Church, what is true Christian Communion, as is euident by what hath been saied and proued: If they would cōstantly agree with vs, in the definitions of sauing faith, true Church, and her commu­nion, giuen by the Scripture, Fathers, and by themselues sometimes, and confirmed by reason, thes errors of theirs, about fundamental and Not fundamētal points, about the essence, and vnitie of true sauing faith, and about the true Christian Church, and her communion, would presently vanish. And if they wil mainteine thes errors, they must needs re­iect the definitions of true sauing faith, true Church, and her commu­nion, [Page 331] giuen by Scripture, Fathers, andProtestants must make new defini­tions and so change the question. themselues sometimes, and giue new definitions, and confés, that they dispute not with vs of such a faith, Church, or communion, as Scripture, Fathers, and themselues sometimes, propose: but of an other faith, Church, and communion, of which nether Scripture, nor Fathers euer dreamed, described, or proposed to vs; but is inuented by themselues. And if they wil confés this, I wil not dispute with them, whether there be anie fundamental or Not fundamen­tal articles to such a faith, or Church, or whether in ward charitie wil suffice to such a communion, as they haue deuised, different from the faith, Church, and communion described by Scripture, and Fathers, and them­selues sometimes. This I am sure, That no other faith, Church, or commu­nion, wil help them to saluation, but such a faith, Church, and commu­nion, as Scripture, and Fathers pro­pose. And such faith, and Church, I haue clearly shewed, cannot admit [Page 332] anie Not fundamental points in the Protestants sense, nor anie sinful diui­sion in points of faith, or in commu­nion of Sacraments, Liturgie, or pu­blik worship of God. But such faith, such Church, such communion, is perfectly and entirely one (at least virtually and implicitly) in al points of faith, in al vse of Sacraments, and al publik worship of God: and can only differ in some rites or ceremo­nies; which being accidental, and therfore by none put into the defini­tion of the Church, (as profession of faith and communion) cannot deuide substance of the Church. And such a Church, none is, but the Roman Catholik Church. And who careful of his saluation, wil not prefer a Church, which is entirely one in al points of faith, and communion, be­fore a Church, which confessedly is deuided both in some points of faith, and altogether in communion? If one ask, why can not the Church admit diuision in faith or communion, as wel as in other matters: I answer, [Page 333] becaus Faith and Communion are es­sential partes of the Church, and, as such, put in her definition: and no­thing can admit diuision in its essen­tial partes. For diuision of a thing in essential parts, is destruction of it. In other matters, which are not essen­tial to her, she may be deuided, and not destroied.

The aforesaied doctrin of Catholikes and Protestants, and their Defenders, compared together. FOVRTEENTH CHAPTER.

1. HItherto (Gentle Reader) haue we refuted the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamentalHow 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, [Page 334] and denieth Gods veracitie, and so is the verie ground of Atheisme. We haue also shewed, that this distinctiō,How vnsuf­ficient for their pur­pose. euen in the Protestants sense, sufficeth them not, for that purpose for which they deuised it: which was, to main­teine some such Churches, as are sin­fullyRouse 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, essentiallyDifference betweene their faithes embraceth al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed: The c. 5. n. 2. Protes­tants faith, essentially embraceth1. only the fundamental points. The2. 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 pointC. 2. n 2. l. 1. of faith, which is not fundamental, how sufficiently so euer it be propo­sed, which is (as Protestants someti­mesC. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. confés) infidelitie, and a giuing the Lie to God. Catholikes faith, is3. 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 ne­cessarilyC. 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 ap­proued4. of Protestants, to conteineC. 5. n. 7. l. 1. [Page 336] al that is essential to true faith: Pro­testantsC. 5. n. 7. faith, is proued of Catholiks, to want manie things essential to true faith.

4. Likewise the Catholik Church,Differēce be­tweene their Churches. embraceth only thos, who actually beleiue euerie point of faith suffi­ciently1. proposed to them, and vir­tually what other points of faith soeuer. Protestants Church, embra­ceth sometimes al that are Christians,C. 6. n. 8. l. 2. or al, that profés Christs name, what heretiks so euer they be: Sometimes, al that beleiue the fundamētal points, howsoeuer they sinfully denie other points sufficiently proposed: which is to include Infidels, and Giuers ofC. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. the Lie to God. The Catholik Church, is perfectly and entirely one, both in2. profession of faith, and in commu­nion of Sacraments, and publik wors­hip of God: Protestants Church is at most, one in profession of funda­mentalC. 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. [Page 337] Which is to be one in a smal parte, and to be simply and truly manie. The3. Catholik Church, is approued of Pro­testants, to be a true 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, a4. safe c. 7. n. 3. 7. c. 2. n. 3. waie for them that beleue as they profés, and safest for the igno­rants: and euen thos, who are most obstinat in her, members of the Ca­tholik Church. The Protestāts Church is condemned of al Catholiks, for a false Church, guiltie both of heresie, and schisme, and to haue no possible waie of saluation, but assured waie of damnation to al that wittingly liue and die in her.

5. Seing therfore, by the testi­monie of holie Scripture, Fathers, and Reason, and Confession of Pro­testants, the faith, and Church of God, is both one and holie, iudge, whether of thes two faiths, or Churches, be more one, or more holie; whetherCath faith more one, then Pro­testants. that faith be not more one, which ad­mitteth no voluntarie diuision in anie [Page 338] 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 ad­mittethAnd 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 ChurchCatholik 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 [Page 339] in communion of Sacraments, and publik worship of God. And whetherAnd 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 theAnd 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 DefendersCatholiks 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 Pro­testants1. 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 [Page 340] be beleued of a Church, and for sal­uation, if they be sufficiently propo­sed: That there be more points of2. faith, then thos, which must be actual­ly beleued of euerie one: That it is3. true heresie, to denie anie point of faith sufficiently proposed: That sinful4. denial of anie such point of faith, de­stroieth true sauing faith, and salua­tion, the substance, and vnitie of the true Church: That communion in5. Sacraments and publik worship of God, is essential to a true Church: That though there were such distin­ction6. in points of faith, as Protestants make, yet that would not saue some of their Churches, which err euen in fundamental articles, and want al communion in Sacraments, and in publik worship of God; and that seing7. the Protestants faith doth not essen­tially embrace al Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed, but only some parte of it, nor is opposit to heresie in al points, nor is one in al Gods word, but onely in some part, that it is not8. true sauing faith. And seing their [Page 341] Church doth not profés Gods entire word, nor is one at most, more then in fundamental points, nor is at al one in communion of Sacraments and pu­blik worship of God, it cannot be the true Church of God: And seing it did9 leaue the communion of the whole visible Church, and therby leaft the whole visible Church, and leauing the whole, leaft al visible Churches, and leauing al, that it can be in no vi­sible Church, vnles at their separa­tion there were some new visible Church made. These points (I saie) Catholiks constantly teach.

8. Wheras Protestants, most vn­constantly teach almost al that we haue rehearsed of their doctrin. For sometimes they teach, that their Not fundamental points C. 1. n. 5. 6. 7. are points of faith: Sometimes they C. 5. n. 8. are not. So­metimes sinful denial of them is C. 2. n. 4. l. [...]. he­resie: Sometimes it is C. 2. n 5. not. Some­times sinful denial of them, is a suffi­cient c. 6. n. 8. cause of separation: Sometimes it is c. 2. n. 3. 6. 5. n 5. not. Sometimes Protestants can giue a Catalogue c. 6. n. 2. of fundamen­tals: [Page 342] Sometime they cannot. c. 6 n. 3. 4. Some­times the Roman Church, is a c 2. n. 6 c. 7. n. 3. 4. true Church in essence: Sometimes she is c 6 n. 5. c. 5. n. 7. not. Sometimes her errors are c. 5 n. 7. c. 6. n 5. fundamental: Sometimes they are c 5. n. 7. not. Sometimes c. 2. n. 5. heretiks are in the Church. Sometimes they are c. 7. n. 12. 13. l. 2. not. Sometimes heretiks c 6. n. 4. 5. maie be saued: Sometimes they c 1. n. 12. c. 10. n. 4 5. cannot. Sometimes a true Church c. 7. n. 2. 3. 4. can err in fundamentals: Sometimes it c 7. nu, 5. 6. 7. can­not. Sometimes al c 3 n. 5. 6. 7. l. 2. points of faith are necessarie to sauing faith: Some­times they are c. 2. n. 2 not. Sometimes de­nial of anie point sufficiently propo­sed, c. 4. n. 6. 7. l. 2. destroieth true faith: Someti­mes it doth c. 2. n. 3. not. Sometimes sinful denial of anie point of faith c. 6. n. 4. 5. l. 2. de­stroieth the substance of the Church. Sometimes it doth c. 3. nu. 2. l. 2. not. Sometimes diuision in anie point of faith c. 7. n. 10. l. 2. de­stroieth the vnitie of the Church: Sometimes it doth c. 5. nu. 2. l. 2. not. Sometimes there is c. 13. n. 4. l. 2. iust cause of separation from the whole visible Church: Sometimes there is c. 12. nu. 8. l. 2. not. Sometimes cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of [Page 343] God is c. 12. n. 5. l. 2. essential to the Church: So­metimes it is c. 11. n. 1. l. 2. not. Sometimes to leaue the communion of the Church, is to c 12. n. 5. l 2. leaue the Church: Sometimes it is c. 12 n. 4. 5. l 2. not. Sometimes wilful error in faith c. 11. n. 5. l 2. is iust cause to forsake a Church: Sometimes it is c 9 nu. 6. c. 2. n. 3. not.

9. Surely, it must be a verie il cause, that driueth such wittie and Learned men thus often, and thus plainely to contradict themselues, about one question of their fundamental and Not fundamental points. For it is ne­ther want of wit, nor of learning, that maketh them in this sort to contra­dict themselues: but whiles they wil ioine truth with falshood, faith with heresie, Gods Church with a false Church, they cannot doe otherwise. For the euidence of truth, of faith, and of Gods Church, forceth them to saie one thing, and falshood, he­resie, and their false Church maketh them to saie the quite contrarie. Wher­fore we must no more expect of he­retiks to speake agreably to themsel­ues, then of Drunken men to goe [Page 344] streight. For heretiks be (as the Pro­phet speaketh) drunk, and not with wine: heresie, is a spiritual drunkenes,Esaiae 51. which maketh men to reele betweene truth and falshood, as drunkenes ma­kethCaluin. Cō ­futat. Hol­landi. Spiri­tus vertigi­nis quo mi­natur Deus se verbi sui cōtemptores potaturum, brutam om­nium ebrio­sorū amen­tiam supe­rat. men reele from one side to an other. It maie be, that Catholik wri­ters in some greate work, and writing vpon different matters, maie contra­dict themselues by forgetfulnes: but that wittie and learned men, in so smal works, and in one kinde of mat­ter, should so often, and so plainely contradict themselues, cannot pro­ceed, but of the nature of the matter, which they would mainteine, and ofAthal orat, 2. cōt. Arian Qui incidūt in heresim mentis ver­tigine labo­rant. C. 19. their spiritual drunkenes, or that spi­rit of giddines, which (as the afore­saied Prophet saieth) our Lord hath mingled in the midst of Egipt, and made Egipt to err in al her worke, as a drunken and vomiting man erreth.

10. And finally, out of al hitherto saied, I conclude, that it is not againstCharitie, to tell Churches sinfully er­ring, of their damnable state. charitie, but rather most agreable to Christian faith and true charitie, to admonish al Churches or persons, [Page 345] that they are in a damnable state, who err sinfully ether becaus they wil not beleue some point of Christian faith, or part of Gods word, sufficient­ly proposed to them, or through their fault, haue it not sufficiently proposed: For (as Protestants confessed cap. 10.) The difference is not great, betweene him, Sinfulmant of sufficient proposing, excuseth not. that is wilfully blinde, and him, that knowingly gainsaieth the truth: and who, were it not for their owne auoidable fault, might and should see truth, and do not, their error is damnable: And if anie be negligent in seeking truth, vnwilling to finde it, or might see it, and wil not, his case, without repentance, is desperate; Wherfore thus I argue in forme.

11. It is charitie to admonish them, that they are in a damnable state, whoBecaus they err damna­bly. See Chilling. c. 6. p. 359. err damnably, committ an act of In­fidelitie, and giue God the Lie. But al that err against points of faith suffi­ciently proposed to them, do so; and the like case is of al, who for their fault haue not such points sufficientlyAl sinful er­rāts in faith are damna­ble. proposed to them. Therfore it is cha­ritie, to admonish al who err against [Page 346] points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or who (for their fault) haue them not sufficiently proposed to thē, that they are in damnable state. The Maior is euident, and the Minor pro­ued, and confessed also by Protestants, c. 10.

12. Secondly, it is true charitie, to admonish alformal heretiks, that theyBecaus they are true he­retiks. are in state of damnation: But al that beleue not some points of faith suffi­ciently proposed to them, or for their fault haue them not sufficiently pro­posed, are formal heretiks. Therfore it is charitie to tel al such, that they are in state of damnation. The Maior is proued c. 9. and the Minor c. 10.

13. Thirdly, it is true charitie, toBecaus they destroie faith tel al, that destroie true sauing faith, and the vnitie therof, that they are in state of damnation: But al that beleue not fome points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or, through their fault, haue not them so proposed to them, doe so. Therfore it is true cha­ritie to tel them, that they are in state of damnation. The Maior is euident, [Page 347] for with out faith, it is impossible to please God. And the Minor is proued cap. 11.

14. Fourthly, it is true charitie toBecaus they destroie the Church. tel al such, as destroie the nature or substance of Christs true Church, that they are in damnable state: but al such as beleue not some points of faith suf­ficiētly proposed to them, or through their fault, haue them not sufficient­ly proposed, doe so. Therfore, &c. The Maior is euident; and the Minor is proued c. 13.

15. Fiftly, it is true charitie, to tel alBecaus they destroie the vnitie of the Church. See L. Lauda sec. 35 p. 284 such as destroie the vnitie of Christs Church, that they are in state of dam­nation: But al such as beleue not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or through their fault haue them not sufficiently proposed, doe so. Therfore it is true charitie to tel al such, that they are in state of damna­nation. The Maior is euident: And the Minor is proued c. 14.

16. Sixtly, it is true charitie to tel alBecaus they profés a fal­se Church. such, as by deeds profés a fals Church, to be a true Church, that they are in [Page 338] damnable state: But al that communi­cate in Sacraments, or Liturgie, with a fals Church, doe so. Therfore it is true charitie to tel them, that they are in a damnable state. The Maior, and Minor are proued c. 15.

17. Seauenthly, it is true charitie, toBecaus they put thēsel­ues out of al Churches. tel such as put thēselues out of euerie true Church, That they are in a dam­nable state: But al such, as ether put themselues out of the communion in Sacraments, and Liturgie, of the whole Church, (as did Luther and his first followers) or doe themselues liue out of that communion (as thos doe that yet follow him) doe so. Therfore it is charitie, to tel al such, that they are in a damnable state. The Maior is euident: and the Minor pro­ued c. 18. and 19.

18. Eightly, becaus the contrarie doctrin, to wit, that it is not charitie,Abhomina­ble that sin­ful error in faith is not damnable. to warne a man, that is in stare of dam­nation (as al are, that sinfully erra­gainst anie point of faith or commu­nion) is so abhominable, as no Chri­stian (I think) wil dare to auouch it in [Page 349] plaine and expres termes.

19. And that Protestant ChurchesProtestants Churches sinfully err in points of faith. sinfully err against points of faith sufficiently proposed, or, through their fault, haue not them sufficient­ly proposed, is likewise manifest. For that al Protestants Churches err in points of faith, is confessed by Pro­testants themselues cap. 2. And that thos points are sufficiently proposed to them, or that it is their fault, that they are not so proposed, is like­wise euident. Besids the Protestants Church went out of the whole Chur­ches Communion in Sacraments andAnd in Cō ­munion. Liturgie, and began a new Commu­nion of their owne. And so is in no Church, or is a new Church c. 19.

20. Innumerable more, and most eui­dent proofes, might be brought, that Protestants Churches sinfully err a­gainst points of faith sufficiently pro­posed to them, or which (if it were not their fault) would be so proposed to them: But I wil not goe out of the compas of what hath been saied in this Treatise. Who wil see at large the [Page 350] errors of Protestants sufficiently disproued, euen by the expres word of God, maie read the Collation of the Catholik and Protestant doctrin, by the expres word of God. Which hath beene twentie yeares agoe pu­blished, and not yet answered by anie Protestant. Which is an euident ar­gument that they can not answer it with anie probabilitie, seing they haue no pretense but the word of God.