OF THE DISTINCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH. DIVIDED INTO TWO BOOKS. In the first is showed the Protestants opinion touching that distinction, and their uncertainty therein. In the second is showed and proved the Catholic doctrine touching the same. By C. R. Doctor of Divinity. Ephes. 4. One God, one Faith, one Baptism. AN. M. DC. XLV. IN this Treatise is refuted the general doctrine of Protestants, concerning the distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points of faith in their sense: but particularly, the doctrine of the Late English Protestant Writers touching the same, namely. W. Laude, Lord of Canterbury, in his Relation of Conference, etc. D. Potter, in his Answer to charity mistaken, whereof I cite the first edition, for want of the second: and of Mr Chillingworth, in his Answer to Mercy and Truth. whereby is refuted the most material part of their said Books. This Treatise was made some years ago, but not printed, in hope that thes tumults in England would have been ended before this time: but seeing no end of them, is now published. THE PREFACE to the Reader. WHEREIN ARE SET down the contents of this Treatise. 1. 1. Protestant's do teach, See infra c. 2. n. 3 c. 12 n. 2. that only the principal or capital points of Christian faith, are of the substance of saving faith, true Church, and way of salvation, and alone, truly and indeed, Protestants make only fundamental points necessary. necessary to them: and that all other points of faith are, at most, of the perfection of saving faith, true Church, and way of salvation, and may be not believed, though they be sufficiently proposed, without los of the substance of saving faith, true Church, or salvation. And in this sense they call the principal points, Fundamental, that is, alone substantial and truly necessary to saving faith, to true Church, and to salvation: and call all other points, Not Fundamental, that is, nether substantial, nor truly necessary to saving faith, true Church, or salvation, howsoever they be proposed. And hereupon they teach, that all, who believe the principal points of faith, howsoever they sinfully believe not other points, though they be sufficienty proposed to them, have saving faith, are in the true Church, and in way of salvation: and that who be divided in secondary points though sufficiently proposed, are not divided in the substance of saving faith, of the true Church, or of the way of salvation. 2. And the chief ground (though they pretend Scripture) of this doctrine, Their ground thereof. that alone the principal points of faith are of the substance, and truly necessary to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, is, that the principal points are termed Fundamental, or the foundation, by Fathers and catholics: as if the walls and roof were not of the substance or necessary to a house, because they are not fundamental, Their end. or the foundation of it. But the end, for which they teach this doctrine, is, to maintain by it, that such persons or Churches, as they cannot deny, but sinfully err in some points of faith, either sufficiently proposed to them, or which would be so proposed, if it were not their avoidable fault, have nevertheless a saving faith, are true Churches, and in way of salvation, nor divided from them in the substance of faith, of true Church, or way of salvation. So that mere necessity of maintaining Churches sinfully erring in some points of faith, drew them to this sinful and pernicious doctrine, that the principal points of faith are wholly sufficient, and all other points, howsoever proposed, wholly unnecessary to the substance of saving faith, true Church, and salvation. And this is in truth their doctrine concerning fundamental and not fundamental points of faith, and their ground, and end of it. whereof the ground is silly, the end sinful, and the doctrine pernicious and Antichristian, as quite overthrowing all Christian faith, as hereafter shall clearly appear, and so abominable, as the very authors of it, are ashamed to exprès it in plain terms, yea sometimes forced to deny it inwords. 3. For albeit they teach expressly and absolutely, and without all exception or limitation of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not fundamentals, that fundamentals, are sufficient, and abundantly sufficient, and Not fundamentals, are unnecessary to saving faith, true Church, and salvation: They are ashamed expressly to avouch their doctrine. yet they are ashamed to say so expressly with this addition, even then when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed, or, when it is the Vnbelevers faults, that they are not so proposed, or, when one sinfully erreth, in not fundamentals. Yea sometimes they deny, they teach so, and affirm the contrary. Yet that in effect and in deed they teach so, and mean so, we will Yet are forced to it. prove out of their common Tenets and Principles, and their plain words and deeds. Nether in truth would 1. this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points afford them any colour of maintaining such erring Churches, as they endeavour to maintain by it, unless they meant, that fundamentals, are sufficient, and not fundamentals, unnecessary, to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, even when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed; or, it is the Vnbelevers fault, that they are not so proposed, because it is evident, that such Churches err in some points of faith, which, either are sufficiently proposed to them, or would be, if it were not their fault, and so do sinfully err in such points. Nether also 2. would there otherwise be any controversy about the sufficiency of fundamentals, and unnecessarines of Not fundamentals, to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, betwixt Catholics and Protestants: because catholics grant, that fundamental points are sufficient, and not fundamentals, unnecessary (to be actually believed) to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation, when not fundamentals nether are sufficiently proposed, nor it is the Vnbelevers fault, that they are not so proposed. Nether finally, 3. would such Churches, as they seek to maintain by this distinction, give them any thanks, if they would afford saving faith, true Church, and salvation, only to such of them, as invincibly err in some not fundamental points not sufficiently proposed to them, or which not for their fault are not so proposed, and would deny saving faith, true Church, and salvation, to all, that err sinfully in any point of faith: Wherefore as long, as by this distinction, they seek to maintain erring Churches, or communicate with such Churches, without excepting those, who sinfully err in not fundamental points, and also hold such common Tenets and Principles as they hold, in vain they deny, that they teach that fundamental points are sufficient, and not fundamentals not necessary, to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, even when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed, or would be, if it were not the unbelievers fault. 4. And this their doctrine, that Protestants call their doctrine of defending sinfully errants in faith charity. such, as believe the fundamental points, but sinfully err in not fundamental points, or (which is all one) who err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed to them, or which for their fault, are not so proposed to them, have saving faith, are in the true Church, and way of salvation, they call Charity: and because we afford nether saving faith, true Church, nor salvation to any such, say, they have more charity than we have. But this their charity towards sinful errants in some points of saith, is not solid and But it is falls charity, and ungrounded grounded in any word of God, which avoucheth such sinful errants to have saving faith, to be in the true Church, and in way of salvation, as so main a point ought to be: but is only apparent charity, grounded in humane pity or compassion, if not in flattery of such errants, and is directly opposite to the word of God (as shall hereafter appear) and to true charity, as damnably deceiving them, by telling them that they have saving faith, who The manifold impieties of this doctrine. destroy all saving faith; that they are in the true Church, who destroy the form and unity of the true Church; and that they are in state of salvation, who damnably sin against faith; who excuse all heresies in not fundamental points, from damnable sin; who bring in libertinism to believe or not believe not fundamental points; who allow communion in Sacraments with all heretics in not fundamental points; who deny God's veracity, and (as Protestants themselves sometimes See c. 10, n. 5. 6. confess) commit Infidelity, and give God the Lie. Such charity it is (as God willing I shall clearly show) to afford saving faith, true Church, and salvation, to those, who sinfully err in not fundamental points: or (which is all one) who err in not fundamental points of faith sufficiently proposed, or when it is their fault, that they are not so proposed. Wherefore this falls charitable doctrine, is to be detested and impugned, not as a simple heresy or error in faith, but as a ground And a ground of Heresy, Infidelity, and Atheism. of heresies, schism, infidelity, and atheism. And it is in itself so horrible to Christian ears, as the very defenders of it (though in very deed and effect they do defend and must defend it, as long as they will defend such erring Churches, as they do, and communicate with them, and hold other their common Tenets and principles) yet are ashamed to avouch it in exprès words, yea in words sometimes disclaim from it. 5. wherefore in this Treatise, first What is handled in this Treatise. of all, I set down plainly the true difference betwixt Catholics and Protestants, touching this distinction of Fundamental and not fundamental points of faith, in what sense it is good, and admitted by catholics: in what, it is naught, and meant by Protestants. Next, I prove by Protesstants clear words and deeds, and by divers their common Tenets and Principles, that they hold, that vincible and sinful error in not fundamental points, or error in them sufficiently proposed, may stand with saving faith, true Church, and salvation. After I show, why Protestants make distinction of points of faith rather by thes Metaphorical and obscure terms, Fundamental, not fundamental, then by proper and clear terms, Necessary, not necessary. Then, that Protestants are not certain, what a not Fundamental point is, nor which be fundamental points, which not: nor whether a true Church can err in fundamental points, or no, but now say one thing, now the contrary, as it maketh to their present purpose. Which evidently showeth, that this their doctrine of the sufficiency of Fundamentals, and unnecessarienes of not fundamentals, is but a shift for the present, and not firmly beleved even of them who teach it: and nevertheless do build upon it, their defence of persons and Churches, sinfully erring in some points of faith, and of their own communion with such, in Sacraments and public worship of God. Which is to build their own and other men's salvation upon a ground, not only most falls, and which they are ashamed to avoutch in plain terms, but also which themselves dot not firmly believe. 6. And having showed in the first book this uncertainty of Protestants, touching their Fundamental and not fundamental points, in the second, I proceed to certainties. And first of all, because Protestants sometimes say, that not Fundamental points are not points of faith, I prove, that there are many points of faith, beside the Principal or Capital points, which are those that are called Fundamental. Next I prove, that sinfully to deny any point of faith, or part of God's word what sooner, sufficiently proposed, is formal heresy; then, that every heresy, is damnable, and destroyeth salvation: also, that all such sinful denial, destroyeth true saving faith, true Church, and their unity and also God's veracity and consequently his Deity. Moreover, that Communion in Sacraments or public service, with any Church, that sinfully denieth any point of faith, is damnable. And all thes points I prove, by evident Testimonies of holy Scripture, and Fathers, and confirm them by reason, and confession of Protestants. Which is the sufficientest kind of proof, that Protestants can desire. After this, I show that this distinction of Fundamental and Not-fundamental points in the Protestants sense, hath no ground in Scripture, Fathers, reason, or doctrine of Catholics, as some Protestants pretend: but that the whole ground thereof, is mere necessity to have some colourable shift to defend by it, Churches vincibly and sinfully erring in some points of faith. And also, that though this distinction were admitted in their sense, yet it would not suffice to defend such Churches, as Protestants endeavour to defend by it: because they are divided not only in not fundamental, but also in fundamental points: and most manifestly and undeniably, in Communion of Sacraments and public worship of God. Which Communion, I prove by Scripture, Fathers, reason, and confession of Protestants to be essential to a true Church, and what Churches are divided in this Communion, to be essentially divided. And hence infer, that it is When error in faith is sinful. not enough to a true Church, or member thereof, or to the way of salvation, that one believe all the fundamental points: But that it is also absolutely necessary, that he do not sinfully err in any point of faith or in communion: and he erreh sinfully, who erreth, when the point of faith or communion is sufficiently proposed to him, or for his fault is not so proposed to him. And that Luther and his followers, who divided themselves Chilling. c. 5. p. 273. (as is evident also confess by Protestants) from the whole visible Church, in communion of Sacraments and public worship of God, divided themselves essentially, and from the essence of the whole visible Luther in leaving the communion of the whole Church, left her substance. Church. And so were in no visible Church. at all (because the whole, includeth all) or were in an essentially new made Church, as their communion in Sacraments and in their public service amoung themselves, was substantially new, and not before, either among themselves, or among any other Christians. For a new essential part of a Church, which was not before, must needs make a new essential Church, which was not before. 7. And because Protestants hold Protestants hold some part of the Church's faith, but no part of her communion. many of the points of faith, which they held before their separation: but hold no part of the Communion in Sacraments and public worship of God, which they held before with the visible Church, but have made a quite new Communion among themselves, in Sacraments and public service, which Communion, nether they, nor any Christians before them, had: therefore they cannot distinguish Communion into fundamental and not fundamental (as they do points of faith) nor can say, they hold the fundamental part of their former Communion, and thereby pretend, that they hold the substance of the same visible Church, as they say) they hold the fundamental part of the faith they had before, and by holding the fundamental part of the faith of the visible Church, pretend, they hold still the same substance of the visible Church. Whereupon our argument taken from their whole leaving the Communion of the whole visible Church, in Sacraments and public worship of God, (which is essential to the Church) is far more forcible to prove that they have left the very substance of the whole Church, and so are in no substantial Church, or in an other substantially new made, then that, which is taken from their leaving in part, the faith of the whole visible Church: though in truth both arguments be forcible enough, as we shall see P. 2. c. 6. 7. And Protestants knowing well, that they have no pretence to any part of the external Communion of the whole visible Church, from which they departed, never prove themselves to be of the true Church, because they retain all, or the fundamental part of the Communion of the visible Church: but Protestants speak not of communion but against their wil only, because they retain the fundamental points of faith: And speak as seldom of Communion, as they may, or if they say, they have Communion with the whole Church, they equivocate, and by Communion understand charity. Which nether is that See c. 11. Communion, which is essential to the visible Church, nor is any other, than they are bound to have to infidels, and all that are out of the Church, to wit, to pray for them, Protestants have no other communion with other Christians, then with infidels. wish, and do them good. And (I think) they will be ashamed to say, they have no other kind of Communion with the members of the Church, than they have with infidels: See l. 2. c. 11. 12. 8. last; I propose to the Reader, a sum of the Protestants uncertainties or contradictions, touched in this Treatise, that thereby he may visibly see, that they are not certain, what to say, but merely make use of what serveth them for the time: and so, that all they say, is but shifts for a time. For whiles they are racked by the Protestants confess truth whiles they are upon the rack. evidence of truth, they confès, that all points of faith sufficiently proposed, are necessary to a saving faith, to true Church, and to salvation: that sinful denial of any point of faith, is true heresy, destroyeth salvation, faith, Church, and unity thereof: That Communion in Sacraments and public worship of God, is essential to the Church, and that for want thereof, Scismatiks are out of the Church, and in state of damnation. But when they look back upon the Churches which they manteine, and see how they sinfully deny some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or for their fault, have them not sufficiently proposed to them, and are divided, partly in matters of faith, and wholly in Communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God, they are forced to deny all that before they confessed, of saving faith, true Church, and true Communion. And the reason of this their inconstancy, is, because they would join saving faith, with their faith, true Church, with their Church, true Communion, with their Communion. Which is as impossible, as to join truth with lies, life with death, heaven with hell. And whosoever seeketh to join such together, must needs, be, as the Scripture spreaketh, vir duplex animo, inconstans jacob. 1. est in omnibus viis suis. Whereas catholics (their faith, Church, and Communion, being true faith, true Church, true Communion) easily and without any contradiction at all, join them together, and show by the very definitions of true faith, true Church, true communion, given by Scripture, and Fathers, confirmed by reason, and approved by Protestants themselves, that their faith, their, Church, their communion, is true. And if Protestant's would with indifferency consider this quite contrary proceeding of Catholic and Protestant Writers, they would easily see, that they constantly defend truth, thes unconstantly make shifts for to to uphold untruths for a time. But at length (as the Apostle sayeth) their 2. Tim. 3. folly will be made manifest to al. And as Saint Cyprian affirmeth: This is true Epist. 55. madness, not to think or know, that lies do not long deceive. At length shifts will appear to be but shifts, and that which needeth them, to be untruth. 9 And finally, out of all which, I have said, I conclude, that it is no way against charity, but rather according to true Christian faith and Charity, to warn sinful errants of their danger. charity, to tell all Churches and persons, which err in any point of Christian faith, or in communion in Sacraments, sufficiently proposed, or who sinfully err against any point of faith, or communion in Sacraments, that whiles they do so, they are in state of damnation, that being so warned of their error, they may correct it, and avoid damnation: And at last is briefly showed, that Protestant Churches sinfully err, both in points of faith, and in communion of Sacraments. A CATALOGVE OF THE Chapters of the first Book. I. WHAT Protestants teach of fundamental and not fundamental points, and in what they differ therein from catholics. II. That Protestants teach, that some points of faith are so unfundamental, as they are not necessary to saving faith, true Church, or salvation, though they be sufficiently proposed. III. Why Protestants distinguish articles by thes metaphorical terms Fundamental, Not fundamental, rather than by thes proper terms, Necessary, Not necessary. iv That Protestants make great account, and great use of their distinctoin of Fundamental and Not fundamental points. V That Protestants are uncertain, what a Not fundamental point, is. VI That Protestants are uncertain, which are fundamental points, which are Not fundamental. VII. That Protestants are uncertain, whether a true Church can err in fundamental points, or no. OF THE SECOND BOOK. I. THat there are points of faith, beside thes principal articles, which are to be preached to all, and believed of al. II. That sinful denial of any point of faith, is true heresy. III. That sinful denial of any point of faith destroyeth salvation. iv That sinful denial of any point of faith destroyeth true saving faith. V divers errors of Protestants about the substance, and unity of saving faith, refuted. VI That sinful denial of any point of faith, destroyeth the substance of the Church. VII. That sinful denial of any point of faith, destroyeth the unity of the Church. VIII. That to deny any point of Christ's doctrine suffieiently proposed, is to deny his veracity and Deity. IX. That Communion with heretical Churches, or which sinfully deny any point of faith, is damnable. X. That their distinction of Fundamental, and Not fundamental points, hath no ground in Scripture, Fathers, Reason, or doctrine of catholics. XI. Though the Protestants distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental articles were true, yet it would not suffice for their purpose, for want of union in fundamental points. XII. That their distinction would not suffice, for their want of communion in Sacraments and public worship of God. XIII. Protestants errors about communion, refuted. XIV. The Protestant and Cath. doctrine, about matters here handled, and their Defenders compared, and brefly showed, that it is true Charity, to tell sinful errants in any point of faith, or in communion, that they are in a damnable state. A RAISONABLE REQVEST to him, that will seriously answer this Treatise, to say directly, and plainly, yea, or no, to thes questions following, and constantly to stand to his ansuwer, in his whole Reply. Whether Protestants, in their distinction 1. into fundamental, and not fundamental points, do intent to distinguish true points of faith: and mean, that not fundamental points, are true points of faith, or no? Whether sinful error in any true 2. point of faith, or of Gods revealed word, can stand with saving faith, a true member of the Church, and salvation, or no? Whether there be not sinful error, 3. when any point of faith is sufficiently proposed to a man, or, for his fault, not so proposed, and yet not believed of him, or no? Whether fundamental points be sufficient 4. to saving faith, true Church, and salvation even when not fundamental points or not principal points are sufficiently proposed, and not beleved, or sinfully not beleved or no? Whether not fundamental or not 5. principal points be not necessary to a saving faith, true Church, and salvation, when they are as sufficiently proposed, as points of faith ought to be, or would be so proposed, if it were not our fault, or no? Whether it be sufficient to prove, 6. some to have saving faith, to be true members of the Church, and in the way of salvation, that they believe all the fundamental points: and it be not also necessary to prove, that they do not sinfully err in any point of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or, which would be so proposed, if it were not their avoidable fault, or no? Whether, if it be necessary to saving 7. faith, true members of the Church, and to salvation, not to err sinfully in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, or which should be so proposed, if it Were not the unbelevers fault, it be not damnably to deceive souls, to teach, that all who believe the fundamental points, have saving faith, are in the Church, and in way of salvation, or no? Whether sinful error against any 8. point of faith sufficiently proposed, or which would be so proposed, if it were not the Errants avoidable fault, be formal heresy, and all such Errants, formal heretics, or no? or if it be not heresy, what sin it is? Whether all formal heresy, be not 9 damnable sin, and all formal heretics, in state of damnation, or no? Whether the Grecian, Lutheran, and 10. such other Churches, as Calvinists grant to err in some points of faith, have not had those points sufficiently proposed to them, or might have, if it were not their avoidable fault, or no? Whether, when Calvinists say, that Grecians, Lutherans, or such erring 11. Churches, have à saving faith, are in the true Church, and in way of salvation, they mean even such of them, as err vincibly, and sinfully, or only such as err invincibly? Whether if they allow saving faith, 12 true Church, and salvation to such only, as err invincibly in not fundamental points, they can pretend to have more charity to erring Christians, than catholics have, nor no? Whether Communion in Sacraments, 13. and in public worship of God, be not essential to a true visible Church, and for want thereof pure Scismatiks, be out of the substance of the visible Church, or no? Whether they, who forsake the 14. Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments and in public worship of God, do not substantially forsake the whole visible Church, or no? Whether there can be just cause to 15. forsake the Communion of the whole Church, in her Sacraments, and publiks' worship of God, and to institute à new Communion, which none before had, or no? Whether, when Luther, and his 16. Fellows, forsook the Communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments, and in her public worship of God, they did not forsake the Communion of the whole visible Church in Sacraments, and public worship of God, and instituted a new Communion in Sacraments, and public worship of God, which nether themselves had before, nor any other Christian Church or no? Whether if Communion in Sacraments, 27, and in public worship of God, be essential to the visible Church, Luther and his fellows, when they instituted a new Communion in such things which was not before, did not institute a new Church, which was not before? 18. Whether Churches, which differ both in Communion, and in all the formal essential parts of the visible Church, as in profession of faith, in Sacraments, and Ministers of the word, and of Sacraments (as the Roman, and Protestants Churches differt) can be one, and the same substantial Church, or no? If the Roman, and Protestant Churches, be substantially different 19 Churches, how can both be true Churches, Protestants receive the keys of heaven, and Lawful Mission from a falls Church, or show the continuance of their Church, by the continuance of the Roman? Whether all Protestant Churches, 20. erring in some points of faith (as Protestants confess they do) do not err sinfully in such points, as having them sufficiently proposed to them, or might have, if it were not their avoidable fault? Whether it be not charity, to tell 21. all, that sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or which would be so proposed to them, if it were not their avoidable fault and thereby are formal heretics: or which sinfully err in Communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God, and thereby are formal schismatics, that they are in state of damnation? Whether, who deny some points of 22. God's word, proposed as sufficiently, as God's word needeth to be, or which would be proposed, if it were not their avoidable fault, do not implicitly deny God to be true in all his words, or no? Whether who implicitly deny God 23. to be true in all his words, be not implicitly, Atheists, or no? Who will go close to the matter, and bewray no distrust, either of the truth of his cause, or of his own certainty thereof, will make no difficulty to answer to all thes questions directly and clearly yea or no, without making any distinction, where there is no equivocal term; nor make any shift to delude the plain sense of the words. OF THE DISTINCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH. THE STATE OF THE question, and difference between catholics and Protestants, about Fundamental, and Not Fundamental points of faith, truly and clearly set down. FIRST CHAPTER. THE true stating of the question Prima causa victoriae, diligenter causam pro qua dicturus es, dicere Cicero. betwixt Catholics and Protestants, is half the ending of it, and if it bewel observed, the question will be soon ended: and if it be not observed, the dispute will be both fruitless and endless. For otherwise, the Disputants will talk of different matters, and the one not deny, what the other affirmeth, but some different thing. Wherefore, that the Reader may plainly perceive, wherein standeth the point of controversy between Catholics and Protestants concerning Fundamental and not fundamental points, he must well note: that Catholics do not simply Glossa d 19 c. ita Dominus. Super illo articulo fidei (Tu es Christꝰ etc.) fundata est Ecclesia. deny the distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental points of faith, but only deny it in the Protestants sense. For that they grant some points of faith to be Fundamental, others not fundamental, is evident, both by their own say, and Protestants confession. For the Council of Trent sess. 3. and the Catechism of the same Council c. 1. and Catholic Divines commonly, call some points, the Peron Epistle to K. james 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. proveth at large out of Catholic writers: and the like hath L. Canterbury sec. 38. and Chillingworth p. 159. And D. White None deny the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental. in Defence of his way c. 17. sayeth: I know none of our adversaries, 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 fear she did. Which is plainly to confès, that Catholics 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 Catholics and Protestants grant) but whether fundamental and not fundamental points of faith be such, as Protestants would have them to be, or no. And if any Catholics in words deny, that there are any not fundamental points of faith, in deed they deny no more, then that there any such not fundamental points, as Protestants teach. 2. For all Catholics grant, that there is great difference among points of D. Potter sec 2. p. 47. sec. 5 p. 5. sec. 7. p. 74. L. Cant. p. 73. Chillingw. p. 263. 283. faith. For some points are simply and absolutely necessary to be actually believed, in all ordinary courses, of all men that can believe, actually, for to have saving faith, to be members of the Church, and to be in way of saluation: and therefore are to be preached to all kinds of men. And thes are also sufficient to be believed actually, to have a saving faith, to be a member of the Church, and in way of salvation, in some case, to wit, when the ignorance of other points is invincible, or not faulty, because they are not sufficiently proposed, nor the Not-belevers of them, are in any 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 any case, to a saving faith, member of the Church, or way Bellarm. l 3. de Eccles c. 14. of salvation: nor simply and absolutely necessary to be actually believed, but only conditionally, in case they be sufficiently proposed, or ●●ould be so proposed, if it were not the not believers avoidable fault. For otherwise, a virtual or intentional belief of them, will suffice to a saving faith, member of the Church, and way of salvation. Such is, that Abraham had twoe sons, and the like. And the points of the first sort, may well be Why some points may be called fundamenlal. called Fundamental, not only because they be absolutely necessary to saving faith, Church, and salvation, as the foundation is absolutely necessary to a house: but also, because other points of faith relieupon them, as other parts of a house rely upon the foundation. And points of the second sort, may why others, not fundamental. be termed Not fundamental, because they are not simply and absolutely necessary to be actually believed, for to have saving faith, to be a member of the Church, and in way of salvation, as fundamental parts of a temporal building are simply and absolutely necessary to it: nor other points rely on them, as other parts of a building rely on the foundation. But whether some points of faith, may be called Fundamental, which is a verbal question. and others, not fundamental, is no great matter. For it is but a question of words. The real question, and that of great weight, is, whether the which a real. the principal points of faith (whether they alone may be called Fundamental, or no) be so sufficient to saving faith, to a member the Church, and way of salvation, as the actual belief of them will suffice to the said ends, though other points of faith be sinfully unbeleved, or (which cometh all to one) though other points be sufficiently proposed and not believed, or would be sufficiently proposed, if it were not the unbelievers avoidable fault. And whether les principal points of faith (whether they may be termed Not fundamental points, or no) be so unnecessary to saving faith, member of the Churc and way of saluation, as they may be sinfully unbeleved, and yet there may be saving faith, member of the Church, or state of salvation: or (which cometh all to one) may be not believed, nether virtually nor actually, though they be sufficiently proposed, or would be, if it were not the unbelievers fault, without los of saving faith, member of the Church or state of salvation. For such fundamental and not fundamental points, Protestants affirm to be, and Catholics utterly deny there are any such; but say that no points of faith are so fundamental, as they are sufficient to saving faith, to a member of the Church, and state of salvation, when any other points of faith are sinfully unbeleved, or not believed when they are sufficiently proposed, or would be, if it were not the unbelievers avoidable fault: Nor any points of faith so not fundamental, as they are not really necessary to saving faith, member of the Church, and state of salvation, when they are as sufficiently proposed, as points of faith need to be, or would be so proposed, if it were not the unbelievers avoidable fault. Protestants end in this their distinction. 3. And the end, why Protestants devised this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in their forsaid sense or rather, wrested this distinction unto their foresaid sense, is, for to defend some Churches or persons to have saving faith, to be true Churches, and in way of salvation, who sinfully err in some points of faith, either because they will not believe 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 necessary to saving faith, Church, and salvation. Therefore Protestants take this distinction In what sense Protestants vnderstand fundamental, and not fundamental. in a quite different sense from Catholics, and by fundamental points, mean such, as (say they) are not only absolutely necessary, but also absolutely sufficient (to saving faith, Church, and salvation) to be believed, even when other points are sufficiently proposed, and not believed. And by Not fundamental points, mean such, as are absolutely Not necessary to saving faith, Church, or salvation, to be actually believed, even when they are sufficiently proposed, or the Not-belevers are in fault, that they are not so proposed. And that Protestants made or understand this distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in this sense, for to defend thereby such as sinfully err in some points of faith, is evident by itself, and by thes words of Rouse in his Treatise of Cath. Charity c. 9 This distinction was first framed, to give leave for difference in measure of faith. For this measure of The points in question, for fundamentals. faith, he admitteth concerning points sufficiently proposed. Wherefore all the question betwixt Catholics and Protestants, about Fundamental and not fundamental points, is, Whether there be any such fundamental points, as the belief of them, is sufficient to saving faith, Church, and salvation, even when ignorance or error in other points, is vincible and sinful: or (which is all one) when other points are so sufficiently proposed, as points of faith need to be, or should be, if it were not the Not-belevers fault, and yet are not believed. And whether, there be any such Not fundamental And for not fundamentals. points of faith, as the actual belief of them is not necessary to saving faith, Church, or salvation, when they are sufficiently proposed, and virtual or intentional belief of them be necessary, whether they be proposed, or no: or (which cometh all to one) whether, not fundamental points be such, as vincible and sinful ignorance or error in them, may stand with saying saving faith, true Church, and salvation. For such sufficiency of fundamental points, and such unnecessarines of not fundamental points, to saving faith, true Church, and salvation Protestants affirm, and Catholics utterly condemn. 4. Protestants call this distinction Protestant's charity. in their sense, Charity, or (as Rouse termeth it) Catholik Charity, because it affordeth saving faith, true Church, and salvation, universally to all that believe the Capital or principal points of faith, howsoever sinfully they believe not other points. But first, this But both ungrounded and falls. Charity is not grounded in any Word of God, (but rather is quite contrary to it, as shall hereafter appear) but only in some humane pity, or rather fond flattery of themselves, and of others, who sinfully err in some points of saith: and therefore is but seeming, and in truth, falls and deceitful charity. Secondly, it is quite opposite to true charity, because it damnably deceiveth those, who sinfully err in not fundamental or secondary points of faith, telling them, that though they believe them not, when they are sufficiently proposed, or when it is their fault, that they are not so proposed, yet they have saving faith, are in the true Church, and in way of salvation: Which is in truth to destroy the substance and unity of saving faith, of true Church, and of salvation; to excuse all heresies in secondary points of faith from mortal or damnable sin: to bring an indifference or libertinism in belief or not belief of Secondary points of faith: to give leave to Schism, and to communion with heretics; to reject God's veracity in secondary points of faith, and See c. 8. n. 5. c. 10. n. 5. 6. L. Epist. to the King. so to lay a ground of atheifme, and finally (as Protestants sometimes, convinced by evidency of truth, contes) is infidelity, and the giving of the Lie to God. Wherefore in vain do some, who teach this doctrine, complain, that Atheism and irreligion getteth strength, seeing that to teach that some points of faith are sufficient to saving faith, true Church, or salvation, and others, not necessary, though thes be sufficiently proposed, or it be the not believers fault, that they are not so proposed, is plain Atheism and Irreligion. And therefore (as I said in the Preface) this doctrine is not to be detested and impugned as a single, or simple error in faith, but as a ground of all heresies in secondary points of faith, of Schism, of Infidelity, and Atheism. For as long as they maintain such to be true Churches, to have saving faith, and to be in the way of salvation, which sinfully err in some points of faith, or (which comes all to one) which believe not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or for their fault not so proposed to them, or communicate in Sacraments and public Liturgy with such Churches, in vain they deny, that they hold this doctrine. For their said maintenance, or communion with such Churches, is a real profession of this doctrine, and will force them to confess, that they hold it. But now let us prove that Protestants both by words and deeds teach this doctrine, because they sometimes (considering the horror of it) do deny, that they teach it. But this their Denial will prove no more, then that they contradict themselves, as is usual for heretics to do, and that the doctrine is so horrible, as themselves sometimes are ashamed of it. I inquire not here, who is a sufficient what is not here enquired. Proposer of points of faith, to wit whether Sripture or Church, or both: nor, which is a sufficient proposal of points of faith: nor, what points of faith are sufficiently proposed. Neverthles many and weighty what is here proved. points are here handled: For first is confuted that most falls and Atheistical 1. doctrine, that the principal or fundamental points of faith are absolutely sufficient to saving faith, to a member of the true Church, and to salvation: So as if one believe that, he need not care (for so much as is to have saving faith, to be a member of the true Church, and in way of salvation) whether he believe any other points or no. Because (as is here proved) 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, Because Communion in Sacraments and public worship of God, is as necessary to a member of the true Church, and to salvation, as faith 2. is. Secondly, is here confuted the like falls and Atheistical doctrine: That the les principal or not Fundamental points of faith are absolutely unnecessary to saving faith, to a member of the true Church, and to salvation, even in case they be sufficiently proposed, or would be so proposed, if it were not the Vnbelevers avoidable fault: For it is here showed, that the belief of any point of faith whatsoever, sufficiently proposed, is necessary to saving faith, to a member of the true Church, and to salvation. Thirdly 3. here is confuted that like falls and Atheistical doctrine: That all who believe the principal fundamental points of faith, are of the true Church: and that a true Church, and a Church beleuing all the fundamental points, is all one. For who believe 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 avoidable fault, are true heretics, and such Churches, true heretical Churches, and give God the lie in those points, though they believe the principal, or fundamental points. Fourthly it is showed to be a vain proof: That one is of the same Church 4. with the Roman, because he believeth all the Fundamental points of faith which the Roman Church believeth. Because virtual belief of all points of faith whatsoever, and actual belief of all points sufficiently proposed, and also Communion in Sacraments and public worship of God, is necessary to be of the same Church with the Roman. Fiftly is showed, that saving faith cannot 5. stand with sin in matter of faith. Sixtly is showed, that it is not only 6. the greatness of the matters in points of faith, which bindeth us to believe it, but especially the authority of the Revealer: which being equal in greather and lesser points, equally bindeth us to believe them all when they are proposed. Seventhly is showed (though briefly and by the way) that 7. Protestants generally speaking, err sinfully in not beleuing some points of faith: Because, besides all other proofs, their own Ministers confess that all their Churches err in some points of faith, and that they sinfully err, appeareth, because either they have had them sufficiently proposed to them, or might have, if it were not their avoidable fault. That Protestants teach, that Fundamental points are sufficient, and Not Fundamental points unnecessary to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation, even when Not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed. SECOND CHAPTER. 1 CHillingworth in his answer to Chillingw. confesseth, all points sufficiently propofed, to be necessary. Mercy and truth c. 4. p. 196. saith: The main question in this business, is not, what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed, or not rejected, when they are sufficiently proposed. For all without question, all without exception, are so. And in his answer to the Preface p. 11. affirmeth, that D. Potter avoucheth the same. True it is, that some times they say, all divine Revelations sufficiently proposed are necessary, being forced thereto by the evidency of truth, and their confessions we shall c. 3. n. 5. 67. produce hereafter for confirmation of this truth: but true also it is, that often times they deny, that all such truths are necessary to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, and they are forced to deny it, for to defend such to be true Churches, to have saving faith, and to be in the way of salvation, which they cannot with any probability deny, but that they believe not, and reject some divine revelations sufficiently proposed to them, or which, (if it were not their fault) would be so proposed. And their confession of this truth sometimes, doth not prove that other times they deny it not, but only, that they contradict themselves herein; which is usual for heretics to do. Besides, Chillingworth doth not Chillingw. speaketh reserved by not setting down the whole question. here express, to what end, all divine Revelations sufficiently proposed, be necessary, to wit, to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation: which is that, which he knew catholics affirm, and charge Protestants with the denial thereof: but reservedly saith, that all divine Revelations sufficiently proposed, are necessary to be believed (not telling to what they are necessary:) which he may mean, that they are necessary to some other end, as to avoid such a fault, as (c. 1. p. 38. he saith) is incident to good and honest men. Which kinds of fault may stand with saving faith true Church, and salvation. And if he had meant, that all divine Revelations sufficiently proposed, are necessary to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, why did he not exprès it, even then, when he endeavoured to clear himself of the contraric imputation? 2. But whatsoever he meant, I will prove clearly, by Protestants words and deeds, by their direct and indirect say, by their common Tenets or Principles, that indeed they mean, that all divine Revelations, though sufficiently proposed, are not necessary 1. to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation. For first they say absolutely, and without any exception of sufficient or not sufficient Proposal of not Fundamentals, that Fundamentals are sufficient, nay abundantly sufficient to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation: And also absolutely, that not fundamentals, are unnecessary, and not necessary. What is faith enough for Protestants. D. Andrew's Respon, ad Apologiam Bellarmini c. 1. what is in the Creeds, and in the fowr Counsels, is faith enough for us. D. Whitaker controu. Sufficient. 2. q. 5. c. 18. we say it is sufficient (to the Church) if truth be kept in the See Caluin 4. c. 2. § 1. and c. 1. §. 12. chief 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 brotherly charity, was to pious antiquity abundantly sufficient. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 69. Abundantly sufficient to salvation. The main positive truths, wherein all (Protestants and Catholics) agree, are abundantly sufficient to salvation. Chillingw. c. 7. p. 408. They that believe Sufficient to unity. all things plainly delivered in Scripture, believe all things fundamental, and are at sufficient unity in matters of faith. Lord Canterbury in his Relation sec. 38. p. 372. The Church can teach the See Vsherin serm. before K. james p. 16. 28. foundation, and men were happy, if they would learn it, and the Church more happy, would she teach nothing but that, as Only fundamentals necessary to salvation. necessary to salvation. For certainly, nothing but that is necessary. And for not fundamentals the same D. Potter sec. Frith in Fox pag. 944. There are many things in Scriptures, which we are not bound to believe as an article of faith. 4. p. 96. saith: All necessary or fundamental truth, is contained in Scripture: making Necessary, and Fundamental, all one. And sec. 3. p 71. speaking of not fundamentals, saith: By their own Confession, the doctrines debated, are unnecessary. Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface n. 32. Those are not fundamental points, which are not necessary. c. 4. p 219. By fundamental articles, we mean all those, that are necessary. Ibid. p. 220. By fundamental, we mean all, and only that, which is necessary. L. Canterb. sec. 21. p. 141. speaking of not fundamentals, saith: The Church may err in Superstructures, and deductions and othey By, and unnecessary truths, Behold, how absolutely, and with out all exception, of sufficient or insufficient proposal of not fundamental points, they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient, and abundantly sufficient to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation: that nothing but the Foundation is necessary: that by Fundamental, they mean all, and only that, which is necessary: and that not fundamental points, are not necessary, are By, and unnecessary truths. And why should they say thus absolutely, and without any exception that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals, not necessary to faith, Church, and saluation, and not be absolutely understood so, unless they would not be understood, as they speak, but use mental reservation even in matters of faith? which all men condemn, and justly, for it giveth occasion of error in faith. 3. But that they mean, that Fundamental points are sufficient to saving faith, true Church and salvation absolutely, and in all cases: and Not fundamentals, unnecessary to those ends, even in case of sufficient Proposal, is evident by divers other doctrines of theirs. For (as we shall see her after) they teach, that some obstinate heretics, obstinate Papists, and obstinate Lutherans, have saving faith, are in the true Church, and in way of salvation: and obstinacy is not, but where there is sufficient Proposal of truth, or it is the fault of the obstinate, that there is not such Proposal. Besides, they teach, that fundamental points make up the Catholic faith, integrate and make up the Body of Christian religion; that in them consists the unity of saving faith; that they properly constitute a Church, essentially constitute a true Church, that a true Church, is all one, with a Church not erring in fundamentals: Breach in not fundamentals, is no breach in necessary faith. D. Potter sec. 7. p. 76. The Dogmatical foundation of the Church, Fund. make up our faith. are those grand and Capital Doctrines, which make up our faith in Christ. P. 78. By Fundamental points of faith, we mean those prime and capital doctrines of our religion, which make up the Holy Make up the Cath, faith. Catholic and Apostolic faith, that faith, which essentially constitutes a true Church, and a true Christian Ib. p. 102. In those Essentially constitute a true Church fundamental truths, consists the unity offaith, and of the Catholic Church. Item p. 73. 74. By fundamental dostrins, we mean such Catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a Church. And sec. 3. p. 60. In which Protestants In them consists the life and substance of Religion. judge 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 foundation. Chillingworth c. 3. p. 159. calleth fundamentals: The Doctrines which integrate and Integrate the body of Religion. make up the Body of Christian Religion. And ib. p 140. saith. Not fundamental (id est) no essential parts of Christianity. Lord Canter bury in his Relat. sec. 38. p. 355. Errors in things not absolutely necessary, (those are his not fundamentals) So also Usher in his Serm. k. james. is no breach upon the one saving faith, which is necessary. And p. 360. In things not necessary, though they be divine Truths also, Christian men may differ, and yet preserve the one necessary faith. But surely, if fundamental points make up our faith in Christ, comprehend the life and substance of Religion, make up the Catholic faith, integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion: if in them consisteth the unity of saving faith, if they properly and essentially constitute a true Church, and a true Christian: if a true Church be all one, with one not erring in the foundation: and if not fundamental points, be no essential parts of Christianity, nor breach in them, be any breach in necessary saving faith: our faith in Christ, the Catholic faith, the entire body of Christian Religion, unity of saving faith, and the essence of a true Church, and of a true Christian, shall As long as the essential parts are, the thing is. remain as long as fundamentals are believed, though Not fundamentals even sufficiently proposed, be not believed, nor breach in these, can make any breach in the essence or unity of a true Church, or of saving faith. The same also followeth out of 3. their doctrine: That we may not forsake the communion in Sacraments, of a Church, that erreth in not fundamentals, unless she impose the profession of them. Chillingworth c. 5, p. 307. That it is not lawful to separate See him p. 281. from any Church's communion, for errors not apperteining to the substance of No separation for not fundamentals. faith, is not universally true, but with this exception, unless that Church requires the belief and profession of them. So that if she sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed, but require not the belief of them, we may not separate from her Communion. Lord Canterbury sec. 26. p. 196. speaking of not fundamentals, saith absolutely: In necessariis, in, or about things necessary, there ought not to be contention to a separation. And sec. 28. p. 139. The whole Church cannot universally err in absolute fundamental doctrines, and therefore there can be no just cause to make a schism from the whole Church. So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed, there were no just cause of separation. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 39 Amongst wise men, each discord in Religion, dissolves not the vuitie of faith or charity. Ib. unity in thes matters, is very contingent in the Church, now greater, now lesser, never absolute in all particles of faith. what more clear, then that (according to thes men) we must not separate from any 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 may not separate from her, but must communicate with such an erring Church, which we may not do, if she be not a true Church. 4. This same followeth evidently 4. out of divers common tenets or principles of Protestants, as first: That all are of the Church, who hold the fundamental points, as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 3. and 7. secondly, that purity in fundamental points, is a certain note of a true Church ib. c. 7. Thirdly that to prove one to hold all the fundamental 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 may lawfully communicate with all, that hold not all things, but all things necessary, as speaketh Chillingworth c. 5. Morton Appeal l. 4. c. 2. Protestants communicate with all, who fundamentally profess the faith of Christ. p. 283. who p. 220. professeth, that by Necessary, he understandeth fundamental. Fiftly, that only fundamental points are of the substance of saving faith, Church, and salvation. Sixtly, that they have more charity to erring Christians, than catholics have. For if all be of the Church, who hold the Foundation: If purity 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 saving faith, Church, and salvation: and that we may lawfully communicate with all, that hold the foundation, evidently it followeth, that such as hold the foundation, but sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed, are of the true Church. Besides, if Protestants allow not saving faith, Church, and salvation, to such, as sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed, they show no more charity to erring Christians, than catholics do. For we allow all to Protestants have no more charity than catholics. have saving faith, to be in the Church, in way of salvation (for so much as belongeth to faith) who hold the fundamental points, and invincibly err in not fundamentals; because nether are these sufficiently proposed to them, nor they in fault, that they are not so proposed, as is evident, and Cath. allow salvation to invincibly errants in not fundamentals. confessed by Chillingworth c. 7. p. 139. and 400. If therefore they will seem more charitable, than we are, they must allow salvation to such, as sinfully err in not fundamentals, either sufficiently proposed to them, or for their fault, not so proposed. For to such, we neither allow saving faith But not to vincibly errants in them. true Church, nor salvation. And as long as Protestants hold their common doctrines hitherto related, in vain they deny, that they afford saving faith, true Church, and salvation, to such, as sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed. But now let us see, both their doctrine, and deeds, towards heretics; Papists, and Lutherans, and other erring Churches, which will evidently convince, that they afford saving faith, true Church, and salvation, to such, as they account to err sinfully in not fundamental points of faith. 5. And to omit, that sometimes 5. they teach, that not fundamental points are no points of faith, as we shall see c. 5. Whence it will evidently follow, that belief of them, is not necessary to saving faith, or true Church, though they be sufficiently proposed, they teach, partly, that obstinate error in not fundamental points is no true heresy; nor such obstinate errants, true heretics: partly, that all heresy is not damnable. For thus Perkins in Galat. 5. v. 20. Heresy is an error in the Heresy only in fund, points. foundation of Religion, which (saith he) I add, to distinguish it from errors about lesser parts of Religion. Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 40. True and properly called heresy, is in defect, where a true and fundamental article is denied, or not believed. 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 have an error called heresy, if it be in some small matter, and not in the foundation of faith. The Casimirian Caluinists in their Admonition c. 4. p. 131. An heretic is he, who dissenteth from the Creed, and foundation of holy Scripture. c. 7. p. 244. Not all that err in the doctrine of Christ, but such as are in Beza ad defence 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 eversion of some parts of the foundation be heretics. Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 82. The Creed is a distinctive Note or character, severing orthodox believers from Infidels, and heretics. So that, who believe the Creed, are orthodox believers, and no heretics, what other points soever they deny. And sec. 4. p. 127. These errors of the Donatists (about Rebaptisation) were not in themselves heretical. Yet were they in a point of faith sufficiently proposed 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 heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth. And c. 5. p. 271. Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any error against any necessary article of the Christian faith. And by necessary truth, or necessary article, he professeth to understand fundamental, Here n. 2. as is before showed. So that, no error against any point of faith, is heresy, or at least, not damnable heresy, except it be against some fundamental point. And if it be not damnable, it may stand with saving faith, and salvation. Nay they expressly teach, that heretics against not fundamental points may be saved, and that heretical Churches, are true Churches: and yet heretics cannot be without obstinacy, nor obstinacy without sufficient Proposal of the contrary truth. D. Andrews Respon. ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 5. Catholik and heretic are not contrary. Hookerl. 3. p. 128. Heretics are not utterly cut of from the visible Church of Christ. Whitaker controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 18. If an heretic must be excluded from salvation, that is, because he overthroweth some foundation. For unless he shake or overthrew some Heretics in not fundamentals may be saved. foundation, he may be saved. And controuer. 4. q. 5. c. 3. All Heretics are within the Church. Alsted de natura Eccles. c. 9 I say absolutely, heretics are of the Church, except those, who overthrow the foundamental articles. Morton in his Imposture c. 15. p. 413. Nether do Protestants yield more safety to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case, than they do to whatsoever heretics, whose belief doth not undermine the fundamental doctrine of faith. Doct. Pottersec. 4. p. 111. Even in an heretical Church, salvation may be had. Lord Canterbury sec. 21. p. 141. saith. An heretical Church, may be a Church of Christ still. And surely one may be saved in a Church of Christ. More Assertions of Protestants, that heretics are in the Church, and may be saved, are to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 3. And generally Protestant's compare heresy to a sickness, which destroyeth not a man, as may be seen in Plessie de Eccles. c. 1. Moulins in his Buckler sec. 92. Lord Canterbury epist. to the King. Chilling worth c. 5. p. 265. 269. c. 6. p. 335. and others. And seeing the sin of heresy, cannot be without obstinacy, as L. Canterb. p. 315. D. Potter sec 4. p. 120. Chillingw. p. 271. is evident, and Protestants confess: nor obstinacy, 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 obstinate error in some points of faith, can stand with saving faith, Church, and salvation. 6. The same is also clear by what Protestants say the Ro. Church is a true Church they profess of Papists, or of the Roman Church. For Protestants commonly profess, that the Roman Church is a true Church, hath saving faith, and is in state of salvation, as may be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 2. Here I will add the like profession of some later English Protestants. Lord Canterb. sec. 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church, is a true Church in substance and essence. Sec. 26. p. 192. Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, nor in things which constitute a Church. Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a Member of the Catholic Church. Ib. p. 285. Many Protestants indeed confess, there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church. p. 282. The possibility of saluation (in the Roman Church) I think cannot be denied. Sec. 38. p. 338. Salvation in Rom. faith. That the Lady might be saved in the Roman faith or Church, I confess. Doctor Potter sec. 1. p. 11. we yield her (Roman Church) a member of the Catholic (Church) sec. 3. p. 74 75. we acknowledge her a member of the body of Christ. Ib. p. 78. we believe their (Roman) religion Rom. Religion safe. safe, that is, by God's great mercy not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess. And p. 62. Protestants yield them the substance of a Christian Church. The like he hath p. 66. 81. Chillingworth in answer to the preface p. 15. and 16. saith of the Roman Church: She was (before Luther) a part of the whole Catholic Church. c. 1. p. 42. Though D. Potter doth not take it il, that you believe yourselves may be saved in your Religion yet, etc. c. 2. p. 85. The Roman Church is a part of the Catholic Church. c. 3. p. 163. Our hope is, that the truths she retains, and the practice of them, may prove an antidote to her, against the errors she maintains, in such persons as in simplicity of heart follow this Absalon. Thes points of Christianity, Antidote against all errors. which have in them the nature of an antidote against the poison of all sins and errors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains: therefore we hope she errs not fundamentally, but still remains a part of the Church. And these errors, though to them that believe them, we hope will not be pernicious, yet etc. c. 5. p. 282. we hope your errors are not absolutely unpardonable. p. 285. our and your salvation not desperately inconsistent. c. 7. p. 401. D. Potter sayeth indeed, that our not cutting of your Church from the body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, frrees us from the imputation of Schism. Behold the Roman Church, is a true Church in substance and essence, hath the things which constitute a Church, is a member of the Catholic Church, a member of the body of Christ, is not cut from the body of Christ, nor hope of salvation, retains those points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of an antidote against all sins and errors: possibility of salvation in her, cannot be denied, men may be saved in the Roman faith and Church, her Religion is safe to such, as believe what they profess, her errors will not be pernicious to them, that believe them. 7. And nevertheless thes same men And yet say she erreth sinfully and obstinately. say, that the same Roman Church is obstinate, and convicted of her errors, and obstinacy cannot be, but where the truth is sufficiently proposed, or would be, if it were not the unbelievers See Caluin 4. Instit. c. 2. §. 6. fault. Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 26. The Protestants expressly accuse this (Roman) Church, and have convicted her to, as Ro. Church convicted. they think, of many gros and dangerous errors. p. 14. She is senseless of her errors, Senseless of her errors. and careless to seek any remedy. And sec. 3. p. 65. The first Reformers saw Rome in love with her errors, so as she would not be cured. Chillingworth c. 6. p. 373. sayeth. The Roman Church is accused and convicted of many damnable errors. Incorrigibla And c. 3. p. 163. is most incorrigible. c. 5. p. 280. Maintains errors with obstinacy. Obstinate. And ib. p. 295. would not be reform, is obstinate in her corruptions. And p. 303. Papists are obstinate in their common superstition. Lord Canterbury sec. 20. p. 133. You thrust us from you, because we called for truth. sec. 21. p. 144. They are resolved to alter nothing. King Will alter nothing. james in answer to C. Peron. Their purpose is, constantly to maintain all they hold. Morton in his imposture p. 404. To heresy and Idolatry, your Church joineth obstinacy. So that a Church convicted of errors in faith, which is obstinate and senseless of them, which is incorrigible, resolved to alter nothing, but to hold constantly all she holds, is, notwithstanding all this, a true Church in substance, a member of the Catholic Church and body of Christ, retains all things that constitute a Church, hath possibility of salvation, her religion is safe to such as believe, as they profess, her errors not pernicious to them who believe them And is not this plainly to teach, that a Church sinfully erring in some points of faith, hath saving faith, is a true Church, and in way of salvation? 8. Nether will it help them to say (as sometimes they do) that when L. Canterb. p. 35. 285. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 46. Chillingw. p. 282. 398. 400. 32. they confess the Roman Church to be a true Church, to have saving faith, and to be in the way of salvation, by Roman Church, they mean only those, who upon invincible ignorance follow her Religion. First, because this is said voluntarily, without any ground given in the places, where they confess this of the Roman Church. By Roman Church can not be meant only invincibly ignorants. Where, if they meant only of the ignorants in the Roman Church, why did they not name them, rather than the Roman Church? 9 Secondly, because they say thus, 2. only, when we, out of their grant, that the Roman Church is a true Church, hath saving faith, and true way of salvation, do clearly infer, that the Protestants Church, is no true Church, hath no saving faith, nor way of salvation. And have no other cause to expound themselves thus, but Because otherwise they should condemn their Church, and religion. Thirdly, 3. because this is to profess, that they equivocate in a matter of religion, because nether we, nor themselves commonly, do by Roman Church, understand only those, who in her, are invincibly ignorant. And if Chillingworth say c. 7. p. 399. By Roman Church, to understand the ignorant members of it, is a very unusual Senecdoche: much more unusual is it, by Roman Church, to understand them alone. And yet (as the same man sayeth c. 2. p. 57) Men should speak properly, when they writ of Controversies in Religion. And, (as Caluin addeth) Plain dealing is to be used in all things, but chiefly in matters of faith. And if Protestants, when they say, The Roman Church is a true Church, had only meant the invincibly ignorants in her, it had been easy for them, to have said so, and thereby given no occasion to mistake their meaning. Fourthly, it is against 4. their own descriptions of the Roman What Protestants 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 body. 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 magnify, admire, and adore the plenitude of Papal power, or, at least, are content to be under the yoke of it still. White in defence of his Way c. 33. The Church of Rome is the Papacy. Sutclif l. 1. de Ecclesia c. 6. We must first tell, what we, and our Adversaries mean, by the Church of Rome. I say, that the Church of Rome, is a multitude under one Head, the Bishop of Rome, and agreeing in the public doctrine of the Bishop of Rome, and the external worship, and Rites of that Church. Rainolds l. 2. de Idolalatria, c. 1. By the name of the Roman Church, I mean all those, who defile themselves with the superstition of Rome, and communion of the Pope. Whitaker controu. 2 q. 5. c. 5. p. 506. I esteem the Papistical Church, not by number of men, but of Professors: And they cannot be truly, called Professors, but who understand, and believe, what they profess: All which definitions, or descriptions of the Roman Church, or Church of Rome, either only, or chiefly agree to them, who wittingly embrace her doctrine and communion. 10. Fiftly this exposition of the 5. Roman Church, is against the profession of the English Protestant Church. For (as Rouse writeth in his Catholic charity c. 2.) The Roman Church (according to the Church of England) is to be understood of the Pope, and his adherents. And in the margin citeth the Homely on Whitsuntide. And c. 3. The Church of Rome being understood, (as before) according to the words of the Church of England, to be the Pope, and his adherents, etc. And doubtless, the adherents to the Pope, are not only invincible ignorants, but either only, 6. or chief, the intelligents. Sixtly, because themselues sometimes declare, that when they say the Roman Church, is a true Church, they mean even those, who wittingly follow her doctrine. For Doctor Potter sec. 1. p. The cursed Dame of Rome is a member of the Cath. Church. 10. having called her, the cursed Dame of Rome, who takes upon her to revel in the house of God, who hath many ways played the Harlot, and in that regard, deserved See Usher Serm. before x james p. 26. a bill of divorce from Christ, and detestation from Christians: saith in the next page. Yet for those Catholic verities which she retains, we yield her a member of the Catholic. Is not this plainly to confess, that the most obstinate part of the Roman Church, is not yet divorced from Christ, and is still a member of the Catholic Church? Moreover sec. 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledge (saith he) the Church of Rome a member of the body of Christ, and this clears us from imputation of Schism, whose property it is, to cut of from the body of Christ, and hope of salvation, the Church, from which it separates. And the same defendeth Chillingworth c. 5. p. 266. But they separated themselves from the Pope and his adherents; Therefore those, they must account members of the body of Christ, and in hope of salvation, or they clear not themselves from schism. Montague also l. orig. Eccles. parte poster. p. 408. saith: The Bishop of Rome is a part, and a Chief, of the universal representative Church. And if the Pope be a part, surely all Papists are. 7. Seventhly, if they did allow no Papists to be of the Church, or in way of salvation, but only the invincibly ignorants, they could pretend no more charity to Papists, than we have to Protestants. For (as Chillingworth Ib. p. 400. Material heretics, you do not exclude from possibility of salvation. writeth c. 7. p. 398. Ignorant Protestants may be saved by the confession of Papists. The same he hath c. 5. p. 308. And c. 1. p. 34. According to the grounds of your own Religion, Protestants may die in their supposed error, either with excusable ignorance, or with contrition, and if they do so, may be saved. which is true, if he mean of invincible ignorance: but such are no true or formal Protestants, such are rather Protestantibus credentes, than Protestants, because wittingly they hold no point of true protestancy, but the Capital points of Christianity, which are the Capital points of Papacy. But howsoever they can equivocate in the name of Roman Church, because they can take that for different kinds of men, ignorants and intelligents, and say, that when they affirm the Roman Church to be a true Church, and a member of the Catholic Church and body of Christ, they mean only the invincibly ignorants, and not those who wittingly follow her doctrine: how can they equivocate 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 evident by that Epitheton Roman, when they say, men may be saved in the Roman faith, or Roman Religion is safe to such, as believe what they profess, that her religion hath antidotes against all errors, or sins, that her errors will not be pernicious to them, that believe Perkins initio problematis. them, and withal profess, (as Chillingworth doth c. 6. p. 375. By your Religion I understand that, wherein you all what is the Rom. Religion. agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the Council of Trent. Is not this to confess, that even those, who wittingly follow the Roman faith, or Religion, (which is the doctrine of the Council of Trent) may be saved, if they believe as they profess? 9 An other thing, which convinceth 8. the Caluinists, that they hold, that a true Church, saving faith, and state of salvation, may stand with sinful errors in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or with faulty want of such proposal, is their maintaining, that the Lutherans are a true Church, have saving faith, and may be saved: who yet sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or at the least, which would be so proposed to them, if it were not their fault, which is all 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 blind, 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 evident by the Apology of the Church of England, and generally by their deeds and writings. Here I will only set down the Profession of Chillingworth in his Preface, n. 39 See D Potter sec. 3. p. 89. I hold the doctrine of all Protestants free from all impiety, and from all error destructive of saluation, 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 seeing the Churches of the Confession of Ausbourg (Lutherans) do Caluinists' communicate in Sacraments with erring Lutherans. agree with the other Reformed Churches, in the Principles, and fundamental points of their Religion, the faithful of that Confession, who with the spirit of charity and truly peaceable, do come to the public Assemblies of the Churches of this Kingdom, and desire their Communication, may without making abjuration, be received to the supper of the Lord. Behold Lutherans admitted of Caluinists to their Communion, without making abjuration; which is to confess, that they hold errors worthy to be abjured. And the reason, why they are admitted with their errors, is not because they sin not in them, or they are not sufficiently proposed to them, but because they are not fundamental errors. Nether is it likely, that Lutherans that live in France among Caluinists, should not have their errors sufficiently proposed unto them. (For this were to condemn the Caluinists of want, both of zeal to their Religion, and also of charity to their erring Brethren) or at the least, they might have their errors sufficiently proposed to them, if it were not their fault. Besides, Caluin contra Hessusium p. 843. Withaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 8. and other Caluinists generally affirm, that Lutherans are obstinate in their errors. But that, which convinceth, that Caluinists' account as Brothers, even such Lutherans, as are obstinate in their errors sufficiently showed to them, is, that Note this. Zuinglius, and his fellows 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 fellows, in their Conference at Montbelgard, though to their faces they maintained their errors. See Hospinian parte 2. historiae Sacrament. An 1529. 1386. Had not Luther his errors sufficiently showed to him by Zuinglius, and Smidelin, by Beza, or at the least might they not have 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 obtain it. 10. Moreover Protestant's generally All Protestants err in some points of faith. confess, that every one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith. And that they err sinfully, is evident. For either they have those points, in which they err, sufficiently proposed to them by their Ministers, or might have; if it be not either their fault, or their Minister's fault. Caluin. 4, Instit. c. 1. §. 12. Ether we must leave no Church at all, or we must pardon errors in those things, which may be unknown without breach of the sum of religion. Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 8. It is not needful, that all should think the same: if such unity 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 well as in manners. Morton apology l. 1. c. 68 Only Papists challenge privilege of not erring. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 38. It is a great vanity to hope or expect, that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all pieces and particles of divine truth. p. 39 unity (in points not fundamental) is very contingent in the Church, never absolute in all particles of truth. Item: Among wise men, each discord in Religion dissolves not the unity of faith or charity. Sec. 5. p. 22. The Church may not hope to triumph over all error, till it be in heaven. Lord Canterbury sec. 33. p. 360. This (that all agree in all points of faith) cannot be hoped for, till the Church be Triumphant. Chilling worth c. 5. p. 279. The visible Church is free indeed from all error absolutely destructive and unpardonable, but See whites way p. 110. Montacute part. poster. orig. p. 408. not free from all error, which in itself is damnable. Thus plainly they confess, that all Protestants Churches err in some points of faith, that they must pardon errors which are not against fundamental points, or have no Church at all: that each discord in Religion dissolves not unity in faith. And if Ministers have sufficiently proposed thes errors to their Churches, or would so do, if it were not their Church's fault, either they have no true Church, or it may be a true Church, which sinfully erreth in some points of faith, and communion with such an erring Church, is lawful. 11. Finally, sometime Protestants 8. seem plainly to confess, that saving faith, true Church, and salvation, can stand with sinful error in some points of faith, For thus writ the Divines of Casimire in their admonit. c. 7. p. 246. we offer ourselves to maintain Brotherhood with Lutherans, from which thes divines exclude us, even this dissension in doctrine 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 God's word, no mortal sin. ofpreiudice, is a fault I confess, but a fault, which is incident to good and honest men very often. Lo, to oppose that, which one may know to be God's 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 God's word from damnable sin, and to say, that salvation may stand with sinful opposition of God's word? And c. 3. p. 139. He only in fact affirms, that God doth deceive or is deceived, who denies something, which himself knows or believes to be Gods revealed word. And upon this doctrine, be excuseth p. 39 and 40. all Protestants from damnably erring, because they do not oppose, what they know God hath testified: and saith p. No dishonour to God's veracity. 40. They only err damnably, who oppose, what they know God hath testified. And c. 3. p. 135. Without any, the lest dishonour to God's veracity, I may doubt or deny some truth revealed by him, if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him. Is not this plainly to say, that they only err damnably, who oppose what they know or believe to be revealed? and so they err not damnably, who oppose that, which is sufficiently proposed to them, but nether believe, nor know it to be God's word? Is not this to excuse all opposers of God's word, upon sinful or affected ignorance, from damnable sin, or any dishonour to God's veracity? For thes nether know nor believe it to be God's word: And to say, that error in faith upon sinful or affected ignorance, may stand with saving faith, true Church, and salvation? Lord Canterbury sec. 35. p. 285. Protestants say, that the errors of the Roman Church, are so many, and some so great, as weaken the foundation, that it is very Salvation may stand with unbelief of truth manifested. hard to go that way to heaven, especially to them, that have had the truth manifested. Lo, even those Papists, who have had the truth manifested, may go to heaven, though very hardly. Is not this to say, that saving faith and salvation may stand with unbelief of truth manifested? Ib. p. 282. The possibility of Papists salvation, I think cannot be denied, with holding known corruptions. to the ignorants especially, because they hold the foundation: but a secure way they cannot go, who hold with such corruptions, when they know them; Behold again, a possible way, though not secure, even for those Papists, who hold corruptions, when they know them. Is not this to grant saving faith, and possibility of salvation, where not only truth is sufficiently proposed, but also known corruptions are followed? And p. 299. I do for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation Salvation may 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 believe the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himself: not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church. Behold again, possibility of salvation granted even to those Romanists, who wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to the gros superstitions of the Roman Church; And have not they truth sufficiently proposed to them, who wittingly and knowingly associate themselves to gros superstitions? Nether hindereth it, that he granteth not possibility of salvation to Romanists, as they associate themselves wittingly to gros superstitions. For it sufficeth us, that he granteth possibility of salvation to those same Romanists, who so associate themselves to superstitions, for to prove, that they grant, that possibility of salvation may be in the same men, with witting and known association to gros superstitions: which is more than I needed to prove. For it sufficed me to prove, that Protestants teach, that saving faith, and salvation may stand with sinful denial of some revealed truths sufficiently proposed: And here salvation is granted even to those, who associate themselves to known gros superstitions: which is far more, and far worse. For he that doth associate himself to gros superstitions only sufficiently proved, 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. verity, I would have all wise men consider, whether external obedience be not even then to be yielded. Lo external obedience to be yielded to known error in not fundamentals. Be it therefore certain, that howsoever Chillingworth or Doctor Potter say, that all divine revelations without question or exception, are necessary to be believed or not rejected, when they are sufficiently proposed; or that other Protestants deny they teach, that Fundamental points are sufficient, and not fundamental, not necessary to saving faith, true Church, and salvation, even when not fundamentals are sufficiently proposed, and deny, that saving faith, true Church, and salvation 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 do, and communicate with such, and hold their foresaid common Tenets and Principles: and some say more, to wit, that saving faith, true Church, and salvation, may 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 have been the longer in proving, that Protestants hold the foresaid doctrine, that saving faith, true Church, and salvation, may stand with sinful ertor in some points of faith, partly, because sometimes they deny, that they hold it, partly, because to have discovered it, is half to have refuted it, it being so detestable, as indeed it is. Now let us see, why Protestants make, or use the distinction of points of faith, rather by thes Metaphorical and ambiguous terms, Fundamental, Not fundamental, then by thes proper and clear terms, Necessary, Not necessary. For it is not without cause, that they chose improper and obscure terms, rather than proper and clear. Why Protestants distinguish points of faith by the Metaphorical terms Fundamental, Not Fundamental, rather than by proper terms, Necessary, Not-Necessarie. THIRD CHAPTER. Protestant's confess (and it cannot Chillingw. c. 4. p. 225. be denied) that the word Fundamental is Metaphorical and ambiguous, and profess sometimes by Fundamental Chillingw. p. 219. 220. to understand Necessary: and nevertheless they rather make distinction of points of faith into Fundamental, and not Fundamental, then into necessary, and not necessary. And the reason hereof, is, partly because under these ambiguous terms, Fundamental, not Fundamental, they can better cover the foulness of their doctrine, whereof we speak in the former Chapter, That sinful error in some points of faith, may stand with saving faith, true Church, and salvation, The foulness whereof doth not so evidently appear, if it be only said, that some points of faith, are not fundamental to saving faith, to Church, or to salvation, though they be sufficiently proposed. For in rigour of speech, not Not all things Necessary are Fundamental. every necessary part, is fundamental: as a roof is necessary to a house, yet not fundamental. Besides by Not fundamental, they may seem to mean, Not principal, or Not Capital. In which sense, it is no fowl doctrine, to say, Some points are Not Fundamental, Some points proposed, not principal, and yet necessary. though they be sufficiently proposed: as it is to say, some are Not necessary though they be sufficiently proposed: Because not every thing necessary, is principal. Partly also, that under thes ambiguous terms, Fundamental, Not Fundamental, See c. 16. n. 6. they may fly from one sense of them, to an other, better than they could under the proper terms Necessary, Not Necessary, and so delude their adversary, and avoid conviction. For sometimes by Fundamental articles, they only mean principal or capital articles of faith: And by Not fundamental, Not principal, or Not capital articles. And thus they must mean, when they prove out of Catholics, that they admit Fundamental and Not fundamental articles. At other times by Fundamental, they mean articles sufficient to a Church, and to salvation: And by Not fundamental articles, Not at all necessary to a Church or to salvation, as we clearly shown in the second Chapter. And this craft they could not so well use, under the words Necessary, Not necessary, Because nether are they so ambiguous, as Fundamental, Not fundamental: nether do catholics deui'de articles into Necessary, Not necessary, (because they account all necessary; either to be believed actually, if they be All points of faith, twoe ways necessary. sufficiently proposed, or virtually, though they be not so proposed) as some do into Fundamental, Not fundamental. And that Protestants use Fundamental in an other sense, than we do, is evident, 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 fear she did. 2. Whereof to avoid all ambiguity, In what sense Fundamental and Not fundamental may be used. equivocation, or dispute of words, if by Fundamental points, Protestants would only mean, principal or capital points of faith; and by not fundamental, See Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei c. 11. Peron Epist, ad Reg. jac. obseruat. 3. not principal or not Capital points of faith: or if by fundamental points, they would only mean such, as are the fundations of other articles: or lastly, by Fundamental Articles, such as (in ordinary course) their D. Potter sec 7. p. 74. Chillingw. p. 263. 283. 227. actual belief is necessary to every particular person, and to salvation, And by Not fundamental points, such as their actual belief is not absolutely necessary to every particular person, or to salvation, but only conditionally, if they be sufficiently proposed, there would be no difference between us about this distinction of Fundamental, and Not fundamental articles. But (as I said) their defending such Churches, as sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or for their fault, Bellar l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. multa sunt de fide, quae non sunt absolute necessaria ad salutem. have them not sufficiently proposed, forceth them to understand by fundamental points, such points, as absolutely or in all cases suffice to saving faith, to a Church, and to salvation: And by Not fundamentals, such as are absolutely or in all cases unnecessary to saving faith to a Church, or to salvation. In In what sense it is ground of atheisine. which sense we condemn this their distinction, as a ground of atheism and damnable deceit of such, as sinfully err in some points of faith: But now let us see, what account, and what use they make of this their distinction. That Protestants make great account, and great use, of their distinction of Fundamental, and Not Fundamental points. FOURTH CHAPTER. 1. THat Protestants make great account, and great use, of their distinction of Fundamental and Not fundamental points, is evident, both by their words and deeds. For Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 70. saith This distinction is most necessary, and hath a ground in reason and scripture. And p. 73. he calleth it, a most necessary and A most necessary, most useful, and main distinction. most useful distinction. And p. 75. a main distinction. K. james Epist. and Card. Peron. This distinction, the King accounteth of such importance, to diminish the controversies in the Church, as he thinketh it the duty of every peaceable man, most diligently to explicate, teach, and urge it. Chillingworth maketh the whole third Chapter of his Book to prove, that this distinction is good and pertinent, and sayeth: This distinction is employed by Protestants to many purposes. In answer to the Preface p. 7. as it is applied by Protestants is very good. Lord Canterbury in his Relation p. 21. and 24. granteth, that the Greek Church hath a dangerous and grievous error, and yet affimeth her to be a true Church, because her error is not Fundamental. The like judgement he giveth of the Roman Church p 296. 325. and p. 129. 311. So by this Saveth Churches greviously erring. distinction they save Churches, that have dangerous and grievous errors. 2. Secondly Protestant's have made use of this distinction ever since they began to be divided in points of faith, as a sovereign remedy to cover their rent. For Zuinglius, when he had forsaken Luther in the point of real presence, for excuse thereof, in his Used by Protestants since their dissension. Apolog. tom. 2. fol. 374. said. That this matter pertined not to any foundation of faith: The same said Bucer in Hospinian parte secunda hist. fol. 127. and Martyr ib. fol. 244. Caluin Defence. 2. contra Wesphal. p 766 Beza contra Wesphal. p. 258. Whitak controu. 2. q. 5. c. 8. jewel in his Apology and generally all Sacramentaries, when either they curry favour with Lutherans, and would be held for brethren of them, or excuse to Catholics; their dissensions in points of faith. See Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 89. and sec. 5. p. 18. Lord Canterbury sec. 38. p. 325. 3. Thirdly, this their distinction is the ground of their defence in controversies The ground of Protestants defence in main points. of greatest moment, to wit; which are true Churches, and in which saluation may be had: and with which, men may communicate lawfully. For, if we prove, that the Protestant Church in general (as it comprehendeth both Lutherans and Caluinists) is no true Church, nor can afford salvation: nor is such, as men may lawfully communicate withal, because her members are sinfully divided in points of faith and Religion, one from the other, they answer not, that they are not sinfully divided, but that their division is not in points fundamental, but only in not fundamental points: which division doth not hinder that unity of faith, or of Church, D. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. which is necessary. Likewise, if we prove, that the Lutherans are no true L. Canterb sec. 38. p. 325. Church, because they are divided in points of faith from the Caluinists, their answer is, this division is not in fundamental points, but only in points not fundamental, which division (whether it be sinful, or no) doth not destroy the substance of a true Church. The like answer for the Roman Church, Protestants do give, when it pleaseth them to grant, that she is a true Church, and that salvation may be had in her. Finally, if we prove, that no particular Protestant Church can be a true Church, or have hope of salvation, because (as Protestants confess) every one of their Churches erreth in some point of faith, nay that there is no hope, that any Church shall be free from all error in points of faith, they answer: This error is only in not fundamental points, which error destroyeth not saving faith, Church, or means of salvation, whether it be vincible and sinful, or no. 4. Thus we see, that by means of this distinction, of fundamental, and not fundamental points, Protestants do 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 us constantly, which are fundamental, which not fundamental; nor giving us any certain rule to know which are such, but reserving the determination hereof to their ends, as they need: Secondly by means of this distinction, they endeavour what kind of erring Churches may be true Churches. to maintain three main points, to wit: That such Churches, as they confess to err in some points of faith, are notwithstanding true Churches: That salvation may be had in such erring Churches: And that men may lawfully communicate with erring Churches. Which doctrine of theirs, if it were meant only of such Churches, as invincibly, unwittingly 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 be what kind of erring Churches Protestants mean. by them, for many such Churches as they do maintain) of obstinate or sinful error, or of error about Not-fundamental points sufficiently proposed, is abominable, and indeed the very ground of atheism. Nether, though it were true, would itsuffice them for to mainteive some Churches, which they maintain, and salvation in them: both because they sometimes confess, that those Churches do err even in fundamental points: and also, because those Churches want Communion in Sacraments, which is as essential, to a true Church, as faith is, as we shall show hereafter. C. 19 So that this their ground of maintaining such erring Churches as they do maintain, is not only falls and atheistical, but also though it were true, were insufficient to uphold such Churches, as they endeavour to uphold Protestant's ground, nether true, nor sufficient for their purpose. by it, as (God willing) I shall show evidently in this Treatise. But first we will show their uncertainty, both what, and which are Not-fundamental points, and whether a true Church can err even in fundamental points, that thereby the Reader may see, that this their ground, is not only falls, and also insufficient for their purpose; but also that they themselves are not certain, or assured of it; and yet do upon this ground, venture their salvation in living in confessed erring Churches: and other men's also, in teaching them, that it is not necessary to saving faith, to a member of the Church, or to salvation, to believe every point of faith though sufficiently proposed, or which would be so proposed, if it were not also the fault of the not believer, which is damnably to deceive poor souls. That Protestants are uncertain, what 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 will show the Protestants uncertainty, what is the nature of Not fundamental points, and in the next chapter, their uncertainty, which are they, that have the nature of Not fundamental points. For, either because indeed, they know not, what is the nature, or condition of their Not— fundamental points; or because, being between twoe straits, to wit, 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, because they would not have catholics to be able to convince, what they teach in this matter, they doeso perplexedly deliver their doctrine about not fundamental points, as there is greater difficulty to convince, what indeed is their doctrine herein, then that it is falls doctrine. 2. First therefore, they teach (as Not fundamentals are not necessary for salvation, or separation. we shown before in the 2. chapter) that Not fundamental points, are By truths, unnecessary, not necessary, for which no separation ought to be made: and (as Chillingworth sayeth c. 4. p. 220.) By, Fundamental, we mean all, and only that, which is necessary. So, no point not fundamental, can be necessary. 3. Secondly, they say, that Not-fundamental But opinions, doubtful, obscure, not evidently deduced out of scripture. points are opinions, doubtful matters, obscure points, disputable in themselves, and happily, by plain Scripture, indeterminable, disputable opinions, not clearly defined in Scripture, not evidently deducible out of Scripture, of which nether Church nor Council hath any infallible assurance, and in which, modest opposition is tolerable. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. speaking of Not-fundamental Not fundamentals are opinions. points sayeth. The unity 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 descent in some opinions, from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic. Sec. 7. p. 74. sayeth of Not fundamental points: They are disputable in themselves, and happily, by plain Scripture, indeterminable. And sec. 6. p. 54. affirmeth, that controversies among Whitak. count. 2. q. 5. c. 8. our contentions are for faith, for Religion. Protestants, are only in disputable opinions, not clearly defined in Scripture. And yet their Controversies, are (at 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 may with probability be disputed on both sides: and calleth Protestants men of different opinions, touching obscure controversed questions of Religion. Nu. 32. Those truths, will be fundamental, which are evidently delivered in Scripture, and commanded to be preached to all men: Those, not fundamental, which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure, can be necessary to be understood, or not mistaken. c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental, Not evidently deducibleout of Scripture. which are therehence (out of Scripture) deducible but probably, not evidently. And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points, in which Protestants descent, matters not plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture. c. 5. p. 306. As for our continuing in their (Churches erring not fundamentaly) Communion, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errors are not damnable, as that they require not the belief, and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their communion. And 307. It is not No separation for not fundamental errors. lawful to separate from any Church's Communion, for errors not pertaining to the substance of faith, unless that Church require the belief and profession of them. Lord Canterbury sec. 21. p. 147. termeth not fundamental points, Disputable doctrine, 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 Counsels, nor the whole Church hath infallible certainty. And ibid. p. 358. No infallibility in not fundamental points. That in them, it is no matter, if Counsels err. And ibid. It it not requisite, that for them, we should have an infallible assurance. And sec. 32. p. 226. when they know it (the error) if the error (of a general Council) be not manifestly against fundamental verity, I would have all wise men consider, whither external obedience be not, even then, to be yielded. So that obedience may be External obedience, to known error in not fundamentals. yielded against not fundamental verity. And sec. 26. p. 205. Bihops' subject 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 evidently out of what we even now related: For if they be but opinions, obscure, and doubtful matters, whereof we can have no infallible certainty, or assurance, not clearly defined in scripture, nor evidently deducible out of Scripture, they cannot say, they are points of faith, unless they will turn faith into opinion, and make that a point of faith, which nether is clearly defined in Scripture, nor evidently deducible out of Scripture: But besides this, some times they expressly 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 heaven and earth, is no part of faith. Sec. 6. p. 54. Our (Protestant) Controversies are none of them in the substance of faith, but only in disputable opinions. Lord Canterbury sec. 39 p. 387. Superstructures are doctrines about the faith, not the faith itself, unless they be immediate consequences. And p. 388. Suppose uncertainty in some of thes superstructures, it can never be thence concluded, that there is no infallible certainty of the faith itself. p. 341. This Athanasius Creed, and the Apostles, and no more, is the Catholic faith. Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals, opinions, which flutter about faith. And p. 376. sayeth: Nor do the Church of Rome, and the Protestants, set up a different Religion. For the Christian Religion, is the same to both. And yet these Churches Not fundamentals make not difference 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 all agreed, that only those things, wherein you do agree, are matters Not matters of faith, in which Protestants differ. of faith: And Protestants, if they were wise, would do so too. Sure I am, they have reason enough to do so, seeing all of them agree with explicit faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture. Thus Consubstantiation, ubiquity, and such, are not matters of faith. And in answer to the preface, when his adversary had said, That men of different Religions (as Papists and Protestants) may be saved, is a ground of atheism, he will not admit Papists and Protestants to be men of different Religions, but sayeth p. 14. By men of different Religions, he must mean Christians of divers opinions and communions, or else he Difference in not fundamentals should not hinder communion. speaketh not to the point. And c. 4. p. 209. The diversity of opinions, which is among the several sects of Christians, aught to be no hindrance to their unity in communion. So that the several sects of Christians differ but in opinions, and yet doubtless they differ in not Optatus l. 2. ubi vultis, ibi est Ecclesia, & non est ubi non vultis. fundamentals. Lord Canterbury also sec. 39 p. 376. Potter sec. 3. p. 58. White in Defence. 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 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 fundamental points, Error in not Fundamentals is not heresy. is true heresy, as we shown before c. 2. and it followeth out of what even now we rehearsed. For if not fundamental points be no points of faith, opposition to them, cannot be heresy. For heresy, is an error against faith. And as Lord Canterbury sayeth sec. 26. p. 198. Heresy, properly cannot be, but in doctrine of faith. 6. Lastly, Protestants not content to teach, that not fundamental points Not 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 all: as when we object to Caluinists, their difference from Lutherans, in such points, as they account not fundamentals: Whitaker controu. 1. q. 4. c. 3. calleth them, small matters. K. james in his monitory Epistle: Things indifferent, and tittles. D. Andrews Resp. ad Apol Bellarm. c. 14. Matters of no great moment. The Apology of the Church of England, No great matters. Caluin Admonit. ultima, p. 832. Matters of nothing. Martyr in Locis, Class 4. c. 10. paragr. 65. Matters not to be much respected. Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 89. No part of faith, but curious Niceties. Thus meanly, nay contemptously, they speak of Not-fundamental points, when they will maintain any Church, which they confess to err in Not-fundamental points, or salvation to be had in such a Church, or their own Communion with her. And surely, If Not-fundamental points, were such, as hitherto they have described, evident it were, that even obstinate error in them could not destroy saving faith, true Church, or hope of salvation, nor hinder Communion with any Church obstinately erring in such points. 7. But at other times, Not-fundamental At other times not fundamentals are points of faith. points, are points of faith with them, are weighty matters, as on which dependeth men's salvation: and errors against them, damnable, as we L. 2. c. 1. shall see at large hereafter. And thus highly they esteem of Not-fundamental points, especially, when they would justify their separation from the Roman Church, which they confess to be a true Church, and to hold the fundamental points, and yet say, her errors are horrible and damnable, and just cause of separation from her. But let us hear them first freeing the Roman Church from fundamental errors, and after, condemning her for damnable errors, and such as are just cause of separation. Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 62. The most necessary and Rome holdeth that which constitutes a Church. fundamental truths, which constitute a Church, are on both sides (Catholik and Protestants) unquestioned. p. 60. The things, wherein the Protestants do judge the life and substance of Religion to be The life and substance of Religion. comprised, their adversaries (Papists) themselves do avow and receive them, as well as they. And p. 58. In the prime The fundamental truths. grounds or principles of Religion, we have not forsaken the Church of Rome. Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface, p. 16. In our sense of the word, fundamental, I hope she (Roman Church) erred not fundamentally. c. 3. p. 164. The Erreth not in fundamentals. only and main reason, why we believe you not to err in fundamentals, is your holding the doctrines of faith in Christ, and repentance. c. 7. p. 401. we approve those See also c. 3. p. 163. fundamental and simply necessary truths, which you retain, by which some good souls among you may be saved. p. 404. We hope she retains those truths, which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably Holdeth what is necessary to salvation. necessary to salvation, which may suffice to bring those good souls to heaven. Lord Canterbury sec. 35. p. 299. Romanists, as they are Christians that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himself, I dare not proceed so roughly, Holdeth the foundation. as the deny, or weaken the foundation, which is Christ, even among them, and which is and remaineth holy, even in the midst of their superstitions. And sec. 39 p. 376. The Protestant, and the Roman Religion, is the same. And the same it could not be, if the Roman differed in fundamental points. And sec. 35. p. 285. and sec. 36. p. 314. 315. affirmeth, that ignorant souls in the Roman Church, are safe, and that Ignorants in the Roman Church, are safe. their simplicity of beleuing, maketh them safe, yea safest. And sec. 26. p. 192. Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, not in the things which constitute a Church. Thus these men plainly confess, that the errors of the Roman Church, are not fundamental, but only not fundamental. More confessions of Protestants, that the Roman Church holdeth all the fundamental points, may be seen lib. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 2. paragr. 3. 8. And nevertheless, thes same men say, her errors are horrible and Yet holdeth Rome horrible errors. damnable, and just cause of separation. Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 62. The Roman Church is extremely defiled with horrible errors and corruptions. Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 16. Errors of the Roman Church, of Errors of themselves damnable. themselves, damnable. c. 1. p. 34. Popery in itself destroys salvation. Lord Canterbury sec. 35. p. 296. He that believes, as that (Roman) Church believes, Guilty of schism. is guilty of the Schism, which that Church first caused by her corruptions, and of all her damnable opinions too. And p. Damnable opinions. 298. And therefore in this present case, there is peril, great peril, of damnable, both Schism, and Heresy, and other Peril of Schism. sin, by living and dying in the Roman faith, tainted with so many superstitions, as this day it is. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in themselves may induce on obligation to forsake your communion. And they all three though they confessed, that the errors of the Roman Church are not fundamental, yet afford salvation to these only of the Roman Church, who either are invincibly ignorant of her errors, or repent themselves of them, as is to be seen in Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 76. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 267. 285. 283. c. 7. p. 398. Lord Canterbury sec. 34. and 35. So not fundamental errors, which before they so much slighted, sometimes are horrible errors, damnable opinions, of themselves damnable, and destructive of salvation, and just cause of separation. 9 Finally their ignorance, and uncertainty, what Fundamental, or Not Fundamental points are, appeareth by their manifold, and ambiguous distinctions of them: Their first distinction is, of Fundamental properly and improperly. Doctor Potter Properly sect. 7. p. 75. Fundamental properly is that, which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual faith. Lord Canterb. sec. 10. p. 38. Catholik Maxims are properly Fundamental. An other distinction is, Formally not Formally. Formally. L. Canterb. sect, 38. p. 334. Deductions are not formally fundamental for all men. An other is, In some sense. In some sense. Potter sect. 7. p. 74. whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, is in some sense Fundamental. An other, Absolutely, not Absolutely. Absolutely. L. Cannterb. sect. 18. p. 139. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals. p. 140. The Church cannot err in doctrines absolutely Fundamental. sect. 25. p. 162. The Church cannot err in absolute Fundamentals. P. 165. In absolute foundations. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 282. We hope your errors, are not absolutely unpardonable. An other distinction is, Simply Fundamental, not Simply. Simply. L. Canterb. sect. 9 p. 24. It was a question, not simply Fundamental. sect. 10. p. 31. Nothing is simply Fundamental, because the Church declares it. sect. 25. p. 162. Provided, it be not in any point simply Fundamental. Potter in Chillingworth p. 7. Simply and indispensably necessary, Precisely necessary. An other is, Prime foundations, and Prime. 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 all men. Chillingworth c. 3. p. 184. That may be fundamental to one, which to an other is not so. Potter sec. 7 p. 103. Some truth is fundamental in some persons in certain 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, may signify, either such, as are repugnant to God's command, but pardonable by ignorance, or which are Remedielesly pernicious, and destructive of salvation. An other. Some are either in themselves, or by accident fundamental. Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. An other is, some are Reductive Fundamental, others not, so Reductively White in L. Canterb. sect 37. p. 317. Popish errors, are Fundamental Reductive. p. 321. Some errors of that Church, were fundamental Reductive. But what signifieth this multiplicity of ambiguous distinctions, but, their ignorance or uncertainty, what is truly Fundamental, and their mind to delude their Adversary, and to confound their Reader. Whereas one distinction, Truly, Not truly, would have sufficed. For Fundamental is of one only Nature, and what hath that nature, is truly Fundamental, what hath it not, is not truly Fundamental, and this multiplicity of Fundamentals, discovereth clearly ignorance, and uncertainty, what is the true Nature or Essence of Fundamental. And thus we have seen, how uncertain 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 us see, how uncertain also they be, which are Fundamental points, Which, Not-fundamental. THAT PROTESTANTS are uncertain, which are Fundamental, and which Not-fundamental. sixth CHAPTER. 1. IN the former Chapter I shown, how uncertain Protestants are, what a Not-fundamental point is, but now say one thing, now the contrary, as it serveth for their present purpose, either to justify a Church that sinfully erreth in Not fundamentals, For than they are no points of faith, but disputable opinions, light matters, for which no separation ought to be made, or to justify their separation from a Church, which they confess erreth but in Not-fundamentals. For than they are matters of faith, and errors in them, horrible, and of themselves damnable, and just cause of separation, or schism. Now I will show their like uncertainty, which are the points, that are Fundamental, and which, Not-fundamental: and that as it serveth to their present purpose, either to justify a Church, or to condemn a Church, they make the self same points to be Fundamental, or Not fundamental. 2. And as for their uncertainty, Impossible for Protestants to give an exact catalogue of Fundamentals. or ignorance, which are all the Fundamental points, themselves profess it. For thus Chillingworth c. 3. p. 166. we know not precisely, just 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, Just thus far you must believe in every particular, or incurdamnation, is no work for my pen. And ibid. 372. The Church cannot teach, just how far every man must believe, as it relates to the possibility, or impossibility of his salvation in every particular. And if it be impossible for them to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals, it is impossible for them to tell exactly, which are Fundamentals, and which Not-fundamentals. 3. But at other times, they undertake to give us an exact Catalogue of fundamentals. For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentals of Christianity, The Creed as it is explained, is a sufficient Catalogue of Fundamentals. This is Doctor Potter's assertion. The Creed of Apostles, as it is explained in latter Creeds of the Catholic Church, is esteemed a sufficient summary, or Catalogue of Fundamentals, by the best learned Romanists, and by Antiquity. 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 summary of Fundamentals. summary of the Fundamentals of the Christian faith. c. 1. p. 41. The Creed, is a sufficient, or more than a sufficient, summary of those points of faith, which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly. And thes are his Fundamentals. And c. 3. p. 133. This is the, minimum quod sic. wherein, in men capable of faith, God will 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 may learn which are Fundamentals, which not. may 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 overreach 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 up the Catholic and Apostolic faith, that faith, which essentialy constitutes a true Church, and a true Christian. Thes fundamentals are all contained in the rule of faith, which The Apostles creed is a catalogue of Fundamentals. rule hath been summed up and contracted into the Apostles Creed, and hath been received by Orthodox Christians of all Ages and places, as an absolute summary of the Christian faith. And after he had proved this, saith p. 94. Now our Mistaker Field l. 3. c. 4. nameth which they account fundamentals. hath his Catalogue of fundamentals. Behold again a Catalogue of fundamentals. Sect. 3. p. 60. The things, wherein Protestants do judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised, are summarily delivered 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 twelve (Articles) which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed The Creed is a sufficient summary of fundamentals. a sufficient summary of wholesome doctrine, they (Papists) have added many more. And what difference is there betwixt a summary, and a Catalogue? 4. Lord Canterbury sec. 38. p. 371. The foundation, is sufficiently known by Scripture, and the Creeds. And if it be sufficiently known, why cannot Protestant's give us an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals? Sect. 37. p. 319. If he mean, different in the foundation itself, the Creed, then, etc. Lo here the Creed is the foundation. Sec. 38. cit. p. 334. The Protestants have as infallible assurance, as you can have, of all points, which they account fundamental, yea and of all, which were so accounted by the Primitive Church: and these are but the The Creed, and some deductions from it. Creed, and some few and those immediate deductions from it. Lo protestants know all points, which they account fundamental, and why then can they not give 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 contained in the Creed, the Lords prayer, Decalogue, and the Sacraments. Behold (Christian Reader) how these men, sometimes cannot give an exact Catalogue of fundamentals, sometime they can. Sometimes all the fundamentals, are contained in the Apostles Creed, sometimes in the Apostles Creed, and in some few and immediate deductions from it: At other times, deductions from the Creed cannot be fundamental. Sometimes all fundamentals are comprised in the Symbols and Creeds; and at other times, all the fundamentals are contained in the Creed, the Lords prayer, Decalogue, and Sacraments. Who will see more of the Protestants uncertainty, which articles are to be accounted fundamental, may read lib. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 3. num. 1. and 2. 5. In like manner, they are uncertain, whether the pretended truths, against which they say the Roman Church erreth, be fundamental, or no. For (as we saw in the former Chapter, nu. 7.) sometimes they say, she holdeth the foundation, the fundamental The errors which Rome holds are not fundamental. truths, erreth not in fundamentals, and holdeth all that is absolutely necessary to salvation: And the same followeth evidently out of that, they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence, and say, that she and the Protestant Church, and their Religions, be all one in substance For nether could she be a true See their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence, if she erred in any fundamental point; nether can thes Churches, or Religions, be alone in substance, which differ in fundamental points But at other times, they avow, that the errors of the Roman Church, are fundamental, and in themselves damnable, and consequently opposite 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 many fundamental Articles of faith, and corrupted faith in the principal points. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he (D. Potter) say, that you had for the substance, the true preaching of the word, or due administration of the Sacraments, or where does he say, you wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation? Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence, that yours (errors) are confessed not to be fundamental, it is an affected mistake, as I have often told you. p. 289. Your Church did fall into substantial corruptions. And p. 305. A falls hood it is, that the. Doctor judges the Roman Rom. errors in themselues fundamental. errors, not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable. p. 308. As for your obtruding upon us, that we believe the points of difference, not fundamental, or necessary, you have been often told, that it is a calumny. And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence, that we confess, the Roman Are damnable heresies. Church free from damnable heresy, and yielding you salvation, no Protestant is guilty of it. And p. 34. 282. 278. 293. Popery in itself destroys salvation. and 400. sayeth. The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselves damnable. And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guilty of impiety and idolatry, which (he sayeth) is without question, to err in necessary matters. In like sort Lord Canterbury 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 Counsels, quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them. And yet ibid. p. 319. sayeth: The Creed is the foundation. Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large; That he never said, that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-fundamental. Sec. 38. p. 325. You have many dangerous errors about the very foundation, in that which you call the Roman faith. And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day, doth not believe the Scripture, and Creeds, in the sense, in which the ancient Primitive Church received them. And addeth (as before) the Creed is the foundation. Thus uncertain 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 serveth for their present purpose. 9 Perhaps some, to save thes contradictions See Chillingw. c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec. 7. p. 71 of Protestants, that the Roman Church holds all the fundamentals, and holds them not all, hath fundamental errors, and hath not: will say, that fundamental points are of two kinds. Some are fundamental not only by reason of their revelation from God, and their sufficient proposal to us, but also of their own nature, fundamental or necessary to saving faith, Church, and salvation, as the passion of Christ, and such like capital articles: others, not of their own nature, but merely because they are revealed from God, and sufficiently proposed to us, are fundamental to faith, Church, and salvation, as that Saint Paul had a cloak etc. And that when Protestants confess, that the Roman Church holdeth all the fundamentals, or erreth not in fundamentals, they mean of fundamentals of the first kind; when they say she erreth in fundamentals, they mean of the latter kind, and so do not contradict themselves, because they do not affirm and deny the same kind of fundamentals. True it is, that there is this difference between points of faith, that some are fundamental to saving faith, to a true Church, and to salvation, both of their nature, and by revelation sufficiently proposed to us, as the mysteries of the Trinity, the passion of Christ, and such like: others are fundamental or necessary to saving faith, Church, and salvation, only by reason of God's revelation sufficiently proposed, as that Abraham had two Sons, and such like. But this will not suffice, to save the aforesaid Protestants from plain contradiction: because, (if not in wonds) in effect and sense, they both affirm and deny that the Roman Church holdeth, and holdeth not, all points of faith that are fundamental of their nature. For whiles they say, that she is a true Church in essence, a member of the Catholic Church and of Christ, that she holds the fundamental points which constitute a Church, which are the life and substance of Religion, the simply necessary truths, by which some are saved, and that her substance and Religion is the same with the Protestants, they must needs mean, that she holdeth all the points, which of their nature are fundamental to saving faith, Church, and salvation: and contrariwise, whiles they say, that the Roman Church holdeth errors of themselves fundamental, hath corrupted faith in the principal points, hath not the substance of preaching the word, is fallen into substantial corruptions, holdeth that, which cannot stand with the grounds of Christianity, hath quite lost the sense and meaning of some articles of the Creed, is guilty of impiety, and idolatry, and schism, they must needs mean, that she holdeth not all points, which of their nature are fundamental to saving faith, Christian Church, and salvation. Nether finally, doth this difference between points of faith, justify these Churches, which they cannot deny, but sinfully err in such points, as they term Not-fundamental points, For whencesoever a point be fundamental to faith, Church, and salvation, whether of its nature, and revelation too, or of revelation only, they cannot stand without that, which is fundamental to them, as is evident by itselef, and Protestants confess it, as we shall see beneath c. 7. n. 5. Besides, themselves profess c. 7. n. 6. that by Fundamental they mean Essential, and undoubted it is, that nothing can be without that, which is essential to it. 7. And as uncertain Sacramentaries are, whether the errors of Lutherans, be fundamental, or no. For sometimes they are not fundamental, nay light matters, and not to be regarded, as we shown before c. 5. n. 5. And Chillingworth in his Preface nu. 39 sayeth: I hold the doctrine of all Protestants free from all impiety, and from all error destructive of salvation, or in itself No error of Protestants, is itself damnable. damnable. c. 5. p. 306. we judge, they (Protestants) have no errors damnable. 8. But at other times, the Luherans Lutherans errors are fundamental. error of Consubstantiation, or real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, is fundamental. For Caluin Admonit. ultima ad Wesphal. p. 831. sayeth: It necessarily draweth with it impious idolatry. In consensu etc. p. 754. It is no les absurd, than Transubstantion. And Epistle 292. with pernicious jugglings, it overthroweth the foundations of faith. And Epistle 81. It recalleth the dotages of Martion and Eutiches: Sadeel de coniunctone, etc. It destroyeth the nature of Christ. Pareus in Galat. 3. sec. 37. Nothing can be more opposite to the articles of Christian faith. And the like say commonly all Sacramentaires or Caluinists of the Lutherans ubiquity, as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of protestancy, c. 3. nu. 5. 9 Thus we see, how uncertain Protestans are, which are their fundamental D. Potter sec. 3. p 60. sec. 7. p. 74. 78. Chilling. c. 3 p 159. L. Cant. sec. 26. p. 192. points of faith, which (as they speak) comprehend the substance of Religion, integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion, essentially constitute a true Church, and in ordinary course are necessary to be distinctly and expressly believed of every one that will be in the Church and be saved. And which are their Not fundamentals, which are not of the substance of Christian Religion, Church, or salvation. And which are fundamental errors, which destroy the substance of saving faith, of a true Church, and of the way of salvation: and which are not fundamental errors, which only destroy some perfection of saving faith, of a Church, or of the way of salvation. And consequently, they must be uncertain, which is substantially a saving faith, or a true Church, which is not, which is a substantial way of salvation, which is not; and whether they have a substantial saving faith, be in a substantial true Church, and substantial way of salvation, or no: And also uncertain, with what Church, they may lawfully communicate; Then the which, nothing can be more miserable. For as Doctor Potter sayeth sec. 5. p. 18. A true Church, is alone, with a Church not erring in the foundation. And sec. 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrines, we mean such Catholic verities, as essentially pertain 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: Purity in fundamental points, is the only certain Note of a true Church. And how can they be certain, which is a true Church, which is not, if they be not certain, which is fundamental, which is not, etc. how can they be certain, which is purity in fundamentals, which is not, if they be not certain, which are fundamentals, which not? Besides, all fundamental points, as Doctor Potter affirmeth sec. 7. p. 74. 75. are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly All fundamental points must be distinctly and expressly beloved. believed by every Christian, that will be saved. And Fundamental properly, is that, which Christians are obliged to believe by an express, 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 certain, that they are in the way of salvation, and expressly believe all they are abliged to believe, if they do not distinctly and expressly believe all fundamentals, or how can they be sure they do this, if they do not distinctly and expressly know all fundamentals? 10. If any Protestant answer, that though they be not certain precisely, which be fundamental articles, which not, yet they are certain, that the Creed containeth all fundamental articles, which constitute a Church, and which in ordinary course are necessary to be actually believed: and this is sufficient to be certain of: I reply, First, that at least they cannot be infallibly certain, that the Creed containeth all such fundamentals, because the Scripture (which they will have to teach all things, whereof we can be infallibly certain) speaketh not at all of the Creed, and consequently they cannot be infallibly certain, what Church, or persons, believe all, that is fundamental and necessary to be actualy believed of every one, or who is in the way of salvation, or with whom they may lawfully communicate. I add also, that themselves profess, So Chilling. c. 4. p. 194. that it is, but only probable, that the Creed containeth all fundamental Probable only that the Creed containeth all fundamentals. articles. For thus Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 102. It remains very probable, that the Creed is the perfect summary of those fundamental truths, which all Christians ordinarily are bound expressly to believe. Chillingworth p. 200. That the Creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith of all sorts, whither they be speculative, or practical, Doctor Potter grants, So that in beleuing the Creed, we believe not all fundamental points. Lord Canterbury sec. 33. p. 334. sayeth. The fundamental points, are the Creed, and some deductions from it. Others add other things, as is to be seen l. 1. de Authore Protestant c. 3. Secondly, they cannot say, that the Creed containeth all that is fundamental and necessary to be believed of every one. For justification by only special faith, which is the most fundamental point of protestancy, and the life, and soul thereof, (as Protestants call See li. 11 de authore c. 6 throughout. it) is nether actualy in the Creed, nor can be clearly deduced out of it. For to say, that justification by only special faith, is contained in that article of the Creed; (Remission of sins) is One thing is the end, an other the mean thereto. absurd. Because that article speaketh only of the end, which is remission of sins, not of the means to attain unto it, which Protestants will have to be only special faith, of which the Creed speaketh not. And in the same manner, is Chillingworth refuted, when he sayeth c. 3. p. 135. and 166. we are sure, that all that is necessary any way, is in Scripture, and therefore beleuing all that is there, we are sure to believe all that is necessary. And c. 6. p. 367. beleuing all the Bible, we believe all that is fundamental. For, besides that their foresaied most fundamental point of justification by only special faith, is not in Scripture, but the quite contrary, fundamental points, (as D. To believe the Bible is not to believe distinctly all fundamentals. Potter sayeth sec. 7. p. 74. are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian, that will be saved. And p. 75. Fundamenial properly, is that, which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual faith, And the L. Cant. p. 28. same doth Chillingworth say p. 41. 193. 227. 209. and other, also who make the belief of Fundamentals necessary, Chillingw c. 6. p. 336. Usher Serm. K. james. Necessitate Medij. But who do only in general believe all the Bible, do not distinctly and expressly believe all the fundamentals. And thus we have showed, how uncertain Protestants are, both, what Not fundamental points be, to wit, whether they be points of faith, or but opinions: and whether errors in them sufficiently proposed, be damnable, or no: and whether they be a just cause of separation The manifold uncertainties of Protestants about not fundamentals. from a Church, or no: and also, how uncertain 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 us see, how uncertain also they are, whether a true Church, remaining a true Church, may err in fundamental points, or no. That Protestants are uncertain, whether a true Church can err in fundamental points, or no. SEAVENTH CHAPTER. 1. THAT Protestants are uncertain, whether a true Church of Christ, can err in fundamental points, and yet remain a true Church, or no, is evident. For sometimes they plainly affirm it, other times, as plainly deny it. 4. They affirm it: For thus Whitaker The Church may err in some foundations. cuntrover. 2. qu. 5. c. 17. Out of which we gather, that the Church may for a time err even, in some foundations, and yet be safe. qu. 4. c. 3. It is evident, that the true Church may err for a time, even in things necessary. Beza l. de Notis Ecclesiae p. 45. Some errors, even In fundamental heads. in some fundamental heads of faith, may crecp into the Catholic Church. Perkins in Explicat. Symboli colum. 790. while, either directly or diametrally, May diametrally oppose the foundation or by necessity of consequence, an error opposeth the foundation, if the error be of infirmity, the Errand is to be reputed a Covel art. 11. member of the universal Church. And in Galat. c. 1. v. 2. If any err of frailty, though the error be about the foundation, nevertheless the Church remaineth: as is evident by the example of the Galathians. In Epist. judae v. 19 The Church of Galatia, by infirmity was turned to an other Gospel, and erred fundamentally, yet May be turned to an other Gospel. 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, even when they erred in the foundation, and had turned to an other Gospel, saying; All ye are the sons of God. Hence it is, that not every enormous sin, or every error against the foundation, doth obscure, and much les extinguish, grace, and regeneration, which maketh sons of God. Sadeel Respons. ad Theses Posnan. c. 12. The Galathians, and Corinthians (who May deny the Resurrection. denied the Resurrection) though depraved with error, and dissenting about a principal foundation of faith, nor about the manner, but about the thing itself: nevertheless 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. part Respons. ad acta Colloq. Montis: p. 253. pareus in Gal. 1. lect. 7. Rivet. tractatu 1. sec. 39 Feild of the Church l. 1. c. 8. 3. Lord Canterbury sec. 21. p. 141. The whole Church may 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, than she may be a Church of Christ stil. Sec. 33. p. 233. A Church may err, and dangerously too. Sec. 37. p. 320. A Church may hold the fundamental point literaly, and yet err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably in the exposition of it. And sec. 9 p. 24. The Greek error of denying the procession of the holy Ghost, is a grievous error in divinity. And sec. 24. p. 154. what article of faith, doth more concern Christians in general, then that of [Filioque.] And nevertheless he sayeth p. 22. 24. The Greeks, are a true Church: Likewise he affirmeth, that the Roman Church hath fundamental errors, as we shown in the former chapter n. 5. and notwithstanding writeth. Sec. 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church is a true Church, and truth cannot deny it: A true Church in essence. Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a member of the Catholic Church. And p. 282. 285. Salvation may be had in her. P. 285. 314. 316. Ignorants in the Roman Church, are safe. Ignorant souls 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. may be partly corrupted in the essentials. in the essentials of it, or abolished, yet may it be foully infected. Which insinuateth, that it can be partly corrupted in the essentials, and foully infected in some of them. And p. 20. The Church may err, and dangerously too. And (as we shown in former Chapter n. 5.) he affirmeth, that the Roman Church erreth in the foundation; and nevertheless sayeth sec. 1. p. 11. we yield her a member of the Catholic Church. Sec. 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledge her a member of the body of Christ, and Propertie of Schismatiks this clears us from the imputation of schism, whose property it is, to cut of from the body of Christ and hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. p. 58. Protestant's reformation did not change the substance of Religion. Ibid. The vital parts kept out the poison. p. 62. Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church. And p. 78. we believe their Religion a safe way to some, such as believe as they profess. And p 81. we were never disjoined from her in those main essential truths, which give the name and essence of a Church. Chillingworth also (as is before shown c. 6. n. 5.) avoucheth, that the Roman A true Chu. may fall into substantial corruptions. Church wanteth something fundamental to salvation, is fallen into substantial corruptions: and c. 5. p. 256. 283. Is guitie of Idolatry, and impiety: And nevertheless c. 2. p. 85. She is a part of the Catholic Church. p. 88 Is a part of the present Church. c 7. p. 401. Not cut from the body of Christ. c. 5. p. 284. A member of the body of Christ. Thus plainly do they sometimes teach, that a true Church in substance and essence, a part of the Catholic Church, a member of Christ, can err in fundamental points, namely in impiety, idolatry, turning to an other Gospel, and denial of the Resurrection of the Dead. And the same must all other Sic Morton Appeal l 4. c. 1. sect. 5. Protestants say, who teach, that the doctrine and worship commonly professed and practised in the Roman Church, is idolatrous and antichristian, and yet say that ignorant Papists are in the Church and may be saved. And thus they teach, when they will maintain some Church, which they confess to err in some fundamental points, as the Caluinists affirm that the Lutherans do. For as Luther lib. de Captiu. fol. 64. Zuinglius lib. de Relig. c. de Euchar. Melancthon in Protestants accommodate their doctrine to times. Hospin. parte 2. fol. 90. and others confess, they accommodate their doctrines to times, and occasions. 5. But at other times, they teach, The Church cannot err in any fundamental point. that a true Church, remaining a true Church, can not err in any fundamental point. Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. If any fundamental point be taken away, the Church presently falleth. And c. 18. If any fundamental principle of faith be overthrown or shaken, it can be no more truly called a Church. Ibid. Articles are called fundamental, because our faith relieth upon them, as a house doth upon the foundation. The same say many other Protestants, as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protest. c. 1. nu. 5. to whom I will add some later writers. Lord Canterbury sec. 37. p. 319. If it deny this foundation, it cannot remain a differing Church, sed transit in non Ecclesiam, but passes away into no Church: The like he sayeth 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 any necessary point of faith. p. 18. A true Church is all one, with a Church not erring in the foundation. Sec. 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrines, we mean such Catholic doctrines, as principally and essentially Fundamental is Essential pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a Church. And no Church can be without that, which essentially pertaineth to faith, and doth constitute a Church. And sec. 5. p. 16. and 21 and sec. 6 p. 66. maketh fundamental and essential, all one. 7 Likewise Chillingworth c. 3. p. Not fundamental, not essential. 140. sayeth: Not fundamental, id est, No essential parts of Christianity. c. 2. p. 105. To say, that the Church, whiles it is Contradiction to say, the true Church can err in fundamentals. the true Church, may err in fundamentals, implies contradiction, and is alone to say; The Church, whiles it is the Church, may 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 always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth, ye know we grant, and must grant. For it is of the essence of the Essence of the Church to maintain fundamentals. Church to be so. And any company of men were no more a Church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. Item p. 162. To the very being of a Church, it is repugnant, that it should err in fundamentals. For if it should do so, it would want the very essence of a Church. And c. 5. p. 291. A Church remaining a Church, cannot fall into fundamental error, because when it does so, it is no longer a Church. And thus have we seen the miserable uncertainty 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 upon this uncertainty do they build their maintening of Churches that err in points of faith, their hope of salvation in them, and their Communion with them, and their separation from the Roman Church. But now leaving their uncertainties, let us set down some certainty; and first, that there are true points of faith, besides the principal, or capital articles, which are those, which Protestants call fundamental. End of the first Book. THE SECOND BOOK. THAT THERE BE TRUE points of faith, besides the principal, or capital Articles. FIRST CHAPTER. 1. IN the fift Chapter of the former book we shown, how Protestants, sometimes, (to wit, when they will maintain Churches erring sinfully in Not-fundamental points, or salvation in them, their communion with them) affirm, that Not-fundamental points, are no points of faith: that opposition against them, is no heresy: and for which, there should be no separation in communion: that denial of them, destroyeth nether saving faith, Church, nor salvation; All which (God willing) we shall refute hereafter. But first we will show, that there are true points of faith besides those, which are principal or capital; For this is the ground of all our discourse following. 2. First, whatsoever is clearly delivered in Scripture, and sufficiently proposed to us, is a matter of faith, Many matters of faith in Scripture, beside fundamentals. and aught to be believed: But there be many things besides the principal and capital articles, that are clearly delivered in Scripture, and sufficiently proposed to us, as that Saint Paul had a cloak, Saint Timothe was sickly, and the like. Therefore they also are matters of faith, and aught to be believed. 3. Secondly, matters of faith are not Matters of faith are to be measured by the formal object of faith. to be measured only by the greatness of the material object, which is believed, but especially by the formal object of faith, for which it believes, which is divine revelation sufficiently proposed to us. For every habit reacheth to whatsoever hath is formal object. But many small matters have the like divine revelation sufficiently proposed, as that of S. Paul's clock, and Timothes sickness; Therefore they are alike matters of faith. 3. Thirdly, the holy Scripture In faith are both great and lesser matters. Mat. 5. and 22. sayeth plainly, that there are greatest and least commandments, and that there are jots or Tittles of the Law. And why not likewise, great and les matters of belief? If any object, that though there be great and little things commanded to be done, yet little matters are not commanded to be done under pain of loss of God's favour, or of salvation: so though little matters of saith be revealed, and aught to be believed when they are sufficiently proposed, as testified by God; yet are we not bound to believe them under pain Difference between matters to be done and to be believed. of damnation. I answer, that little matters are not commanded to be done under pain of los of God's friendship, or of salvation, because small matters of their nature do not break friendship. For he were an unreasonable friend, who for trifles would break friendship, and the end of the law is charity: but all little matters testified by God, and sufficiently proposed to us, oblige us to believe them, because in not beleuing them, difference betwixt Faith and charity touching small matters. we account God not worthy to be believed in such matters, which is to deny his veracity, and consequently his deity: For who in things equally testified by God, and equally proposed See Chillin. infra c. 4. n. 3. Potter sec. 5. p. 3. The principal ground on which faith relies, is divine revelation. So also p. 10. to us as from God, believeth somethings, and not others, believeth nothing for God's authority, but because himself judgeth somethings more likely to be true, than others. For if he believed any for God's authority, he would believe all, which Gods authority equally proposed, doth equally testify. Wherefore we may keep charity with God, though we observe not little matters, commanded by him, because breach of little matters, is not opposite to charity, but only to perfection of charity. But we cannot keep faith with God, if we believe not small matters, testified by him, and sufficiently proposed to us, becaꝰ not belief of them, is opposite to God's veracity, which is the formal object of divine faith, and implicitly sayeth: God is not worthy of belief in such matters. For where is the lest untruth, there is not divine or prime veracity: so his veracity is denied by the untruth, but not his charity by the sin. Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalypses, threatened to put him out of the book of life, who putteth out one word of that prophecy: but no where threatneth the like, to whosoever shall not keep the thing he commandeth. 5. Holy Fathers also testify, that all things revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to us, are matters of faith, in that (as we shall see hereafter c. 2.) they account obstinate error in all such matters, to be formal heresy, and all such obstinate errants, formal heretics: And as Saint Basil said: we should rather lose our lives, Theodoret l. 4. c. 17. then suffer one syllable of God's Word to perish. 6. Protestants likewise sometimes confess, and must needs confess, that all, that is clearly testified by God, and sufficiently proposed; or that those points, which they call unfundamental, if they be sufficiently proposed, are matters of faith, and of Religion. Whitaker controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Shall it not be a true Church, if it think not sincerely of all heads of Religion, if it corrupt any point of Religion. God forbidden, Not fundamentals, are heads, parts, and points of faith, and Religion. yea it may be a Church, though it think not sincerely of some parts of faith and Religion, so they be not fundamental. Lo, not fundamentals, are heads, points, and parts of faith and Religion; And controu. 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 527. It is not necessary, that faithful men agree in all things, which are of faith, so they agree in the highest, the chiefest, and the necessary. Behold again, unfundamental points, matters of faith. Matters of faith. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 38. calleth them divine truths, and p. 39 intending to declare his distinction of fundamental, and not fundamental points, sayeth: Points of Religion are well distinguished Points of Religion. by Thomas, and Stapleton. Some (say they) are primitive articles, others are secundary. So that Secondary, or Not fundamentals, are points of Religion, as well as primitive or fundamentals. And sec. 7. p. 71. Being to prove his distinction into fundamental and not fundamental, sayeth: There be divers degrees of truths, and errors in Religion: and commendeth Aquinas for Of the object of faith. So also Chilling. c. 4. p. 193. deuiding the object of faith, into that, which is so by itself, and that, which is by accident and secondarily: The first, be to that, whereby a man is made blessed: the latter, that, which is revealed, whatsoever it be: as that Abraham had two sons. Lo, whatsoever is revealed, is a truth of Religion, and of the object of faith. P. 73. There is a certain measure Are revealed and to be believed. The like he hath sec. 6. p. 58. See white in his Def. c. 17. and quantity of faith, without which none can be saved (and these are his fundamentals) but every thing revealed, belongs not to this measure. It is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith. Behold, unfundamental points belong to faith, though not to the highest measure thereof, and are to be believed with a virtual faith. And p. 73. 74. By fundamental doctrines, we mean such Catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain to faith, such as properly constitute a Church, and are necessary, in ordinary course, to be distinctly believed by every Christian, that will be saved. Other points of truth, are Belong to the unity of faith, though not primarily. called Not fundamental, because they are not of such absolute necessity, and do not primarily belong to the unity of faith, or to the essence of a Church or to salvation of a Christian. Behold, not fundamental points, belong to the unity of faith, though not primarily. And ibid. It is Are so fundamental to faith, as it is infidelity to deny them. true, whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended, that is, such, as may not be denied or contradicted, without infidelity. Mark; whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded out of Scripture, is not only a matter of faith, but also is so How all revealed truths are fundamentals. fundamental to faith, as it cannot be denied without infidelity. And in the like sort p. 105. It seems fundamental to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the Church, that he believe all such points of faith, as whereof he may be sufficiently convinced, that they belong to the doctrine of jesus Christ. And p. 111. It is fundamental to a Christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced, that they are from God. So that all revealed truths, are not only points of faith, but also fundamental points of faith, when they may be convinced that they come from God: And surely they may then be so convinced, 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 aforesaid words of Doctor Potter p. 105. So that by his confession, all revealed truths, are not only points of faith, but also fundamental points of faith, when they can be convinced to come from God, as all revealed truths sufficiently proposed, can. And Maniepoints of faith besides fundamentals. ibid. p. 11. divers times admitteth, not fundamental points to be called points of faith. And sayeth c. 4. p. 209. There be many more points of faith, then there be articles of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed. Where, by articles necessary to be explicitly believed, he meaneth fundamentals. For thus he expresseth himself ibib. p. 220. By fundamental, we mean all, and only that which is necessary. And c. 5. p. 285. By all points of faith, you mean (sayeth he) all fundamental points only, or all simply and absolutely. So that fundamental points, Fundamental points are not simply all points of faith. are not simply all points of faith. Ibid. p. 294. I would feign understand, why one error in faith, (especially if Not fundamental) should not consist with holiness of this Spouse, this Church, as well as many and great Sins. So there be errors Not fundamentals delivered by the same authority, that fundamentals. in faith, and yet not fundamental. And c. 4. p. 193. sayeth, that, Not fundamental points are to be believed, because they are joined with others, that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same authority, which delivered thes. And if they be to be believed, and delivered by the same authority, which See him ib. p. 218. delivered fundamentals, surely they are matters of faith. And (we shall show hereafter c. 3.) he oftentimes sayeth, that it is damnable to deny any revealed truth sufficiently proposed. c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors may signify, either such, as are repugnant to God's command, and so in their nature damnable (and thes are errors against his not fundamentals) or such, as are not only meritoriously, but remidilesly pernicious, and destructive of salvation. And thes are errors against his fundamentals. And so errors against not fundamentals, are of their nature damnable. 8. Lord Canterburiesec. 38. p. 325. Many things (besides fundamentals) which are defied. Bellarmin is forced to grant this: There are many things defied, which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. Therefore there is a latitude in the faith. Where, by points absolutely necessary, he meaneth fundamentals. So there be many things defied, besides fundamentals. And sec. 10. p. 37. All which perteines to supernatural, pertain to divine faith divine, and infallible Christian faith, is not by and by fundamental in the faith, to all men. Sec. 25. p. 161. he granteth, that appoint of divine truth, though by sundry consequences deduced from the principles, is yet a point of faith. P. 163. The promises reach not to this, that the Church shall nevererr, no not in the lightest matters of faith. So that all matters of faith, are not the weightiest. Sec. 10. p. 29. Deductions can not be fundamental, and yet to some men's salvation they are necessary. 9 Thus plainly do thes men sometimes confess, that such, as they term Not fundamental points, are matters of faith: and when they are sufficiently proposed, are fundamental to faith, and to salvation, and that it is infidelity to deny them, and errors in them, of their nature, damnable. How contrary is this to that, which before they said, that not fundamentals L. 1. e. 5. n. 4. c. 2. n. 1. were no points of faith, matters of opinion, in which modest opposition is tolerable, and for which no separation of communion ought to be made. And thus having showed, that all revealed truths whatsoever, sufficiently proposed for such, are matters of faith: now let us show, that all obstinate or sinful error against such truths, is formal heresy, and all such opposers, formal heretics. THAT SINFUL DENIAL of any point of faith sufficiently proposed, is true heresy. SECOND CHAPTER. 1. IT seemeth so evident, that all sinful opposition or denial of any point of faith sufficiently proposed, or which, for the opposers fault, is not sufficiently proposed, is true heresy, L. Canterb. p. 198. heresies properly cannot be, but in doctrine of faith. as it canscarce be proved by any thing more evident. For what do Christians conceive by the name of heresy, but sinful opposition to some point of Christian faith: or what by an heretic, See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 11. a. 2. but such an opposer? Yet will I endeavour to make it more manifest. 2. And first, out of the definitions or descriptions of heresy or heretics, given in holy Scripture. Rom. ultima v. 28. I desire ye Brethren, mark them, that make dissensions and scandales, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. 2. Thessaly. 3. we Heresy contrary to doctrine learned. denounce unto ye Brethren, in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every Brother walking inordinately, and not according to Contrarieto Tradition. the tradition, which they have received from us: And Gal. 1. Albeit we, or an Contrary to Saint Paul's preaching Angel from heaven, evangelise to ye, besides that which we have evangelized to ye, be he anathema. In all which places, an heretic, or heresy, is described, not by opposition to fundamental points only, but by opposition to the doctrine which we have learned, against the Tradition which we have received, or against which Saint Paul had preached. C. 8. l. 1. But Not fundamental points, are part of that which we have learned, part of that tradition which we have received, and part of that, which S. Paul preached. Therefore sinful opposition to them, is true heresy according to Scripture, 3. Secondly, I prove it out of the descriptions of heresy, and heretics, An heresy described by the Fathers. given by the holy Fathers, of whom, no one describeth heresy or heretitks, by opposition to only principal or capital points of faith, but by only opposition to Scripture, or doctrine of the Catholic Church. Saint Hierom. in in Galat. 5. He is an heretic, who understands Contrary to sense of Scripture. the Scripture otherwise, than the Holy Ghost would. Saint Augustin lib. 18. de Civitate c. 51. The devil raised up heretics, who under the name of Christians, should resist Christian doctrine. To Christian doctrine. And addeth, who in the Church do hold any unsound and naughty thing pertinaciously, are heretics. Lib. 7. de Genesi ad literam c. 9 They are not heretics, but because they understand the Scripture wrongly. And lib. de haeresibus in fine. After he had reckoned divers heresies, whereof many are not against any principal point of faith, he thus pronounceth: whosoever holdeth any one of them, is no Catholic Christian: which is as much, as to say, he is an heretic. And both he, and all antiquity accounted And so doth Chilling. c. 7. p. 398. Donatists, heretics, for their error about rebaptisation. who yet, (sayeth Lord Canterb. sec. 35. p. 300.) for aught I know, did hold the foundation. Donatists' heretics, yet hold the foundation. And Morton in his Grand Imposture c. 15. p. 418. The question of Rebaptisation, was no fundamental error. And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. Saint Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved, because their contrary belief (about Rebaptisation) was not touching any point contained in Scripture. Nether can they say, that the Donatists' error about Rebaptisation, was fundamental, unless they will damn S. Cyprian, who confessedly held that error, but L. Canterb. p. 315. Potter p. 103. without obstinacy, as the Donatists did. Saint Epiphan. in Saint Hierom. l. 3. contra Ruffinum Many heresies have been cast out of the Church for one word or twoe contrary to faith. He sayeth not, contrary to the foundation of faith, but absolutely, to faith, Saint Gregory Nazianzene Orat. 49. There Contrary to Christ's doctrine. can be nothing more dangerous, than those heretics, who with one word, as with a drop of poison, infect our Lords true and simple doctrine, and Apostolical tradition. But who err in Not fundamental points of faith, do so: For they are part of Christ's doctrine, and Apostolical Tradition. Herupon Caluin 4. Institut. c. 2. paragr. 5. sayeth: Augustin putteth this difference between Heretics, and schismatics, that they, by false doctrines, corrupt the sincerity of faith, but thes, etc. And in 1. Corinth. c. 11. v. 13. The Fathers put heresy, in Father's put heresy in corruption of faith. dissension of doctrine. So clearly he confesseth, that the Father's account any corruption of Christ's faith or doctrine, In dissension of doctrine. to be heresy. And Perkins Galat. 5. v. 11. The Fathers condemned as Heretics, who erred in small matters, holding the foundation, as Vigilantius Novatus, etc. 4. Protestants also define heresy, to be an obstinate error in any point of faith. Wittenbergenses in Refutatione orthodoxi consensus p. 73. Not Obstinate error in one point is hresie. enerie heretic impugned all and every article of faith: but for the most part, each heretic impugned one only purposely; whom nevertheless, being obstinate in their error, the Church rightly condemned as Heretics. Schusselburg 1. 2. Theol. In any falls doctrine. Caluin art. 1. we are certain out of the word of God, that obstinate error in any false doctrine, doth make heretics. Thus the Lutherans: Beza li. de puniendis See Witak. count. 2. q. 5. c. 17. hereticis p. 150. we eal them properly heretics, who pretending great piety, yet do not yield to the admonition of the In not yielding to the Church. Church: and by false doctrine, do break the peace and confession of the Church. And ibid. The Apostle in his epistle to the Definition of an heretic by Scripture. Romans doth not name heretics, but plainly defineth them: For when he had admonished the brethren, that they should note those who make dissensions and scandales, he addeth, against that doctrine which you have learned: wherefore where thes two meet, there is heresy according to the Apostles definition, than the which we ought not to seek any better. Fulk in his Reionder to Bristol p. 82. The Parliament determineth Heresy by contrariety By the Parliament. to the Canonical Scripture: And p. 71. I say, an heretic is he, which in the Church obstinately maintaineth an opinion contrary to the Scripture. Plessie de Ecclesia c. 2. we call them heretical Churches, who err in faith. Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 7. They are called Heretics, who are separated from the orthodox Church, for some error in faith. Bucanus in locis q. 33. heresy, is properly dissension in doctrine. Morton lib. 1. Apol. c. 3. whosoever any way departeth from the Catholic faith, is an heretic, sayeth Thomas, to whom subscribeth Occam, and that rightly. Tom. 2. l. 5. c. 13. To be an hcretik, is to descent from Scripture. And in his Grand Imposture c. 5. p. 325. To be unwilling, either to learn, or to yield to manifest truth, is proper to In not yielding to manifest truth. a Satanical Synagog. jewel in Defence of the Apologiae p. 44. For just proof of Heresy three things necessarily are required 1. that it be an error. 2. that it be an error against the truth of God's word 3. that it be stoutly and wilfully mainteind. Sharp de Notis Eccles. col. 333. That is an heretical Church, which obstinately holdeth errors in doctrine. Chilling worth c. 2. p. 101. heresy is nothing, In opposition to faith. but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the faith. The like he hath c. 4. p. 199. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 55. Whosoever, either wilfully opposes any Catholic In opposition to the Catholic visible Church. verity maintained by this Church, (of Saints) or the Catholic visible Church, as do heretics etc. sec. 4. p. 95. He is justly esteemed an heretic, because he In not yielding to Scripture. yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded to him. Ibid. p. 124. An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him, makes an heretic. Sec. 7. p. 110. where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded, there he, that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced, is an heretic. And ibid. p. 105. 106. It seems fundamental to the faith, and for In opposition to any point of faith sufficiently convinced. the salvation of every member of the Church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, as whereof he may be sufficiently convinced, that they belong to the doctrine of jesus Christ. For he, that being sufficiently convinced, doth oppose, is ostbinate an heretic, and finally such a one as excluds himself out of beaven. Field l. 2. de Eccles. c. 3. Freedom from fundamental error, may be found among Heretics. And l. 1. c. 13. Heretics are they that obstinately persist in error contrarie to the Church's faith. Behold, how obstinate opposition to the doctrine of the Scripture, of the word of God, of the Catholic visible Church, or of any point of which may be convinced to belong to the doctrine of Christ, is true, proper, and damnable heresy. The English Protestant Church also excommunicateth all, whosoever shall affirm that the (39) articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous. And yet I hope they will not say, that every part of their 39 articles is fundamental in their sense. Wherefore they may be justly excommunicated out of the Church, who affirm some not fundamental point, to be erroneous. And art. 33. who are excommunicated, are cut from the unity of the Church. Wherefore, when Protestants will have Sup. c. 2. n. 2. l. 1. only obstinate opposition to some principal or capital point of faith, to be true and proper heresy, they speak nether with Scripture, Fathers, nor with themselves. Nether have they any authority of Scripture, Father, All sin against faith is either heresy, or infidelity. or other reason to limit heresy to obstinate opposition of fundamental points, but only, lest they should condemn some of their Brethren for heretics, whom they cannot deny, 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 obstinately and sinfully. And if we ask them, what sin they call, sinful error in any point of faith, if not Heresy, they can not tell. But now having seen, that every sinful error against any point of faith sufficiently proposed, or which would be so proposed, if it were not the errants fault, is true heresy: Let us see, that everic such error is damnable, because sometimes Protestant's will confess that all such error is heresy, but deny, that all heresy is damnable: as is evident by what we have rehearsed of their doctrine 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 (sayeth he) do not plainly destroy salvation, nor of themselves damn not man. That sinful denial of any point of faith sufficiently proposed, is damnable. THIRD CHAPTER. 1. THat all sinful opposition or denial Whitak. count. 2. q 4. c 2. non omnes errores, circa fidem sunt lathales, sicut noc omnes morbi. of any 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 have proved, that all such opposition, is true heresy. For that all true heresy, is damnable, is evident out of holy Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and Confession of Protestants. For the Apostle Galat. 5. v. 20. and 21. reckoneth sects or heresies, Heresy numbered by the Apostle Among dam able sins. among those sins, of which he sayeth: who do such things, shall not obtain the Kingdom of God. And maketh no more distinction of heresy, than he doth of the other sins. And Galat. 1. V 8. sayeth generally: If any Euangelize, beside that, which ye have received, be he accursed. And Tit. 3. v. 10. Avoid a man, that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, knowing that he, who is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his Heretics condemned by their own judgement. own judgement. But what hindereth to obtain the Kingdom of God, what deserveth a Curese, and condemneth a man in his own judgement, is doubtless damnable. Our Saviour also joan. 10. calleth heretics Thiefs and Robbers. And Apocal. ultim. v. 19 it is said. Ifanie shall diminish of the words of this Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of life. And if it be damnable to diminish a word of God's Book, much more damnable is it, to diminish some point of his faith or doctrine. The same also followeth out of those places of Scripture, which we shall cite hereafter, C. 9 n. 2. which command us to fly the company of heretics. 2. Holy Fathers also teach the same. Tertullian de prescript. c. 2. Heresies are to destroy faith: and do Heresy brings damnation. bring everlasting death. And c. 37. If they be heretics, they can be no Christians. And surely it is damnable, to be no Heretics no Christian's. Christian. Saint Cyprian Epist. 73. Nether faith, nor Church, are common to us with heretics. And he addeth, that both by the testimony of the Gospel and Apostle, heretics are called Anti-christs'. Are Anti-christs'. The like hesaieth Epist. 40. 55. 74. 75. and lib. de unitate and Firmilian Epist. 75. Saint Augnstin l. 2. contra Crescon. c. 10. sayeth to the Donatists. Ye have no Christian Church. l. 3. de Baptis. c. 19 All heretics and False Christians. Schismatiks, are false Christians. L. 21. de Civitate c. 25. An heretic, is worse than an Infidel. And in Enchiridioc. Worse than infidels. 5. Christ, in name only, is found with any heretics. Saint Gregory Nazian. Orat. 21. Drive away heretics, as the stain and destruction of the Church, and the poison of truth. And Saint Athanase in his Creed, whosoever will be saved, before all things, he must hold the Catholic faith: which unless he keep whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. But heretics hold not the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. Therefore etc. S. Fulgentius de fide c. 38. & 39 Hold most firmly, and doubt not at all, that not only Pagans, but also all jews, Heretics, and schismatics, who All that die heretics, are damned. end this life out of the Catholic Church, shall go into everlasting fire provided for the Devil and his Angels. Finally Saint Chrysostom in Galat. 1. expressly sayeth that the lesterror in matter or faith destroyeth faith. That he (S. Paul) might show that any little thing wrongly mingled The lest mixture corrupteth faith. doth corrupt the whole, he said the Gospel was overthrown. For as he who in the King's coin doth clip but a little of the stamp, maketh the whole of no value: so who destroyeth the lest particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted. Where then are they who condemn us, because we contend with Heretics, and say: there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that all our discord is for ambition to domineer. Let them hear what Paul sayeth, that they had overthrown the Gospel who had brought in never so little novelty. Which words are more clear 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. expressly speaketh of little things, and lest particles of faith, and never so little novelties. Besides his exposition is voluntary, not proved out of one word of Saint Chrysostom. And his reason, because by Faith is oftentimes meant only Fundamental points, is Sophistical. For it is a particularibus and dissimilibus. For Faith is never taken for any part of it, but when that is some way declared by the speaker or writer. Because all words are to be meant according to their propriety and latitude, unless the contrary be declared, else we could not be certain how words were to be taken. Which were to destroy the end of speech and writing. Far more testimonies of Fathers might be brought to this purpose, but whom these suffice not, none will suffice. 3. Reason also convinceth, that all heresy is damnable. For it is a sin in a weighty matter, to wit, against faith. Moreover heresy, is a sinful Not belief, or Disbeleif of some divine truth sufficiently proposed to come from God which is in effect not to believe God in that truth: or to deny God's veracity, and to give God See here n. 5. 6. the Lie; as Chillingworth speaketh, or as Doctor Potter sayeth: An act of Infidelity. And an act of infidelity, or to give God the Lie, and to deny God's veracity, is doubtless most damnable. And, as the same Potter sayeth sec. 7. p. 109. In this case, the difference is not great, between him that is wilfully Note this. Sinful ignorance excuseth not from heresy or sin. See also Chilling. c. 7. p. 404. blind, and him, that knowingly gainesaieth the truth: but knowingly to gain say divine truth, is most damnable, and a sin against the Holy Ghost. Nether is there any ground in holy Scripture, Fathers, or Reason, to deny all heresy to be damnable: But some Protestants deny it, merely, because they cannot deny, but that some of their Churches and Brethren culpably hold some heresies, whom they are ashamed to confess, to be in state of damnation. 4. Protestants likewise sometimes confess that all heresy is damnable. Luther in Explicat. Symboli Tom. 7. fol. 124. No heretic is saved, unless No heretic saved. he return to the Church, and in all things think, do, and teach the same. And l. de Caluin Act. 24. Detestabiles iubet haberi haereticos, Spiritus Dei. Bezadepun. haer. p. 21. non potest non esse gravissimum haereseos crimen. see p. 119. See jewel. p. 43. 314. votis Tom. 2. fol. 272. If any deny Marie to be a Virgin, or do not believe any other singular article of faith, he is damned. King james Resp. and Peron p. 384. Damneth all, who (sayeth he) have departed from the faith of the Catholic Church, and are become heretics. Apology of the Church of England. Heresy is a forsaking of salvation and departure from the body and Spirit of Christ. Idem: we pronounce all them damned, who have a wicked opinion of any point of Christian Religion. French Protestant's in their cene. I excommunicate all Heretics. Feild Append. p. 23. we do not admit any sectaries into the communion of the true Catholic Church. White in Preface to his way: In questions of faith whosoever erreth, looseth no les than his soul thereby. Hooker of iustific. §. 11. Heresy is heretically maintained by such, as obstinately hold it, after wholesome admonition. Of thes I make no doubt, but their condemnation, without an actual repentance, is inevitable. Whitaker Praefat in controu. One heresy, is One heresy damneth. sufficient to damnation. And controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. No heretics can be saved. And ibid. q. 5. c. 2. we confess that heretics are to be fled. Hooker l. 3. p. 129. Heresies which are not actually repent of, exclude quite and clean from saluation. More of the like Confessions of Protestants, may be seen lib. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 1. to which I will add the Confessions of late English Writers. 5. Doctor Potter sect. 2. p. 55. Whosoever, either wilfully opposes any Catholic verity maintained by this Church (of Saints) or the Catholic visible Church, as do heretics, their condition Condition of heretics, damnable. is damnable. Sec. 7. p. 74. It is true, that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of whatsoever is revealed, is fundamental. Scripture, is in some sort fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended, that is, such, as may not be denied, or contradicted Infidelity, to deny any point sufficiently proposed. without infidelity. And p. 110. Where there is no such impediment (of incapacity) and the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded, there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced, is an heretic, and See Andrews count. Apol. Bellar. c. 6. p. 132. heresy is a work of the flesh, which excludeth from heaven. Galat. 5. v. 20. p. 105. It seems fundamental to the faith, Fundamental to faith and salvation. and to salvation of every Christian member, that he acknowledge, and believe all such points of faith, whereof he may be sufficiently convinced, that they belong to the doctrine of jesus Christ. For he that being sufficiently convinced, doth oppose, is obstinate, an heretic, and finally such a Fundamental to salvation to believe all sufficiently proposed. one, as excludes himself out of heaven. And p. III. It is fundamental to a Christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God. Sec. 4. p. 99 Heresy is a grievous crime, where it is true. And as Chillingworth sayeth in Answer to the Preface p. 8. He gives them only, hope of pardon of errors, who are desirous, and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities, industrious to find the truth: or at least truly repentant, that they have not been so. 6. Chillingworth in Answer to To disbeleve what is sufficiently proposed, is to give God, the Lie. the Preface p. 10. and 11. To deny, or disbeleve any point of faith sufficiently proposed to his understanding, as a truth revealed by God, is to give God the Lie. P. 18. If this proposal be so sufficient, as the party, to whom it is made, should, and (but for his own fault) would have been A damnable fault. convinced of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed, a fault I confess, it is, and without repentance, damnable, if, all circumstances considered, the proposal be sufficient. To may, and will not see truth, is damnable. See Morton Impo. p. 372. P. 19 When God hath interposed his testimony on one side, or other, so that either they do see it, and will not, or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault, might and should see it, and do not, let all such errors be as damnable as you please to make them. P. 21. If any Papist or Protestant be betrayed into, or kept in any error, by any sin of his will, such error is, as the cause of it, damnable. P. 23. There is, (as matters now stand) Alike necessity to believe not fundamentals, as fundamentals. as great necessity of beleuing those truths of Scripture, which are Not fundamental, as those, that are. And p. 24. he citeth Doctor Potter saying. If any be negligent in seeking truth, unwilling to find it, either doth see it, and will not: or Negligence in seeking truth, is damnable. might see it, and will not, his case is dangerous, and without repentance, desperate. 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 Potter's words, that all errors are alike damnable, All error alike damnable, if the preposal be alike. if the manner of propounding the contrary truths, be not different: which (for aught I know) all Protestants, and all, that have sense, must grant. And ibid. p. 161. we are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be fufficiently assured, that Christ taught it his Apostles, his Apostles, the Church. And p. 137. namely he sayeth of a Not fundamental See also p. 41. point: It may, by accident, become fundamental, because it may be so proposed, that the denial of it, will draw after it, the denial of this fundamental truth: That all, which God says, is true. And all that is so sufficiently proposed, as matters of faith ought to be, are proposed in such sort. Ibid pag. 134. Among the conditions of salvation, which Christ requireth, one is, that we believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him. And 158. If the cause of the error be some voluntary, and avoidable fault the error is in itself finful, and consequently in its own nature dawnable. And c. 5. p. 280. Capital danger may arise from errors, though not fundamental. Seep. 278. 7. Lord Canterbury sec. 37. p. 320. It is true, that error in points not fundamental may 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 upon the foundation, and yet will nether seek the means to know the truth, nor accept and believe truth, when it is known especially being men able to judge. And p. 342. I agree, that he which hopes for saluation, must believe the Catholic faith whole and entire in every point. And sec. 35. p. 289. sayeth. A matter of faith, and so A matter of faith, is a matter of salvation. of salvation too. As if every matter of faith, were also matter of salvation. 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 absolutely or simply fundamental, or necessary points, which insinuateth, that there are others truly fundamental, or truly necessary, besides those which are absolutely such. The Author of the Preface to K. james before Iuels works. In things necessary only, necessitate Precepti, not only witting and willing disobedience, but also wilful and affected ignorance doth condemn. 8. In which Confessions of the Points to be noted. Protestants, I would have the Reader to mark well thes points. First, that all 1. errors, fundamental or Not fundamental, are alike damnable, if the contrary truth be alike proposed. Secondly, that a Not fundamental 2. point sufficiently proposed, is so fundamental to faith and salvation, as to contradict it, is infidelity, and to give 3. God the Lie. Thirdly, that who believeth not any one divine truth sufficiently proposed, is an heretic, and excludes himself out of heaven. Fourthly, that who is negligent to 4. seek truth, or unwilling to find it, is, without repentance, desperate. Fiftly, 5. that who, were it not for their avoidable 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 little controversy about fundamental, and not fundamental Protestants some times grant all the question. Magna est veritas & praevalet. points. For this is to grant plainly, that no points of faith are so fundamental, as they are sufficient to saving faith, Church, and salvation, if other points be sufficiently proposed and not believed, or for the not believers fault, not so proposed: nor any so not fundamental, as they are not necessary to saving faith, Church, and salvation to be believed actually, if they be sufficiently proposed, and necessary to be virtually believed, whether they be so proposed, or no. And all the question betwixt Catholics and Protestants is, whether any points of faith be thus fundamental, and any thus Not-fundamental, or no. But because Protestant's can not deny, but that some Churches, which they maintain, have had the truth, against which they err, sufficiently proposed to them, or if it were not their avoidable fault, might and should see the truth, therefore when they are to defend such Churches, they forget this doctrine. But now having proved, that to err sinfully, in any matter of faith, is both heresy, and destroyeth salvation, let us also prove, that it destroyeth true saving faith. That vincible and sinful error against any point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth true saving faith. FOURTH CHAPTER: 1. THat vincible and sinful error against any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth true saving faith, is evident out of this, that all such error is true heresy, as is before C. 2. proved, and heresy is opposite to saving faith, as is evident out of the definitions of heresy, related before c. 2. out of Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants: and also out of the testimonies of holy Fathers c. 3. n. 2. that heresy is the destruction of faith, the poison of faith, that heretics have nether faith, nor Church, common with Catholics, have Christ only in name: that heretics are no true Christians, are false Christians, are Christians only in name, are worse than Infidels, are Anti Christ's. Which evidently show, that heresy is opposite to saving faith, and heretics, to catholics. For if they be no Christians, much les are they Catholics. And Protestants sometimes give the same judgement of them. For thus Luther in caput 7. Math. tom 7. Heretics, are not Christians: Protestants say that heretics are no Christians. Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 6. They are Anti-christs', and devils. Beza de puniendis haereticis. They are infidels, and Apostates. Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 2. the name of Catholic, is opposite to Heretics. Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 7. Ether we must give the name of Catholics to Protestants, or we must deny them the name of Christians. And surely, who are no Christians, but Anti-christs', devils, infidels, and Apostates, and opposite to Catholics, have not saving faith. And though Estius in primam joan. 4. and 3. distinst. 23. paragr. 13. think, that, what truth heretics believe, they believe it with The question is of saving faith. divine faith, yet he denieth, that their faith is Catholik, or simply faith, because it is not entire faith: nor ever said, that it is a saving faith, as Protestants say, and is the main question between us and them. 2. Secondly, I prove it out of Heretics make shipwreck of faith. Scripture. 1. Timoth. 1. v. 20. where certain heretics are said, to have made Shipwreck of faith. And c. 4. v. 1. In the latter days, some shall departed from faith harkening to spirits of error, and doctrines of Devils. And Epist. 2. c. 2. v. 18. he sayeth of other heretics: They have fallen from truth, and overturned the faith of some. But who have made Shipwreck of faith, have departed from faith, have fallen from truth, and who's faith is overturned, have not saving faith. 3. Thirdly, I prove that sinful error against any point of faith sufficiently Formal object of faith, is divine revelation sufficiently proposed. proposed, destroyeth true saving faith, because it destroyeth the true formal object of divine faith. For the formal object of divine faith, is whole divine truth revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to us, See S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 1. that it is from God. But voluntary error against divine truth revealed, and sufficiently proposed, taketh away this formal object. Therefore it taketh away divine faith. For what taketh away the formal object of any habit or power, taketh away the habit itself. The Minor is evident. The Mayor also is clear. For what other can be said to be the formal object of faith? And it is confessed by Protestants. For thus Lord Canterbury sec. See Usher Serm. before K. james p. 39 Morton Appeal. l. 1. c. 1. see 1. 38. p. 344. we believe them for the same formal reason in all, namely, because they are revealed, from, and by God, and sufficiently applied in his word, and by the Church's ministration. And Doctor Potter sec. 5. p. 3. The formal object of faith, is divine revelation. The same he hath p. 8. and 10. And Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. Faith is an assent to divine revelation, upon the authority of the revealer. And hereupon the same Chillingworth p. 23. sayeth: He that doth not believe all the undoubted parts of the undoubted He that believeth not all Scripture, truly believeth none. books of Scripture, can hardly believe any, nether have we reason to believe, he doth so. And the same I say of undoubted points of Christ's doctrine. 4. Fourthly I prove, that sinful error against any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth true-saving faith, because it destroyeth the true unity thereof. For true divine faith, is wholly one, and the same in all true Believers. But who sinfully believe not some points of faith sufficiently proposed, which others believe, have not wholly one and the same faith Therefore etc. The Minor is evident. The Mayor I prove out of Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and Confession of Scripture sayeth that faith is wholly one. Protestants. The Scripture Ephes. 4. sayeth: One God, one Faith, one Baptism. Where, not only faith is said to be one, but also it is said to be one, as God, and baptism are, which are wholly one. And this same, prove all L. Cant. p. 36. whatsoever is fundamental in the faith, is fundamental to the Church, which is one by the unity of faith. those places of Scripture, which teach, that the Church is one, which hereafter we shall cite. For seeing the profession of faith is part of the form of the Church, she could not be wholly one, if her form were not altogether one. 5. The Fathers also teach the same Likewise Fathers. For thus-Saint Ireneus l. 1. c. 4. She, who is the universal Church, hath one and the same faith in all the world. Saint Cyprian l. de unitate: God is one, and Christ is one, and his Church is one, and faith is one, unity cannot be divided, nor one See s. Chrystom in Gal. 1. to. 4. col. 812. Body separated by disunion of the joints. Saint Hilary 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 perfidiousness. Saint Optatus una sides ab haereticorum erroribus separatur. l. 5. If you give an other faith, give also an other God. Saint Leo serm 4 de Nativitate: If it be not one, it is not faith. And thes Fathers say simply ad absolutely, that faith is one, without any restriction to fundamental points. And it is both voluntary, and Sophistical, to limit that to a part, which is spoken absolutely, when the speaker gives no occasion of such limitation: Reason also convinceth, that faith is wholly one in every true believer. For (as we said before) the formal object of true N. 3. faith, is divine revelation sufficiently proposed: but this is wholly one and the same in all believers, and consequently also faith, which (as all other habits) taketh its unity and distinction from its formal object. 6. Protestants also sometimes confès, And Protestants also. that faith is wholly and entirely one, and undivided. Luther in caput 7. Math. Tom. 5. fol. 74. Faith must be round, that is, in all articles, beleuing Faith believes little matters. howsoever little matters. For who doth not rightly believe one article, doth not rightly believe in all: as Saint I ames sayeth, who offendeth in one, is made guilty of al. And in tria Symbola Tom. 7. fol. 141. Christian faith must be entire and perfect Entire every way. every way. For albeit it may 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 doctrine always wholly Wholesome. And tom. 1. German. Epist. ad Albertum: He doth not satisfy, if in other things he confess Christ and his word. For who denieth Christ in one article or word, denieth him in all, seeing there is one only Christ, the same in all his words. Wittenbergenses in Refutat. Orthodoxi Consensus p. 73. As he, who keepeth all the Law, but offendeth in one, is (witness Saint I ames) guilty of all: So who believeth not one word of Christ, though he seem to believe the other articles of the Creed, yet believeth 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 doctrine, who subverteth it in the article. Most truly said Ambrose Epist. ad Demetriadem: He is out of the number of the faithful, Who dissenteth in any point. and lot of Saints, who dissenteth in any point from the Catholic truth. Field l. 3. c. 3. There are some things explicitè credenda, some things implicitè: which, whosoever will be saved, must believe them, atleast implicitè and in general. 7. Martyr Epist. ad peregrinos in Anglia, tomo 2. loc. colum. 136. we answer, that all God's words, as they proceed All God's words of equal authority. from him, are of equal weight and authorities and therefore none may of his iudgment receive this, and reject an other, as falls. james sayeth boldly, who effendeth in one, is made guilty of al. If that have place in obedience to the commandments, it will be true also for points of belief. Caluin in Ephes. 4. v. 5. upon that: One God, one Faith, writeth thus. As often as thou readest the word, one, understand it put emphatically, as if he said: Christ cannot be divided, 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. Whereupon faith is termed in entire copulative. Spalatensis contra Suarem, Faith is an entire copulative. c. 1. nu. 7. Divine faith perisheth wholly by the detraction, and consequenity, it is no true Church, no not visible, No Church, without entire faith. in which entire faith is not kept in public profession. L. Canterb. p. 325. There is but one saving faith. Item 338. And 342. who hopes for salvation must believe the Catholic saith whole and entire in every point. P. 105. Faith believeth not only the articles, but all the things rightly deduced from them. Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 41. commendeth Saint Basil for saying; Not asyllable of divine doctrine must be betrayed: And S. Gegorie Nazian. for saying: One word, like a drop of poison, may taint and corrupt faith. And sec. 7. p. 74. insinuateth clearly, that not fundamental points pertain to the unity of faith, though not primarily: and pag. 73. that they are to be believed by a virtual, or general faith, and as it were a negative faith, whereby they are not to be denied or contradicted. Whosoever therefore deny them, being sufficiently proposed, have no true saving faith. The like he hath also p. 75. All points sufficiently proposed are fundamental to faith. and (as I cited in the 3. Chapter n. 5.) doth oftentimes say, that it is fundamental to faith to believe all that is sufficiently proposed, and that it is infidelity to deny any such point: who's words alloweth Chillingworth and Sup c 3. n. 6. addeth that not to believe such points, is to give God the Lie And, that not fundamental points may be so proposed, as the denial of them, will draw after it, the denial of this fundamental truth. That all which God says, is true. And if Not-fundamental points be fundamental to faith, when they are sufficiently proposed, how can saving faith be, and not believe them? Seeing nothing can be without all that is fundamental to it, as is evident by itself, and confessed by Protestants before Sup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num. 5. Besides they profès by Fundamental, to understand essential: and nothing can be without that, which is essential to it. And if it be infidelity, and to give God the Lie, to deny such points, how can there be true saving faith, where such points are denied? seeing saving faith cannot stand, where infidelity is, or the Lie given to God. And out of all that hath been said of faith it is evident, that there can be no saving faith, but that which actually believeth not only all fundamental points, but even all points whatsoever of Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed: and virtually also, all points or parts of his word whatsoever: and that all other kinds of belief, is true heresy, and a spice of infidelity. The errors of Protestants, touching the essence and unity of true faith, and true Church, confuted out of that which hath been said. FIFT CHAPTER. 1. Out of that which hath been said of the essence and the unity of true divine faith, together with that, which shall be said hereafter of the essence, and unity of the true Church of God, the errors of Protestants touching the essence and unity of true faith and Church, may be easily, and clearly confuted. 2. Their first, and principal error, (out of which proceed the others) is, Protestants put the essence, and unity, of faith and Church, in some points only. that there be certain principal articles, which alone, belong (as D. Potter speaketh, sec. 5. p. 16.) to the substance of faith. Sec. 3. p. 60. Comprehend the life and substance of Religion. Sec. 7. p. 74. which essentially pertain to the faith, and properly constitute a Church. P. 78. which make up the Catholic faith. And p. 102, wherein consists the unity of faith, and of the Catholic Church. Whereupon he sayeth, sec. 2. p. 39 Among wise men, each discord in Religion dissolves not the unity of faith. And Lord Conterburie sec. 38. p. 355. sayeth: That to err in Not fundamentals, is no breach upon the one saving saith. And p. 360. In things not necessary, though they be divine truths also, Christian men may differ, and yet preserve the one necessary faith. And Chilling worth c. 3. pag. 159. sayeth there be certain propositions or doctrines, which integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion. 3. But this error, that the essence of saving faith; and of the true Church of God, consisteth only incertain principal points, and the substantial The total object of faith is all Gods revealed word. unity of them, is clearly confuted out of what hath been said. For the total object of true saving faith, is no part only of Gods revealed word, or any part only of Christ's doctrine, but God's whole revealed word, Christ's whole doctrine, as is evident by itself, and is proved before, and also confessed C. 4. n. 9 by Doctor Potter sect. 7. p. 71. and sec. 2. p. 39 where he alloweth the divisio of the object of faith made by Saint Thomas; into primary, and into secundary, as that Abraham had 2. Sons. And both he, and Chillingworth cited in the third chaptern. 5. 6. confess, that it is fundamental to faith, to believe Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed, and so far fundamental, that to deny them, is infidelity, and to give God the Lie. But what is fundamental to faith, is essential to faith, as is evident by itself, and Protestants confessed above l. 1. c. 7. num. 5. And besides they confessed Protestants by fundamental mean essentials. l. 1. c. 7. num. 6. and 7. That by fundamental, they mean Essential. And if Not fundamental sufficiently proposed, be essential to faith, falls it is, that the essence of saving faith consisteth only in certain principal articles. And if the essence of faith consist not in them only, nether doth the unity of it consist in them only; but whosoever are divided in any points of faith sufficiently proposed, are divided in the very substance, and substantial unity of faith. And sigh the substance of faith, is but one, the one of the parties divided, hath no true saving faith. 4. Their second error, is: That (as Lord Canterbury sayeth 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 Defence. c. 38. The substance of Rom. Religion different, from the substance of Protestants. For the substance of the Roman Religion (as of all true Christian Religion) is profession of all Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed to us, and essentially includeth Romish doctrine, as is evident by that Epitheton Roman. See sup. n. 2. Perkins Gal s. v. 9 Politicus, qui nullius est Religionis, dicit nos & Pontificias non differre in substantia. And the substance of the Protestant Religion, are only certain principal articles of his doctrine. Therefore the substance of both of them is not the same. Besides, who differ in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed, differ in some essential point of faith, because (as is now rehearsed out of Protestants) such points are fundamental to faith, and have the formal object of faith which is divine revelation. But the Roman and Protestant Religion differ at least in Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed; Therefore they differ in some essential points, and in some formal object of faith, and consequently are not the same. And this Lord Canterbury seemeth to confess when p. 125. he sayeth. The time was, that you and we were all of one belief. As if now we were not. And p. 285. There are no mean differences that are between us. 5. The third error is, that they have not left the Church of Rome in her essence, as speaketh. Lord Canterbury The essence of the Rom, and Protest. Church is different. sec. 25. p. 192. Doctor Potter sec. 3. p. 62. 66. and others commonly. For sigh they have left the Church of Rome in profession of some not fundamentals sufficiently proposed, they have left her in her essence: because her essence includeth all points of faith sufficiently proposed. And therefore who leaveth the Church of Rome in profession of some points of faith sufficiently proposed, leaveth her in her essence. Besides, Protestants say (as is related l. 1. c. 6. num. 5.) That the Church of Rome erreth in fundamental points, holdeth errors of themselves damnable, hath corrupted faith in the principal points, is fallen into substantial corruptions: How then can they say, They have not left her in her essence? Since they say, That she herself hath not the essence of the Church. Moreover, seeing the Protestant Church differeth Protest. and Ro. Church differ in all the formal parts of a Church. from the Roman in all the formal essential parts of a Church, to wit, in profession of faith, (and that in great matters, as in sacrifice, Sacraments, part 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 have not left our Church in her essence, having left her in all her formal parts? Finally they have left her in her communion of Sacraments, which is an essential part of her. 6. Their fourth error is, that Chillingw. p. 273. 132. L. Cant. p. 192. they have not left the Church of Rome, but only her corruptions. For those points, are essential points of the Church of Rome, and held of her as such, because they are part of Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed to her. 7. Their fift error is, that they have Potter sec. 1. p. 7. not left the Church of Rome any farther, than she hath left herself, to wit, in some Change in faith is not reformation but a new formation of the Church. points of faith. For if she had sinfully left herself in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, she had left her own essence, and so had destroyed herself. And so Protestants must have left her altogether, as she had left herself altogether, in destroying herself by going from some points of faith sufficiently proposed to her. 8. Their sixth error is, that there are some things, which separate from the Church in part only, and not simply, as sayeth Lord Canterbury sec. 10. p. What separates from the Church in part, separates simply. 26. For if he mean (as he doth) of points of faith sufficiently proposed, nothing can separate from the Church in part, but it separateth simply. Because (as is often said) every such point, is of the essence of the Church, separates simply from her. For (as Aristotle well sayeth) the essences of things consist in indivisibili, and are like numbers, which are changed by any addition or substraction, whatsoever. And it is the whole word of God, whose profession is of the essence of the true Church, and therefore who separates from a true Church in profession of any part of God's word, separates from her simply. Who separates from a part of god's word, separates wholly 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. Heretics separate not simply from the word of God, because they believe some part of it. But they separate themselves simply from the true Church of God, of who's essence it is, to profès the whole revealed word of God. And Heretics 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 all thes points will be yet more clear, by what we shall say of the essence, and unity of the true Church of God. And both by what we have said of the essence and unity of true saving faith, and shall say of the essence and unity of the true Church of God, it will easily appear to be true, what Aristotle sayeth, that A true definition solues all difficulties. out of a true definition, all difficulties may be solued, which arise about the thing defined. For if Protestants would constantly agree with us (as sometimes, See sup. c. 3. n. 5. 6. being convicted by evidency of truth, they do) that true saving faith, is essentially belief of all Gods what is true divine faith revealed word, sufficiently proposed, they would never deny, but all and every part of Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed, is essential to saving faith, and denial of any part of such word of God, is denial of saving faith; and that division in profession of such word of God, is a substantial division in faith. It will also appear, that all the errors of Protestants about Errors of Protestants about faith and Church, arise of not observing their true definitions. the essence or unity of saving faith, or of the true Church of God, rise of their Not knowing, or rather of their not constant observing, the true definitions of saving saith, and of the true Church of God, which themselves sometimes give. But being set between two opposites, to wit, true faith, and the Protestant faith; the true Church, and the Protestant What Protestant's can not be constant in doctrine. Church, when they consider the nature of true saving faith, and true Church, they agree with us in defining or describing them: But when they consider the nature of the Protestant faith, and Church, they are feign to say that, which is clearly refuted out of their own definitions of true saving faith, and true Church. And so in effect recall their own definitions of a true Church, or of saving faith, and thereby 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, mean quite other things by Faith and Church. by the names of faith or Church, they mean quite other things, than Scripture, Fathers, we, or themselves other while, do. But it may suffice to reasonable men, lovers of trut, hand not wranglers about words, that if by faith, Protestants will mean, as Scripture, Fathers, we, and themselves sometimes, do, they cannot say, that the essence of it consisteth only in some principal points, but in all Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed: nor the unity of saving faith, in unity of only some principal points, but in unity of beleuing all God's words sufficiently proposed, and that who differ in belief of any point of God's word sufficiently proposed, differ substantially Protestants equivocate in the names of Faith and Church. in faith. And if by Faith, they will mean some other thing, than Scripture, Fathers, we, and themselves also sometimes, do, they may if they will; for words are ad placitum; But it shall not be true saving faith, (For that is that, whereof the Scripture, and Fathers mean) but a faith of their own invention, who's essence and unity they may put in what points they please. And thus having proved, that voluntary or sinful denial of any point of faith, or of God's word revealed, and sufficiently proposed to us, destroyeth both the substance, and unity of true saving faith: Now let us show, that it also destroyeth the substance, and unity of God's true Church. That sinful error, or error in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the substance of a true Church. sixth CHAPTER, 1. ALbeit it be evident, by what we have proved before, that sinful error against any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the substance of a true Church, because all such error is formal heresy, and destroyeth Catholic faith: And a true Church cannot be with heresy, or L. Canterb. sec. 10. p. 36. what is substantial in faith, is substantial to the Church. without Catholic faith: Yet will we prove it more particularly, out of the definitions or descriptions of a true Church, given by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants themselves, and lastly by reason. 2. The Scripture Acts 2. v. 42. describing Description of the Church by Scripture. the true Church of Christ, sayeth: They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and communication of breaking bread, and prayers, In which words is contained a description of the true Church, even by confession of Protestants. For thus Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 19 This place is surely notable, and thes words do show, by what Notes the Apostolic Church was known and showed. The first note, was the doctrine of the Apostles. For the Apostles delivered that doctrine, which they received from Christ, the Christians of those times embraced and persevered in it, and it distinguished that company of men from other companies and societies. For they alone then were the true Church, who persevered in doctrine. 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 love by the Communion which is in him. But they who believe only fundamental points, and sinfully deny Not fundamental The doctrine of the Apostles, includeth all their doctrine. points of faith, do not absolutely persever in the doctrine of the Apostles. For the doctrine of the Apostles, is their whole doctrine, and includeth as well Not fundamental, as fundamental points of faith. Who therefore persever only in the fundamental points, and not in the unfundamental, persever only in a part of the Apostles doctrine, and in part leave it, and consequently are not the true Church. Besides, our Saviour joan. 10. sayeth: My sheep, hear my voice. But who hear his voice only in fundamental points, do not absolutely hear his voice, but in part only, and in part hear it not. For Christ's voice, is as well in Not fundamental points of his doctrine, as in fundamental. Therefore such are not Christ's. And joan. 8. If ye abide in my word, ye shall be my disciples indeed. But they abide not in his word, who forsake it in all points not fundamental. Moreover, sinful errors in faith, are gates of hell. But gats of hell prevail not against Christ's true Church. Therefore not sinful errors in faith. Besides if the the Catholic Church, should sinfully err in any point of faith, she should not be holy men, nor a holy society. For she should be a society in heresy: and so that article of our Creed: I believe the holic Catholic Church, should be false. 3. And in like manner, the holy Fathers define the true Church, as is evident by their exclusion of all heretics, and by this confession of Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron cap. 2. The ancient Doctors are wont to understand Description of the Church by Fathers. by the Church (which oftentimes they call Catholic) the whole society of Christian Churches, Orthodox, and sound in faith, united together in Communion: and they oppose this Church to the societies of Schismatiks, and heretics, which sense (sayeth he) we will not reject. 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. Therefore if we will understand by the Church, what the Fathers did, we cannot say, that such are of the Church. And this is confirmed, because the true Church, which we believe, is Catholik, as is professed in the Apostles Creed: And Catholik, by the Father's judgement, erreth not in any point of faith. For thus Saint August in l. imperfec. in Genesin c. 1. Catholik holdeth al. The Church is called Catholic, because she is universally perfect, and halteth in nothing. And Epistle 48. Perhaps she is called Catholic, because she truly holdeth the whole, of which truth, some pieces are found in divers heresies. The like hath Saint Cyril. Catechesi 18. S. Optatus l. 1. Patianus Epist. 1. Vincet. c. 3. But who deny any point of faith sufficiently proposed, are not universally perfect, nor truly hold the whole, but halt in something. Therefore they are not catholics, 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, than that heretics are, as rotten branches, cut of from the life and body of the true Church. 4. And in the same manner do Description 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 united together in profession of true faith, and communion of Sacraments. This definition (sayeth he) is received by Hiremias P. C. Resp. 1 ad Wirtenb. Qui se non totos veritati dediderunt, nè in Christi quidem Ecclesia sunt. our Adversaries. 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 prove: First, because part of true faith, is not absolutely true faith: but a part there of. Secondly, because he sayeth, catholics admit this definition, which they never admit, unless by true faith, be meant entire true faith. Thirdly, Entire true doctrine is the Note of the Church. because c. 28. he sayeth. The whole entire doctrine of salvation, is the Note of the Church. Therefore when he defined the Church, by profession of true faith, he meant entire true faith. And in the said c. 26. he sayeth. The true Church Field l. 2. c. 2. Entire profession of the truth revealed by Christ distinguisheth right believers from heretics. is opposed to heretics and schismatics. And c. 25. The question (which is the true Church) is of the Orthodox Church, joined in Communion, by what Notes she may be discerned from heretics, schismatiks, and idolaters. Whatsoever Church therefore is heretical, or not orthodox, is no true Church. 5. And generally all Protestants, put in their definitions of the true The Church professeth the pure, entire, an uncorrupt 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 God's word. The French Confession Caluin 4. instit. c. 2 §. 3. ubi ad definitionem Ecclesiae ventum 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 doctrine of the Gospel is purely delivered. And loco 30. When I defined the visible Church, consisting of all her parts, I said, that purity of doctrine, and true use of Purity of doctrine essential to the Church. Sacraments, was essential to the Church. Vrsinus in Catechis. q. 2. In which the entire and uncorrupt doctrine of the Law Entire. and Gospel is embraced. Field l. 2. of the Church c. 2. Entire profession of those supernatural verities which God hath revealed in Christ, is essential and giveth being to the Church. Fulk. joan. 14. not. 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall unto heresy. It is an impudent slander to affirm, that we say, so. The Magdeburgians Centur. 1. cap. 4. In which, the sincere doctrine of the Gospel, is embraced. james Andrews li. contra Hosium p. 210. In which the incorrupt word of God uncorrupt. soundeth. Whitaker contro. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word, and lawful use 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, than which holdeth the pure preaching of the word. Ibid. It can not hold any heretical doctrine, and yet be a Church. Spalatensis l 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu. 26. The form of the Catholic Church, is the Form of the Church, is entire profession of Christ's faith. entire profession of Christ's faith. And c. 12. num. 132. To the true Church, two things only are required, to wit, entire faith in Christ, and peace and communion with all that profès this faith. Caluin in joan. 10. v. 1. We must not communicate with any other Society, then that, which conspires in the pure faiih of the Gospel. Besides, Protestant's profès, purity in doctrine, 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. Rivet tract. 1. sec. 45. Luther in caput 2. Isaiae: In which confessions of Protestants we are to Note, how, when they intent to define the true Church, they put, pure, sincere, entire, and uncorrupt doctrine in its definition, and say, that such doctrine is the essential Note of a true Church, and the form thereof. Also, how they deny any company to be a true Church, which hath not the pure word. But such as sinfully deny the not fundamental points of God's word sufficiently proposed, profès not his pure, sincere, entire, and uncorrupt word. Therefore they are not of the true Church. 6. To this, no other answer can be Protest. can not answer without confession that they equivacate. given, but that, when Protestants define the true Church, by the pure, sincere entire word of God, or say that such is the essential Note, or form of the Church, they mean only, pure, sincere, entire, or uncorrupt, in fundamental points of God's word, not in all God's word sufficiently proposed. But this evasion in clearly refuted. First because this condemneth their definition of obscurity or defect. Next because if they had only defined the Church to be a company, in which the word of God, or the faith of Christ, is professed, they could not have expounded it, of any part of God's word, or of Christ's faith: because the word of God, The faith of Christ, signify his whole word, his whole faith, as the Church signifieth the whole See c. 2. nu. 5. l. 1. Church: And much les can they expound this definition, of profession Protest. expound pure by impure Entire by a part. of any part of God's word, or of Christ's faith, seeing they have added to the word of God, or to the faith of Christ those most significant adiectives, pure, sincere, entire, uncorrupt. For What is pure, hath no mixture, and what entire, is no part. what is the pure, sincere, uncorrupt, word of God, cannot be mixed with any falsity, or word of man. And what is the entire word of God, cannot be a part only, but must needs be his whole word. Whosoever therefore sinfully, profés any falsity, or word of man, or not the whole revealed word of God, are not the true Church. Secondly, because (as we proved before) C. 2. 4. there are no fundamental points in Field l. 2. de Ecclesia c. 3. freedom from pertinatious error, is ever found in the true Church. Fulks overthrow of the answer to Char Preface p. 114. the Protestants sense, that is, such as are sufficient to be believed, though other points of faith be sufficiently proposed: nor any Not fundamental in their sense, that is, such as are not necessary to be actually believed, when they are sufficiently proposed, and virtually, though they be not proposed. But all points of faith whatsoever, are fundamental or essential All points of faith essential to a true Church. to a true Church, and are to be believed, either 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 revealed word (which containeth as well Not-fundamentals, as fundamentals) is the true object of faith. And no company, but such as professeth all Christ's doctrine, can be a true Church of Christ. And therefore none, who deny any points of his doctrine sufficiently proposed, can be his true Church absolutely, but only his Church in part, as in part only they profès his doctrine. And this D. Potter insinuateth, when sec. 7. p. 74. he sayeth; That Not fundamentals do Not fundamentals belong to the essence of a Church. not primarily belong to the unity of faith, or to the essence of a Church, or to the salvation of a Christian. For if they do any way truly belong (whether See Chilling. p. 209. 291. primarily, or secondarily) to the essence of a Church, a Church cannot be without them altogether, because nothing can be without that which any way belongs to its essence. And they may be faied to belong secundarily, to the essence of a Church, because How Not-fundamentals may belong secundarily a Church may be without actual belief of them, to wit, if they be not sufficiently proposed. 7. Reason also convinceth, that what is simply and absolutely a true All points Christ's doctrine howsoever must be professed at least virtually or implicitly. Church of Christ, must, (at least virtually and implicitly) profès all his doctrine. Because if it do no way profés his whole doctrine, but only some part of his doctrine, it is not simply and absolutely his Church, but in part only his Church, and in parto not his Church; as in part it professeth his doctrine, and in part rejecteth it. And they, nether virtually not implicitly profès his whole doctrine, who sinfully reject any part of it, when it is sufficiently proposed to be his. Secondly, because to reject any part of Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed to be his doctrine, is to reject Christ's veracity: for it is as much as to say, he is not to be believed in that, and is an act of infidelity, as Protestants before C. 3. §. 5. 6. l. 2. confessed. And how can they be a true Church of Christ, who in any point reject Christ, veracity, and commit an act of infidelity. Besides, as Lord Canterbury sayeth, sec. 10. p. 36. whatsoever is fundamental in the faith, is fundamental to the Church, which is one by the unity 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. Therefore etc. 8. And out of thes definitions of a true Church, which we have brought out of holy Scripture, Fathers, Protestants, and reason, it appeareth: First, how untrue it is, which Canterbury, sayeth sec. 16. p. 62. The Catholic Church, which we believe in our Creed, is Catholic Church includeth not all Christians. the society of all Christians: or which Moulins sayeth l. 1. contra Peron c. 2. The Scripture taketh the name of the Church sometimes, for the universal company of all those, who profès themselves Christians, and to believe in jesus Christ. Secondly, how, untrue it is, which the same Lord Canterbury hath sec. 36. p. 314. No man can be said simply to be out of the visible Chureh, that is baptised, and holds the foundation. Or sec. 20. p. 129. That Church, which receives the Scripture as a rule of faith, and both the Sacraments, as seals of grace, can not but be a true Church in essence. Or which D. Potter sayeth sec. 5. p. 18. A true Church, is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation. Or as Chilling worth sayeth Tertul. praescrip. c. 41. haeretici pacem passim cum omnibus miscent. c. 5. p. 283. Protestants grant their communion to all, who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary. Or, (which generally all Protestants say:) That the Catholic Church, is the multitude of all Christians through the whole world, who agree in profession of the principal articles of Christian faith, howsoever they deny other points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, nor communicate together at all in Sacraments or public worship of God. For, beside that these things are said without all apparent proof, either of Scripture, Fathers, or reason, but merely to include themselves and such others as they please, within the bounds of the true Catholic Church, they are clearly convinced out of the aforesaid definitions of the Church, taken out of Scripture, Fathers, Protestants, and reason. For nether do all Christians, or all that profès themselves Christians, persever in the doctrine of the Apostles, but only in a part of it: nor are they all Orthodox or sound in faith, or united in communion: nor do they all profès the pure, sincere, uncorrupt, and entire word of God: and therefore, according to the definitions of the true Church given by Scripture, Fathers, Protestants, and reason, they are not all members of the true Church. 9 And with les appearance, can they be said to be the Catholic C. 6. n. 3. l. 2. Church. For Catholik (as before I said out of Saint Augustin and other Fathers) halteth in nothing, and many of those Christians, who hold the principal articles, halt in many other points of faith. And besides, all such Christians communicate not together, and condemn one an other, as is evident in the Roman the Grecian, the Lutheran the Caluinist, and such other Churches: And communion, is as well essential to the true Catholic Church, C. 13. S. Austin Epist 48. l. de unit. c. 6 Collat. 3. diei c. 3. de Pastoribꝰ c. 13. Field l. 3. de Eccles c. 43. as purity in faith, as hereafter shall be proved. Nay Catholic rather signifieth communion, than purity in faith. What monstrous Catholic Church then must that be, which consisteth of all those Christians, who agree only in the principal points of Christian faith, A monstruous Church of Protestants. but in all other points, how sufficiently soever proposed to them, disagree, and condemn one an others belief, and communion? Is such a Chaos, or hydra, the Church instituted by Christ, the holy Church professed in our Creed, the Spouse of Christ, the house and Kingdom of God? Certainly a Church consisting of all Christians, or of all that profès themselves Christians, or of all that hold the principal points of Christian doctrine, but deny other points of his doctrine sufficiently proposed to be his, and communicate not together in Sacraments, but condemn one an other, was never gathered or instituted by Christ, never mentioned by the Fathers, Protestants equivocate in the name of the Church. but is a mere Monster of a Church, merely feigned by some Protestants, for to include themselves, and sinfully erring Christians, within the pale of the Church. But we care not, whom they include in a Church of their own invention or making. It sufficeth us, that no such, can be in the true Church of Christ's making and which the Scripture, Fathers, reason, and Protestants also (when they only consider the nature of the true Church) describe and propose unto us. And that sinfully to err in any point of Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the nature and substance of such a Church; which Protestants would never deny, if necessity of defending sinfully erring Churches, did not force them to it. Propertie of the universal Church, not to err at al. It is the property of the universal Church only, promised to her by Christ, not to err at all, either voluntarily or involuntarily, either vincibly or invincibly, in any thing which she Essential, not to err vincibly, or sinfully. professeth as matter of faith: but it is essential, both to the universal, and to every particular true Church, not to err sinfully, voluntarily, or vincibly, in any matter of faith whatsoever. So that, it implieth contradiction, to err in that manner, and yet to be a true Church substantially; And having thus proved that sinful error in any point of faith, or of Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the nature or substance of a true Church of Christ: Let us also prove, that such error destroyeth the true unity of a true Church. That sinful error in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the true unity of the Church of Christ. SEAVENTH CHAPTER. 1. THat sinful error in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the true unity of Christ's Church, followeth evidently out of what I have before proved, that such error destroyeth the substance of his true Church. For if it destroy the substance of the true Church, it must needs destroy her unity, which floweth from her substance, and dependeth of it. But we will prove it also in particular, out of Scripture, Fathers, reason, and confession also of Protestants. 2. Are for holy Scripture, it not only absolutely sayeth, that the Church is one, but also, that it is so one, as those are, which are wholly one, and altogether Cyprian. de unit. Aug. tract. 6. in joan. Optatus l 1. & 2. undivided. Cantic. 6. v. 8. Christ saith: My dove, is one. Which place both Fathers teach; and Protestant's confès, to be meant of the The true Church is absolutely one. true Church. joan. 10. v. 16. Christ sayeth of his Church: There shall be made one flock, and one shepherd. Rom. Perkins in symbal Witak. Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 9 12. v. 5. we many, are one body in Christ. But a dove, a flock, a body, are wholly one undivided at al. Therefore such is the true Church of Christ. Besides, the Scripture calleth the Church, the Galat. 3. v. 28. omnes vos unum estis in Christo. Kingdom of God, and addeth Mat. 12. that every Kingdom divided itself, shall perish. Wherefore seeing the true Church cannot perish, it is not divided in itself. But who are sinfully divided in points of faith, are not wholly Not divided. one, but truly many, and divided in themselves. And joan. 11. jesus should die, to gather into one the children of God that were dispersed. The like is joan. 17. and Actor 2. 3. The holy Fathers also teach, that the true Church is wholly one and undivided in points of faith. Saint Cyprian lib. de unitate sayeth: The Church, is people joined together in solid One in solid unity. unity of a body, by the glue of concord, and addeth, unity cannot be cut, nor any body separated by division of joints. But solid unity of a body, and such, as cannot be cut or divided, is perfect and entire unity. 4. Saint Augustin in Psal. 54. after he had recounted many things, in which the Donatists were one with the Catholic Church, addeth: They The Church is wholly one. were there with me, but not wholly with me, in many things with me, in few, not with me. But by thes few, in which they are not with me, the many, in which they Not in part only. are with me, profit them not. Lo how he exacteth, that men must be wholly one with the Catholic Church, and professeth, that it profits them nothing, to be with her in many matters, if they be not in al. And yet the Donatists (whereof he speaketh) were Donatists were one in the creed and Sacraments. Sic etiam Optatus l. 3. & 5. with Catholics in fundamental points, as appeareth by thes his words Epist. 48. Ye are with us in baptism, in the Creed, in the rest of God's Sacraments: in Spirit of unity, in bond of peace, finally in the very Catholic Church, ye are not with us. And lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 8. and 13. sayeth. That an heretic, is in part joined to the Church. And yet no L. 1. Cantholicus non es foris estis In Catholica non estis l. 3. pars vestra, Catholica non est. heretic is truly in the Church. Saint Optatus also lib. 4. sayeth of the same Donatists: Ye see, that we are not wholly separated one from the other. So that by the judgement of the Fathers, it is not enough, to be in part joined to her. See S. Leo epist. 4. c. 2. 5. Hereupon the Fathers say, The The Church is one. Church is one. So the Nicen Creed, Saint Cyprian Epist. 46. and 64. S. Praeter unam altera non est. Optatus lib. 1. & 2. Saint Augustin de unitate c. 2. lib. 1. contra Crescon c. 29. and others commonly. Sometimes One only. they say: She is one only. So Saint Augustin lib. 3. contra Petilian. c. 5. and epistle 120. Saint Hilary l. 7. de Trinitate. Not many. Sometimes, she is not many: So Optatus lib. 1. S. Augustin lib. de unitate c. 16. and in collat. 3. diei c. 10. Sometimes, that she cannot be divided. Cannot be divided. So Saint Cyprian epist. 47. and Saint Hierom in Psal. 51. And out of this whole and entire unity of the Church, Saint Cyprian epist. 76. inferreth: If the Church be with Novatian it was not with Cornelius. And yet Novatian was not divided from Cornelius in fundamental or principal points. For thus Doctor Potter sec. 4. p. 127. The error of Novatian was not it itself heretical, especially in the proper and most heavy sense of that word. Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de civet Dei c. 51. The Devil raised heretics, who under Christian name, should resist Christian doctrine, as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not have men of contrary beleifs. city of God without correption, as the city of confusion had indifferently philosophers, thinking both different and contrary things: who therefore in Christ's Church have any unsound and naughty opinion, if being corrected for to believe Note. aright do obstinately resist, and will not amend their pestiferous opinions, but persist, to defend them, become heretics, and going out, are held for exercising enemies. Lib. de haeres. after he had reckoned many heresies, sayeth: whosoever shall hold any one of them, shall be no Catholic Christian. And yet divers of them are not against any 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. All which sayings, and inferences of the Fathers, were false, if the Church could be sinfully divided in points of faith. For being so divided, she were not absolutely one, nor one only, nor Not many: but truly not one, and truly many: neither would it follow, that if the Church were with those who deny the Not fundamentals, that it were not with them, who believe them: nor that, whosoever hold any of the heresies related by S. Augustin, were no Cath. Christians, as is evident. 6. Reason also convinceth the same: For the true Church of Christ is a society in profession of the faith or doctrine of Christ. But the faith or doctrine of Christ, signifieth his whole faith and doctrine. Therefore the Church is a Society in profession of Christ's whole doctrine. But None dare define the Church, by profession of part of Christ's doctrine. where there is profession of Christ's whole doctrine, there can be no division in his doctrine. Nether durst ever any Protestant yet, define the Church to be a society in profession of any part of his doctrine. For the name of a part of Christ's doctrine, showeth, that it is not absolutely Christ's Church, but in part only. Besides, the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. (before defined of Protestants) is a Society in profession of Christ's pure, sincere, uncorrupt, and entire doctrine. But where there is union in profession of Christ's pure, and entire doctrine, there can be no division at all in doctrine. For his pure doctrine, excludeth all mixture of doctrine: and his entire doctrine, includeth all his whole doctrine. And if Protestants will constantly stand to their foresaied definitions, it is impossible for them to imagine, any sinful division in the true Church, in points of Christ's doctrine. 7, If any object, that hence it would follow, that a particular Church or person, erring invincibly in some point of faith, is no true Church, or true member of the Church, because they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrine of Christ: I answer, what Church or person invincibly erreth in some secundary point of faith, doth virtually or implicitly believe that very who invincibly err in not fundamentals virtually and implicitly believe them. truth, against which he erreth: because he explicitly believeth the Catholic Church, which teacheth that truth. And implicit belief of secundary points not sufficiently proposed, sufficeth to a true particular Church, and to a true member of the Church. Herupon Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 75. sayeth: By virtual faith, an erring person may believe the truth contrary to his own error, in as much as he yields his assent implicitly to that Scriptare, which contains the truth, and overthrows his error, though yet he understand it not, And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They believe implicitly those But who vincibly err, do not virtually believe. very truths, against which they err. But this is not true of such Churohes or persons, who sinfully err against any points sufficiently proposed: and therefore they are not at all either explicitly, or implicitly united or sociated in the profession of Christ's entire doctrine. And consequently are not of his true Church, which is a society in profession (either explicitly, or implicitly) of his whole doctrine. C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed, by what before we shown, that the faith or doctrine of Christ, is an indivisible Copulative: And therefore all the points of it must be professed, or it is not professed. For an indivisible, must be all had, or none. And who professeth only some part of Christ's doctrine, doth not profès the doctrine of Christ, but some part, and no part is the whole. And as they profès but some part of his doctrine, and not the whole, so they are but in part Christians, and indeed not Christians. For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christ's doctrine wholly and entirely: and who professeth it but in part, and in part rejecteth it, (as do they, who reject any point of his Heretics but in part, Christians. doctrine fufficiently proposed) is but in part a Christian, and indeed no Christian. And hence it is, that holy Fathers say that heretics are no Christians, as indeed they are not, if by Christians, we mean, not men Christened, but followers of Christ's doctrine. For they follow not Christ's doctrine, what Churches differ in profession of faith, differ essentially. but only some part of it, and reject the rest. Moreover, Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christ's faith or doctrine, differ in the essence of the Church, and consequently essentially. For profession of Christ's faith or doctrine, is of the essence of his Church, and as such, is put of all men in the definition thereof. But Churches, whereof one professeth all points of Christ's doctrine, fundamental and Not fundamental, and the other, professeth only fundamentals, and sinfully rejecteth Not fundamentals (though they be sufficiently proposed) differ in profession of Christ's doctrine. For his doctrine includeth as well Not fundamentals, as fundamentals: they being equally revealed by him, and equally proposed to us, as I suppose. Therefore the one of thes, is no true Church. For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing. 9 Lastly I prove, that unity in only fundamental points of faith, is not sufficient to the unity of the Church. For then the certain unity of the Church could not be known, as Protestants profès they know not the certain number of fundamental points: nor give any certain mark, to know which are they. And so we could not be certain, who were of the Church, who not, with whom we may communicate, with whom not: as we cannot know certainly, which are the fundamental points, which are not: we can neither have a Catalogue of them, nor any certain mark to know them. But Catholics, who Catholics know who are of their Church: and Protestants, not. measure not the unity of the Church, by fundamental points only, but by belief of all points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, clearly see, who are of the true Church who are not, and with whom they may communicate, with whom not. 10. Protestants also sometimes Protestants sometimes confess the unity of the Church in matters of faith, to be entire. The Church is one. confès, that the true Church is wholly one, and undivided in profession of faith. For first they say simply and absolutely, that the Church is one: So the confession of Auspurg art. 7. The Apology of the Church of England, and Protestants generally. Also, that it is one only: So confessio Heluetica One only. c. 17. Belgica art. 27. Perkins upon the Creed art. de Eccles. james Respons. ad Peron p. 384. Beza de pun. haeret. p. 25. Sadeel praefat. ad artic. Abiurat. likewise, that the Church is not many: Luther l. contra Papatum Not many. tom. 7. p. 461. Christ knoweth not two kinds of unlike Churches, but one only Church. Melancton in Hospin parte 2. hist. fol. 81. we spoke sharply to them in this point, that we marvelled, with what conscience, they (Sacramentaries) could hold us for Brethren, whom they thought to err in doctrine. And fol. 82. Luther spoke gravely to them, saying: he much marvelled, how they could have him for a brother, if they thought their doctrine true. Caluin 4. instit. c. 1. paragr. 4. we cannot have two or three Churches, but Christ must be divided. See him joan. 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 i'll, that we should say, They put two Churches, as he sayeth; It is a mere slander. And ibid. q. 3. c. 3. avoucheth: That it is impossible, the Church should consist of them, who profès contrarie faiths. Seravia de gradibus Ministrorum c. 2. The Church is one, which cannot be cut The Church can not be divided. or divided. Lord Canterbury sec. 35. p. 284. 'tis true, There is but one true faith, and but one true Church. Ib p. 310. It is as necessary to believe one God our father, as one Church our Mother, P. 366. There is but one Baptism, as welas but one Church. Sec. 23. p. 147. Christgave his natural body to be rend and torn Elien. in Tortura p. 398. Ecclesia unum corpus. upon the Cros, that his mystical body might be one. Chillingworth in Answer to the preface p. 7. D. Potter tells him: His labour is lost, in proving the unity of the Catholic Church, whereof there is no doubt or controversy. D. Potter sec. 2. p. 22. No Protestant denies the Catholic Church to be one. Confessio Heluet. c. 17. The Church is not divided or severed in itself. But how can those Churches be simply and absolutely said to be one, only one, not many, not two or three, not divided, which are not one, Unity in some points, is but unity, secundum quid, and is true multiplicity. are many, are divided in profession of points of faith sufficiently proposed? Doth not want of unity, or division in profession of such points, make want of unity, or substantial division in Churches? Why should Luther or Melancthon marvel, that Sacramentaries would account them brethren, and yet condemn their doctrine, if men holding obstinately false doctrine, may be brethren of the same Church? 11. Moreover, sometimes they Division in Religion, is a Note of a false Church confès, that division in faith or Religion, is a certain note of a false Church. Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu. 63. Negatively, this Note (of unity) hath full force. For if this unity (in faith) be any way wanting, the true form of a true Church will be wanting. Alsted l. de Notis Eccles. c. 10. Dissension in Religion, is a certain Note of a false and Antichristian Church. Wesphalus in Caluin in consens. de re Sacramentaria p. 756. It is proper to heretics, to disagree: to which Caluin: Be it so; what is that to us? But where is want of unity in not fundamental points of faith, there is want of unity in faith, and where there is dissension in Not fundamental points, there is dissension in Religion. For Not fundamental points, are points of faith and Religion, as is before proved. Therefore L. 2. c. 1. want of unity, or dissension in them, is a certain sign of a false Church. 12. Furthermore, sometimes they teach absolutely (without making distinction of heresy in fundamental or Not fundamental points) that heresy is a departure from the Church, and All heretics are out of the Church. that heretics are out of the Church. Apology of the Church of England part 1. Heresy is a departure from the Body and Spirit of Christ. Whitaker controu. 2. qu. 1. cap. 12. No heretics, though secret, belong to the Church of God. Item. An heretic cannot be a member of the Church. Ibid. c. 4. That (Bellarmin) proveth, heretics Apostates, and schismatics, not to be members of the true Church, maketh not against us. For none of us ever said 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. Heretics are not truly, but in name only, of the Church: not indeed, but equivocally. Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 26. The true Church is opposite to heretics and schismatics. Sutcliff l. 1. de Eccles. c. 16. No society of heretics doth deserve the name of a Church. And yet (as we proved before) all are heretics, who obstinately C. 2. l. 2. deny any point of Christ's faith sufficiently proposed. Therefore voluntary breach, in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, destroyeth the unity of the true Church. 13. King james also Respons. ad The Church will suffer no light corruption in faith. Peron p. 388. Durstone, but lightly corrupt the faith approved through the world? It was easy for a Child to discover the new Master by his Novelty. And the Thief of truth being found, all the pastors of the whole world, if need were, were moved, and being moved, did not rest, till they had removed the i'll, and provided for the security of the sheep of Christ. Lo, how the Church would not suffer Purity of doctrine, supreme law in the Church. any, who, even but lightly, corrupted Christ's faith. And ibid. p. 385. He knows, that the supreme law in the house of God, is purity of heavenly doctrine. And if this be the supreme law in God's house, none that teacheth impure doctrine, is to be suffered in God's house. 14. And out of that which we have proved here, and before, appeareth See c. 2. l. 1. how falls the comparison is, which Protestants commonly make between Integrity of faith is like life, and heresy, like death. heresy and sickness; and between ingritie of faith, and health in men. For health and sickness are accidents to men, and those also separable from them: whereas integrity in faith is essential to the Church, and heresy, destructive of its essence, as is evident out of their own definitions of the Church before related. And therefore C. 6. n 5. they thould rather compare integrity in faith to life, and heresy, to man's death. Secondly, how untruly they teach, that division in points Not-fundamental (if they be sufficiently proposed) destroyeth not the unity of the Church. For such division is quite opposite to the unity of the true Church, which (as hath been clearly proved) C. 7. consisteth in actual, and explicit unity of professing all points of faith sufficienntly proposed, and in virtual, or implicit unity of professing all whatsoever Christ taught. Thus have we proved, that sinful denial of any point of Christ's faith, destroyeth saving faith, Church, and salvation. Now let us prove, that it destroyeth also Christ's veracity. That not to believe, or disbeleve any point of Christ's doctrine, sufficiently proposed, is to deny his veracity, and consequently his deity. EIGHT CHAPTER. 1. THat to deny Christ's veracity in any point, is to deny his Deity, is evident, For he cannot be God, or Prima Veritas, The first verity, who in any point can deceive, or be deceived. And that to deny any point of his doctrine sufficiently proposed, is to deny his veracity in that point, is also evident out of that which before we said of faith. For, as to believe or profès any point of his doctrine for his authority sufficiently proposed, is implicitly to believe or profès his veracity therein: so not believe any point of his doctrine for his authority sufficiently proposed, is implicitly to deny his veracity therein. For as belief and disbeleif are opposite acts, the one affirming, the other denying: so what, belief implicitly affirmeth, disbeleif, implicitly denieth. If therefore belief of a thing for Christ's authority sufficiently proposed, implicitly professeth his veracity therein: Not belief of the same for his authority sufficiently proposed, implicitly denieth his veracity in that point. Besides, divine veracity being the formal object of divine faith, as Sup. c. 4. n. 3. long as that remaineth, and is no way removed, divine faith remaineth. Therefore what taketh away divine faith in one point, must needs take away divine veracity in that point. So S. Tho. 22. q. 11. art. 1. But Christ's veracity may be denied in two manners. First, explicitly and directly, and so it is denied by jews, Beza de puniend. haeret. p. 99 Christi doctrinam reijciendo Christum ipsum repudiant. p. 105. haeretici Christi nomen non profitentur. Turks, and Infidels, who profès not to believe in Christ. Secondly, implicitly and indirectly, and so it is denied by all heretics, who though they explicitly and directly profès Christ's veracity, yet in not beleuing all which he taught, though it be sufficiently proposed to them as taught by him, implicitly and indirectly deny his divine veracity. For who denieth that to be true, which one hath reported, and is sufficiently proposed as from him, implicitly and indirectly denieth that man's veracity. For directly to deny the veracity of the report, though it be sufficiently proposed as from the reporter, is indirectly to deny the veracity of the reporter: Nether can any judicious man conceive the contrary. Who therefore sinfully deny the truth of any point of Christ's doctrine, sufficiently proposed for his, indirectly deny Christ's veracity. 2. Moreover of two points Chillingw. c. 3. p. 138. God's revelation is an equal motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him. equally taught by Christ, and equally proposed to us, as from him, it is impossible to believe for Christ's authority, the one, and not both: because Christ's authority is equally in both, and where is equally the same motive of belief, there must needs equally be the same belief, wherefore if we believe not them both, we believe nether for Christ's authority, but for some other motive humane. Again, not to believe Christ's authority sufficiently proposed, to be a sufficient and just Motive to believe every thing taught by him, is to deny his veracity: But they who believe not every thing taught by him, and sufficiently proposed to them as from him, do so. Tertul. l. de carne Christi, ut quid dimidiatis mendatio Christum, totus veritas est. Therefore they deny his veracity. The Mayor is evident: the Minor I prove: For not to believe every thing that Christ taught, and is sufficiently proved to have been taught by Christ, is implicitly to deny his authority sufficiently proposed, to be a sufficient and just motive to believe whatsoever he taught. And surely to deny Christ's authority sufficiently proposed, to be a just and sufficient motive to believe, is to deny his veracity to be sufficient for belief. 3. Hereupon rightly said S. Augustin to the Manichees: You who in Z. 17. cont. Faust. c. 3. Scriptures believe what you list, and what you list not, believe not Scriptures, but yourselves. And so I say, who in points of Christ's doctrine, equally taught by him; and equally proposed to them, believe what seems true to them, and what seems not true to them, believe not, believe not Christ, but themselves. For if they believed either for Christ's authority, they would equally believe both, because his authority is equal to both. But because the motive of their belief, is seeming truth, and seeming truth is to them more in one, then in the other, they believe the one, and not the other. And to this purpose Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 23. said. He that doth not believe all the undoubted parts of the undoubted books of Scripture, can hardly believe any: nether have we reason to believe he doth. And he might have said so of all points of Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed, that who believeth not them all, believeth none, to wit, with divine faith and for Christ's authority: because this is equal in all such points, and therefore if it effectually work divine faith for one point, it will work the same for al. Wherefore thus I argue. Where is equally the total cause of divine belief, there is equally divine belief. In all points of Christ's doctrine equally taught of him, and equally proposed to us, equally is the total cause of divine belief. Therefore in them all is equally divine belief, The Mayor is evident. The Minor is clear. For the total motive cause of divine belief, is Christ's authority, and that is equally in all points of his doctrine, which have been equally taught by him, and are equally proposed to us, whether they be principal points, or secondary. 4. Finally, what it opposite to faith, is Infidelity. Denial of any point of faith sufficiently proposed is opposite to faith. Therefore it is infidelity The Mayor is evident, and the Minor proved l. 2. c. 4. But infidelity denieth Christ's veracity, either directly, as in those, who profès not to believe in Christ: or indirectly, as in those, who believe not what he clearly taught, and is sufficiently proposed to them for his doctrine. Besides, he that denieth some or all the fundamental points of Christ's doctrine sufficiently proposed to him, denieth Christ's veracity, and hath not saving faith. And why not he also, who denieth some or all Not fundamental points of his doctrine sufficiently proposed? seeing Christ's authority as equally testifieth thes, as those. Why is not his authority equally denied in all points, which he equally testifieth? What doth the greatness of the matter, ad to the greatness of Christ's authority? or what doth the smallness of the matter, diminish of his authority? seeing it is not the greatness of the matter, for which we ought to believe it, but merely Christ's authority. 5. This also is confirmed out of what we related, out of the holy Fathers, that all, who deny any point of Christ's faith sufficiently proposed, are heretics: and that all heretics, are no Christians, have no faith, but are infidels. For surely, whosoever are no Christians, have no faith, and are infidels, do in effect and (at the least) implicitly and indirectly deny Christ's veracity. And Protestants add here to (as we shown before c. 4.) that Heretics are Apostates, AntiChrists, and Devils: and surely such) at least in effect and indirectly) deny Christ's veracity. Moreover S. Augustin (as we rehearsed before) affirmeth, that Christ is in name only with any heretics. And so heretics profès Christ in name only, and in effect deny his veracity. 6. And this truth is so manifest, as Protestants sometimes confès it. For thus Doctor Potter sec. 7. p. 74. It is true, whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, What is sufficiently proposed is fundamental to faith. or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of God and his word, by which it is recommended; And it is infidelity to deny it. that is, such, as may not be denied or contradicted without infidelity. Lo, that to deny whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is fundamental to faith: so that faith cannot be without beleif of every such thing, because faith cannot be without all that, which is fundamental to it: And also, that it is infidelity to deny any such thing, and infidelity denieth divine veracity. Chillingworth also in Answer to the Preface p. 11. For a man to deny or disbeleve any point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding, as a truth revealed by God, is to give God And to give God the lie. the lie. And to give God the lie, surely is to deny his veracity. By which is refuted what he saith c. 3. p. 135 without any the lest dishonour to God's veracity, I may doubt of, or deny some truth revealed by him, If I neither know, nor believe it to be revealed by him. And p. 136. He only, in fact affirms, that God doth deceive or is deceived, who denies some things, which himself knows or believes to be revealed by God. which he oftentimes repeateth. For if to deny or disbeleve any point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God, be to give God the lie, he dishonoureth God's veracity, and in effect affirms that he doth deceive, or is deceived, who denieth or disbeleveth a point of faith sufficiently presented in his understanding, as a truth revealed by God, though he neither know, nor believe it to be revealed by God. For merely to deny or disbeleve a point of faith sufficiently presented to his understanding, is (as he said truly) to give God the lie, whether he know or believe it to be revealed by God, or no. And otherwise affected ignorance, that God hath revealed a point, which is sufficiently presented or proposed to our understanding as revealed by God, should be no dishonour to God's veracity, nor a giving the lie in effect to him. And hence it is evident, that albeit only the principal points of Gods revealed word be so in the covenant between him and men, as it is necessary in all ordinary course to be actually believed of all, that can so believe: yet Gods whole revealed word is so included in the same covenant, as it is also necessary to be believed at least virtually, because who doth nether actually nor virtually believe his whole revealed word, doth not believe him to be the prime verity, or true in all his words: And surely they do nether actually nor virtually believe all Gods revealed word, who will not believe some part of it, when it is sufficiently proposed to them for God's word. 7. And out of all that hitherto I have said, it appeareth (I hope) sufficiently, that to teach, that some points of Christian saith are not necessary to saving faith, to a member of Christ's Church, and to salvation; to be actually believed, when they are sufficiently proposed, and virtually and in purpose of mind, whether they be proposed or no, is damnably to deceive souls, is to excuse many damnable heresies from damnable sin, is to introduce an indifference or libertinism in Christian Religion, for beleuing or not beleuing the most points of Christian faith, is to destroy the very substance and unity of Christian faith, is to destroy the substance and unity of Christ's Church, and to destroy God's veracity, to introduce infidelity, the giving of the lie to God, and atheism. Now will I also show, that to communicate in Sacraments and public Liturgy, with any such as sinfully err in any point of Christian faith, is damnable, and that to defend such communion to, be lawful, is damnably to deceive souls. THAT COMMUNION in Sacraments with any heretical Church, or Church erring sinfully in any point of faith sufficiently proposed, is damnable. NINTH CHAPTER. 1. ONE great motive for Protestants to teach, that there are some Not fundamental points of faith in their sense, that is, not at all necessary to a true Church, is to maintain their communion in Sacraments and Liturgy with Churches and sinfully erring in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or for their fault, not so proposed to them. For though perhaps every Protestant will not confès himself to err in any point of faith, yet they confés (as we have seen before lib. 1. c. 2. nu. 10.) that every one of their Churches, erreth in some points of faith. And if they say, those errors have not been sufficiently showed to their Churches, they condemn themselves of great negligence of their duty, of want of sufficient zeal of God's honour, and of his truth, and of want of charity to their Churches. At least their Churches might be rightly informed, if they would, and therefore do err sinfully and vincibly. To thes therefore I will prove, that their communion with a Church sinfully erring in points of faith, is damnable. 2. And first, I prove it out of Scripture. S. Paul Tit. 3. v. 10. An heretic, after the first and second admonition, Heretics to be avoided. avoid. 2. Thessaly 3. v. 6. we denounce unto ye, brethren, in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, that ye withdraw Who walk not according to tradition. yourselves from every brother walking inordinately, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us. Rom. 16. v. 17. I desire ye brethren, to Who make dissensions in doctrine. mark them, that make dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrine, which ye have learned, and avoid them. Saint john Epist. 2. v. 10. If any man come to ye, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say, God save you, unto him. For he that sayeth, God save you, communicateh with his wicked works. And Christ himself joan. 10. v. 5. sayeth, That his sheep follow not a Stranger, but fly from him: And v. 8. Christ's sheep fly from strangers. that the sheep hear not thiefs and robbers. And Math. 7. v. 15. Take great heed of falls Prophets. And whom we are to fly, to avoid, and not to salute, we are not to communicate withal. And Numbers 16. v. 24. God said to Moses. Command all the people to departed from the Tabernacles of Core, Dathan, and Schismatiks to be forsaken. Abiron. v. 26. And Moses said to the people, depart from the Tabernacles of wicked men, and touch not the things which belong to them, lest ye be iwolued in their sins, Thus God forbade communion with Schismatiks, and the same reason is of heretics. For thes divide the profession of the Church of God, as those divide her communion. 3. The Fathers also teach the same. For thus Saint Ireneus lib. 3. c. 4. All the rest (besides the Church) are thiefs and robbers, for which we ought to avoid them. And c. 3. after he had told how Saint john ran out of the room, where an heretic was, and Saint Policarp would not salute an heretic, he addeth. So great fear had S. john and his disciples, would not speak with heretics. the Apostles and their disciples, not to communicate, so much as in word, with any of them, who had corrupted the truth. Tertull. l. praescrip. c. 12. we are forbidden to go to heretics. And c. 7. what have heretics and Christians to do together? And c. 41. Noted it as a property of heretics, that they communicate with al. S. Cyprian Epist. 40. Go far from the contagion of thes kind of men, and by flying, avoid their speeches, as a canker and plague. And epist. 55. Let there be no commerce with such, and let us be as much separated from them, as they are from the Church. S. Hilary l. de Synodis. Ye illove walls, ye i'll reverence the Church in houses and buildings, ye il inculcate the name of peace under thes. Mountains, and forests, and lakes, and prisons, and gulfs, are safer for me. And lib. contra Auxentium. The name of peace is specious, and the opinion of unity is fair, but who doubteth, but the Unity in Church and Gospel only, is unity in Christ. only unity of the Church and Gospel, is that peace, which is Christ's. Saint Augustin lib. 7. de Baptismo c. 45. john said, that to men of strange doctrine, we L de unit. c. 4. Quicunque de ipso capite scriptures consentiuns & unitati Ecclesiae non cōmunicant non sunt in Ecclesiae. should not say: God save ye. And lib. 2. contra Crescon c. 2. Ye are heretics, and therefore most warily to be avoided. And lib. de vera Religione c. 5. condemneth Philosophers, because teaching different things of God, yet they frequented the same Sacrifices: and addeth. So it is believed and taught, that it is the Principal point of salvation, not to communicate with heretics. principal point of man's salvation, that there is no other Philosophy, that is, study of wisdom, when they, who's doctrine we approve not, communicate not in Sacraments with us. S. Hierom. in 2. Thessaly. 3. plainly by the authority of this place, we must withdraw ourselves from every Christian, who walketh not according to the precepts of the Apostle, S. Cyrillus Catech. 18. And in one Catholic Church: that thou mayst fly the filthy Conventicles of them (heretics) and persever in the Church. And the Catholics being beaten of Arians, cried (as Catholics communicate not with heretics. reporteth saint Athanase Epist. ad Solitarios) Beat, as ye please, we communicate not with heretics. 4. Reason also showeth, that we may not communicate with heretics or any false Church. Because communion in Sacraments and Liturgy with Comunion 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 Mystical Body of Christ, hath the keys of heaven, and that in a false Church, there may be salvation. 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. Besides it is a real forsaking of the true Church, who ever thrust them out of her communion, who communicated with heretics. And as one cannot serve two opposite masters, be of two opposite common wealths, so can he not be of tow opposite Churches. Moreover communion in Sacraments is an essential part of the Church, as profession of faith, is, Who therefore join with heretics in communion of Sacraments, join with them in an essential part of their Church. Charity we must have with all, but communion, with Catholics only. 5. Protestants also confés the Protestants command separation from falls Churches. same. For thus the French Confession art, 18. we think, all that communicate with Papists, to separate themselves from the body of Christ. The Scots Confession art. 16. It is necessary, that the true Church be discerned from filthy Synagogs', by clear and perfect Notes, least being deceived to our damnation, we take the false for the true. The Holanders Confession art. 28. It is the duty of all faithful, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all them, that are out of the Church. Whitaker in Praefat. controu. If we be heretics, it is reason, that they warn all theirs, to fly us. And controu. 2. q. 5. c. 1. we must fly and forsake the Churches of Antichrist, and of heretics. Spalatensis l. 7. de Repub. c. 10. n. 82, There is no doubt but that heretics are to be avoided and separated. Luther also and Melancthon (as before we related) wondered, why the Sacramentaries would account them brethren, and yet deny their doctrine. Chillingworth c. 5. p. 276. Your corruptions in doctrine in themselves may induce an obligation to forsake your communion. Morton in his imposture p. 372. obstinacy of error in teachers, affected ignorance and obduration of people, etc. may be judged necessary causes of separation from any particular Churches. And Lord Canterbury sec. 35. p. 296. He that believes, as that (Rom.) Church believes, is guilty of the Schism, which that Church hath caused by her corruptions, and of all her damnable opinions to. And yet often times he sayeth, that the Rom. Church hath not erred fundamentally, is a true Church in essence, and her Religion the same with that of Protestants. And Caluin hath divers treatises in his Opuscules See him also in joan. 10. v. 1. for to prove, that it is not lawful to communicate with a false Church. And all are false Churches, which voluntarily err against any point of Christian faith sufficiently proposed, C. 6. as before is proved. 6. Hence appeareth, that untruly said Chillingworth c. 5. p. 281. Nether Any church voluntarily erring is to be forsaken. for sin, nor for errors, ought a Church to be forsaken, if she do not impose and enjoin them. Which he hath also p. 209. 307. and Lord Canterbury sec. 26. p. 196. and Potter sec. 2. p. 39 if See c. 2. n. 1. l. 1 and Caluin contversipel. p. 357. they mean (as doubtless they do) of sinful errors, or of errors in matters of faith sufficiently proposed. For every such Church, is a false Church, and beside the authorities of Scripture, Fathers, and confessions of Protestants before rehearsed, the very remaining in her, is a real profession, that she is a true Church, and that salvation may be had in her. Which to profés of a false Church, is damnable. And hence also appeareth, that it is C. 2. nu. 10. l. 1. damnable for any Protestant, to communicate with any Protestant Church, because they confés, that all their Churches err in some points of faith: And they must also confés, that they sinfully err in points sufficiently proposed to them, or else condemn themselves, (especially if they be Ministers of the word) of damnable negligence of their duty, towards God, and their Churches, in not showing sufficiently to their Churches their errors. At least their Churches might be sufficiently informed of their errors, if they would: which is all one, as if they were sufficiently informed. None can to live in a Church, and not communicate with her. As themselves confessed c. 3. n. 6. 7. Hence also is refuted, what Lord Canterbury sayeth sec. 35. p. 296. It is one thing to live in a Schismatical Church, and not communicate with it in the Schism, or in any false worship, that attends it. For so Elias lived among the ten Tribes, and was not Schismatical. For to live in a Schismatical Church, To live among Schismatical people, is not live in a Schismatical Church. is to live in a Schismatical communion. And Elias lived not in a Schismatical communion, but only lived among men, that were Schismatical. And this error proceedeth of not distinguishing, between men, and a Church. One may live in company of men, who are Schismatiks: but not in a Schismatical Church: for that is to live in a Schismatical society, or communion. 8. And thus have we sufficiently proved, that there be no fundamental, or not fundamental points of faith in the Protestants sense, that is, none sufficient alone to saving faith, to constitute a Church, or to salvation, nor none not necessary, either actually, or virtually to the constitution of a Church, to saving faith and salvation. But that this distinction in this sense bringeth in formal heresy, destroyeth true faith, true Church and salvation, and is the very ground of Atheism, denying God's veracity, and giving C. 3. n. 5. 6. him the lie, even according to the confession of some Protestants. Now we will show, that this their distinction in their sense, hath no ground in Scripture, Fathers, Reason, or doctrine of Catholics, 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 doctrine of catholics. TENTH CHAPTER. 1. DOctor Potter sec. 7. p. 70. sayeth: The distinction between doctrines fundamental and not fundamental, hath ground in reason, and Scripture. True: but not in his sense: His reason is, because as in humane sciences, there be principles, and conclusions drawn out of them: So in Religion, there be degrees of truth. For some, of itself, is the object of faith, some, but by accident or secundarily. And it is the common doctrine of Schoolmen and Casuists, that there is a certain measure and quantity of faith, without which none can be saved: but every thing revealed, belongs not to this measure. It is enough to believe, some things by a virtual faith, or by a general and as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted. This reason indeed proveth that this distinction in some sense is good, that some points of faith are more principal, then others: some more necessary to be proposed to all, than others, and simply more necessary to be actually believed of all, then others: about all which there is no controversy. But it doth not prove, that there are any points of faith sufficient to saving faith, Church, and salvation, though others be proposed and not believed: or any Not necessary to be actually believed of all, if they be sufficiently proposed to all: or not virtually to be believed of all, whether they be sufficiently proposed or no: which is all the question: Nay it insinuateth clearly, that all points of faith are to be Who hau no virtua or general faith. believed virtually, and not to be denied or contradicted, and surely they do not believe them virtually who deny them, when they are sufficiently proposed, or are in fault, that they are not sufficiently proposed to them, Let him show therefore, how Papists or Lutherans, (whom he accounteth Note this. true Churches) have a virtual, general, or negative faith of the Sacramentaries truths, and do not deny or contradict them; or else this his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points, will so little help him to defend the said Churches to be true Churches, as it will rather condemn them, and him also, for defending them: or let him show, how any, who deny or contradict some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, (as Papists and Lutherans deny and contradict the points of Caluinists' faith, so sufficiently proposed to them, as Caluinists can propose them) have such a virtual, general, or negative faith, whereby they do not deny, or contradict those points: or let him confess, that whosover deny or contradict any point of faith sufficiently proposed, have not so much faith, as is sufficient to saluation. His ground out of Scripture, is because, sayeth he, sec. 7. p. 76. The dogmatical ground of the Church, are those grand and capital doctrines, which make up our faith in Christ, that is, that common faith Tit. 1. 4. which is alike precious in all 2. Petri 1. which the Apostlc. Hebr. 5. 12. calls the first principles of the Oracle of God: And 2. Tim. 1. 13. form of sound words (Thes are his fundamentals) the materials, laid upon this foundation, whether they be sound or unsound, are named by Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. superstructions, which are conclusions, either in truth, or appearance. And thes, (if they be sound) are his not fundamental points. I answer. First, that the grand and capital doctrines may well be the ground of the Church, and yet The foundation maketh not up the building. not make up the common faith of Christians. For more is required to a building, than the ground or foundation. Secondly, they may make up all the common faith of Christians, which is absolutely necessary to be believed actually of all, and yet not make up all the faith, which absolutely is necessary so be believed virtually and implicitly of all, and conditionally also actually of all, if it be sufficiently proposed unto them. So that thes places prove not his fundamentals, which are so sufficient to saving faith, Church and salvation, as others need not so much as to be virtually or implicitly believed, for to have saving faith, Church and salvation. And for his Not fundamentals, I say, that the place 1. Cor. 3. affordeth no solid ground to prove them. First, because the place is very obscure and hard to be understood, Superstructions, are not Protestants not fundamentals. S. Aug. epist. 48. Quis non impudentissime 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. sayeth: It is metaphorical, and entangled with many difficulties. And the place itself doth evidently shewit. And an obscure and difficult place can give no sufficient ground of so main a point, as this is: That there be some points of faith, which are not necessary to salvation to be believed virtually or implicitly, or also actually, if they be sufficienily proposed. Will D. Potter venture his own, or other men's saluation, in so great a matter, upon an obscure or difficult text? We with Saint Augustin lib. de unitate demand, aliquid No express text, nor necessary consequence for Protestants not fundamentals. manifestum, quod interprete non eget. And you give us a place for Not fundamentals in your sense, which no interpretation can make clear. 3. Moreover, how can you think it certain, that Saint Paul here by superstructions, meaneth any doctrine at all, seeing Saint Augustin de fide c. 16. Enchir. c. 68 and Enarrat. in Psal. 38. 80. and S. Gregory l. 4. Dialog. c. 39 expound it only of works, nor you convince the contrary? Finally, admit, that by superstructions S. Paul meaneth doctrines, how is it certain, that he meaneth doctrines of faith? and not rather humane doctrines invented by men? because 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 proveth D. P. that S. Paul meaneth, they are not necessary to saving faith, Church, or salvation, when they are sufficiently proposed, seeing he nether speaketh of sufficient proposal, nor sayeth, that such superstructures are not necessary, not yet calleth them superstructures in respect of faith, or Church, but in respect of the foundation, as walls and roof may be called superstructures in respect of the foundation, and yet are necessary parts of the house. And so secondary points of faith may be called superstructures in respect of the principal points, on which they rely as upon their foundation, and yet be necessary parts of the spiritual building of faith and Church. 4. So that this superstruction of Protestants not fundamentals want foundation. D. Potter wanteth sufficient foundation for his not foundamentals in his sense, and is a not fundamental foundation for divers causes. First, because the place is obscure, and so unfit to found any infallible certainty, especially of this so weighty a point. Secondly, because it is not certain, that the Apostle by superstructions, meaneth doctrines, and not only works. Thirdly, because though he called some doctrines, superstructions, it is not certain, that he meant doctrines of faith; or if he meant doctrines of faith, that he called them superstructions in respect of saving faith, Church or salvation, and not in respect only of other points of faith, on which they are built. And we deny not, but in respect of themselves, some points of faith may be termed fundamental, other not fundamental. Fourthly, because though we grant, that Saint Paul called some points of faith, superstructions in respect of the Church, or of salvation, how proveth D. Potter, that he meant so, even when they are sufficiently proposed? we deny not, but some points may be termed superstructions in respect of saving faith, Church or salvation, because they are not so absolutely necessary to saving faith, Church, or salvation, to be actually believed, as some other points are. But this will not prove, that they are not necessary to saving faith Church, and salvation, to be actually believed, if they be sufficiently proposed, and necessary virtually to be believed, howfoever. 5. Admit, that he called them superstructions, even when Superstructions may be essential. they are sufficiently proposed, how proveth Do. Porter, that he meant, they were not then essential to saving faith, Church, or salvation? Is nothing, that is laid upon the foundation, essential or necessary to the building? And in this is the controversy, whether, any articles, which may be termed superstructions, be essential to saving faith, Church, or salvation, or no? we see the walls and roof are superstructions to the foundation, and yet essential to the house. So on every hand falleth down Doctor Potter's ground out of Scripture, for not fundamental points in the Protestants sense; which is, that to have saving faith, Church, and salvation, See 6. 2. they need not be believed actually, though they be proposed sufficiently, not at all, virtually. For if he only would, that some points of faith How some points of faith may be called not fundamental. are so not fundamental to saving faith, Church, or salvation, as they need not be actually believed, unless they be sufficiently proposed, and are not absolutely necessary, as some others are, there would be no question. But this kind of not fundamentals, will not help him, to justify his Churches, erring sinfully in some points of faith sufficiently proposed, or his communion with such Churches. 5. Other Protestants would prove, that Perkins and others cited c. 7. n. 1. true Churches may err insome points of faith sufficiently proposed, because the Galathians were turned to an other Gospel, and the Corinthians denied the Resurrection: and nevertheless Saint Paul calleth them Churches of God. But this argument, if it were good, would prove more than Protestants commonly do teach. For it would prove that true Churches may err even in fundamental points, which Protestants commonly deny. For doubtless, such were the aforesaid errors. Secondly, it is evident out of Saint Paul himself. 1. Cor. 15. vers. 12. That only some of the Corinthians denied the Resurrection. For his words are. Some among ye say, 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 part Whitaker controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 18. Some of the Galathians fell from pure faith, not al. And. c. 19 The Galathians, that failed, were no Church. Morton l. 2. Apologi c. 39 Not all the Corinthians or Galathians, but very few were drowned in those errors. And as Saint Augustin sayeth l. de Anima c. 17. and else where often: The holy Scripture useth signify by a part, the whole, and by the whole, a part. 6. Doctor Potter sec. 7. cit. p. 79. catholics calling the Creed the foundation, is not for D. Potter's purpose. 89. & seqq. citeth divers Fathers and Catholics 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 salvation, as nothing See c. 5. n. 2. l. 2. else need be virtually or implicitly believed, or also actually and explicitly, if it be sufficiently proposed: and in this sense, no Catholic calleth How the Creed may be called the foundation. the Creed the foundation. In other senses, the Creed may well be called the foundation, either because it containeth all the most principal and most capital articles: or because all other points of faith depend on it: or because it must be actually believed of all, neither sufficeth it that it be only virtually believed: Nether will it follow, that the Creed alone is essential or sufficient to a Church, because it alone is the foundation thereof, better than it will follow, that the foundation alone is essential or sufficient to a house, because What is alone the foundation, is not alone essential or necessary. it alone is the foundation. At most will follow, that it is the chief essential part of the Church, on which the rest essential parts depend, because it alone is the foundation: which we willingly grant. And upon such weak foundations as thes: depend D. Potter's proofs, that the Creed alone is essential to the Church. And that who believeth the Creed, hath saving faith, is in the true Church, and in true way of salvation, though he believe not, or disbeleve other points of faith sufficiently proposed. Hence it L. Cant. p. 29. Deductions are necessary to some, but not fundamental. appeareth also, why (as I said before) they rather say some articles alone, are fundamental or the foundation, then that some alone, are necessary; because some articles are in some sense the only foundation of the Church and of salvation, but in no Some articles be the foundation, but not alone necessary. sense are only necessary. For all poins of faith are two ways necessary. First, absolutely necessary, to be virtually and implicitly believed. Secondly, conditionally, to be believed also actually, if they be sufficiently proposed. Thus we have seen, that Doctor Potter hath not so much as any probable ground, much les certain and infallible (as he ought to have for so weighty a matter) for the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in his sense, either in Scripture, Fathers, reason, or Catholics doctrine. Now let us show that though we granted him his distinction in his sense, yet it would not, suffice to maintain the Protestants Churches, for maintaining whereof, it was devised, as Rouse confessed, sup. c. 1. and is most certain. THAT THOUGH THE Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles were admitted in their sense, it would not suffice to their purpose. ELEVENTH CHAPTER. 1. THat though the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental articles were admitted even in their own sense, yet it would not suffice to their purpose, is evident. For the chief end, for which they devised this distinction is their sense, was thereby to defend, that Protestant Churches, though they be sinfully divided in matters of faith, yet be true Churches, and have saving faith, and means of salvation, because (forsooth) they differ but in not fundamental points, and such points are no way essential, nor necessary to a true Church, nor to saving faith, or salvation. For Lutheran Protestants are divided 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 Liturgy and public service: both which divisions destroy a true Church. 2. That division in fundamental points destroyeth a Church, is the common doctrine of Protestants, as is before shown lib. 1. c. 7. nu. 5. 6. 7. Nether can they deny it, because by fundamental, they profés to understand essential: And evident it is, that division in essential parts destroyeth the whole, because the whole is nothing but all its essential parts joined together. And that Lutherans are divided from Caluinists in fundamental points, both Lutherans and Caluinists profés. 3. For thus Luther disput. contra Lovanienses Tom. 2. fol. 203. In earnest, we judge to be heretics, and out of the Church of God, Zuinglians, and all Sacramentaries, who deny the body Luther condemns the Sacramentaries. and Blood of Christ to be received with carnal mouth in the venerable Eucharist. And this sentence he pronounced against the Sacramentaries anno 1545. as Hospinian 2. part histor. writeth in that year; and died the next year, 18. Feb. as he testifieth anno 1546. And in anno 1544. he relateth thes words of Luther. I, who am now near Luther's glory before God, to condemn Sacramentaries. my deatb, will carry with me this testimony and this glory to the Tribunal of jesus Christ, that with all my heart I have damned and avoided the Swarmers, enemies of the Sacraments, Carolstadius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and their disciples, and we still damn them in Sermons. And their lying and blasphemous heresy. And tom. 7. in defen. verb. Cenae fol. 381. he thus speaketh: I will call God and the whole world to witness, that I do not think with Sacramentaries, nor ever did think, nor for ever, (God willing) will think. And fol. 382. Cursed for ever be that charity and concord (with He curseth agreement with them. Sacramentaries.) The one party must needs be set on by the devil, we will avoid them to the last breath, we will reprove and damn them, for Idolaters, corrupters of God's word, blasphemers, and deceavors. And there calleth them masked Devils, who bring in the devil in steed of God. And that, he should recall this judgement of the Sacramentaries before his death, is feigned by some without all sufficient proof. 3. And this his sentence, our English Protestant's should fear, because in the Apology 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 sayeth, that God thundered by his mouth. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 83. we esteem of Luther as a worthy man. So Field l. 2. de Eccles. c. vlt. l. 3. c. 42. And did this worthy man, who thus severely condemned the Sacramentaries doctrine, differ rather in forms or phrases of speech, then in substance of doctrine, as D. Potter affirmeth sec. 3. p. 89. or only in disputable opinions, as he sayeth sec. 6. p. 54. 4. Nether did Luther only, but even the public confessions of Lutherans condemn the Sacramentaries doctrine. For thus the Confession of Auspurg in Hospin l. cit. anno 1530, Of the Lord's Supper, thus we teach: That Confession of Auspurg damneth Sacramentaries. the true Body and Blood of Christ, is truly under the form of bread and wine present in the Supper, and there distributed and received. wherefore the contrary doctrine, is rejected. Confession of Bohemia art. 11. Certain fanatical Spirits, not abiding in the words of Christ, deny the bread and chalice of the Supper, to be the Body 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, condemn the Sacramentaries. 5. And the Sacramentaries do the same to Lutherans. For thus the Sacramentaries condemn Lutherans. Czengerin Confession, placed in the Syntagme of Protestant Confessions p. 194. As we damn the Papistical dotage of Transubstantiation: so we also damn their madness, who maintain fleasheating, that is, that Christ's natural and bloody body is received with carnal mouth, without any mutation or transubstantiation. And they add: This is contrary to the rule of faith, and nature. The Confession of Swisers' art. 21. The flesh of Christ cannot be corporally eaten, Of wickedness. without wickedness and cruelty. The Palatines Confession: Christ cannot now, without manifest and horrible Idolatry, be sought in the bread of the Supper. Of horrible idolatry. Item, we see a horrible distraction raised in the Church, because some will eat and drink the body and Blood of Christ, naturally, essentially, with their corporal mouths, and who refuse to believe and profés this, are proclaimed sacrilegious and blasphemous Sacramentaries. 6. Thus Protestants in their public Confessions of faith, condemn one the other. And that the chiefest See P. Martyr in epis. ad Eccles. Aug. Perkins in Symb. col. 781, 793. Caluin 4. instit. c. 4. §. 19 Masters of the Caluinists condemn the Lutherans of error in fundamental matters, I have showed l. 1. c. 6. nu. 8. and more may be seen l. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 3. nu. 5. Here I will relate the Confession of the Tigurins, in their preface to the Orthodox consent, set forth 1585. Of Tigurins confés dissensions of Protestants. the great and manifold contentions between Protestants. For thus they Nether of the Lords Supper only, but also of Christ's person, of the union of the divine and humane nature, of the ubiquity of his body, of the corporal (and which is made with mouth and teeth, and common to good and bad) eating of his body, of his ascension into heaven, 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 again to life up their heads, as recalled out of hell. And did not thes men know, what division there is among Lutherans and Caluinists, as well as D. Potter sect. 3. pag. 89. Do Thes differ rather in forms or phrases Potter sec. 4. p. 119. The errors of ubiquity consubstantiation and the like, are gross and palpable. of speech then in substance of doctrine? or as others say, they differ not in fundamental points? Are not the person of Christ, his hypostatical union, his ascension to heaven, and sitting at the right hand of his father, fundamental points! Are they not in the Creed, which commonly is said to be the foundation of Christianity? C 6. n. 2. l. 1. or did not the Tigurins know, wherein Protestants dissent, as well as he? will Protestant's not only make fundamental or not fundamental what they Aug. de unico 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, will not maintain the Protestants Churches. For they condemn one the other of fundamental errors. Now let us see, that it will not serve them, for want of Communion in Sacraments, and in public service of God. That the Protestants distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Articles, will not suffice to maintain such Churches, as they would, for want of communion. TWELFT CHAPTER. 1. ALbeit we should grant to Protestants, both, that some No certain articles are sufficient without others. articles are so sufficient to constitute à Church, as no other articles were necessary thereunto, and also, that their Churches do hold all those articles, which are so sufficient; (nether of which we shall ever grant) yet nevertheless, would it not follow, that Nor none at all without communion. their Churches are true Churches. For nether any certain articles, nor all articles together, are sufficient to constitute a true Church of Christ, without communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God. Which communion, because Protestants Churches want, both with themselves (as is evident in Lutherans and Caluinists) and also with all other Roman, Grecian, etc. such Churches, as they account true Churches: Therefore when they will prove, either their own, or any other Church, to he a true Church, they make no mention at all of communion, but only of fundamental articles: and infer, their own, or other Churches, (whom they please) to be true Churches, only because they hold the fundamental articles: wherein they commit a Triple fallacy. For nether are Triple fallacy of Protestants. any principal articles alone, sufficient to the constitution of a Church: nether do Protestants hold all principal articles: nether though they held all articles whatsoever, would that suffice to constitute a true Church, without communion in Sacraments and public worship of God. Which we prove to be essential to a true Church, out of the definitions of a true Church, given by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants themselves, and confirm it by reason. 2. The Scripture Acts 2. vers. 42. describing the true Church, or true Scripture puts cōm union in the definition of the Church. disciples of Christ, sayeth: They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and communication of breaking bread, and prayer. Where communication in Sacraments and prayer, is put as essential a part of the true Church, as perseverance in the doctrine of the Apostles is. And Caluin upon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper, and public prayers: And sayeth: we must be such, if we will be truly accounted the Church before God. And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schism among the Corinthians, and one said he was of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas, The Apostle reproving them, faied v. 13. Is Christ divided? As if it should follow, that Christ were divided, if his mystical Body the Church, were divided. Besides, all the places of Scripture, C. 7 nu. 2. l 2. which before we brought to prove, that the Church of Christ is absolutely one, prove, that she cannot be divided in communion of Sacraments. For such a divided Church, is not absolutely one, but in part, or in some sort only. The same also is evident out of our Creed: where we profés to believe the Catholic Church, the communion of Saints. Where communion of Saints, is either 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, understand the whole society of Christian Father's put such communion, as is opposite to schismatics. Churches, orthodox and sound in faith, united together in communion, and oppose it to heretics and schismatics. So that they make union in communion, (which excludeth Schismatiks, who are divided in communion) as essential a part of the Church, of which they mean, as orthodoxy or soundness in faith, which excludeth heretics. And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola communione litigant. See him 4. count. Crescon. c. 66. it is manifest by all Fathers, that they exclude, as well Schismatiks, out of the Church, who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments: as heretics, who want soundness in faith. And their testimonies may be seen l. 2. of the Author of protestancy c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19 contra Faustum c. 11. sayeth: Men cannot s. August. puts communion in Sacraments, of the essence of Religion. be joined into any name of Religion, true or false, unless they be linked with some sign or fellowship of visible Sacraments. So that there can be nether true nor false Religion, without communion in Sacraments. And epist 118. sayeth. God hath joined the society of his new people by Sacraments. 4. Reason also convinceth, that Reason also. communion in Sacraments and public worship of God, is essential to the true Church of Christ. For his Church, is Confessio Anglicaart. 19 Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. Wittenbergica c. de Eccles. a Society in profession of his faith and use of his Sacraments, as all men conceive and define. And it implieth contradiction, that there should be a Society, without communion in matters essentially belonging to the society: as Sacraments belong to Christ's Church. For if there be no communion in use of Sacraments, there is no society in use of Sacraments: And if no Society in use of Sacraments, no Church. For a Church is essentially a society in profession of faith and use of Sacraments. And Protestants, who profés to give none but essential Notes of the Church, give right use of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her. Wherefore what Churches are divided in use of Sacraments, are divided in an essential part, and consequently essentially. Moreover, without communion 2. in Sacraments and public Without communion the Church differs not from schismatics. 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 else a false Church should substantially be a true Church. Furthermore, 3. use of Sacraments and public worship of God, was the external end for which the Church was instituted, and use of the Baptism and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ, joan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be divided in her principal external end? Besides, the 4. true Church, is the mystical Body of Christ, and therefore, as all the members of a natural body communicate one with an other, so must the members of the true Church. Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church divided in communion. Therefore a Church so divided, is no Church of Christ's institution. Finally, all the arguments, 6. wherewith before we proved, the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutely one, prove that she cannot be divided in communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God. For a Church so divided, in not simply one. 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants. For Confessio Protestants confés that the Church is a society in Sacraments. Argentinensis c. 12. sayeth: God would have his to have external society together, for which cause he gave them Sacraments. Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper, that we remember of what body we be members, and therefore agree with all brethren. Mulhusina art. 5. The Lord's Supper is used in the Church, to testify faith and fraternal charity. Consensus Poloniae: The Lord would have his Supper to be the Sinew of public Congregation. Saxonica c. 15. God would have this receiving of the Eucharist, to be the band of public congregation, and the band of mutual charity among the members So Potter sec. 7. p. 98. of the Church. Caluin 4. instit. c. 1. Caluin in joan. 9 Pessimun in Ecclesia, & maxim noxium malum, est schisma. §. 7. The Church, by participation of the Supper, doth testify unity in true doctrine and charity. See him also ibid. §. 8. Whitaker also controuer. 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approveth the definition of the Church, given by Bellarm. thus far. Protestants put communion in Sacraments, in definition of the Church. The Church is a company of men, joint together in profession of the same faith, and communion of Sacraments, under lawful Pastors. Where conjunction in Communion of Sacraments, is put, as an essential part of the Church. And Where is not lawful use of Sacraments the Church is not. ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word, and lawful use of the Sacraments, make the Church. So as, where they are not, the Church is not. Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 26. That is the true Church, which is joined together by profession of true faith, and communion of Sacraments. And cap. 25. The question (which is the true Church) is, touching the entire body The question about the Church, is about the entire body Orthodox, and joint in communion. of the Orthodox Church, joint in Communion: we ask, by what external Notes, we may discern 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 all faithful that profess this faith. Confession of Auspurg art. 7. To the true unity of the Church, it is enough, to consent in the doctrine of the Gospel, and ministration of Sacraments. Sadeel cont. Tur. loc. 30. True use of Use of Sacraments is essential. Sacraments, is essential to the Church. Caluin 4. iustit. c. 1. §. 2. Unless under Christ our Head, we be united to all the other members, we can have no hope of heaven. There cannot be twoe or three Churches, but Christ must be divided. 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 Renegade and Forsaker of his Religion, who obstinately separateth himself from any Christian society, which hath the true ministry of the word and Sacraments. See him also in joa 9 Plessie de Eccl. c. 1. We confés in the Creed, that the Church is the Communion 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 james Resp. ad Peron p. 384. Damneth and detesteth those, who have left the Communion of the See junius in sub Ecclesiastico c. 4. Church, and become schismatics. Casaubon exercitat. 15. It is an undoubted truth, that whiles pious people adhere to a lawful and true Bishop, that is a true Church of God. So that if any separate himself from that company, it cannot be doubted, but he is out of the Church. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 74. Whosoever professeth himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the body of Christ, must confés himself consequently to forsake the whole. Musculus loco de Eccles. sec. 3. The Church is a Communion of believers. The true Church, is a Communion and society of true believers. Perkins in explicat. Symboli col. 794. As long as any Church goeth not from Christ, we may not separate from it. The same he hath in his Reformed Catholic tract. 21. And Protestants commonly, who exclude Protestants exclude schismatiks who want but communion. Schismatiks out of the Church, as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of protestancy c. 1. and yet confés, they want nothing but communion, as is to be seen ibidem lib. 2. cap. 15. I will here add the Confession of D. Potter sec. 2. p. 42. Schism is no les damnable, Schism as damnable as heresy. than heresy. P. 47. Voluntary and ungrounded separation from the Catholic Communion, is without doubt à damnable schism. And p. 56. Whosoever perversely divides himself from the Catholic Communion, as do Schismatiks, his condition is damnable. Finally, Whitaker controuer. 2. qu. 5. c. 17. p 541. sayeth: Almost all our men put thes twoe Notes of the Church, to wit, pure preaching of the word, and lawful administration of Sacraments. And thes twoe we affirm to be true Lawful use of sacraments, is essential. and certain Notes of the Church, and essential and perpetual Symbols of the Church. And if lawful ministration of Sacraments, be a true and essential Symbol of the Church, how can Churches be divided in ministration of Sacraments, and not be divided in an essential part? 6. Hence it is evident, that the Protestant Church, which is divided in communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God, not only in itself, but also from all other Churches, which they account true Churches, is no such Church, as Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and themselves sometimes, propose unto us. Nether will it help, which Doctor Potter sayeth sec. 3. p. 67. and sec. 1. p. 19 and Chillingworth c. 5. p. 274. That they are united to all members of the universal Church, in faith and charity. For to omit, that Protestants cannot pretend union in faith with all members of the universal Church, but only union in part of faith; because they pretend union only in fundamental Union in charity is not the essential union of the Church points; which are but a part of faith; Union in charity cannot be that union, which the Scripture, and Fathers, put in the descriptions of the Church For the * Communion, in Scripture, is in Sacraments, and prayer; also by Fathers. Scripture speaketh of union in Sacraments and prayer. The * sup. n. 2. sup. n. 3. Fathers speak of such a union, as is opposite to schism, which is breach in communion of Sacraments and public worship. And Saint Augustin expressly speaketh of union in Sacraments, which he sayeth is necessary to any kind of Religion, true or false: and also of union in prayer. For thus * Contion. de Gestis cum Emerito. he speaketh to a Schismatik: Do not say, I have charity: prove it, we have one Father, let us pray together. Besides, Protestant's themselves put the communion of the Church in external And by Protestants things. Confessio Heluetica cap. 17. The true concord of the Church consisteth in doctrines, and rites expressly given by God. Whereby Rites they understand Communion of the Church, is in sacraments, and Luturgie. Sacraments. King james Respon. ad Peron pag. 403. Communion among the faithful, chiefly consisteth in public exercises of piety. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 265. To leave the external communion of a Church, is by refusing to communicate with any Church, in her Liturgy, and public worship of God. Field lib. 1. c. 15. The communion of the Church consisteth in prayers and dispensation of Sacraments. And l. 2. c. 2. sayeth, communion in sacraments is essential to the Church. So also ibid. c. 4. and Hooker lib. 3. p. 130. The communion therefore, which is essential to the visible Church, is in rites or Sacraments, public exercises of piety, Liturgy, and public worship of God. Nether ever yet did any Protestant define the visible Church, to be a society in profession of faith, and communion of charity: which they both would, and must have done, if they had thought communion in charity, to be an essential part of the visible Church. Communion in charity cannot be essential for a Church. 7. But indeed it cannot be essential to a visible Church. First, because it is no way proved, but merely affirmed, by reason that Protestants can pretend 1. no other communion with the universal Church. For it is evident, See c. 13. n 5. l. 2. they have no communion with her, in Sacraments, and public worship of God. Secondly, because the essential 2. parts of the visible Church must be visible, as profession of faith, is: otherwise, not the external Church itself, self, but only some part of it, should be visible. And communion in charity is nether visible by itself, nor by any undoubted acts thereof; as the soul of man is visible by her undoubted vital acts. Thirdly, because if communion in charity were an essential 3. part of the visible Church, none that want charity, should be true members of the visible Church. And so wicked men should be nether of the invisible nor visible Church. Which is contrary August art 7. 8. Saxon art. 12. Caluin 4. c. 1. parag. 13. whitak. count. 2. q. 5. c. 3. to the Confessions of faith of Protestants. And Chillingworth cap. 5. p. 255. When his Adversary had said: That all the members of the visible Church, are by charity united into one mystical Body, replieth thus: which is manifestly untrue, for many of them have no charity. How then can union in charity, be that communion, which is essential to the visible Church; seeing they, that want charity, may be true members of the visible Church, who cannot be united in charity, which they have not? True it is, that who break the communion of the Church, as Schismatiks do, have not charity, and charity hindereth that breach: But yet not all, that want charity, break communion. And one thing it is, to want charity, an other to make Schism in the Church: And charity is lost by Schism, but not only by Schism. Besides, what charity have 4. Protestant's to all the members of the universal Church, but such as they must have to jews, Turks, Infidels, and generally to all that are out of the Church, that is, to pray for them, and wish and do them good? A singular communion surely, with the members of the universal Church, which they have common to all Infidels, and men whatsoever. Is there no communion peculiar to the members of the universal Church, which they have among themselves, and one to an other, more then they have to Infidels? If Protestants had indeed true charity either toward God, or the universal Church, they would not separate themselves from her communion in Sacraments, and public worship of God. For as S. Aug. lib. 1. de Sermone Domini c. 3. If they had charity, they would not tear in pieces the Body of Christ, which is the Church. But they do external acts against charity, and vainly pretend inward charity. And it is contrary to charity both towards themselves and others, to forsake the communion in Sacraments, and public worship of God, of the universal Church. For so (as is before shown) they put themselves Protestant inference absurd. out of all Churches, and become in none. And out of all that hath been said hitherto of faith and Communion, appeareath evidently how fond Protestant's infer themselves or other Churches or persons, whom they please, to be true Churches, or true members of the Church, or in the way of salvation, only because they believe all the fundamental points. For that is not enough to a true Church, or to a true member thereof, or to the way of salvation. But they should add also, that they do not sinfully err in anieother point of faith, or in Communion. Because if they sinfully err in any point of faith, they are Heretics: and if they sinfully err in Communion, they are Schismatiks: and so no true Churches, nor true members of the Church, nor in the way of salvation. But because Protestants despair to prove, that such Churches or persons, as they maintain, do not err sinfully at all in faith or communion, they speak not of this: and damnably deceive those that believe only fundamental points. But now, out of that which we have said of the Communion of the Church, let us refel the Protestants errors concerning it. Protestants errors about communion, refuted outof what was said in the former Chapter. THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. 1. Out of that, which we have said 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 james 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 given by Fathers, and Protestants themselves: and therefore essential to a true Church, and to every true member of it: If any ask, how then can a true member of the Church, be without Communion, as if he be in a Desert or be by force hindered from Communion? I answer, that natural or material things cannot be without natural or material existence of every essential part of them: But Moral things may have their parts but morally. moral things (such as a member of the Church is, depending of man's will) may be when some essential part is only morally, and by effectual wil And so Communion of a man in a Desert, or held by force, morally may be. For it is in his will to be done, when he can, and aught to communicate: and never leaveth to be, till he have a will the contrary, 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 have this will to communicate whensoever he can, and aught. 2. An other error of Protestans is, that to leave the external communion of the Church, is not to leave the Church: as one may leave the custom of the College, yet not the College: so Chillingworth, c. 5. p. 265. 269. For Communion To leave an essential part, is to leave the whole. is essential to the Church, and to leave an essential part of a thing, is to leave the thing itself: whereas the custom of a College is accidental to a College, and to leave the accident of a thing, is not to leave the thing itself. 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 than the Body of Christ: For to refuse to communicate with her in use of Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship, is to forsake her communion. And he that means otherwise by Communion, speaks a new language as indeed à new doctrine, needs à new language, or equivocation to uphold it Wherefore Chillingworth c. 5. p. 261. sayeth. 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, might, and did reform themselves, and yet might, and did continue parts of the Church, though separated from the external communion of the other parts, which would not reform. As a man may renounce a vice of a society, and yet be still of the Society. And p. 271. It is certainly false, that no twoe men or Churches, divided in external communion, can be both true parts of the Cath. Church. This I say is easily refuted. For to omit, that blasphemy (that the whole Church can be corrupted) whosoever voluntarily separate themselves from the external communion of the whole Church, separate themselves from an essential part of her. Root of the Protestants errors. For external communion is as essential to the visible Church, as is profession of faith. And all thes errors rise, of not considering or remembering well, the former definitions of the true Church, given by Scripture, Fathers, and themselves, and confirmed by reason. In all which, Communion, is put as an essential part of that true Church, which Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and (sometimes) also Protestans, propose Protestants forsake the external communion of the visible Church. unto us. 5. And hereupon it is evident, that Chillingworth in confessing c. 5. cit. p. 273. That as for the external communion of the visible Church, we have without scruple formerly granted, that Protestants did forsake it. And p. 274. Though Luther forsook the external communion of the Cath. Church, it will not follow, he was a Schismatic: Plainly 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 Catholic Church, either made a new visible Church, or are in no visible Church at all: For the external communion of the whole visible Church, was an essential part of her, as well as profession of faith: And none can leave an essential part of the whole visible Church, but he must leave the Who is out of the whole visible Ch. is in none. whole visible Church, which is to make a formal schism For he cannot leave the whole visible Church, but he must be in no visible Church, seeing the whole visible Church, includeth all visible Churches; or he must be in a new substantial visible Church, which must be, of his Why no just cause, to go out of the whole visible Church. own making. And hence it is euident, why there can be no just cause to leave the communion of the whole visible Church, because there can be no just cause to put onesself out of all visible Churches, and to be in no visible Church at al. There may be just cause of separation from the communion of some particular Church, because she may invincibly err in some points of faith, and exact profession of her Why may be just cause, to go out of a particular Church. errors, for a condition of her communion. And nether is it necessary to salvation, or to a member of the true Church, to be in communion of every particular Church; nor the going out of any particular Church (if there be just cause for it) is the going out of the whole true Church: But the whole true Church, is not fallible, vincibly or invincibly, in any point of faith, by reason of Christ's promise, and the holy Ghostsassistance. So that, for pretence of errors, there can be no just cause to go out of her communion. And the going out of her, is the going out of all Churches whatsoever, because L. Canterb. p. 311. out of the Cath. Church there is no salvation. the whole Church includeth all, and who is out of all, is in none. And there cannot be imagined any just cause, to go out of all Churches, and to be in none at all: And hereby we Infallibility, and necessity to be in the whole Church, prove out the other. see, how the infallibility of the whole Church, and necessity of being in the whole Church, do mutually infer each the other. For if she were not infallible in matters of faith, but sinfully Canterb. p. 240. All the members of the militant Church can not err. So Morton Imp. c. 15. sec. 3. and 4. taught errors, one might justly go out of her. And because there can be no just cause to go out of the whole Church (for then we should be in none at all) it must needs be, that she is infallible in matters of faith. 6. Wherefore, when Chillingworth Potter sec. 2. p. 47. Canterb. p. 143. c. 5. p. 264. 271. 274. 284. and Protestants commonly define, Schism, to be a Causeless separation from the communion of the Church, they voluntarily Protestants false definition, of Schism. add that particle (Causeless) nether do they find it in any definition of Fathers, who never admit any just cause of separation from the whole Church: but Protestants merely add it, to excuse themselves from Schism, because they have some pretence of cause for separation, See also supra n. 5. but no colour all at, to deny their separation from the whole Caluin Ep. 141. discessionem a toto mundo facere concti sumus. Church: yea they plainly confés it, as is to be seen l. 2. of the Author of protestancy c. 1. and 3. Out of which it is evident, that either they are in no Church, because there is none beside the whole, or in a new made Church. Let them show, that any Father ever put that particle (Causeless) in the definition of Schism, or said, that there can be just cause of separation from the communion of the whole visible Church: or they must confés, that according as the Protestants, Schismatiks as the Fathers use that word. Father's use the word, Schism, they are guilty of Schism, in separating themselves from the external communion of the whole visible Church: and so in judgement of the Fathers (as they use the word) are Scismatiks. And if they be not schismatics, as themselves please to use the word, it little importeth, let them equivocate as they please, and use words without matter. 7. Let not therefore Chillingworth c. 5. cit. p. 272. advise men, to look that their cause of separation from any Church's communion be just, because it is as much as their soul is worth: but let him look, that he make no separation at all from the communion of the whole Church, because hereof no cause can be just. For (as I said) to go out of the whole Church, is S. Augustin, puts schism merely in separation from the whole. to be in no Church at al. Hereupon S. Augustin l. 2. contra Petil. c. 16. said. I object to thee the sin of Schism, which thou wilt deny, but I will straight prove. For thou dost not communicate with all nations: which proof were none, if there could be just cause of not communicating with all Nations: but he Schism simply, not to communicate with the whole Church. should have added, that causelessly he he did not communicate. And lib. de unitate c. 4. whosoever believe that jesus Christ came in flesh, in which he suffered, was borne, etc. yet so descent from bis Body, which is the Church, as Schism, not to communicate with the whole. their communion is not with the whole, whersoever it is spread, but is found separate in some part, it is manifest, that they are not in the Catholic Church. Which were not manifest, if there C. 3. n. 3. 6. l. ●. could be just cause of not communicating with the whole. And evident it is, out of what we related before out of Saint Augustin: that he meaneth of communion in Sactaments, and public prayer. And therefore untruely said Doctor Potter sec. 2. p. 33. That Protestants communicate (as Saint Augustin meant) with the Catholic Church, in what part or place of the world soever. For they communicate not at all with her in Sacraments and public prayer. And so according to Saint Augustins' doctrine, manifestly are out of the Catholic Church. Besides, Doctor Potter speaketh not consequently, when sec. 2 p. 66. he faith: we do not communicate with Rome in her public Liturgy: in that, our communion is dissolved. And yet sec. 3. p. 74. Her communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ. For how doth he not forsake the communion of Rome, who doth not communicate with her in Liturgy, and whose communion in that, is dissolved: But to return to Saint Augustin: he epist. 48. affirmeth: we are certain, that none can justly separate himself from the communion None can justly separate. of all Nations. Item: None can have just cause to separate their communion from the communion of all Nations: lib. 2. contra Parmen. cap. 11. There is no just necessity to break unity. And l. 3. c. 4. No just cause to forsake the Church. The world doth securely judged, that they are not good, who separate themselves from the world, in what part of land soever. And ib. c. 5. Let us hold it firm and sure, that no good men can divide No good men can separate. themselves from the Church: lib. 3. de Baptis. c. 16. It is charity, which they have not, who are cut from the communion of the Catholic Church. And epist. 152. whosoever is separated from this Catholic Church, albeit he think, he life's lawdably, by this only wickdnes, that he is separated from the unity of Christ, he hath not life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him. Lo, to be separated from the Catholic Church, is to be sepated from the unity of Christ. And what just cause can there be, to be separated from the unity of Christ? And epist. 48. Relateth, that certain Donatists thought faith, would suffice without communion. Donatists said: we thought it made no matter, where we held Christ's faith. So that it is an error of Donatists, to think, that faith will suffice without communion. Finally S. Cyprian l. de unitate. Let none think, that good men can leave the Church. 8. Protestants also sometimes confés, that there can be no just cause to leave the communion of the whole Church. For Caluin 4. inst it. c. 1. §. 10. sayeth: Departure from the Church of God, is denial of Christ, which were not true, if there were just cause of departure. And lib. de Neces. Reform. Eccles. p. 68 being urged, that there is no just cause, for which we may Usher serm to House of Com. No cause why We should make a rent in the Church of God. break the unity of the Church; he doth not answer, that there can be just cause hereof: but (as supposing that) denieth that they are out of the communion of the Church. And again: But we are put back with this only engine. That no cause excuseth departure from the Church. But we deny, that we do so. Surely, if he had thought, that there could be just cause to break the unity of the whole Church, or to go out of her communion, he would here have said it. But he did not then dream, that there could be a just or causeful separation from the communion of the whole Church, which some Protestants since have found out. Lord Canterbury p. 139. There can be no just cause, to make à Schism from the whole Church. Item p. 192. D. Potter sec. 3. p. 74. There nether was, nor can be, any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ, no more then from no just cause to go 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 just cause to departed from the Church: That is, to cease being a member of the Church, no more then to departed from Christ himself. And surely, he ceaseth being a member of the Church, who separateth himself from the communion of the whole Who leaveth to be of the whole Church leaveth to be of any Church visible Church. Because communion (as I have proved) is an essential part of the visible Church: And he can be no member of the visible Church, who wanteth an essential part of it. And to departed from the communion of the visible Church, is not (as Chillingworth speaketh p. 269. 283. 298. 302.) te departed from some opinions or practices of the Church. But it is to departed from some point of faith, or from communicating with the Church, in use of Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God, as is evident, 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, Liturgy, and public worship of God, are a principal external end of the Church. And namely Sacraments are put in the definition of the Church by Protestants. Wherefore, to be associated C. 12. nu. 5. l. 2. and communicate in them, is most substantial to her, who is a Society in use of them, and in profession of Christ's faith. And therefore to departed from her communion in them, is clearly to departed from the society. 9 And here is to be Noted, that Protestants make not a distinction of fundamental and not fundamental Communion. Protestants cannot make distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental communion, as they did of fundamental and Not fundamental articles. For separating themselves from communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God, they separated themselves most fundamentally in communion, and condemning the communion in thes, of the Church, from which they separated, they must condemn the fundamental communion, and so say, she is substantially no Church. Whereupon it must needs follow, that either they must make a new Church, substantially different from the whole visible Church, or else be in no Church at al. For (as I have said) There can be no Church besides the whole Church: Whereas, deuiding articles into fundamental and Not fundamental, and saying, that the Church, from which they separated themselves, retained the fundamental articles, which constitute a Chureh, and that they feparated themselves from her only in Not fundamental points, they had, some colour to say, that they still remained in the substance of the Church, from which they made separation; And therefore an Argument, 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 left but partly: but her Communion they left wholly. 10. Nether helpeth it which Chillingworth: sayeth: 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 fellows forsook their own communion, which they had with the whole Church. communion of it, but only forsook that part which was corrupted, and still would be so, but forsook not themselves, and their own communion. For though Luther and his followers forsook not themselves, yet they forsook their communion which they had with the whole Church in her Sacraments, Liturgy, and public service, and instead of that, began a new communion among themselves, in an other Liturgy. For they joined not themselves in communion to any Church pre-existent, in her Liturgy and public service: and so they forsook the communion And began a new communton. of the whole visible Church, even their own communion, which before they had with her, and thereby ceased to be any formal part of the whole preexistent Church, because they wholly left her communion in Sacraments and Liturgy, which was essential to her: and began a new Church, as they began wholly a new communion, in new use of Sacraments, in a new Liturgy, and new public service. Howsoever therefore, Chillingworth c. 6. p. 334. and D. Potter say sec. 3. p. 58. Protestants never intended to erect a Who intent new communion, intent a new Church. new Church, seeing they intended to erect a new communion in Sacraments, and public worship of God, they intended to erect a new Church. Nether is the example of some leaving the disease of a Society, and yet not the Society itself, to the purpose. For a disease is an accident to a Society, but communion in Sacraments is essential to a Church, because she is a Society in use of Sacraments, Liturgy, and public service of Christ. And therefore this communion being left, the Society itself is left. 11. Perhaps some may say, that To communicate in Sacraments, is more than to use common Sacraments. Luther and his Followers left not the communion of the whole Church in Sacraments, because he retained the same Sacraments, which the whole Church had. But besides, that Luther retained no Sacrament which the whole Church had, beside baptism, and so had not Sacraments, but only one Sacrament common with the whole Church: It is one thing, to have some Sacraments common with the whole Church, which Schismatiks have, and an other, to have communion in Sacraments, which Schismatiks have not, nor Luther had: For he did not participate with the whole Church in Sacraments. As any may eat the same meat which an other doth, and yet not dine or sup with him: So Luther might receive the same Sacraments, which the whole Church did, yet not communicate with the whole Church in Sacraments. 12. By what hath been said, we Protestants errors rise of ignorance of the definitions. may see, that thes, and the like errors show well, that Protestants are of the number of those, whom the Apostle sayeth, know not what they speak of. For if they knew, what true saving faith is, They would never say, The essence of it consisteth only in belief of some principal points; or the unity of it, in unity only of such points: or if they knew, what a true Church is, they would never say, that some principal points only, constitute the essence of it, or that the substantial unity of the Church, consisteth only in unity of such points: nor would they compare integrity in faith or in communion, to health, and defect in faith or in communion, to diseases or vice: nor say, that they have communion with all Catholics in the world, because they have (as they say) love or charity to them all: nor say, that those can be of the same Church, who communicate not in use of Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God. For all thes errors, and the like, rise of their not knowing or not marking, what is true saving faith, what is a true Christian Church, what is true Christian Communion, as is evident by what hath been said and proved: If they would constantly agree with us, in the definitions of saving faith, true Church, and her communion, given by the Scripture, Fathers, and by themselves sometimes, and confirmed by reason, thes errors of theirs, about fundamental and Not fundamental points, about the essence, and unity of true saving faith, and about the true Christian Church, and her communion, would presently vanish. And if they will maintain thes errors, they must needs reject the definitions of true saving faith, true Church, and her communion, given by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants must make new definitions and so change the question. themselves sometimes, and give new definitions, and confés, that they dispute not with us of such a faith, Church, or communion, as Scripture, Fathers, and themselves sometimes, propose: but of an other faith, Church, and communion, of which nether Scripture, nor Fathers ever dreamt, described, or proposed to us; but is invented by themselves. And if they will confés this, I will not dispute with them, whether there be any fundamental or Not fundamental articles to such a faith, or Church, or whether in ward charity will suffice to such a communion, as they have devised, different from the faith, Church, and communion described by Scripture, and Fathers, and themselves sometimes. This I am sure, That no other faith, Church, or communion, will help them to salvation, but such a faith, Church, and communion, as Scripture, and Fathers propose. And such faith, and Church, I have clearly showed, cannot admit any Not fundamental points in the Protestants sense, nor any sinful division in points of faith, or in communion of Sacraments, Liturgy, or public worship of God. But such faith, such Church, such communion, is perfectly and entirely one (at least virtually and implicitly) in all points of faith, in all use of Sacraments, and all public worship of God: and can only differ in some rites or ceremonies; which being accidental, and therefore by none put into the definition of the Church, (as profession of faith and communion) cannot divide substance of the Church. And such a Church, none is, but the Roman Catholic Church. And who careful of his salvation, will not prefer a Church, which is entirely one in all points of faith, and communion, before a Church, which confessedly is divided both in some points of faith, and altogether in communion? If one ask, why can not the Church admit division in faith or communion, as well as in other matters: I answer, because Faith and Communion are essential parts of the Church, and, as such, put in her definition: and nothing can admit division in its essential parts. For division of a thing in essential parts, is destruction of it. In other matters, which are not essential to her, she may be divided, and not destroyed. The aforesaid doctrine of Catholics and Protestants, and their Defenders, compared together. FOURTEENTH CHAPTER. 1. HItherto (Gentle Reader) have we refuted the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental How falls the Protestants distinction is. points in the Protestants sense, and clearly showed, that in their sense, it introduceth formal heresy, destroyeth true saving faith, Catholic Church, and salvation, containeth Infidelity, and denieth God's veracity, and so is the very ground of Atheism. We have also showed, that this distinction, How unsufficient for their purpose. even in the Protestants sense, sufficeth them not, for that purpose for which they devised it: which was, to maintain some such Churches, as are sinfully Rouse of Cath. Charity c. 9 divided in points of faith: because some of them are divided even in fundamental points, and all are wholly divided in communion of Sacraments and public worship of God: which division, as well destroyeth the Church, as division in fundamental points, doth. 2. Now it resteth, out of that which hath been said, to compare the faith and Church of Catholics, and of Protestants together: and also the certainty, or uncertainty of their defenders, that thou mayst the better judge, whether of thes several faiths, or Churches, is of God, and which of their Defenders defend their doctrine for truth, or conscience sake, whether, to make a shift for a Time. 3. The Catholics faith, essentially Difference between their faiths embraceth all Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed: The * c. 5. n. 2. Protestants faith, essentially embraceth 1. only the fundamental points. The 2. Catholics faith, can stand with no heresy, or sinful denial of any point of faith sufficiently proposed: Protestant's faith, can stand with any heresy, or sinful denial of any point C. 2. n 2. l. 1. of faith, which is not fundamental, how sufficiently so ever it be proposed, which is (as Protestants sometimes C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. confés) infidelity, and a giving the Lie to God. Catholics faith, is 3. perfectly and entirely one, and the same in every one, beleuing actually every part of God's word sufficiently proposed, and virtually, every part whatsoever: Protestant's faith, is necessarily C. 5. n 2. l. 2. one, only in fundamental points, and may be various or divided in all other points, how sufficiently soever they be proposed, which unity, is merely in part, and is true multiplicity. Catholic faith, is approved 4. of Protestants, to contain C. 5. n. 7. l. 1. all that is essential to true faith: Protestants C. 5. n. 7. faith, is proved of Catholics, to want many things essential to true faith. 4. Likewise the Catholic Church, Difference between their Churches. embraceth only those, who actually believe every point of faith sufficiently 1. proposed to them, and virtually what other points of faith soever. Protestant's Church, embraceth sometimes all that are Christians, C. 6. n. 8. l. 2. or all, that profés Christ's name, what heretics so ever they be: Sometimes, all that believe the fundamental points, howsoever they sinfully deny other points sufficiently proposed: which is to include Infidels, and Givers of C. 3. n. 5. 6. l. 2. the Lie to God. The Catholic Church, is perfectly and entirely one, both in 2. profession of faith, and in communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God: Protestants Church is at most, one in profession of fundamental C. 5. n. 2. l. 2. points, and various in all other points: And no way one (but wholly divided) in communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God. Which is to be one in a small part, and to be simply and truly many. The 3. Catholic Church, is approved of Protestants, to be a true a C. 2. nu. 3. c. 7. nu. 9 Church, a member of the Catholic Church, A member of the Body of Christ. Her Religion, a possible way of salvation, a 4. safe b c. 7. n. 3. 7. c. 2. n. 3. way for them that believe as they profés, and safest for the ignorants: and even those, who are most obstinate in her, members of the Catholic Church. The Protestants Church is condemned of all Catholics, for a false Church, guilty both of heresy, and schism, and to have no possible way of salvation, but assured way of damnation to all that wittingly live and die in her. 5. Seeing therefore, by the testimony of holy Scripture, Fathers, and Reason, and Confession of Protestants, the faith, and Church of God, is both one and holy, judge, whether of thes two faiths, or Churches, be more one, or more holy; whether Cath faith more one, than Protestants. that faith be not more one, which admitteth no voluntary division in any point of faith whatsoever, than that, which admitteth voluntary division in all points of faith; besides those, which are fundamental. And whether that faith be not more holy, which admitteth And more holy. no sinful denial of God's word whatsoever, than that, which admitteth sinful denial of all his word, besides that which is fundamental how sufficiently soever it be proposed: which kind of denial, is * C. 3. nu. 5. l. 2. Infidelity, and a giving of the lie to God. And whether that faith, be not more secure, And more secure. which is approved of its Adversaries to contain all that is * c. 5. n. 5. l 1. essential to true faith, then that, which is proved of Catholics, to want many things essential to true faith. 6. Likewise, whether that Church Catholic Church more one then Protestants. be not more one, which is entirely one, both in profession of all points of faith, and in communion of Sacraments: then that, which requireth no more unity, but in fundamental points which every one is actually to believe, and admitteth sinful division in all other points, and whole division in communion of Sacraments, and public worship of God. And whether And more holy. that be not more holy, which admitteth no heresy in points of faith, nor no schism in division of communion, then that which admits all heresies, except in fundamental points, and all schime in division of communion. And whether that Church be not the And more safe. safer way to salvation, which is approved of its Adversaries for * c. 7. n 3. 6. 2 n. 3. l. 1. safe, then that which is approved only of its followers, and utterly condemned by all adversaries. 7. And as for the Defenders catholics constant in in their doctrine. of thes different faiths and Churches, it is evident, that Catholics constantly and resolutly condemn the distinction of fundamental and Not fundamental articles in the Protestants 1. sense, and avouch, that there are no certain points so sufficient to saving faith, to a Church, or to salvation, that others may be denied, or not believed, though they be sufficiently proposed. None so Not fundamental, as they must not necessarily be believed of a Church, and for salvation, if they be sufficiently proposed: That there be more points of 2. faith, than those, which must be actually believed of every one: That it is 3. true heresy, to deny any point of faith sufficiently proposed: That sinful 4. denial of any such point of faith, destroyeth true saving faith, and salvation, the substance, and unity of the true Church: That communion in 5. Sacraments and public worship of God, is essential to a true Church: That though there were such distinction 6. in points of faith, as Protestants make, yet that would not save some of their Churches, which err even in fundamental articles, and want all communion in Sacraments, and in public worship of God; and that seeing 7. the Protestants faith doth not essentially embrace all Gods revealed word sufficiently proposed, but only some part of it, nor is opposite to heresy in all points, nor is one in all God's word, but only in some part, that it is not 8. true saving faith. And seeing their Church doth not profés Gods entire word, nor is one at most, more than in fundamental points, nor is at all one in communion of Sacraments and public worship of God, it cannot be the true Church of God: And seeing it did 9 leave the communion of the whole visible Church, and thereby left the whole visible Church, and leaving the whole, left all visible Churches, and leaving all, that it can be in no visible Church, unless at their separation there were some new visible Church made. These points (I say) Catholics constantly teach. 8. Whereas Protestants, most unconstantly teach almost all that we have rehearsed of their doctrine. For sometimes they teach, that their Not fundamental points a C. 1. n. 5. 6. 7. are points of faith: Sometimes they b C. 5. n. 8. are not. Sometimes sinful denial of them is c C. 2. n. 4. l. ●. heresy: Sometimes it is d C. 2. n 5. not. Sometimes sinful denial of them, is a sufficient e c. 6. n. 8. cause of separation: Sometimes it is f c. 2. n. 3. 6. 5. n 5. not. Sometimes Protestant's can give a Catalogue g c. 6. n. 2. of fundamentals: Sometime they cannot. h c. 6 n. 3. 4. Sometimes the Roman Church, is a i c 2. n. 6 c. 7. n. 3. 4. true Church in essence: Sometimes she is k c 6 n. 5. c. 5. n. 7. not. Sometimes her errors are l c. 5 n. 7. c. 6. n 5. fundamental: Sometimes they are m c 5. n. 7. not. Sometimes n c. 2. n. 5. heretics are in the Church. Sometimes they are o c. 7. n. 12. 13. l. 2. not. Sometimes heretics p c 6. n. 4. 5. may be saved: Sometimes they q c 1. n. 12. c. 10. n. 4 5. cannot. Sometimes a true Church r c. 7. n. 2. 3. 4. can err in fundamentals: Sometimes it s c 7. nu, 5. 6. 7. cannot. Sometimes all t c 3 n. 5. 6. 7. l. 2. points of faith are necessary to saving faith: Sometimes they are u c. 2. n. 2 not. Sometimes denial of any point sufficiently proposed, x c. 4. n. 6. 7. l. 2. destroyeth true faith: Sometimes it doth y c. 2. n. 3. not. Sometimes sinful denial of any point of faith z c. 6. n. 4. 5. l. 2. destroyeth the substance of the Church. Sometimes it doth a c. 3. nu. 2. l. 2. not. Sometimes division in any point of faith b c. 7. n. 10. l. 2. destroyeth the unity of the Church: Sometimes it doth c c. 5. nu. 2. l. 2. not. Sometimes there is d c. 13. n. 4. l. 2. just cause of separation from the whole visible Church: Sometimes there is e c. 12. nu. 8. l. 2. not. Sometimes communion in Sacraments and public worship of God is f c. 12. n. 5. l. 2. essential to the Church: Sometimes it is g c. 11. n. 1. l. 2. not. Sometimes to leave the communion of the Church, is to h c 12. n. 5. l 2. leave the Church: Sometimes it is i c. 12 n. 4. 5. l 2. not. Sometimes wilful error in faith k c. 11. n. 5. l 2. is just cause to forsake a Church: Sometimes it is l c 9 nu. 6. c. 2. n. 3. not. 9 Surely, it must be a very il cause, that driveth such witty and Learned men thus often, and thus plainly to contradict themselves, 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 themselves: but whiles they will join truth with falsehood, faith with heresy, God's Church with a false Church, they cannot do otherwise. For the evidence of truth, of faith, and of God's Church, forceth them to say one thing, and falsehood, heresy, and their false Church maketh them to say the quite contrary. Wherefore we must no more expect of heretics to speak agreably to themselves, then of Drunken men to go straight. For heretics be (as the Prophet speaketh) drunk, and not with wine: heresy, is a spiritual drunkenness, Esaiae 51. which maketh men to reel between truth and falsehood, as drunkenness maketh Caluin. Confutat. Hollandi. Spiritus vertiginis quo minatur Deus se verbi sui contemptores potaturum, brutam omnium ebriosorum amentiam superat. men reel from one side to an other. It may be, that Catholic writers in some great work, and writing upon different matters, may contradict themselves by forgetfulness: but that witty and learned men, in so small works, and in one kind of matter, should so often, and so plainly contradict themselves, cannot proceed, but of the nature of the matter, which they would maintain, and of Athal orat, 2. count. Arian Qui incidunt in heresim mentis vertigine laborant. C. 19 their spiritual drunkenness, or that spirit of giddiness, which (as the aforesaid Prophet sayeth) our Lord hath mingled in the midst of Egypt, and made Egypt to err in all her work, as a drunken and vomiting man erreth. 10. And finally, out of all hitherto said, I conclude, that it is not against Charity, to tell Churches sinfully erring, of their damnable state. charity, but rather most agreeable to Christian faith and true charity, to admonish all Churches or persons, that they are in a damnable state, who err sinfully either because they will not believe some point of Christian faith, or part of God's word, sufficiently proposed to them, or through their fault, have it not sufficiently proposed: For (as Protestant's confessed cap. 10.) The difference is not great, between him, Sinfulmant of sufficient proposing, excuseth not. that is wilfully blind, and him, that knowingly gainsaieth the truth: and who, were it not for their own avoidable fault, might and should see truth, and do not, their error is damnable: And if any be negligent in seeking truth, unwilling to find it, or might see it, and will not, his case, without repentance, is desperate; Wherefore thus I argue in form. 11. It is charity to admonish them, that they are in a damnable state, who Because they err damnably. See Chilling. c. 6. p. 359. err damnably, commit an act of Infidelity, and give God the Lie. But all that err against points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, do so; and the like case is of all, who for their fault have not such points sufficiently All sinful errants in faith are damnable. proposed to them. Therefore it is charity, to admonish all who err against points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or who (for their fault) have them not sufficiently proposed to them, that they are in damnable state. The Mayor is evident, and the Minor proved, and confessed also by Protestants, c. 10. 12. Secondly, it is true charity, to admonish alformal heretics, that they Because they are true heretics. are in state of damnation: But all that believe not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or for their fault have them not sufficiently proposed, are formal heretics. Therefore it is charity to tell all such, that they are in state of damnation. The Mayor is proved c. 9 and the Minor c. 10. 13. Thirdly, it is true charity, to Because they destroy faith tell all, that destroy true saving faith, and the unity thereof, that they are in state of damnation: But all that believe not foam points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or, through their fault, have not them so proposed to them, do so. Therefore it is true charity to tell them, that they are in state of damnation. The Mayor is evident, for with out faith, it is impossible to please God. And the Minor is proved cap. 11. 14. Fourthly, it is true charity to Because they destroy the Church. tell all such, as destroy the nature or substance of Christ's true Church, that they are in damnable state: but all such as believe not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or through their fault, have them not sufficiently proposed, do so. Therefore, etc. The Mayor is evident; and the Minor is proved c. 13. 15. Fiftly, it is true charity, to tell all Because they destroy the unity of the Church. See L. Lauda sec. 35 p. 284 such as destroy the unity of Christ's Church, that they are in state of damnation: But all such as believe not some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them, or through their fault have them not sufficiently proposed, do so. Therefore it is true charity to tell all such, that they are in state of damnanation. The Mayor is evident: And the Minor is proved c. 14. 16. Sixtly, it is true charity to tell all Because they profés a false Church. such, as by deeds profés a falls Church, to be a true Church, that they are in damnable state: But all that communicate in Sacraments, or Liturgy, with a falls Church, do so. Therefore it is true charity to tell them, that they are in a damnable state. The Mayor, and Minor are proved c. 15. 17. Seaventhly, it is true charity, to Because they put themselues out of all Churches. tell such as put themselues out of every true Church, That they are in a damnable state: But all such, as either put themselves out of the communion in Sacraments, and Liturgy, of the whole Church, (as did Luther and his first followers) or do themselves live out of that communion (as those do that yet follow him) do so. Therefore it is charity, to tell all such, that they are in a damnable state. The Mayor is evident: and the Minor proved c. 18. and 19 18. Eightly, because the contrary doctrine, to wit, that it is not charity, Abominable that sinful error in faith is not damnable. to warn a man, that is in stare of damnation (as all are, that sinfully erragainst any point of faith or communion) is so abominable, as no Christian (I think) will dare to avouch it in plain and express terms. 19 And that Protestant Churches Protestants Churches sinfully err in points of faith. sinfully err against points of faith sufficiently proposed, or, through their fault, have not them sufficiently proposed, is likewise manifest. For that all Protestants Churches err in points of faith, is confessed by Protestants themselves cap. 2. And that those points are sufficiently proposed to them, or that it is their fault, that they are not so proposed, is likewise evident. Besides the Protestants Church went out of the whole Church's Communion in Sacraments and And in Communion. Liturgy, and began a new Communion of their own. And so is in no Church, or is a new Church c. 19 20. Innumerable more, and most evident proofs, 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 will not go out of the compass of what hath been said in this Treatise. Who will see at large the errors of Protestants sufficiently disproved, even by the express word of God, may read the Collation of the Catholic and Protestant doctrine, by the express word of God. Which hath been twenty years ago published, and not yet answered by any Protestant. Which is an evident argument that they can not answer it with any probability, seeing they have no pretence but the word of God. FINIS. Errata. Pag. 43. lin. 10. with saving. deal saving. P. 95. lin. whereof. lege wherefore. P. 115. lin. 20. the league to. P. 138. lin. 8. faict. lege faith. P. 159. lin. 16. be to. lege to be. P. 210. marg. what league why. P. 252. lin. 26. after not. add. believe not. P. 261. lin. 14. deal and.